Summary: Contradicting William Jay's Slavery

Contradicting William jay 's slavery as a reason for the war, John D. P. Fuller proposes in his The Slavery Question and the Movement to Acquire Mexico, 1846-1848 that toward the start of the Mexican War, the common conviction was that domain procured from Mexico would enter the union with slavery, yet after sectional controversies had erupted, most Southerners turned out contrary to obtaining of new region. Although many of the people who supported the annexation of texas were slaveholders, they were not primarily motivated by the establishment of slavery in a new state rather it was for manifest destiny since also these southerners were from the southwest. The annexation raced many debates and conflicts and as Fuller said it was not

Another reason was The Wilmot Proviso,In August 1846, Representative David Wilmot, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, proposed an expansion to a war appropriations bill. His revision, known as the Wilmot Proviso, recommended that in any region the United States picked up from Mexico “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist.” It was progressively understood that the Mexican individuals were against servitude and that the area was unsatisfactory for its spread, and in this manner the domain taken from it would be a free region upon its alliance into the Union. The annexation however contributed another conflict that sparked a division between who are with or against the annexation of northern mexico, because the extra land acquired from the northern mexico will be added to the union as a free state rather than a slave state which will consequently increase the number and power of free states over the slave states. Driven by Senator John C. Calhoun, the position of the anti-annexation powers was established in two primary convictions: that extension would aggravate sectionalism to at the expense of the Union, and that the force of the South would be extraordinarily decreased by the addition of