Slavery And Its Effects On Parties

Slavery and its Effects on Parties

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." With these words, contained in the first section of the 13th amendment to the United States Constitution, a process that had been taking place throughout the mid-19th century was concluded and its result codified in the nation's highest document. The path taken by the nation to achieve the abolition of slavery, however, was almost as profound as the outcome itself, as the entire political landscape in the United States changed dramatically within a relatively short period of time. A political party was destroyed, another created in its place, and the direction of the country set on a new course.

Slavery in America had its beginnings in the same place that America had its own start. In 1619, twenty blacks were sold to inhabitants of the British colony of Jamestown as indentured servants (Slavery in America). As the colonies expanded, so did the restrictions on black freedom enforced by the white colonists. Starting with a 1705 resolution passed in Virginia, the institution of slavery was codified into colonial law and became an accepted part of society, especially in the southern states where demand for field labor was high.

Abolitionist sentiment first appeared within Puritan and Quaker communities, both of which could not reconcile slavery with their utopian ideals. As time progressed, slavery became less and less acceptable to those in the North, where slavery was just not economical due to the structure of the North's economy, which did not have commercially grown crops and began to rely more on manufacturing. Gradually each Northern state emancipated its slaves (at least for the most part), and by 1804 all states north of Maryland had done so (Slavery in the North).

In stark contrast, slavery in the South was rapidly increasing. The number of slaves in the southern states increased almost six fold between 1790 and 1860, despite the prohibition of the slave trade in 1808 (Slavery in America). Though these slaves were concentrated in a relatively small number of plantations (only about 5% of Southerners owned slaves), slavery was seen by many in the South to be a way of life, as well as an essential part of its existence. While some abolitionist movements sprung up in the South, they were in no way as influential or widely supported as those in the North.

The issue of slavery had major political implications from the founding of the United States after the Revolutionary War. There was already great contention over the issue of slavery at the time of the writing of the Constitution. More specifically, there was disagreement over how slaves were to be counted when assigning the number of representatives per state, and also over the slave trade (Kernell 53). Delegates from southern states naturally wanted slaves to count fully when House seats were being apportioned and for any regulation of the slave trade to be postponed as long as possible, while Northerners wanted just the opposite. Eventually, a compromise was achieved in which three-fifths of slaves were counted and the slave trade was protected from Congressional interference until at least 1808 (when it was banned), while the Northern states received concessions that gave Congress more authority to regulate foreign commerce.

As the nation expanded, the issue of slavery was largely kept on the back burner. The pattern of admitting one free state and one slave state at a time into the Union kept the balance of power equal, specifically in the Senate (Kernell 127). The disintegration of the Federalist Party, which prevented the North from operating an effective opposition, as well as the Missouri Compromise of 1820, continued the status quo. Northern politicians had an interest in containing slavery, but few were interested in completely abolishing it, as this was viewed as a political impossibility.

The Whig Party was formed in the United States mainly in opposition to Democratic President Andrew Jackson, who was viewed by many as unjustly expanding the domain of the executive branch. Indeed, the term "Whig" was derived from the British party of the same name that opposed the tyrannical English monarchy earlier in history (Holt 27). Largely an extension of the short-lived National Republican party, it encompassed many former Federalists, as well as Democratic-Republicans with more nationalistic view of government when compared with their fellow partisans, but also some states righters who were opposed to Jackson's grip on government as well as Antimasons opposed to entrenched government politicians. Due to this broad coalition, the Whig party was one with many different positions. As stated by the historian Henry Adams, son of John Quincy Adams, one of the first Whig leaders, "Of all the parties that have existed in the United States, the famous Whig party was the most feeble in ideas (28)."

The Democratic Party, at this time, was essentially composed of those components of the Democratic-Republicans that had not defected to either the National Republicans, Whigs, or one of the other smaller parties. They mostly stood behind Jackson, and had been organized initially by Martin Van Buren in response to John Quincy Adam's election in 1824 (Aldrich 99). However, due to Van Buren's strategy of assimilating local party organizations left over from the first party system of Federalists and Democratic-Republicans while allowing these organizations to hold onto whatever positions they had, the Democratic Party was also a loose coalition of different viewpoints, much like the Whigs (100).

Both parties were internally divided perhaps in no way more seriously than on the issue of slavery. Due to the intersectional alliances within each party, there was virtually no consensus regarding the future of the South's "peculiar institution." The Democratic Party turned to balancing its ticket between a Northerner and a Southerner in every election between 1828 and 1860 save one, in order to win the support of both regions and to ensure the South would have an effective veto over any anti-slavery legislation passed through Congress, either through presidential veto or a vice presidential tie-breaking vote in the evenly divided Senate (Aldrich 130). The Whig Party did the same throughout its existence. Furthermore, the Democrats enacted rules requiring a two-thirds supermajority in the nomination of its presidential candidates, ensuring that the South would have veto power over any nominee it deemed hostile to its interests (133).

As the antislavery movement grew in force in the North, it

...