Compromise Of 1850 Pros And Cons

The Compromise of 1850 is composed of five laws proceeded on September of 1850 that distributed with the matter of slavery. In 1849 California demanded permission or authorization in order to enter the Union as an independent and free state, prospectively upsetting the balance between the free and slave states in the United State Senate. Senator Henry Clay established a series of resolutions on the 29th of January 1850, aiming to seek a compromise and avert a crisis between the North and the South.“South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun prepared his last speech during the course of the great debate over the Compromise of 1850, a controversial set of resolutions sponsored by Senator Henry Clay that moved the slavery question squarely to the

California was admitted to the Union as the 16th free state. Slave trade prohibited in Washington D.C. Lastly, Texas lost its boundary claims in New Mexico. Despite the fact that the Compromise of 1850 accomplished a big success in reducing strains between the Northerners and Southerners, the majority of Northern Whigs were against it. This was because the new Fugitive Slave Act instructed ordinary citizens to assist in the recovery of runaway slaves. This law was appalling to the abolitionists of the North. Additionally, the North thought that since New Mexico was dry, dusty, and barren, its inhabitants would have no use for slavery there. They believed this territory should be admitted to the Union as a free state. Many Northerners believed that if not allowed to spread, slavery would ultimately decline and die. To justify their opposition to adding new slave states, they pointed to the statements of Washington and Jefferson, and to the Ordinance of 1787, which forbade the extension of slavery into the Northwest. Texas, which already permitted slavery, naturally entered the Union as a slave state. But the California, New Mexico, and Utah territories did not have slavery. From the beginning, there were strongly conflicting opinions on whether they should. The discovery of gold in California January of 1848 drew thousands to the territory. By 1849 more than 80,000 gold-seekers, or "Forty-Niners," had made

Originally thought of as a benefit to slaveholders, the act ended up hurting the Southern cause for slavery. The act not only allowed escaped slaves to be hunted in the North, but also required federal marshals to assist slave catchers. In spite of the fact that each section received and experienced many benefits, I think that the north seemed to gain the most from the Compromise of 1850. The equilibrium of the Senate was at the present time with the free states, in spite of the fact that California often voted with the south in regards to many issues in the 1850s. The major success for the purpose of the south was the Fugitive Slave Law. In the final analysis, the north refused to impose it. “Massachusetts even called for its nullification, stealing an argument from John C. Calhoun. Northerners claimed the law was unfair. The flagrant violation of the Fugitive Slave Law sets the scene for the tempest that emerged later in the decade.” Yet at this point in time, Americans anticipated that the fragile peace would succeed. In conclusion, the North got more advantages because California was admitted as a free state, minimizing the Southern on voting power in Congress. This is the reason why Northerns perceived that they should make a pro-Southern signal by accepting the new Fugitive Slave Act. It horribly rebounded them, evoking and arousing sympathy for oppressed