Ex Post Facto

Reading: Charles Sellers, “The Great Contradiction,” in The Market Revolution: Jacksonian America, 1815-1846 (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1994), 396-427.

This essay is the concluding chapter of a very influential (and on some points controversial) book. Sellers is capable of producing some very dense sentences, and his use of the language is sometimes idiosyncratic, but he nevertheless provides a very compelling explanation of the role of slavery — the great contradiction — in precipitating the Civil War.

The battle over the admission of Texas to the Union played the crucial role in escalating this conflict, not simply because of Texas itself but also because adding Texas helped lead to war with Mexico in 1846. Texas had gained its independence in 1836, but the possibility of Texas joining the United States had been shunted aside in the interest of sustaining the Democratic Party. A political accident, the death of the first Whig president, William Henry Harrison, in 1841, ultimately destabilized both political parties, as Vice President John Tyler, a nominal Whig at best, rose to the presidency, alienated Whig voters, and, unable to return the Democratic Party (which he had left after the nullification controversy), began promoting the annexation of Texas as a strategy for wooing political support.

Tyler’s strategy failed, insofar as his own ambitions for returning to the White House were concerned, but the Texas issue drew enough support that the Democrats put forward James Polk, a pro-annexation candidate, for the presidency. Notably, both Henry Clay, the Whig candidate, and Martin Van Buren, the would-be Democratic contender, opposed the annexation of Texas, fearing that it might divide their own parties, provoke war, or even threaten the Union. On all three counts, they were essentially correct.

Asking several important questions will help us to understand Seller’s account of how the “great contradiction” began propelling the nation towards the secession crisis.

How and why did the national discourse on slavery change after 1830? (Consider Garrisonian, moderate antislavery, and pro-slavery voices.)
What was Polk’s agenda, and why did it generate substantial support?
How and why did Polk lead the nation into war with Mexico?
What were the political consequences of the war?
What major point does Sellers make about the role that racism played in garnering support for the Wilmot Proviso, the Free Soil Party, and, eventually, the Republican Party?

This entry was posted on Monday, April 30th, 2007 at 6:00 am and is filed under Early American Republic. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

8 Responses to ““The Great Contradiction””

Nicole Short Says:
April 30th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
The debate about slavery regarding the Texas annexation is interesting. Slavery had been outlawed by Mexico, so to abolitionist northerners adding Texas to the union and allowing slavery to exist in a region where it had been previously outlawed would be preposterous. However even though slavery had been outlawed in that area doesn’t mean it didn’t exist. The Mexican government had been rather ineffective at preventing American plantation owner from bringing slaves into Texas. When Texas won its independence their constitution protected slavery. Admitting Texas to the Union not only meant adding another slave state with more representative power in congress it also threatened to prove a war with Mexico over disputed boundaries.
Roxanne Keena Says:
April 30th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Although when Texas was part of Mexican territory, there was supposed to be no slavery, but the Mexican government didn’t keep track of the plantations that did bring in slaves to do the work. Adding Texas would have added another slave state to the union, because I’m sure once it became part of the union, the plantation owners would fight to permit slavery, and of course start a war with Mexico over territory and borders.
Kyle Krauss Says:
May 1st, 2007 at 12:08 pm
It is certain that Texas would have been a slave state. The state constitution allowed it, and the surrounding states did as well. As such, the balance of power between free Northern states and slave Southern states would have tipped in the direction of the South. Furthermore, it could have precipitated the Civil War earlier than it otherwise occurred — the North was not going to allow the South to have a majority in the Senate. Of course, no matter what happened, the Civil War would have been fought.
djvoelker Says:
May 1st, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Kyle is right about Texas as a slave state, and it was admitted as such in 1845. It might be going too far, however, to say that the Civil War would have been fought no matter what. Between 1845 and the beginning of war in 1861, there was a great deal of contingency. It is possible to imagine other outcomes. — DV
Brian Knaak Says:
May 3rd, 2007 at 5:39 am
I found Seller’s examination of the Christian slave movement quite interesting. He explains how inititally the slaves, “flocked to camp meetings along with whites and often outnumbered whites as full members of Baptist and Methodist churches.” Sellers even goes on to explain how some white congregations had black preachers at the pulpit. Soon however, white southern slave owners began to limit the slaves access to literacy and the Bible. They soon demanded that the “only gospel allowed to reach black ears from white evangelicals harped on obedience and hard work.”

Using a Marxist ideology, this was a direct attempt at controlling the white southerner’s capitalist mode of production. White southern slave owners feared the slaves gaining power through religion. This represented a direct threat to their capitalist dominion. Inherent in the class struggle outlined by Marx, this type of domination was inevitable. The capitalist would always make sure, by whatever means necessary, to exploit and control the proliteriate.
Brian Knaak Says:
May 3rd, 2007 at 6:45 am
According to Marx’s materialistic economic philosophy, the motives of both the North and the South appear one in the same. Each wanted to protect their respective economic interests. This is particularly apparent concerning slavery.

In the South, slaves represented the backbone of their economy. As Sellers points out, “The rigors of capitalist slavery were most fully rationalized when the American cottonocracy utilized history’s fullest freedoms of property and labor exploitation in harnessing human property to the industrial revolution’s most dynamic sector.” Southern slave owners believed the only way to protect their economic interests was through the harsh and demeaning world of slavery. Hence, Southerners wanted to protect the institution of slavery.

The North, on the other hand, also wished to protect their economic interests. (This is just what Marx would have predicted in any Capitalist society.) Freeing the slaves of the South would mean a great influx of cheap labor to the North. Marx would also argue that many free white men of the North were also repressed and exploited through “wage labor”. In each case, either white or black, the proliteriate would be dominated by the Capitalists of the North.

In conclusion, according to Marx, the motives of both the North and the South were the same. Both sought to dominate their economic domain. In order to accomplish this meant each would have to control their respective workforces, or modes of production. The Southern Capitalists used force and intimidation to control slaves. In the North the Capitalists used wage labor as their form of exploitation.
Thomas Says:
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:22 am
President Polk’s agenda was expansion to the west, south, and north. He knew the importance of the ports and lands of the west to the American economy. Polk’s plan of expansion was well received by many; southern families wanted new land to expand slavery; northern families wanted the new land for their families to live and work the land without the influence of slavery. Many Americans saw the great wealth that the new coast on the Pacific would bring to the United States. Polk also was so driven for these new lands that he was ready to declare war on Mexico to control Texas, and the southwest, but if main concern was California, with its ports. Polk at the same was in negotiations with Great Britain over the Oregon Territory, but as a wise man he compromised with Britain to avoid war with two countries at the same time. Polk wanted Mexican land so bad that he even went before congress and lied to them stating that there was American blood shed on American soil, which was a complete fabrication. He did this to get congress to declare war on Mexico to expand America, at this time I see no other explanation of why he did this but to gain land.
Jared Says:
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:53 am
“Manifest Destiny” vs Slavery is an arguement that can be made very easily by what Thomas has written. The fact that eveyone was for the spread of the United States, and the fact that the US postponed adding Texas as a state upon Texas’s first request just did not add up. The delay of adding Texas due to the fear of a huge slave state giving the south more votes in Congress, certainly does make sense if the US was trying to avoid the South gaining a majority which it would have used to prevent the end of slavery. So in the end there had to be a great arguemnet at the time, do we expand at the cost of slavery remaining, or do we put off growth to try and get rid of slavery. Manifest destiny vs Slavery

Print This Post

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

“The Great Contradiction”

8 Responses to ““The Great Contradiction””

Leave a Reply