Compromise In The 1800s

1378 Words 6 Pages
Compromise is crucial to the stability of a Union, especially one as new as the states were in the 1800s. Without compromise there is no unity throughout the states which causes complete chaos, which we knew even back then. Despite of how crucial it was for the leaders in the North and South to find compromise were unable to find that vital common ground that they could use to come up with a neutral decision about aspects in and out of the government. The conflict was made up of the pro-slavery southerners and the anti-slavery northerners, and both sides felt very strongly about their position, and refused to see the opposite point. Failure of leadership on both sides led to the lack of compromise between the North and South and eventually …show more content…
In an attempt to keep slaves working in the South The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was set up in order to ensure that there was no chance of the slaves escaping to become free in the North. This act forced citizens to return any runaway slaves whether in a slave state or a free state. If you were caught assisting a runaway slave, it was considered a crime and they were either put in jail or fined (Fugitive Slave Act). This angered the North because this was an act that directly protected slavery which they were very strongly against. Different laws went against the Fugitive Slave act in different ways for example, Michigan legislature passed a personal liberty law in 1855 that, guaranteed any man or woman a trial by jury, prohibited state or local jails to hold anyone that was thought to be a slave, and made any attempt to send a freedman into the south as a slave, a crime (Maharrey). Even if the North was not happy with the Fugitive Slave Act it was their lack of communication to the South that caused even more conflict between the two sides. Michigan was not the only state that passed a personal liberty law. Massachusetts also made an act that removed any state official that helped the return of a runaway slave and authorized the …show more content…
For a while the Compromise of 1850 may have seemed to have ended friction over whether the new territories won from the war with Mexico were to permit slavery, but at best the Compromise of 1850, just temporarily delayed war between the North and the South. The Compromise made California a free state, made the New Mexico and Utah territory a popular sovereignty, abolished slavery in Washington DC, and strengthened the fugitive slave law (Norton). It specifically said, “Resolved, That Congress has no power to promote or obstruct the trade in slaves between the slaveholding States; but that the admission or exclusion of slaves brought from one into another of them, depends exclusively upon their own particular laws” (Compromise of 1850). This explains how the sides neither stepped in to end slavery nor promoted it which left this issue unsolved just as many of the other points in this act seemed to do. For many reasons these changes were unpopular and caused a lot of controversy. For this to be called a compromise was just outrageous to most people because it didn’t help either side in any substantial way. The so called “compromise” tipped the scale in favor of the free states, caused more fighting because of the popular sovereignty, and raised havoc because of the differing of opinions towards the fugitive slave act. The Compromise of 1850 did nothing to actually

Related Documents