Missouri Compromise Extended to Pacific

There were four schools of thought as to what to do with the large amount of territory won from Mexico after the Mexican-American war. First, there was the viewpoint of Wilmot and New York Barnburners, that slavery should to be banned from all of the new territories. The second viewpoint, Calhoun's argued that Congress had no right to regulate slavery in the territories (however, in actuality, Calhoun was willing to support the Missouri Compromise extension idea). Senator Benton famously described these two viewpoints as two blades of shears, destined to cut the Union in half.

Neither of these plans had any chance of passing through Congress, and the two compromise positions were as follows. The first, originated by James Buchanan supported extending the Missouri Compromise line to the pacific. This was originally supported by Polk and a lot of the Democratic apparatus, including the administration newspaper. This was even the central plank of Buchanan's 1848 presidential campaign. Then of course, Buchanan was eclipsed by the other compromise idea, the 'popular sovereignty' doctrine of Lewis Cass. This position was eventually made the Democratic position and of course Cass was nominated in 1848 and lost to Zachary Taylor. Polk eventually put the administration's weight behind Cass and popular sovereignty and even the Democratic newspaper recanted Buchanan and the Missouri Compromise extension idea.

The wane in support for Buchanan's idea was primarily that 1. Popular sovereignty was vague enough that it could appeal to everyone while extending the compromise line spells out exactly who wins and who loses, and 2. After Oregon was organized into a free territory in 1848, the North would have been the clear loser in extending the line (as Oregon territory was already free, so why divide the Mexican cession so equally) and subsequently opposed any attempts to extend the line.

But for whatever reason, let's suppose Polk puts the full support of the administration behind Buchanan and the Missouri Compromise and Buchanan wins the nomination and a narrow election against Taylor and on top of that somehow passes the extension of the line. Is the Missouri Compromise a stronger vehicle to contain the debate over slavery? If this happens, what are the biggest issues that dominate politics in the 1850s?

Thoughts?
 
There were four schools of thought as to what to do with the large amount of territory won from Mexico after the Mexican-American war. First, there was the viewpoint of Wilmot and New York Barnburners, that slavery should to be banned from all of the new territories. The second viewpoint, Calhoun's argued that Congress had no right to regulate slavery in the territories (however, in actuality, Calhoun was willing to support the Missouri Compromise extension idea). Senator Benton famously described these two viewpoints as two blades of shears, destined to cut the Union in half.

Neither of these plans had any chance of passing through Congress, and the two compromise positions were as follows. The first, originated by James Buchanan supported extending the Missouri Compromise line to the pacific. This was originally supported by Polk and a lot of the Democratic apparatus, including the administration newspaper. This was even the central plank of Buchanan's 1848 presidential campaign. Then of course, Buchanan was eclipsed by the other compromise idea, the 'popular sovereignty' doctrine of Lewis Cass. This position was eventually made the Democratic position and of course Cass was nominated in 1848 and lost to Zachary Taylor. Polk eventually put the administration's weight behind Cass and popular sovereignty and even the Democratic newspaper recanted Buchanan and the Missouri Compromise extension idea.

The wane in support for Buchanan's idea was primarily that 1. Popular sovereignty was vague enough that it could appeal to everyone while extending the compromise line spells out exactly who wins and who loses, and 2. After Oregon was organized into a free territory in 1848, the North would have been the clear loser in extending the line (as Oregon territory was already free, so why divide the Mexican cession so equally) and subsequently opposed any attempts to extend the line.

But for whatever reason, let's suppose Polk puts the full support of the administration behind Buchanan and the Missouri Compromise and Buchanan wins the nomination and a narrow election against Taylor and on top of that somehow passes the extension of the line. Is the Missouri Compromise a stronger vehicle to contain the debate over slavery? If this happens, what are the biggest issues that dominate politics in the 1850s?

Thoughts?

The problem with Missouri Compromise extension to the Pacific is that next to the Calhoun doctrine that the Constitution required that southerners be allowed to bring slaves into all territories, it was the most pro-southern solution imaginable. Hardly anyone thought that slavery had much chance of going into territories north of 36°30′. As to whether it might go into the portion of the Mexican Cession south of that line, there were more doubts; but even if it could be kept out, there was still the *precedent* extension would set. At that time most people thought that eventually the US would annex additional territory in Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean; and extension would set the precedent that all such territory would be slave territory.

For that reason, while extension might pass the Senate, it would have a very hard time in the House, where the North had a majority. You might say that sufficient pressure and patronage would persuade enough northern Democratic "doughfaces" to vote for it to get it through the House, as with Kansas-Nebraska in 1854. But the difference is that there were a lot more northern Whigs (and fewer Democrats) in the House in 1848 than there were in 1854...
 
Actually, there's a much bigger problem: California. They refused to be divided and insisted on being admitted as a Free State spanning both sides of the compromise line.

When you've already blown the idea that you're extending the line to the Pacific like that, it's a lot harder to go for anything other than popular sovereignty.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
There's is also the issue that under Mexican law,

Actually, there's a much bigger problem: California. They refused to be divided and insisted on being admitted as a Free State spanning both sides of the compromise line.

When you've already blown the idea that you're extending the line to the Pacific like that, it's a lot harder to go for anything other than popular sovereignty.

There's is also the issue that under Mexican law, slavery was illegal, and a large part of the (relatively) smooth postwar situation in the Cession territories was (in general terms) respect for pre-war Mexican legal precedents.

Now, a lot of that fell by the wayside, overtly and covertly, over the next half century, and often with a fair amount of conivance in the interests of "Americans" and against the interests of (say) "Californios" (not unlike the situation in Texas and the Tejanos), but still ... there was a lot of interest among the "American" elites in California to keep things stable and quiet, which was reflected in the elections during/after the statehood process.

No one wanted continual hostilities, at least not among the elites; for every Murrietta who didn't "fit" post-war California, for example, there were plenty of de la Guerras who did - and pretty sucessfully, all things considered. Add them to the people who had married into the older Californio families, and (of course) the Americans who had come (mostly northerners, because of the maritime trade and then the Gold Rush) and California was pretty much going to be a free state.

There was also a strong nativist element in California politics (which gave rise to things like the Workingman's Party later), which gave free labor a strong constituency beyond the elite.

New Mexico was a little different, largely because there was not anywhere near as much American emigration into the territory early on (plus the Comanche, Apache, etc); there were proposals as late as 1860 to carve off a slave territory from New Mexico; but even there, the free soil element was stronger, as witness the lack of (local) support for rebel expedition in 1861-62.

The fact that slavery still existed in Cuba was one of the reasons the southerners were so interested in the "Golden Circle" idea - at least there, they would have a local elite that was on their side, so to speak...

Best,
 
Actually, there's a much bigger problem: California. They refused to be divided and insisted on being admitted as a Free State spanning both sides of the compromise line.

When you've already blown the idea that you're extending the line to the Pacific like that, it's a lot harder to go for anything other than popular sovereignty.

This is true in 1850, but what I had in mind was doing it during Polk's administration, when the Gold Rush had not begun or was just beginning, and the Anglo population of California was much smaller and less influential in national politics than it would be two years later. After 1848 I think the position of the extensionists would be almost hopeless. If Buchanan would run on an extensionist platform, he would have even less chance of winning the election than Cass did with his ambiguous "popular sovereignty" position.
 
Top