Wilmot Proviso Worksheets
Do you want to save dozens of hours in time? Get your evenings and weekends back? Be able to teach about the Wilmot Proviso to your students?
Our worksheet bundle includes a fact file and printable worksheets and student activities. Perfect for both the classroom and homeschooling!
Resource Examples
Click any of the example images below to view a larger version.
Fact File
Student Activities
Table of Contents
Add a header to begin generating the table of contents
Summary
- Historical Background
- Debate on the Proviso
- Aftermath
Key Facts And Information
Let’s know more about the Wilmot Proviso!
The Wilmot Proviso, introduced in 1846 in the United States Congress, aimed to prohibit slavery in the territories gained from Mexico during the Mexican–American War. However, it did not succeed. The dispute around the Wilmot Proviso was a significant catalyst for the onset of the American Civil War.
Map as per the proposed Wilmot Proviso of 1846.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
- Following an unsuccessful treaty attempt to acquire Texas that did not gain the required two-thirds approval from the Senate, the United States annexed the Republic of Texas through a joint resolution of Congress, which only needed a majority vote in each House of Congress. United States President John Tyler enacted the legislation on 1 March 1845, shortly before his tenure ended. As anticipated by many, the annexation resulted in a conflict with Mexico.
- Following the successful seizure of New Mexico and California during the initial stages of the war, attention turned to determining the extent of territorial acquisition from Mexico. The crucial factor in this matter was the resolution of the prospective legal standing of slavery in any potential new region. Both prominent political factions had exerted significant efforts to prevent contentious slavery matters from entering the realm of national politics. The Democrats have generally succeeded in depicting individuals within their party who advocate for a purely regional matter as extremists who fall way outside the conventional boundaries of traditional politics.
- US President James Polk’s administration faced dissatisfaction among Democrats within the Barnburner, one of the two opposing factions of the New York Democratic Party in the mid-19th century. Barnburners believed that Martin Van Buren was unjustly deprived of the party’s nomination in 1844. This occurred because Southern delegates revived a convention rule previously employed in 1832, which mandated that the nominee must secure at least two-thirds of the delegate votes.
- A significant number of individuals in the Northern region expressed dissatisfaction with the Walker tariff, a set of tariff rates adopted by the US in 1846. Additionally, some opposed Polk’s veto of a widely supported bill for river and harbour improvements. Furthermore, some individuals were displeased with the Oregon settlement between the US and Great Britain, as it seemed that Polk did not exhibit the same level of determination in acquiring the Northern territory as he did in acquiring Texas.
- Polk increasingly became perceived as enforcing stringent party allegiance only to advance the interests of the Southern region. The Mexican–American War was widely perceived as an endeavour to acquire additional land for the purpose of establishing states that allowed slavery. The popularity of it was predominant in the South while far less prevalent in the North, where opposition manifested in many ways.
David Wilmot
DEBATE ON THE PROVISO
- On 8 August 1846, during the Mexican–American War, US President James Polk suggested a bill to give $2 million for the acquisition of any possible land from Mexico as compensation for the conflict. Polk’s engagement in conflict with Mexico to acquire land was widely known, although it was the first time the president openly admitted his aims. Before Polk introduced this bill, Congress decided to end their session on Monday, 10 August. Polk proposed the bill at the last possible moment in an effort to expedite its passage without any additional provisions.
- Nevertheless, Democratic Representative David Wilmot of Pennsylvania promptly thwarted the intention of the commander-in-chief. During his allocated ten-minute speech on the bill, Wilmot made a shocking revelation.
- He proposed as an amendment to Polk’s appropriation “that, as an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico…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.”
- The Wilmot Proviso refers to the stipulation that slavery should be prohibited in the Mexican Cession.
- Wilmot’s proposal of his proviso was completely in line with the objectives of the free-soil movement. Wilmot did not act alone in his proviso. A significant number of Northern Democrats harboured resentment at the party’s treatment of Van Buren. They were displeased with the decision to replace him with James Polk as the presidential nominee and viewed Polk as Andrew Jackson’s rightful successor.
- Furthermore, several Northern Democrats were not only furious with Van Buren but also deeply dissatisfied with what they viewed as the domination of Southern interests over Northern ones. Consequently, they desired to retaliate against Polk and the influence of slavery. Furthermore, they desired that the prospective land acquired from Mexico be designated solely for white individuals due to political and economic motives.
- Democrat–Indiana Representative William Wick made an important attempt, known as a Hail Mary play, to add an amendment to Wilmot’s proposal. This amendment aimed to extend the Missouri Compromise boundary to include the possible area. However, this attempt was unsuccessful. Wilmot’s amendment was approved in the House by a vote of 84–64.
- It is worth noting that all but three of the negative votes were cast by representatives from states that allowed slavery. The appropriation bill proposed by Polk was modified, and a subsequent vote was conducted, resulting in a tally of 85–80. Just like the last vote, this vote also followed sectional divisions. This signifies a significant change in antebellum politics, as laws were previously voted on mostly based on political party affiliations.
- However, this particular bill, following the Missouri Compromise, was the first one to be voted on based on regional divisions. The Missouri Compromise was a piece of federal legislation in the US that aimed to reconcile the opposing goals of Northern states, which sought to impede the spread of slavery throughout the nation, and Southern ones, which sought to promote its extension. This poll also demonstrated that individuals from the Southern region wanted to completely hinder the expansion of territories rather than allow expansion without the inclusion of slavery. The Southern opposition, in conjunction with the Wilmot Proviso, underscores the clear correlation between territorial growth and the prevention or spread of slavery in the US.
- Following the House passage, the bill proceeded to the Senate on 10 August. However, due to an oversight, the Senate still needed to hold a vote on the bill. Senator John David (Whig-Massachusetts) devised a strategy to compel a vote on the bill, specifically aiming to prevent any changes that would revoke the Wilmot Proviso. David’s plan involved engaging in a filibuster until a mere eight minutes before the session concluded, at which point he intended to proceed with the vote on the bill.
- Nevertheless, David was abruptly halted during his address and informed that the Senate clock was eight minutes ahead of the clock in the House’s chambers. As a result, the House of Representatives adjourned, causing the Congressional session to end without the Senate voting on Polk’s bill. As a result, the expiration of the Wilmot Proviso also led to the expiry of Polk’s appropriations bill. During the subsequent session of Congress, Wilmot reintroduced his proviso, but Polk’s latest appropriation bill was approved without including Wilmot’s additional provision.
- During the antebellum period, numerous Northern Democrats, despite either being enslavers or directly profiting from slavery, actively endorsed policies that safeguarded and upheld the institution. This collaboration with Southern Democrats formed a coalition aimed at preserving slavery. Due to the dominance of Southern influence, Northerners commonly labelled this combination as the ‘Slave Power Conspiracy’.
- However, by August 1846, Wilmot no longer wished to yield to the influence of pro-slavery forces and began advocating for anti-slavery viewpoints, which included his proviso. During the 1840s, the anti-slavery movement encompassed a wide range of roles and responsibilities. On one side of the spectrum, there was the colonisation movement, which supported the gradual release of enslaved people and their subsequent relocation to the so-called liberated territories, frequently in the Caribbean or Africa.
AFTERMATH
- Upon the treaty’s adoption, the matter transitioned from being abstract to becoming concerned with practical considerations. The argument encompassed various aspects, including the essence of the Constitution, the institution of slavery, the significance of free labour, the exercise of political power and, eventually, the reorganisation of political forces. Regarding the Northern region, the greatest direct consequences were centred around Van Buren and the state of New York.
- The Barnburners were effectively countered by their conservative adversaries, the Hunkers, in their attempts to dispatch a group of delegates in favour of the proviso to the 1848 Democratic National Convention. The Barnburners convened their distinct convention and sent their roster of delegates to the Baltimore convention. Both delegations were positioned, with the state’s whole voting power divided equally between them. After the convention rejected a plank in favour of the proviso and chose Lewis Cass as the nominee, the Barnburners once again defected and became the core of the Free Soil Party.
- The Wilmot Proviso, along with other matters relating to slavery, contributed to the Compromise of 1850, which effectively secured an additional ten years of shaky peace. Radical secessionists were momentarily prevented from advancing their cause as the Nashville Convention did not provide their support to secession. Moderates united in support of the Compromise as the ultimate resolution to the sectional disputes concerning slavery and the territory.
- Simultaneously, the Georgia Platform, which was enthusiastically embraced in the South, conveyed that the South’s dedication to the Union was not absolute. They anticipated that the North would fulfil its obligations as outlined in the agreement.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What was the Wilmot Proviso?
The Wilmot Proviso was a proposed amendment to a bill in the U.S. Congress in 1846. The proviso was introduced by Congressman David Wilmot of Pennsylvania.
- Why was the Wilmot Proviso significant?
The Wilmot Proviso is significant because it highlighted the growing tensions between the North and South over the issue of slavery. Although it never became law, it intensified the sectional conflict that eventually led to the Civil War.
- How did the Wilmot Proviso affect American politics?
The Wilmot Proviso deepened the sectional divide between the North and South, contributing to the growing tensions over slavery. It played a role in the realignment of political parties and helped set the stage for the emergence of the Republican Party, founded on an anti-slavery platform.