Who Got Better Of The 1850 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.

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

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

One of the biggest divisions between the north and south was slavery. The south needed slaves to tend to crops such as cotton, which became a major part of the south’s economy after the invention of the cotton gin. The north, meanwhile, gained an increasingly large number of abolitionists opposing slavery. The abolitionists believed that slavery was immoral and were influenced by former slaves like Frederick Douglass, as well as through literature, including Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Although the divisions over slavery would not end until later on agreements like the Missouri Compromise of 1820 reduced tensions by preventing any new states above the 36 30’ parallel from joining the union as a slave state.

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.

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

Throughout the early and mid 1800’s. The United States split into two parts: The North and South. Each side had different viewpoints on how the nation was being affected by different problems. Compromises were made in order to keep our nation together and not separate from each other, due to disagreements between the North and South there was an intense growth in slavery and sectionalism.

The compromise of 1850 clariefied a lot of what the Missourie comprimise did not. A lot of things have changed the Mexican American war brought in new land. And with new land brought the challenge of splitting it. And another problem arised about which states would be considered slave states. And in the Compromise of 1850 Henry Clay tried to make California a free state and the boundry dispute between New mexico and Texas, his solution was he was going to give New Mexico the land and Texas would recieve the gift of haivng it's debt being taken over by the federal goverment. In my opionon the Fugitive slave act was the most Controversial part because suspected runaway slaves were not allowed to testify on their own behalf. So what this allowed

Some differences that arose between the North and the South in the decades before the Civil War were population, size (of the land), industry, slavery, and political beliefs and opinions. Firstly, the North’s population was much greater than the South’s. When Abraham Lincoln was elected as President in November of 1860, the North’s population was about twenty-two million people, and the South’s population was about nine million people. About three million people of the South’s population were slaves. Secondly, the geographic size of the South was greater than that of the North, but there were more states in the North; the Northern states were generally smaller in size than the Southern states.

The question was “the 1850’s a time of compromise when compromise was no longer possible” can be answered with a simple yes, but that is too easy, so I preset my reasoning, and proof the 1850’s was not a time of peace and compromise. First we have document A, this document talks about Daniel Webster (Northern) talking about how abolition groups cause, a great deal of anger and conflict between the north and south. Not only that Webster didn’t like theses groups causing more conflict between the northerners. This document supports my answer because it shows we definitely could not find a compromise, since sides were even going against each other with northern's having differing opinions about northern.

There were some differences in transportation. Since the north was more industrialized and contained many factories, there were more cities. These big cities called for a greater need of transportation. Most people migrated to the north, because the growing amount of factories provided more job opportunities; this resulted in a higher population than the south. Eventually, cities in the north became overpopulated, which led to unhealthy living conditions and tenements.

The Compromise of 1877 was an assumed upon agreement to settle the presidential election of 1876. The election was between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel J. Tilden, in which Tilden won the popular vote. The agreement was between the Republican and Democrat leaders of the time and removed all union troops from the south and settled the dispute for office. This agreement finally ended the battle between the north and south and allowed the two parties to make plans to rebuild the south. The text says that, "The Radical Republican vision, emphasizing racial justice, equal civil and political right guaranteed by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and a new southern economy organized around independent small farmers, never enjoyed the support

As the nation expanded, southerners hoped slavery would, too. In 1846, Pennsylvania Democrat David Wilmont submited the Wilmot Provisio, and suggested that any territory gained from the Republic of Mexico ban slavery, but it was declined by Congress. Political parties hit a deadlock when deciding whether to allow slavery in new territories until the Senator Lewis Cass of Michigan introduced popular sovereignty. This idea stated territorial residents vote whether or not to legalize slavery.

After the Mexican-American War ended, the Union was in dispute over slavery and the balance of slave and free states. However, the Compromise of 1850 was eventually introduced by Senator Henry Clay, which was meant to solve these disputes. The Compromise of 1850 was a set of five separate bills passed by the United States Congress that temporarily solved the dispute between slave and free states on the status of newly acquired territories during the Mexican-American War. The Compromise of 1850 solved some of the nation's problems, however, it didn’t diffuse them permanently. Despite the problems The Compromise of 1850 solved about the balance between free and slave states and slavery, the Compromise of 1850 proved unsuccessful.

Piecing Together the Creation of “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge” Literature is often impacted by the experiences the author has had and the time period in which it was written. The Civil War era affected works that were created during that time. The story “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge” by Ambrose Bierce exhibits this influence as it is written with the aid of the experiences he had during the war when he was enlisted. Although some claim certain events in Bierce’s life never affected him, others suggest that Bierce may have incorporated them into his writings.