Editing Wilmot Proviso (section)

==Introduction and debate on the proviso==

On Saturday, August 8, 1846, President [[James Knox Polk|Polk]] submitted to Congress a request for $2,000,000 (~${{Format price|{{Inflation|index=US-GDP|value=2000000|start_year=1846}}}} in {{Inflation/year|US-GDP}}) in order to facilitate negotiations with [[Mexico]] over the final settlement of the war. The request came with no public warning after Polk had failed to arrange for approval of the bill with no Congressional debate. With Congress scheduled to adjourn that Monday, Democratic leadership arranged for the bill to be immediately considered in a special night session. The debate was to be limited to two hours with no individual speech to last more than ten minutes.<ref>Potter (1976), p. 18{{endash}}19.</ref>

[[David Wilmot (politician)|David Wilmot]], a Democratic congressman from [[Pennsylvania]], and a group of other [[Barnburners and Hunkers|Barnburner Democrats]] including [[Preston King (politician)|Preston King]] and [[Timothy Jenkins]] of [[New York (state)|New York]], [[Hannibal Hamlin]] of [[Maine]], [[Gideon Welles]] of [[Connecticut]], and [[Jacob Brinkerhoff]] of [[Ohio]],<ref>Earle (2004), p. 233, fn. 1. Brinkerhoff is claimed by some historians to have been the actual author of the proviso.</ref> had already been meeting in early August strategy meetings.  Wilmot had a strong record of supporting the Polk Administration and was close to many Southerners.  With the likelihood that Wilmot would have no trouble gaining the floor in the House debate, he was chosen to present the amendment to the appropriations bill that would carry his name.<ref>Silbey (2005), p. 124; Potter (1976); p. 21; Richards (2000) p. 150. Fire-eater [[William Lowndes Yancey|William L. Yancey]] (Democrat) in 1846 considered Wilmot as the one Northerner that could be trusted. Walther (2006), p. 91.</ref> Wilmot offered the following to the House in language modeled after the [[Northwest Ordinance]] of 1787:

<blockquote>Provided, That, as an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico by the United States, by virtue of any treaty which may be negotiated between them, and to the use by the Executive of the moneys herein appropriated, 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.</blockquote>
[[File:Missouri Compromise Line.svg|thumb|250px|Unrealized proposals to extend the Missouri Compromise line (originally defined in a way that limited it to the Louisiana Territory) all the way to the Pacific were advocated for by [[William W. Wick]], James Polk, and Stephen Douglas, at various points. (Modern state boundaries are shown for reference. Iowa was not a state until December 1846 and Texas's border was not defined this way until 1850.)]]
[[William W. Wick]], Democrat of [[Indiana]], attempted to eliminate total restriction of slavery by proposing an amendment that the [[36°30' parallel north|Missouri Compromise line]] of latitude 36°30' simply be extended west to the [[Pacific Ocean|Pacific]].  This was voted down 89–54.  The vote to add the proviso to the bill was then called, and it passed by 83–64.  A last-ditch effort by southerners to table the entire bill was defeated by 94–78, and then the entire bill was approved 85–80. These votes fell overwhelmingly along sectional rather than party lines.<ref>Morrison (1997), p. 41; Potter (1976), p. 22; Richards (2000), p. 152.</ref>

The Senate took up the bill late in its Monday session. Southern Democrats hoped to reject the Wilmot Proviso and send the bill back to the House for a quick approval of the bill without the restrictions on slavery.  Whig [[John Davis (Massachusetts Governor)|John Davis]] of Massachusetts attempted to forestall this effort by holding the floor until it would be too late to return the bill to the House, forcing the Senate to accept or reject the appropriation with the proviso intact.  However, before he could call the vote, due to an eight-minute difference in the official House and Senate clocks, the House had adjourned and the Congress was officially out of session.<ref>Potter (1976), pg.22–23.</ref>

The issue resurfaced at the end of the year when Polk, in his annual message to Congress, renewed his request with the amount needed increasing to three million dollars.  Polk argued that, while the original intent of the war had never been to acquire territory (a view hotly contested by his opponents), an honorable peace required territorial compensation to the United States.<ref name="Morrison pg. 53">
Morrison (1997), p. 53.</ref> The Three Million Dollar Bill, as it was called, was the sole item of business in the House from February 8, 1847, until February 15. Preston King reintroduced the Wilmot Proviso, but this time the exclusion of slavery was expanded beyond merely the Mexican territory to include "any territory on the continent of America which shall hereafter be acquired". This time Representative [[Stephen Douglas]], Democrat of Illinois, reintroduced the proposal to simply extend the [[Missouri Compromise]] line to the west coast, and this was again defeated 109–82. The Three Million Dollar Bill with the proviso was then passed by the House 115–106. In the Senate, led by [[Thomas Hart Benton (senator)|Thomas Hart Benton]] (Democrat), the bill was passed without the proviso. When the bill was returned to the House the Senate bill prevailed; every Northern Whig still supported the proviso, but 22 Northern Democrats voted with the South.<ref>Richards (2000), p. 152{{endash}}153; Johannsen (1993); p. 204; Silbey (2005), p. 130{{endash}}131.</ref>

In 1848, the [[Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo]] ending the war was submitted to the Senate for approval.  Douglas, now in the Senate, was among those who joined with the South to defeat an effort to attach the Wilmot Proviso to the treaty.<ref>Unlike appropriations bills that constitutionally were required to be initiated in the House, since a treaty was involved the debate this time would only involve the Senate.</ref> In the prior year's debate in the House, Douglas had argued that all of the debate over slavery in the territories was premature; the time to deal with that issue was when the territory was actually organized by Congress.<ref>Johannsen (2000), p. 216{{endash}}217.</ref> [[Lewis Cass]] (Democrat) in December 1847, in his famous letter to A. O. P. Nicholson in [[Tennessee]], further underlined the principle of appealing to [[Popular sovereignty in the United States|popular sovereignty]] which would soon evolve as the mainstream Democratic alternative to the Wilmot Proviso:

<blockquote>Leave it to the people, who will be affected by this question to adjust it upon their own responsibility, and in their own manner, and we shall render another tribute to the original principles of our government, and furnish another for its permanence and prosperity.<ref>Johannsen (2000), p. 227.</ref></blockquote>