The Compromise of 1850 and the Kansas Nebraska Act Essay

Although the aftereffects of the era of good feelings dominated the beginning of the time period and compromises were at first effective, sectionalism over national subjects, especially slavery, led to a crisis in which compromises often meant more increase in political tensions. (Doc F) Sectionalism abruptly increased in the 1820 and 1830's with The Missouri Compromise and the Tallmadge Amendment. Tallmadge's radical proposition was that Missouri gradually emancipated its slaves and prohibit slavery in the rest of the Louisiana Purchase which produced raging political debates. If Missouri went either as a slave state or free state, the precarious balance of eleven to eleven states in the senate would be upset. The compromise

What was the 1850 Compromise and Why did it Fail? In 1850, Henry Clay one of the most influential political leaders in American history introduced a set of resolutions, which aimed to please both North and South America. The five proposals were rolled into a single 'omnibus' bill, which offered a solution to the growing sectional conflict over slavery and westward expansion, which arose from the 1846 Mexican War. The 1850 Compromise, which Senator Douglas stripped down and effectively helped pass, failed for a number of reasons, the greatest of which was that it was unable to please both anti-slave and pro-slave groups.

The 1820 Missouri Compromise played a large role in the campaign against slavery. In 1819 Missouri became a statehood and congress considered framing a state constitution, with this a representative attempted to add a anti-slavery legislation with it. This is what started the process of the campaign against slavery. Henry Clay made a large contribution toward this compromise in 1820, with his new ideas on how to settle the conflict between the North and the South, which lasted until 1954.All the compromise’s made from 1820's to the Kansas Nebraska compromise

In 1954, the Kansas- Nebraska Act was passed. Northern Democrat Steven Douglass in an attempt to build a transcontinental railroad petitioned the Kansas-Nebraska act on the bases that the Compromise of 1850 validated popular sovereignty. In Douglass’s opinion the Compromise of 1850 made the Missouri Compromise of 1820 void. There was opposition from Northern politicians who believed that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was a sacred pact made by previous lawmakers during the union’s long history of compromises. For Southern politicians the Kansas- Nebraska Act would help the extension of slavery which most of the Northerners were against. Ignoring the wishes of the Northerners and pushing the Democratic agenda which wanted not only the

Through out the history of America, there were many compromises made as a desperate attempt to make both groups of people of either side happy as much as they could. In this case, the United States tried to avoid war with a series of political compromises in an attempt to reduce sectional tensions between the North and South, which proved to be ineffective.

Webster believed the issue of slavery was settled long ago, when the regions were divided into slave and free states, and he also believed an agreement could be reached between the pro-slavery positions in the south and anti-slavery position in the north. Comparatively, Calhoun and Webster both saw the union was in danger of falling apart, they also both believed the issues of slavery between the north and the south was the major cause. Where they disagreed was on the future state of slavery. Calhoun saw the compromise as a betrayal of the south; he sought to have the northerners agree to the protection of slavery in the south so the south would remain in the union. Calhoun knew slavery pre-existed and believed it must continue to exist. Webster was more of a pacifist, he pleaded with the northerners to accept demands of the south in order to save the union, even though he did not accept the fact slavery needed to continue. Webster deeply believed that preservation of the union was more important than any other issue. In addition, William Henry Seward also opposed the proposed compromise. Seward was a New York politician and secretary of state and was one of the major political figures of the mid-nineteenth century; he became one of the most outspoken anti-slavery politicians of the period. Seward condemned Clay's resolutions on the

Though initially considered to be a ‘compromise’ and intended to lessen the tensions between the North and South, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 ultimately served as a vehicle to fight against slavery. Common citizens rebelled against their supposed responsibilities to return slaves to their masters, and resisted the punishments handed down. By polarizing the nation in such a way,

culture of the time, for direction in dealing with this matter. Two such people who based

After working tirelessly to set forth his Compromise, Henry Clay’s Compromise finally became a law in 1850. Initially, the Compromise of 1850 slit up guidelines about slavery for the North and South. In the North, CA was a free state, the slave trade was prohibited in Wash. DC, and unrelated to slavery, TX lost their boundary conflict with NM. In the South, slaveholding was permitted in Wash. DC, and the creation of the Fugitive slave act. The fugitive slave act gave federal support to slave catchers. Although the N and S both benefitted from the compromise, the North technically gained more out of it. The Compromise of 1850 was significant because it gave the South the Fugitive slave law, and gave the North a new free state, CA—everybody wins!

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).

In early 1850, the legendary statesman and orator, Daniel Webster, convened with Henry Clay of Kentucky to accumulate approval for Clay’s plan to conserve the Union from itself. This Compromise, appropriately recognized as the Compromise of 1850, guaranteed to address five principal issues at the time. The foremost, was the recognition of California as a free state. At the time, California had not yet amalgamated with the United States, leaving its situation questionable. Next, was the acknowledgement of both New Mexico and Ohio as unresolved states, to refrain from biasing the amount of slave and free states and subsequently, annulling the Wilmot Proviso. As expected, the two Northern politicians wished to expel slave exchange from the prestigious United States capital of the District of Columbia. However, even as Northern men, the Compromise included one last circumstance; a harsher enactment of the Fugitive Slave Law, guaranteeing runaway slaves in the North an unfortunate return to slavery, so as to gain the approval of slave owners and abolitionists

“I know no South, no North, no East, no West, to which I owe any allegiance, The Union, sir, is my country” - Henry Clay (United States History). The Compromise of 1850 was once considered despising, loathing, and abhorring. This would become altered, as it would turn out to be one of the greatest compromises in the United States and would make its mark in history. The Compromise of 1850 adopted the Fugitive Slave Act and the reason for California statehood. The compromise attempted to avoid a crisis between the North and the South, with the assistance of Henry Clay and his colleagues. The document came to be with three main ideas: significance, conflict, and compromise. The Compromise of 1850, proposed by Henry Clay, dealt with disputes

As a result of the Compromise of 1850, California was admitted as a free state, the territory disputed between Texas and New Mexico was surrendered to New Mexico, the slave trade was abolished in the District of Columbia, the Mexican Cession was open to popular sovereignty, and a stronger Fugitive Slave Law was enacted. In a speech to the Senate on March 7, 1850, Senator Daniel Webster stated his opinion that the North is wrong for not obeying the Fugitive Slave Law and that succession is amiss [Document D].The tone of Webster’s speech is objective as he attempts to see both sides- the North and the South. Webster is unbiased because as a Northern man, he agrees with the South. The peace was only temporary. The Fugitive Slave Law upset Northerners and the Underground Railroad became more active, peaking between 1850 and 1860. Massachusetts went so far as to making it a penal offense for a state official to enforce the act. The act also brought the issue of slavery into the limelight before the entire nation. In fact, by 1858, there was no avoiding the subject of slavery. During the Lincoln-Douglass Debates in a speech at Alton, Illinois on October 15, 1858, Abraham Lincoln stated that slavery was no longer just a political issue [Document G]. Slavery was splitting the nation and during the Second Great Awakening, even churches split over the issue. Lincoln’s speech is

The Civil War, which lasted from 1861 to 1877, was mainly caused by the diverging society between the North and the South. The North and the South had different goals. There were many factors that led to the war and the chief ones were political and economic differences between the North and the South. The North’s aggression to control the South had led to the point where it was intolerable. The issue on slavery was one of the causes of the Civil War. Slavery and slave trades had become a big part of the South’s economy. The slaves were needed to work on plantations which helped the South prospered. During the 19th Century, the North worked hard on abolishing slavery, which they thought was a disgrace to the Union.

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.