“On the Brink of Civil War” by John C. Waugh
...13). He urged for Congress to allow California to enter as a free-state without any comprises, concessions, or relent towards the South (Waugh 113). Seward believed that there was something beyond the Constitution that condemned slavery. Among many others, one political figure named George E. Badger disagreed with the stance that Seward took on the Mexican territories. Waugh expressed that Badger, who was a Southern Whig, felt that the whole idea of the war with Mexico was the harmful initiative. Looking ahead, Badger saw that attaining these territories allowed for another political slavery pursuit. Additionally, he disputed the Northern Whig’s opinion that looked past the constitutional lines. “Seward’s hypothesis, Badger insisted, rendered it impossible to count upon the execution of any manmade law” (Waugh 117). There were many others such as Free-Soiler Salmon Chase, however, that actually supported Seward’s proposal to adopt the “Wilmot Proviso.” Chaos and indecision characterized the dispute over the legitimacy of the proviso. Another continual theme presented by Waugh was one that involved keeping the union together. Some of the representatives introduced in this book used their love for the Union to have a more reflexive stance on the arguments over abolishing slavery. They vowed to do whatever it took to avoid “disunioning.” Senator Thomas Benton expressed his detest for a very influential congressman named John Calhoun simply for seeing him as a supporter of “disunionism” (Waugh 129). Senators Henry Foote and Daniel Webster supported a few southern ideas but simply “loved the union” too much to sway away from it. The strong support for the Union held a very important role in the minds of the political figures of that time. No one wanted to union to split. Finally, after the final decision passed the California bill “clearly to compromise for the North” and the New Mexico bill and the Fugitive Slave Law for the South , Webster earned the right to say that “the Union stands firm” ( Waugh 184, 187). Another popular theme that Waugh emphasized throughout his book was a certain attitude towards slavery. America as a whole knew and accepted that slavery was not right. Waugh did an excellent job portraying that fact. The disagreement came when the two sides, being the North and the South, had to decide to how to deal with this immorality. The political figures from the North all pushed that the whole idea of any kind of slavery was unfair and unethical. So, when it came time to enter the Mexican territories into statehood, the North used their stance on slavery to push that the states needed to come in as free states. Salmon Chase called the Wilmot Proviso, “the Proviso of Freedom.” He believed that it was the way to settling the land disputes and slaver, and he pushed that any other means of boundary could not and would not “exclude it” (Waugh 121). Other northern representatives also felt uneasy about the Fugitive Slave Law. William Seward urged that to return a slave was to take away his freedom. In an indirect way, based on Seward’s idea, the Fugitive Slave Law kept the North and the South connected via slavery. Even with the North pushing to abolish slavery, the South still deemed it an immoral, yet political and economical beneficial cause. Each slave of the South obviously worked for someone. Therefore, when the abolition of slavery took place, much of the southern population lost a part of their help, wealth, and heritage. Henry Clay referred...