World News Headlines

Coverage of breaking stories

How did the views of the Whigs and Democrats differ from those in the Free-Soil Party?

source : socratic.org

How did the views of the Whigs and Democrats differ from those in the Free-Soil Party?

The Democratic Party, a linear descendant of Jefferson’s Democratic Republicans but with less fully articulated views, was formed mainly with the purpose of electing Andrew Jackson as President. It was, for most of the 19th Century, the party of Southern planters, slaveholders, and the interests of Southern whites. Its durability in American politics owes more to its flexible adaptive qualities than to its enduring principles.

The Whig Party was founded in 1833 by Daniel Webster and Henry Clay, explicitly as a rejection of Jackson’s presidency. “Whig” means “anti-tyrant” and the tyrant in question was Andrew Jackson.

Today we dislike Jackson for his views on slavery and the Indians, but the Whigs’ detestation was rooted more in class snobbery (Jackson did not come from the same social class as his six predecessors, although he was an active participant in the Revolution and the breakout star of the War of 1812, and his wife was involved in a bigamy scandal that would scarcely make the Twitter feeds today).

The Whigs fielded three presidents, one of whom assumed office on the death of another and was promptly kicked out of the Party. Anyway, they disbanded in 1854.

The Free Soil Party was the party of Northern abolitionists. They opposed slavery on moral grounds, but acknowledged that the Constitution permitted it. Mainly, they wanted to keep slavery from expanding into the Southwestern territories gained during the Mexican War. the party was formed in 1848, fielded no successful presidential candidates, had little popular appeal outside Boston, New York City and Chicago, and was folded (with the Whigs) into the Republican party in 1854.

Whig Party | Presidentialpedia | Fandom

Whig Party | Presidentialpedia | Fandom – The Whig Party was a political party of the United States during the era of Jacksonian democracy. Considered integral to the Second Party System and operating from 1833 to 1856, the party was formed in opposition to the policies of President Andrew Jackson and the Democratic Party. In particular, the Whigs supported the supremacy of Congress over the executive branch and favored a program ofBarnburner Democrats were an anti-slavery faction within the Democratic party that was mainly based in New York. The Conscience Whigs was a faction in the Whig party that included many Northern Whigs who also opposed slavery. Historians agree that the Free Soil Party was founded on the basis of limiting/eliminating slavery.Many Ohio Whigs defected to the Free Soil Party. Ohio voters elected a handful of Free Soilers to the Ohio legislature. The legislature was nearly evenly divided between Democrats and Whigs. The Free Soilers had much greater power than their numbers suggested as both the Democrats and the Whigs needed the Free Soilers to enact legislation.

Who was the Free-Soil Party's candidate for President – The party evolved from antislavery and otherwise discontented elements in the Democratic and Whig parties. It was eclipsed in the early 1850's by the new Republican Party, which incorporated free soil goals. Free soil became a political movement and slogan in the 1840's.How did the views of the whigs and democrats differ from the free-soil party? The Whigs and the Democrats embraced the idea of popular sovereignty. What separates labor conservatives liberal…The Jacksonian Democratic Party and the Whig Party each, exemplified different beliefs on the role of the federal government in the economy and towards westward expansion in the 1830s and 1840s. However, the Jacksonian, laissez faire supporting Democrats and the economic nationalistic Whig party shared almost no beliefs except for the removal

Who was the Free-Soil Party's candidate for President

Free Soil Party – Ohio History Central – The Whigs were an opposition party formed to challenge Jacksonian Democrats, thereby launching the 'second party system' in America, but they were far from a single-issue party. Their ranks…Disgusted by the result, the Barnburners united with antislavery Whigs and former members of the Liberty Party to form a new political party—the Free-Soil Party, which took as its slogan "Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor, and Free Men."The party had one real goal—to oppose the extension of slavery into the territories.The Democrats were in favor of states' rights and did not like the Federal Government involvement in social and economic affairs while The Whigs favored a strong federal government through the power of the congress.

Franklin Pierce - Wikipedia
1832 United States Presidential Election - Wikipedia
Study Guides - Mrs. Perkins' Classroom
Chester A. Arthur - Wikipedia
HIS 10C Study Guide - Winter 2014, - Caroline Affair, Aroostook War, Monroe  Doctrine
Origins Of The American Civil War - Wikipedia
Benjamin Harrison - Wikipedia
Origins Of The American Civil War - Wikipedia
Whig Party (United States) - Wikipedia
Revolutions Of 1848 - Wikipedia
Kansas–Nebraska Act - Wikipedia

A History of the Republican Party – The Republican Party is one of the two main
political parties in the United States.
How long has the Republican Party been around? Who are some of the most notable Republican
presidents? In the early 1850s, the United States had
two main political parties, the Whigs and the Democrats. The Whigs were experiencing turmoil over the
issue of slavery and began to fall apart. In 1854, many of the former Whigs, along with
members of the Free Soil Party and some anti-slavery Democrats, joined together to create a new
anti-slavery party. This new party came to be known as the Republican
Party, and they held their first party convention on July 6, 1854 in Jackson, Michigan. The party’s first slogan reflected its anti-slavery
ideology, “free soil, free labor, free men.” It quickly became one of the two dominant
parties in America, alongside the Democrats. Following the 1858 elections, enough Republicans
had been elected in the House of Representatives to give the party a majority for the first
time. In 1860, the Republicans nominated Abraham
Lincoln for president. Lincoln won this election, making him the
first Republican to hold the office of president. Lincoln successfully guided the United States
through the Civil War and is remembered today as one of the nation’s greatest presidents. Following the Civil War, eleven of the next
fourteen presidents were Republicans. Republicans of that era supported the gold
standard, high wages for employees, high profits for businesses, and the annexation of Hawaii. During the late 1800s, under the leadership
of President William McKinley, Republicans firmly became known as the party of “big
business” (this meant that they supported, and were supported by, large corporations
and the wealthy owners who ran those businesses). However, Theodore Roosevelt’s “trust busting”
(breaking up large monopolies) brought more small business owners to the party as well. In 1874, political cartoonist Thomas Nast
drew an elephant to represent the Republican Party for the first time. Since then, the elephant has become a well-known
mascot of the party. This replaced the bald eagle, which was the
original symbol of the party. In 1876, a newspaper article referred to the
Republican Party as “the grand old party”. This term became a popular nickname for the
Republican Party, and to this day, many people will refer to it as the “GOP” (Grand Old
Party). The party even uses the GOP abbreviation as
their modern official logo. In the 1920s, Republican success continued
with the elections of Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover. All three of these won the presidency with
large victories. The 1920s is often thought of as the high
mark of Republican popularity. Throughout the first 78 years of its existence,
the Republican Party not only dominated the presidency, but also controlled Congress as
well. From 1854 through 1932, Republicans held the
majority in the Senate for sixty-two of those years. During that same timeframe, Republicans held
the majority in the House of Representatives for fifty-two years. Republican fortunes began to change in 1929,
following the stock market crash and the initial stages of the Great Depression. In 1932, with the election of Democrat Franklin
Roosevelt, Republicans lost the presidency, along with the majority in both houses of
Congress. In the latter half of the 20th Century, Republicans
once again experienced success with the election of Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon,
and Ronald Reagan. In the 1972 election, Nixon won 49 of 50 states. Reagan also won 49 of 50 states in his 1984
reelection campaign. Today, Ronald Reagan is so highly regarded
amongst Republicans that nearly all Republican presidential candidates attempt to draw comparisons
to him. In Congress, after being the minority party
for most of the previous 61 years, Republicans managed to reclaim the majority in both houses
in 1994. Republican candidates campaigned under the
“Contract with America”, which detailed what they would do if elected. This victory became known as the Republican
Revolution. The Republican Party is still a powerful force
in American politics today. Across the nation, there are many governors,
mayors, representatives, and senators who are members of the Republican Party. There are also approximately 55 million Americans
who are registered Republicans. .

The Election of 1848- Teddy and Matt – .

Wilmot Proviso – The Wilmot Proviso proposed an American
law to ban slavery in any territory acquired from Mexico in the Mexican War.
The conflict over the proviso was one of the major events leading to the American
Civil War.
Congressman David Wilmot first
introduced the proviso in the United States House of Representatives on
August 8, 1846, as a rider on a

{title} – {content}

,000,000 appropriations bill intended
for the final negotiations to resolve the Mexican–American War. It passed the
House but failed in the Senate, where the South had greater representation. It
was reintroduced in February 1847 and again passed the House and failed in the
Senate. In 1848, an attempt to make it part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
also failed. Sectional political disputes over slavery in the Southwest
continued until the Compromise of 1850. Background
After an earlier attempt to acquire Texas by treaty had failed to receive
the necessary two-thirds approval of the Senate, the United States annexed the
Republic of Texas by a joint resolution of Congress that required simply a
majority vote in each house of Congress. President John Tyler signed the bill on
March 1, 1845, a few days before his term ended. As many expected, the
annexation led to war with Mexico. After the capture of New Mexico and California
in the first phases of the war, the political focus shifted to how much
territory would be acquired from Mexico. The key to this was the determination of
the future status of slavery in any new territory.
Both major political parties had labored long to keep divisive slavery issues out
of national politics. The Democrats had generally been successful in portraying
those within their party attempting to push a purely sectional issue as
extremists that were well outside the normal scope of traditional politics.
However, midway through Polk's term, Democratic dissatisfaction with the
administration was growing within the Martin Van Buren, or Barnburner, wing of
the Democratic Party over other issues. Many felt that Van Buren had been
unfairly denied the party's nomination in 1844 when southern delegates
resurrected a convention rule, last used in 1832, requiring that the nominee had
to receive two-thirds of the delegate votes. Many in the North were also upset
with the Walker tariff which reduced the tariff rates; others were opposed to
Polk's veto of a popular river and harbor improvements bill, and still
others were upset over the Oregon settlement with Great Britain where it
appeared that Polk did not pursue the northern territory with the same vigor
he used to acquire Texas. Polk was seen more and more as enforcing strict party
loyalty primarily to serve southern interests.
The Whigs faced a different scenario. The victory of James K. Polk over Henry
Clay in the 1844 presidential election had caught the southern Whigs by
surprise. The key element of this defeat, which carried over into the
congressional and local races in 1845 and 1846 throughout the South, was the
party's failure to take a strong stand favoring Texas annexation. Southern
Whigs were reluctant to repeat their mistakes on Texas, but, at the same
time, Whigs from both sections realized that victory and territorial acquisition
would again bring out the issue of slavery and the territories. In the
South in particular, there was already the realization, or perhaps fear, that
the old economic issues that had defined the Second Party System were already
dead. Their political goal was to avoid any sectional debate over slavery which
would expose the sectional divisions within the party.
Introduction and debate on the proviso On Saturday August 8, 1846 President
Polk submitted to Congress a request for

{title} – {content}

,000,000 in order to facilitate
negotiations with Mexico over the final settlement of the war. The request came
with no public warning after Polk had failed to arrange for approval of the
bill with no Congressional debate. With Congress scheduled to adjourn that
Monday, Democratic leadership arranged for the bill to be immediately
considered in a special night session. Debate was to be limited to two hours
with no individual speech to last more than ten minutes.
David Wilmot, a Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania, and a group of other
Barnburner Democrats including Preston King and Timothy Jenkins of New York,
Hannibal Hamlin of Maine, Gideon Welles of Connecticut, and Jacob Brinkerhoff of
Ohio, had already been meeting in early August strategy meetings. Wilmot had a
strong record of supporting the Polk administration and was close to many
Southerners. With the likelihood that Wilmot would have no trouble gaining the
floor in the House debate, he was chosen to present the amendment to the
appropriations bill that would carry his name. Wilmot offered the following to
the House in language modeled after the Northwest Ordinance of 1787:
Provided, That, as an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition
of any territory from the Republic of Mexico by the United States, by virtue
of any treaty which may be negotiated between them, and to the use by the
Executive of the moneys herein appropriated, neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory, except
for crime, whereof the party shall first be duly convicted.
William W. Wick, Democrat of Indiana, attempted to eliminate total restriction
of slavery by proposing an amendment that the Missouri Compromise line of
latitude 36°30' simply be extended west to the Pacific. This was voted down
89–54. The vote to add the proviso to the bill was then called, and it passed
by 83–64. A last-ditch effort by southerners to table the entire bill was
defeated by 94–78, and then the entire bill was approved 85–80. Most ominously,
these votes all fell overwhelmingly along sectional rather than party lines.
The Senate took up the bill late in its Monday session. Southern Democrats hoped
to reject the Wilmot Proviso and send the bill back to the House for a quick
approval of the bill without the restrictions on slavery. Whig John Davis
of Massachusetts attempted to forestall this effort by holding the floor until
it would be too late to return the bill to the House, forcing the Senate to
accept or reject the appropriation with the proviso intact. However, before he
could call the vote, due to an eight-minute difference in the official
House and Senate clocks, the House had adjourned and the Congress was
officially out of session. The issue resurfaced at the end of the
year when Polk, in his annual message to Congress, renewed his request with the
amount needed increased to three million dollars. Polk argued that, while the
original intent of the war had never been to acquire territory, an honorable
peace required territorial compensation to the United States. The Three Million
Dollar Bill, as it was called, was the sole item of business in the House from
February 8, 1847 until February 15. Preston King reintroduced the Wilmot
Proviso, but this time the exclusion of slavery was expanded beyond merely the
Mexican territory to include "any territory on the continent of America
which shall hereafter be acquired". This time Representative Stephen Douglas,
Democrat of Illinois, reintroduced the proposal to simply extend the Missouri
Compromise line to the west coast, and this was again defeated 109–82. The
Three Million Dollar Bill with the proviso was then passed by the House
115–106. In the Senate, led by Thomas Hart Benton, the bill was passed without
the proviso. When the bill was returned to the House the Senate bill prevailed;
every Northern Whig still supported the proviso, but 22 northern Democrats voted
with the South. In 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
ending the war was submitted to the Senate for approval. Douglas, now in the
Senate, was among those who joined with the South to defeat an effort to attach
the Wilmot Proviso to the treaty. In the prior year's debate in the House Douglas
had argued that all of the debate over slavery in the territories was
premature; the time to deal with that issue was when the territory was
actually organized by Congress. Lewis Cass in December 1847, in his famous
letter to A. O. P. Nicholson in Tennessee, further defined the concept
of popular sovereignty which would soon evolve as the mainstream Democratic
alternative to the Wilmot Proviso: Leave it to the people, who will be
affected by this question to adjust it upon their own responsibility, and in
their own manner, and we shall render another tribute to the original
principles of our government, and furnish another for its permanence and
prosperity. Aftermath
With the approval of the treaty, the issue moved from one of abstraction to
one involving practical matters. The nature of the Constitution, slavery, the
value of free labor, political power, and ultimately political realignment
were all involved in the debate. Historian Michael Morrison argues that
from 1820 to 1846 a combination of "racism and veneration of the Union" had
prevented a direct northern attack on slavery. While the original southern
response to the Wilmot Proviso was measured, it soon became clear to the
South that this long postponed attack on slavery had finally occurred. Rather
than simply discuss the politics of the issue, historian William Freehling
noted, "Most Southerners raged primarily because David Wilmot's holier-than-thou
stance was so insulting." In the North, the most immediate
repercussions involved Martin Van Buren and the state of New York. The
Barnburners were successfully opposed by their conservative opposition, the
Hunkers, in their efforts to send a pro-proviso batch of delegates to the
1848 Democratic National Convention. The Barnburners held their own separate
convention and sent their own slate of delegates to the convention in
Baltimore. Both delegations were seated with the state's total votes split
between them. When the convention rejected a pro-proviso plank and
selected Lewis Cass as the nominee, the Barnburners again bolted and were the
nucleus of forming the Free Soil Party. Historian Leonard Richards writes of
these disaffected Democrats: Overall, then, Southern Democrats during
the 1840s lost the hard core of their original doughface support. No longer
could they count on New England and New York Democrats to provide them with
winning margins in the House. … To them [Free Soil Democrats] the
movement to acquire Texas, and the fight over the Wilmot Proviso, marked the
turning point, when aggressive slavemasters stole the heart and soul of
the Democratic Party and began dictating the course of the nation's destiny.
Historian William Cooper presents the exactly opposite southern perspective:
Southern Democrats, for whom slavery had always been central, had little
difficulty in perceiving exactly what the proviso meant for them and their
party. In the first place the mere existence of the proviso meant the
sectional strains that had plagued the Whigs on Texas now beset the Democrats
on expansion, the issue the Democrats themselves had chosen as their own. The
proviso also announced to southerners that they had to face the challenge of
certain northern Democrats who indicated their unwillingness to follow any longer
the southern lead on slavery. That circumstance struck at the very roots of
the southern conception of party. The southerners had always felt that their
northern colleagues must toe the southern line on all slavery-related
issues. In Alabama, with no available candidate
sufficiently opposed to the proviso, William L. Yancey secured the adoption
by the state Democratic convention of the so-called "Alabama Platform", which
was endorsed by the legislatures of Alabama and Georgia and by Democratic
state conventions in Florida and Virginia. The platform called for no
Federal restrictions of slavery in the territories, no restrictions on slavery
by territorial governments until the point where they were drafting a state
constitution in order to petition Congress for statehood, opposition to
any candidates supporting either the proviso or popular sovereignty, and
positive federal legislation overruling Mexican anti-slavery laws in the Mexican
Cession. However the same Democratic Convention that had refused to endorse
the proviso also rejected incorporating the Yancey proposal into the national
platform by a 216–36 vote. Unlike the Barnburner walkout, however, only Yancey
and one other Alabama delegate left the convention. Yancey's efforts to stir up
a third party movement in the state failed.
Southerner Whigs looked hopefully to slaveholder and war hero General Zachary
Taylor as the solution to the widening sectional divide even though he took no
public stance on the Wilmot Proviso. However Taylor, once nominated and
elected, showed that he had his own plans. Taylor hoped to create a new
non-partisan coalition that would once again remove slavery from the national
stage. He expected to be able to accomplish this by freezing slavery at
its 1849 boundaries and by immediately bypassing the territory stage and
creating two new states out of the Mexican Cession.
The opening salvo in a new level of sectional conflict occurred on December
13, 1848 when John G. Palfrey of Massachusetts introduced a bill to
abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. Throughout 1849 in the South
"the rhetoric of resistance to the North escalated and spread". The potentially
secessionist Nashville Convention was scheduled for June 1850. When President
Taylor in his December 1849 message to Congress urged the admission of
California as a free state, a state of crisis was further aggravated. Historian
Allan Nevins sums up the situation which had been created by the Wilmot Proviso:
Thus the contest was joined on the central issue which was to dominate all
American history for the next dozen years, the disposition of the
Territories. Two sets of extremists had arisen: Northerners who demanded no new
slave territories under any circumstances, and Southerners who
demanded free entry for slavery into all territories, the penalty for denial to
be secession. For the time being, moderates who hoped to find a way of
compromise and to repress the underlying issue of slavery itself – its toleration
or non-toleration by a great free Christian state – were overwhelmingly in
the majority. But history showed that in crises of this sort the two sets of
extremists were almost certain to grow in power, swallowing up more and more
members of the conciliatory center. Combined with other slavery related
issues, the Wilmot Proviso led to the Compromise of 1850, which helped buy
another shaky decade of peace. Radical secessionists were temporarily at bay as
the Nashville Convention failed to endorse secession. Moderates rallied
around the Compromise as the final solution to the sectional issues
involving slavery and the territories. At the same time, however, the language
of the Georgia Platform, widely accepted throughout the South, made it clear that
the South's commitment to Union was not unqualified; they fully expected the
North to adhere to their part of the agreement.
See also Slave Trade Acts
Proviso Township, Illinois, named for the Wilmot Proviso
Notes Bibliography
Berwanger, Eugene H.. The Frontier Against Slavery: Western Anti-Negro
Prejudice and the Slavery Extension Controversy. ISBN 0-252-07056-9.
Cooper, William J. Jr.. The South and the Politics of Slavery 1828–1856. ISBN
0-8071-0775-1. Earle, Jonathan H.. Jacksonian
Antislavery & the Politics of Free Soil, 1824–1854. ISBN 0-8078-2888-2.
Foner, Eric. Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican
Party Before the Civil War. ISBN 0-19-509981-8.
Freehling, William W.. The Road to Disunion: Secessionists at Bay
1776–1854. ISBN 0-19-505814-3. Holt, Michael F.. The Political Crisis
of the 1850s. ISBN 0-393-95370-X. Johnansen, Robert W.. Stephen A.
Douglas. ISBN 0-252-06635-9. Levine, Bruce. Half Slave and Half Free:
The Roots of Civil War. ISBN 0-8090-5352-7.
McKnight, Brian D.. "Wilmot Proviso". In Heidler, David S.; Heidler, Jeanne T.
Encyclopedia of the American Civil War. ISBN 0-393-04758-X.
Morrison, Michael A.. Slavery and the American West: The Eclipse of Manifest
Destiny and the Coming of the Civil War. ISBN 0-8078-2319-8.
Nevins, Allan. Ordeal of the Union: Fruits of Manifest Destiny 1847–1852.
Niven, John. John C. Calhoun and the Price of Union: A Biography. ISBN
0-8071-1451-0. Potter, David M.. The Impending Crisis
1848–1861. ISBN 0-06-131929-5. Richards, Leonard L.. The Slave Power
and Southern Domination 1780–1860. ISBN 0-8071-2537-7.
Silby, Joel H.. Storm over Texas: The Annexation Controversy and the Road to
the Civil War. ISBN 0-19-513944-5. Walther, Eric H.. William Lowndes
Yancey: The Coming of the Civil War. ISBN 0-8078-3027-5.
External links Wilmot Proviso
"Wilmot Proviso". New International Encyclopedia. 1905. .