Causes Of The Compromise Of 1850

To resolve the sectional strife throughout America, Henry Clay offered a set of resolutions, which collectively was known as the 'omnibus' bill, and was designed to gratify both pro-slave and anti-slave groups. This compromise said that California was to be admitted into the union as a free state; that New Mexico and Utah were to be organised into territories, allowing popular sovereignty; and as a sop to win over both sides, the Fugitive Slave Act which already existed was to be made more stringent, and slave-trading but not slavery was to end in the District of Columbia. Clay made the mistake of trying to past all five bills at once, this consequently caused in every call for compromise, some Northerners or Southerners to rise and in A. Farmer, a historians words 'Inflame passions'. In July 1850 Clay's 'omnibus' bill was defeated, due to countless Northern senators voting against it, on account of the benefits it brought for the opposition. It was only in September of the same year, when Senator Douglas of Illinois replaced Clay as the leader of the negotiation, and having separated out the conciliation into a five-part compromise was able to pass it.

In an essay that incorporates the textbook, lecture and power-point notes compare and contrast the compromises of 1820 and 1850.

As tensions between the North and the South rose on the issues of slavery and states’ rights, numerous compromises were proposed to ease the conflict. Such compromises included the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and the Crittenden Compromise. These compromises had intentions of defining where slavery was permitted and clarifying states’ rights. They were only temporary fixes to a more pressing issue. Between the Missouri Compromise and the Crittenden Compromise, a series of events changed the political atmosphere of the United States and prevented any more compromises on the institution of slavery from being passed.

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 1850 was a settlement on a series of issues plaguing the unity of the states. The primary issue to address was the institution of slavery, which was causing much dissension between the north and the south. Additional items to be addressed were territory issues and to prevent secession by the south. Henry Clay stepped forward to present a compromise, which had Congress in an eight-month discussion known as the “Great Debate”. As a result of the proposal, there were strong oppositions. One outspoken person who opposed the proposal was John C Calhoun. Calhoun was an intellectual southern politician, political philosopher and a proponent to the protection of Southern interests. He was an advocate for states’ rights and

The Compromise of 1850 was 5 bills that the U.S. Congress passed in September 1850 to outline a 4-year plan about what to do with the territories aquired during the Mexican-American War. The Compromise addressed whether the territories would become slave states or free states.

At the end of the Mexican War, lands were ceded to the Union in the West. People from the North and the South were debating over whether or not these lands should have slavery. The solution was pushed by Clay, Webster, and Douglas from the North that would give the new lands the choice to be slave or free depending on a vote. During the mid-1800's, the North was industrializing and populating at a much higher rate than the South which was becoming dependent on the cotton industry. The Compromise of 1850 created more problems than it solved in regards to the enforcement of slave laws, lands in the West, and popular sovereignty.

All of this new land was a major benefactor to the Market Revolution and widespread commerce, but it left a lot of problems regarding slavery. Thus, The Compromise of 1850 was passed. This act admitted California as a free state and abolished slave trade in the nation’s capital to please northerners. It also Installed the Fugitive Slave Act and formed a territorial government in the west with no slavery restrictions for southerners. This compromise was also referred to as the “Armistice of 1850” because it resolved issues for at least a little bit.

The Compromise of 1850 was a desperate attempt to keep the southern states from seceding from the United States of America. While the goal was to keep the south from seceding, the new laws actually created more tension than it solved. Since the division in America over slave ownership had been holding a delicate balance with the states on both sides, the North and the South. When California petitioned to join the Union in 1849 as a free state, that delicate balance tipped and the conflict once again erupted. The Compromise consisted of 5 laws, admitting California as a free state, creating Utah and New Mexico territories with the question of slavery in each is determined by popular sovereignty, settling a Texas-New Mexico boundary dispute in the former’s favor, ending the slave trade in Washington D.C. and making it easier for southerners to recover fugitive slaves (History).

The measures, a trade off planned by Whig Senator Henry Clay, who neglected to get them through himself, were shepherded to entry by Democratic Senator Stephen Douglas and Whig Senator Daniel Webster. The measures were contradicted by Senator and previous Vice-President John C. Calhoun. The Compromise was conceivable after the demise of President Zachary Taylor, who was in resistance. Succeeding him was an in number supporter of the trade off: Millard Fillmore. It briefly defused sectional strains in the United States, deferring the withdrawal emergency and the American Civil War. The Compromise dropped the Wilmot Proviso, which never got to be law however would have banned subjugation in domain gained from Mexico. Rather the Compromise further embraced the regulation of "Mainstream Sovereignty" for the Territory of New Mexico and the Territory of Utah. The different bargains reduced political controversy for a long time, until the relative respite was broken by the divisive Kansas-Nebraska Act. Basically it was a progression of bills set out to keep the country united. Despite the fact that it postponed progression, it is seen as just a makeshift fix..

The Compromise of 1850, as it was called, was a bundle of legislation that everyone could agree on. First, congressmen agreed that California would be admitted to the Union as a free state (Utah was not admitted because the Mormons refused to give up the practice of polygamy). The fate of slavery in the other territories, though, would be determined by popular sovereignty. Next, the slave trade (though not slavery itself) was banned in Washington, D.C. Additionally, Texas had to give up some of its land to form the New Mexican territory in exchange for a cancellation of debts owed to the federal government. Finally, Congress agreed to pass a newer and tougher Fugitive Slave Act to enforce the return of escaped slaves to the South.

The Compromise of 1850 had many upsides to it. Among them is that it made slave trade legal but slavery was not. Of course, there were mixed emotions about the whole situation. Also California was admitted to the Union which made a lot of people content. This benefitted the government in many ways such as creating a more unified society. The compromise made it so people did not have to fear for who they were. Especially if you were black in the North or South, but that would soon change in the South because of the hatred between the two races.

The compromise of 1850 was a quick effort to reduce the tension that lived between the north and the south. When vice president Fillmore saw the compromise he liked it enough to sign off on it and after it passed Congress over a seven month debate it was established in America. Although the compromise was effective it didn’t really resolve the slavery issue as a majority in the north still believe slavery should be abolished in the south was pro – slavery.

The compromises from 1846 to 1861 were, by their intentions, to postpone the struggle between the north and the south temporarily but not to solve it. The foundational problems, like the the slavery itself, the differences in social structure and economic system and the expansion of slavery, were left. The increasing struggle between the abolitionists and slave owners and between the newly formed Republican Party and the Democratic Party kept putting those questions in front of the US people. The compromises themselves failed to satisfy the wants of both sides, enraged the north and frightened the south, so up to the election of Lincoln, the tension built up to a climax and finally broke out to become a civil war.

In efforts to better understand the Civil War most historians examine the Sectional Crisis and the Compromise of 1850 in the decades leading up to the worst years in American History. Some historians prefer to focus on the underlying theme of the war, others tightly examine individual leaders, events, and political parties, connecting them all together like puzzle pieces to define the years prior to the war. Despite the contrasting views, it is clear to realize the constant prevailing issues of the Antebellum Period, the Sectional Crisis and the Compromise of 1850. In particular, the Compromise of 1850 is deceivingly taught as only establishing 3 pivotal elements: the status of slavery in future territories (popular sovereignty), California statehood, and the fugitive slave law. Granted these elements of the compromise provide a great amount of controversy long after their birth, but one element of the compromise perceives to fail in obtaining recognition. The Texas-New Mexico boundary resolution seems to find itself fading away from its relevancy to the civil war, shadowed by more prominent issues regarding the stability of the Union. Abandoning the traditional teaching of the compromise, the Texas-New Mexico border decision figuratively and literally changed the identity of Texas. This was the long awaited result caused by deep rooted social and political issues dating back to the Texas Revolution.