Missouri Compromise
The south was based off of farming. They had a small scale of land and a low population. They wanted to reach new territories to help promote slavery and farming.
Texan independence, achieved in 1836, heightened tensions between pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions in the United States. The annexation of Texas in 1845 as a slave state exacerbated these tensions, as it expanded the territory where slavery was permitted. This conflict over the extension of slavery into new territories contributed to the larger sectional divisions that ultimately led to the Civil War. Additionally, the desire to expand slavery into new states fueled the debate over states' rights and federal authority, further polarizing the nation.
Between 1854 and 1861, the area of territory open to slavery expanded significantly due to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which allowed new territories to decide on the legality of slavery through popular sovereignty. This led to violent conflicts known as "Bleeding Kansas" as pro-slavery and anti-slavery settlers rushed into the territories. Additionally, the Dred Scott decision in 1857 further entrenched the status of slavery, declaring that Congress had no power to regulate slavery in the territories. By 1861, the political landscape was increasingly polarized, with more territories and states aligning with the institution of slavery.
new territories/states were prevented from banning slavery
The Confederacy did not want to abolish slavery. In fact, they wanted to expand slavery into the new territories of the US.
The conflict over slavery in the United States was primarily about the moral and economic implications of treating humans as property. It also centered around the balance of power between free states and slave states, as well as the debate over whether slavery should be allowed to expand into new territories.
David Wilmot wanted slavery prohibited in territories acquired from Mexico in order to prevent the spread of slavery into new territories, as he believed that allowing slavery to expand would only further entrench the institution in the United States. This proposal, known as the Wilmot Proviso, aimed to preserve the western territories for free labor and was part of the broader political debates surrounding the expansion of slavery in the mid-19th century.
Generally speaking, Northerners and Northern politicians believed that slavery should not be allowed to expand to new territories or new states. Part of their argument was negated in 1857 by a ruling by the US Supreme Court which said slavery was constitutional.
Slavery was abolished in the United States territories in June 1862. Any new territory was not to have possession of any slaves after this date.
To end an argument about slavery in the territories (apex)
potentially all the new states in the west
potentially all the new states in the west
Missouri Compromise
The Republican Party and the Quakers were the leading opponents of expanding slavery into the new territories.
The UNITED STATES wanted to expand west, and by virtue of the Mexican War did in fact extend from 'sea to shining sea' - however, the South wanted to make sure that the states carved out of the new territories would contain sufficient slave states to maintain deadlock in the Senate over the issue of slavery.
The Mexican-American War caused an internal dispute in the United States government over slavery. The Northerners did not want slavery to spread into the new territories if they were annexed into the United States, while the Southerners wanted the territories to have the right to decide.