Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Compromise of 1850
Evolution of slavery between north and south
Pros and cons of the 1850 compromise
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Compromise of 1850
The Compromise of 1850 was successful in the sense that it solved some crises and delayed the outbreak of war. On the surface, the admission of California was the incident that sparked the conflict. Admitting California as a free state would destroy the delicate sectional balance that was crucial to the South. The compromise solved this problem by allowing California to come into the Union as a free state, but the people of New Mexico and Utah would have the right to decide by popular sovereignty whether they would be free or in slavery. Since this idea seemed to go along with democratic idealism, people were able to accept it. The compromise also solved some other problems. “The Untied States paid Texas $10 million in compensation for the …show more content…
At first glance, the compromise seemed have settled everything concerning the expansion of slavery, but it actually settled nothing. It merely put off the problem to a later time. Whether slavery should be allowed in the area gained in the Mexican War was still unanswered. The South and the North would continue fighting over unorganized territories. In fact, since the government decided not to intervene in the slavery issue, the people had to decided whether they want slavery or not. When they couldn’t decide for themselves, they turned to violence. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was “an 1854 bill that mandated “popular sovereignty”–allowing settlers of a territory to decide whether slavery would be allowed within a new state’s borders” (Foner). This was a logical extension of the Compromise of 1850 because it echoed the “popular sovereignty”. The act had the people living in the territory decide if they wanted slavery. Because of this the North and the South got into a fight over Kansas. This caused sectional …show more content…
As can be seen in Horace Mann’s letter, many northerners thought that the compromise was wrong in allowing slavery to continue to exist in District of Columbia. The act that caused the most stir of the compromise of 1850 was its proposal of passing a stronger Fugitive slave law. Southerners demanded a stricter fugitive slave law, which forced the North to aid in the return of runaways slaves. For example, “judges are paid ten dollars for every man they decide to be a slave; and only five dollars when they fail to do so” (Finkelman ,22). Many northerners became sympathetic toward the runaway slaves. Writers such as the famous American poet Walt Whitman, portrayed the inhumanity of southern slavery in his works. Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin in direct response to the Fugitive Slave Act. These literary works added fuel to the conflict. The North was angered by slavery, and the South’s way of
Analysis of The Shattering of The Union by Eric H. Walther In Eric H. Walther’s, “The Shattering of The Union”, the question of the Kansas Nebraska Act came along during 1854. The Kansas-Nebraska Act infuriated many in the North who considered the Missouri Compromise to be a long-standing binding agreement. In the pro-slavery South it was strongly supported. On March 4, 1854, the Senate approved The Kansas-Nebraska Act with only two southerners and four northerners voting against it. On May 22, the House of Representatives approved it and by May 30, 1854, The Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed by the U.S. Congress.
Having slavery be a significant part of many American lives, the Missouri Compromise was another sign that slavery was still a want in new states. The change of slavery states and free states still wasn’t where it needed to be in order to be accepted by today’s standards, but there were already people rallying to get it removed. Many people were involved in the Missouri Compromise as well as affected by it, but, thankfully, none of it is still in place today.
There are two mind paths to choose when considering the statement that the compromises of the 1800s were not really compromises, but sectional sellouts by the North, that continually gave in to the South's wishes. The first is that the compromises really were compromises, and the second is that the compromises were modes of the North selling out. Really, there is only one correct path between these two, and that is that the North sold out during these compromises and gave the South what it wanted for minimal returns. The three main compromises of the 19th century, the compromises of 1820 (Missouri) and 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 each were ways for the south to gain more power so that eventually, it could secede. First, the Missouri Compromise of 1820 established the slavery line that allowed slavery below it and forbid slavery above it.
The North always looked at the South with antipathy and kept trying to abolish slavery, but the South didn’t like the North interfering and wanted to continue the use of slavery. The Missouri compromise was another issue between the North and the South. Missouri was a territory state, and it opted to be in the Union in 1818. There was a proposal to ban Slavery in Missouri, even though there were more than 2000 slaves living there, in desperation, Missouri asked for help from the South. Maine was another territory that had petitioned to enter the union, so in 1820 a compromise was set and Missouri was allowed to stay a slave state, and Maine was declared a free state.
The Missouri Compromise had an interesting political action, It depicted the norths disagreement towards slavery was more of a political issue rather than a moral argument. In the early 19th century , the north was populated with abolitionists and radicals, those who believes in abolition. Their main aim was not to stop slavery because it was inhumane, but the fact that white people were becoming unemployed and the south were becoming more powerful.
Western expansion and the Louisiana Purchase both led to the formation of the Missouri Compromise because more states started applying for statehood, and this distorted the balance between the slave and free states. Division between the North and South increased as a result of the Missouri Compromise. It created a line that separated the Union and set it to the path of Civil War. At first, the North and South saw the compromise as a successful document that maintained the balance between the number of slave and free states; however, when the Union gained more territory through Mexican War, Congress decided to modify the existing compromise. Finally, the repeal of the compromise made the final push that led to the explosion of animosity between the North and South, which led to the Civil War. Slavery in the new territories remained the main issue that caused the necessity of forming the Missouri Compromise. Jefferson accurately stated that the Missouri Compromise stood only as a temporary solution that eventually led to the full-fledged sectional war between
The most powerful tool an American citizen have is their power to vote. The ability to vote allows a citizen to be heard and allows them to make a change in the government. By, casting your vote you are electing a person to stand up for you and your values and speak on your behalf. This ability to vote came from the 15th amendment which states “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The amendment was designed to protect the rights of the newly freed slaves after, the Civil War. Unfortunately, this amendment failed in different ways that lead to the oppression of minorities in America for almost 100
In 1850, the government issued the Compromise of 1850 that had five main points, but there were three key statements that made it important. The first key point was that California would enter the Union as a free state, which meant that the
The Compromise of 1850 and Kansas-Nebraska Acts were very advantageous to the South. In both pieces of legislation the south gained things that would aid them in their campaign to expand slavery. The advantages the south included a stronger fugitive slave law, the possibility for slavery to exist in the remaining part of the Mexican Cession, the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and the eventual plan to build the Southern Pacific Railroad.
The new territories and the discussion of whether they would be admitted to the Union free or slave-holding stirred up animosity. The Compromise of 1850 which offered stricter fugitive slave laws, admitted California as a free state, allowed slavery in Washington D.C., and allowed new territories to choose whether they wanted to be slave-holding or free was supposed to help ease tension between the North and South. Yet Southern states wanted more new territories to be slave-holders so the institution of it would continue to grow. They believed slavery was a way of life and as Larrabee said in his senate speech, “You cannot break apart this organization and this system that has intertwined itself into every social and political fiber of that great people who inhabit one-half of the Union.” (“There is a Conflict of Races”).
By 1820 differences between the North and South grew eminent. The majority of the northern states were rapidly industrializing and anti-slavery. The opposite was true for most Southern states, which were pro-slavery and had more agriculture and plantations than factories and industry. Between 1820 and 1861 many compromises were introduced to America in order to reduce sectional tensions between the North and South. Compromises such as the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854 were ineffective in diffusing sectional tensions leading up to the Civil War.
The Missouri Compromise went into motion when Missouri had a very well set population and applied for Statehood. When this began it started a battle in congress on the topic of slavery and its legality. The resolution of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was that it established clear slave states, free states, states that are closed to slavery and also states open to slavery. It brought about restrictions on slavery by limiting future slave states to below the 36°30’ line. Missouri also established the Missouri act of 1820 having no restrictions on slavery and escaped slaves are allowed to be hunted in every state and northern free states. AS to describing it as the final answer to slaver for the US it was not. It was a minor stepping stone
The Compromise of 1850 brought relative calm to the nation. Though most blacks and abolitionists strongly opposed the Compromise, the majority of Americans embraced it, believing that it offered a final, workable solution to the slavery question. Most importantly, it saved the Union from the terrible split that many had feared. People were all too ready to leave the slavery controversy behind them and move on. But the feeling of relief that spread throughout the country would prove to be the calm before the storm.
The Compromise of 1877 was brought on by the disputed election of 1876. The Democrats had clearly won but this was disputed by a few large states. This election was between Democrat Samuel J. Tilden and Republican Rutherford B. Hayes. Congress created a commission to try and resolve this dispute and the commission voted in favor of Hays giving him all of the electoral votes from the disputed states, which in turn gave Hayes the victory. This led to a series of compromises from the Republicans to the Southern Democrats which included: “The appointment of at least one southerner to the Hayes cabinet, control of federal patronage in their areas, generous internal improvements, federal aid for the Texas and Pacific Railroad, and most important, withdrawal of the remaining federal troops from the South” (Brinkley 363). These compromises are what jump started The “New South”. The compromises were supposed to help create a more Republican South but in turn did the exact opposite. The South went in a different direction. The “New South” had a lot of effects on of different subjects. The economy in the south grew tremendously, the politics changed and were predominantly democratic, and the African Americans were losing all of the things they had gained through reconstruction. These changes where exactly what Southern Whites wanted and in some cases it is what the Republicans hoped would happen. The “New South” was a reality by the end of the 19th century and changed the South by growing economically, becoming Democratic politically, and having even worse race relations.
Between the period of 1820-1861 there was a number of political compromises done in order reduce the sectional tension between the North and the South. While each of the compromises created helped the issue that the country was facing at that time, they did not help overall. The compromises were only a temporary fix for the country’s problem of sectionalism. Therefore while political compromises were effective in reducing the tension between the North and the South it did not help in preventing the civil war.