Analysis Of The Fugitive Slave Act Of 1850

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was passed by Congress as part of the Compromise of 1850 between the North and South. This act required that any and all escaped slaves were to be returned to their owners and that all officials and citizens were ordered to cooperate with this law. Anyone that did not follow this law would be condemned a criminal and subject to harsh punishment. Many states tried to counteract both of these laws by passing personal liberty laws. Solomon Northup is the most popular case; he was a freedman who was coaxed into going into Washington, D.C. and was kidnapped into slavery. Most northerners did not believe slavery nor did they believe the Fugitive Slave Act was ethically right. They saw black people more equal and believed
They took the scriptures and verses for face-value.

The city of Boston was plagued with slave-hunters. In the case of William and Ellen Craft, two slave-hunters by the name of Hughes and Knight, from Macon, Georgia were on the prowl for Mr. and Mrs. Craft to take them back to the life of slavery. Boston, like the rest of the North, did not take to kindly to the slave-hunters and had them arrested on the charge of slander against the Crafts. Many in the North believed that the Fugitive Slave Act rather than slavery itself because it was “.. a threat to their liberty as well as being ethically negligent to the plight of these individuals.”. The North was willing to do what it takes to protect and shelter the thousands of fugitive slaves. Many states took to action by passing personal liberty laws which allowed jury trials for escaped slaves and also prohibited officials from participating in apprehending the slaves. It was a very hot topic at the time and caused many conflictions between the North and South. The slave bill displayed the cruelty of slavery. Slaves were defined as property by the law and was sold along with animals, food and furniture. In the bill, it describes the men that were
Senator Webster is from the New England states and was around the age of 68 at the time of the speech. In the speech, he regards himself not as a Massachusetts man, but as an American man. In doing so, he does not provide a bias view and is able to have a clear stance on the issue. The second senatorial speech is by Senator John C. Calhoun who was also in favor of the Fugitive Slave Act. Senator Calhoun, who hailed from South Carolina, wrote this speech for the people that were against the Fugitive Slave Act. In the speech, he says that the North believed that slavery was a sin and a crime. If the union decided to rid of slavery, then the South would ultimately secede and become it’s own nation. Calhoun knew that the Fugitive Slave Act was needed because without it the nation could split. The final speech was by Senator Charles Sumner who was from Massachusetts and was against the Fugitive Slave Act. In the speech, he states that he speaks of the National Government. He speaks through the views of the nation rather than his own self. This provides no bias, which adds to the validity of his speech. He states ,”Slavery, I now repeat, is not mentioned in the Constitution. The name Slave does not pollute this Charter of our Liberties. No "positive" language gives to Congress any power to make a Slave or to hunt a Slave.”. This shows that slavery and