Only $35.99/year

Terms in this set (80)

-Charles river bridge was a toll bridge chartered in 1785 that made the company that built it a huge profit charging tolls. As the two cities that the bridge connected grew there was a need for more bridges, Another company was given a charter in 1828 by the commonwealth of Massachusetts to build a bridge called the warren bridge, this bridge (in very close proximity to the first bridge) would just collect tolls until the construction cost was paid off, then it would be a toll free bridge. The company and stockholders that owned the Charles river bridge did not like the competition because they lost a lot of money on their stocks on the bridge due to people not using it anymore. They sued Commonwealth of Mass. citing that the Mass. Legislature had broken its contract with the Charles River Bridge Company. (The new stock owners of the older bridge wanted to collect the investment they lost on the purchase of stocks for the bridge.) The owners of the first bridge claimed that the charter had implied exclusive rights to the Charles River Bridge Company. The Court ultimately sided with Warren Bridge.
- Democrats were very much in favor of the decision because they saw it as a victory for state's rights, one of the party's leading platforms at the time.
-The Whig Party, on the other hand, was much more disapproving of the decision. Members of the party felt that the Massachusetts legislature had violated its contract, and that it was the federal government's responsibility to fix the state's mistake. The federal government's failure to do so led the Whigs to believe that the power of the federal government was in decline
- between U.S. and Great Britain
-agreeing that neither country would try to obtain exclusive rights to canal across Isthmus of Panama
-Democratic Party disagreed with, they wanted to be more agressive with expansion in the western hemisphere regardless of international conflict it may casuse.
-Whig party for because they wanted to be consitent in their attitude of compromise and peace with other countries.
-Zachary Taylor's secretary of state, John M. Clayton, met with a British representative, Sir Henry Bulwer, to calm a potentially troublesome issue in Central America. Both powers had studied the feasibility of constructing a canal to link the Atlantic and Pacific oceans through the narrow isthmus in Central America. Initially the most promising site appeared to be in Nicaragua. Neither party was prepared in 1850 to undertake the massive project, but wanted to ensure that one country would not act in the absence of the other.

Under the terms of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, the two parties agreed:

Not to seek exclusive control of the canal or territory on either side of such a canal
Not to fortify any position in the canal area
Not to establish colonies in Central America
Like the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842, the Clayton-Bulwer pact showed the American inclination to concede points to achieve compromise. For instance, between the signing and the ratification, the British interpreted the pact to exclude Belize, then known as British Honduras, and certain dependencies. In effect, the British simply agreed not to use their possessions to dominate any future canal.

The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty was ratified in the Senate, but was viewed in a negative light by the public, which regarded it as a renunciation of the Monroe Doctrine. The Democrats made political hay. Although it's possible to argue that Clayton gave up more than necessary, most historians of diplomacy today view the agreement more positively, arguing that the United States did about as well as could be expected at the time. Britain was a great world power; the United States was not. The treaty prevented an immediate rush for influence in Central America and acted to strengthen relations between the two counties.

Later secretaries of state would attempt to modify the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, but without success. It was not until 1901 that this agreement would be superseded by the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty.