Lecture Seven: The Manifest Destiny, the Road to the Civil

War
In this chapter, the focus is on how the newly acquired territories caused
disagreements between the North and the South, whether to be admitted as free
or slave states. These disagreements paved the way for the civil war.

1. Manifest Destiny
John 0’Sullivan once wrote, “Our manifest destiny [is] to overspread the
continent allotted [given] by Providence [God] for the free development of our
yearly multiplying millions.” Thus, the manifest destiny is a belief that the U.S.
was meant to expand from coast to coast
2. The War with Mexico
After the annexation Texas, Texas and Mexico could not agree on the official
border between them. Texas claimed the Rio Grande. Mexico insisted on the
Nueces River as the border of Texas. The difference in the distance between the
two rivers was more than 100 miles at some points. Hoping to settle the dispute
peacefully, Polk offered Mexico $25 million for Texas, California, and New
Mexico. The Mexican nationalists refused. Polk ordered General Zachary Taylor
to station 3,500 troops on the north bank of the Rio Grande, which was part of
the disputed territory. Mexican unit crossed the Rio Grande and ambushed an
American patrol. The United States plunged into war. In May 1846, General
Zachary Taylor led troops into Mexico and the American army Capturing New
Mexico and California. In February 1848, the war ended with the Treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo For the United States, the end of the war meant the
fulfillment of manifest destiny—expansion of the nation from the Atlantic to the
Pacific.
3. Slavery and the Admission of California into the Union
Most California residents wanted their state to be a free state. But this would tip
the balance of power clearly in favor of the North. Southerners wanted to divide
California in half, making the northern half a free state and the southern half a
slave state. Clay had helped create the Missouri Compromise in 1820. Now Clay
crafted a plan to settle the California problem.
D- Henry Clay’s Compromise
1. To please the North, California would be admitted as a free state, and the
slave trade would be abolished in Washington, D.C.
2. To please the South, Congress would not pass laws regarding slavery for the
rest of the territories won from Mexico, and Congress would pass a stronger law
to help slaveholders recapture runaway slaves.
The 1850 law to help slaveholders recapture runaway slaves was called the
Fugitive Slave Act. People accused of being fugitives under this law could be
held without an arrest warrant.
Southerners felt that the Fugitive Slave Act was justified because they
considered slaves to be property. But Northerners resented the Fugitive Slave
Act. It required Northerners to help recapture runaway slaves.
A- The Kansas–Nebraska Act
In 1854, Senator, Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois drafted a bill to organize
territorial governments for the Nebraska Territory. He proposed that it be
divided into two territories—Nebraska and Kansas. To get Southern support for
the bill, he suggested that the decision about whether to allow slavery in each of
these territories be settled by popular sovereignty. If this bill passed, it would
result in getting rid of the Missouri Compromise by allowing people to vote for
slavery in territories where the Missouri Compromise had banned it.
As Douglas hoped, Southerners applauded the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise and supported the bill. Even though the bill angered opponents of
slavery, it passed. It became known as the Kansas–Nebraska Act. Few people
realized that the act would soon turn Kansas into a battleground over slavery.
B-The Case of Dred
Scott Scott had been an enslaved person in Missouri. However, he had lived for
a time in free territories before being taken back to Missouri. After his owner’s
death, Dred Scott argued that he was a free man because he had lived in
territories where slavery was illegal. Scott’s case, Dred Scott v. Sandford,
reached the Supreme Court in 1856. In 1857, the Court ruled against Scott.
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ( stated that Dred Scott was not a U.S. citizen. As
a result, he could not sue in U.S. courts. Taney also ruled that Scott was bound
by Missouri’s slave code because he had lived in Missouri.
The decision meant that the Missouri Compromise was void, because Congress
could not limit slavery in the territories. Further, it seemed to imply that no state
could be a free state because states could not prohibit their citizens from
importing, owning, or buying and selling slaves. Dred Scott thrilled
slaveowners, while it outraged free-soilers and abolitionists. By deepening the
sectional divide between North and South, the decision helped bring about the
Civil War. Following the Civil War, the 14th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution was passed, undoing the Dred Scott decision.