From the Mexican to Civil War
The Mexican War had a profound effect on the tactics used in the Civil War as well as the men themselves, but perhaps even more importantly, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo exacerbated the sectional conflict which would tear the country apart. The political potential in the land gained and the role of the war in reinforcing the idea of a slave power polarized an already contentious nation.
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed February 2, 1848, marked the end to America's first offensive war, in which it gained almost all of the modern southwest (), and had significant impact in causing an internal one. Thus a huge quantity of land remained to be dealt with, and both slave and free had significant interest involved. Some of the more obvious impacts include the debate sparked over the fate of the new territories; it took more than Henry Clay, the Great Compromiser himself, to push through the Compromise of 1850, which addressed, if only temporarily, many of those issues. After much conflict, it was decided that New Mexico and Arizona would determine whether they were slave or free by popular sovereignty, that the slave trade would be banned in Washington DC, that a more powerful Fugitive Slave Act would be passed, and that California would enter the Union as a free state. Before this point, the slave and free states had been equally represented in the Senate, though the free states had a clear majority in the House of Representatives, thus no law could be passed forcing the southerners to emancipate slaves. However, with the balanced tipped dangerously, Southerners became more desperate in their attempts to maintain control, as did Northerners disgusted by the draconic Fugitive Slave Act, which offered incentives for catchers and punishment for those aiding escape. It should be mentioned also that the law inspired Harriet Beecher Stowe to write Uncle Tom's Cabin, a novel detailing the political dilemma and the evils of slavery. So influential was this novel thatAbraham Lincoln is believed to have credited her (perhaps only half-jokingly) as being the cause of the Civil War. As a result of this tension, when the Kansas-Nebraska Act allowed both territories to be decided by popular sovereignty, a miniature civil war erupted as slave and free interests attempted to tip the balance their own way, often through violence or fraud. The Dred Scott Decision of 1857 also marked an attempt by southerners to reassert control; a slave, Dred Scott, had journeyed with his master through free territories while he was an army doctor, and, upon his master's death, sued for his freedom, claiming that being in a free territory made him free. However, under chief justice Roger B. Taney, a southern democrat, the court decided that because slaves were chattel and as ownership was protected by the constitution, there were no slave or free states, and the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional (“The Impending Crisis”). From this point on, the nation only became more paranoid and aggressively divided. Slavery had already shattered the Whigs and now the Democrats were divided between north and south additionally, John Brown's attempt to incite a slave insurrection at Harper's Ferry had southerners terrified and their accusations only served to force the north into a stronger coalition. By the time shells were fired on Fort Sumter, the war was already well in progress. While this progression is more direct, the war itself was enough to alienate many northern idealists in and of itself, though its after-effects certainly helped. The idea that money would be spent and lives lost in a war which an expansionist Democrat had probably instigated at least partly to benefit his fellow southerners in their quest to expand and protect slavery. To many, the idea of annexing the conquered territories was akin to annexing Texas, which only bolstered slave power (“Mexican War”). Henry David Thoreau in his essay “Civil Disobedience” describes his general opposition to government, which included the belief that the reliance on the will of the majority would preclude political change until actual change had already occurred, and referred specifically to his feelings toward the Mexican War. He refused to pay taxes because he did not want to partake in Polk's expansion (which would expand slavery) and thus was imprisoned. A staunch abolitionist, Thoreau applauded John Brown, despised by southerners for his threat to their already tenuous order, as being a rare hero in his eulogy, “The Martyrdom of John Brown. (Thoreau)” Even before the more direct conflict of the 1850's, tensions were high and as a result of the Mexican War only rising higher.
The Mexican War proved to be far more significant than it first appeared not only in changing the military but more importantly in changing the nation. The debate over the morality of the war and the consequences of the peace in many cases were causes of the civil war or at least exacerbated sectional strife.
Works Cited
“The Compromise of 1850 and the Fugitive Slave Act.” Public Broadcasting Service. 6 June, 2011. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2951.html.
“The Dred Scott Decision.” Digital History. 6 June, 2011. 6 June, 2011. 2011.http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=334.
"Mexican War.", Ohio History Central. 1 July, 2005. 6 June, http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=517.
Thoreau, Henry David. “The Martyrdom of John Brown.” American Transcendentalism Web. 6 June, 2011. http://www.vcu.edu/engweb/transcendentalism/authors/thoreau/martyr.html.
