Causes Of Missouri Compromise Of 1850

Superior Essays
The early United States was plagued with intense sectionalism between the North and the South. Beginning before the Revolutionary War, differing climates and resources available in the different factions caused nearly opposite economic and social structures to evolve. Long after the young country made peace with Britain, the North had become a powerhouse of industry, while the South was an impressive producer of raw materials and cash crops. Beyond anything else, slavery was the most significant cause of separation between the North and the South. The North fervently opposed slavery while the South ardently supported it. While it may seem that slavery was always an issue of morality for the North leading up to the Civil War, this was not the …show more content…
The Missouri compromise did little to slow down the growth of slavery, it mainly attempted to make sure Southern power did not grow faster than Northern power. The Compromise of 1850 went a little further, Northern supporters of this compromise at least attempted to reduce the spread of slavery. Nevertheless, the strengthening of the Fugitive Slave Law as part of the Compromise of 1850 obliterated any progress made to fight slavery based on ethical grounds. These compromises were obviously not influenced by northern virtue because morals cannot be compromised. If Northern legislators vehemently opposed slavery, they would have done more to reverse it. Even the new “antislavery” political parties that came about some years after the Compromise of 1850 did not attempt to actually free enslaved people. For example, William Lloyd Garrison once described the Free-Soil Party as “…a party for keeping Free Soil and not for setting men free.” Despite the blatant, horrendous moral injustices that slavery presented, self-declared opponents of slavery did little to oppose slavery based on …show more content…
John Brown is a prime example of someone who was ethically opposed to slavery. Unlike many anti-slavery Northern legislators, he did everything in his limited power to stop the spread of and eliminate slavery. He made friends with fugitive slaves, and helped them escape the country. When he was finally charged with treason after his attack on Harper’s Ferry, he was calm. He received his conviction with peace; he believed what he did was just. There was widespread support for John Brown by Northern abolitionists, as many citizens in the North held a similar philosophy and moral disapproval of slavery. The strengthening of the Fugitive Slave Act as part of Compromise of 1850 meant that those who did ethically oppose slavery were forced to defy their own consciences, or risk serious criminal charges. Anyone in legislature who agreed that slavery was unjust would have not allowed the Compromise of 1850 to pass. Not only did it do nothing to end the institution of slavery, but it also forced abolitionists to ignore their

Related Documents

  • Superior Essays

    Even the great men in the government who knew what could happen if slavery was not ended did not try to abolish it. For these reasons, Douglass is far from shocked that Civil War has started in America. Throughout his speech, Douglass over and over pushes the point that this war is not one of political or economical, but of moral importance (414, 16). That is why the only way to resolve this problem is so…

    • 1145 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The emancipation of slaves was an influential moment in the war undoubtedly, however the influence slavery had on the initiation of the civil war was very small. Many people today still believe that the southern states seceded from the U.S because the slave industry was in danger, however this is not the truth. The southern slave industry was never at risk at the beginning of the civil war, the federal government made sure southerners knew that. In Abe Lincoln’s first inaugural address, he addressed this matter specifically, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” (Lincoln, Abe).…

    • 1474 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Those two things are complete opposites and do not go together, at all. The proclamation affected not only the North and SOuth involvement; it affected foreign involvement, also. Britain, along with other nations, considered being on the Confederate side, except they were against slavery. They ended up supporting the Proclamation instead (“The Emancipation Proclamation”). The Emancipation Proclamation was made for the better, despite the varying arguments.…

    • 1150 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    So, how did the North live with this tension? According to Livingston, “Slavery could be justified only by positive law, or by natural law, if and only if circumstances were such that eliminating it would do more harm than good” (Livingston 54). Therefore, the North concluded that the good of slavery outweighed the negative of slavery. Similarly, Livingston points out that if morality had been the justification for the war; then there would have been more efforts given to emancipate slaves and grant citizenship prior to the Civil War. Livingston clearly shows that no president or congressman proposed emancipation for slaves prior to the war.…

    • 1063 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Reconstruction was suppose to help the citizens. However, it failed and left racial justice problems that people faced in the future. After the civil war, the North gave free slaves right to vote, which they were unfit to handle. Before his death, Lincoln was willing to forgive the southern states and bring them back in the Union. Lincoln even refused to sign the Wade- Davis Bill, which mandated strict requirement for the south before they could make their new government.…

    • 1136 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Due to the violations of law that Johnson committed, his impeachment was justified. Although Andrew Johnson was supposed to fill Lincoln’s shoes in guiding the country to reform, he did not succeed at this. At the time, the country needed a leader, which would move them past the issues from the Civil War and support the rights of all people. Johnson failed to do this because of his pro-slavery view, breaking…

    • 944 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    One of these systems believes that slavery should not be allowed and has to rely only on free men, and the other wants to rely only on slavery (Foner 268). Of course, the intentions of one political system are humane and correct: every human has to be free and we have no right to own slaves, force labor, or prey on others. Although the struggle for the liberation of the slaves was only part of the war for power, it was a big step for humanity and particularly for people of color. The second political system, of course, did not agree with the first one. They could not just stop slavery.…

    • 1201 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    To sum up, Abraham Lincoln claimed he was against slavery; however, most evidence shows that he benefited slavery. This is because Abraham Lincoln says that he felt like he was assigned to white people. Also, he didn’t want the two races to be united with one another. Plus, he didn’t free every slave; his thoughts on slavery showed that he didn’t want to do much for the US, besides show his opinions. Evidence shows that Abraham Lincoln benefited from slavery and wanted it to be continued.…

    • 724 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Lincoln did not really feel bad for the slaves. He showed little interest in the pain the blacks were going through, but he publicly expressed that slavery is morally evil. There is evidence to suggest that Lincoln was a racist, and he also has stated that he believes in a “White America.” Lincoln would often argue that the forefathers were against slavery, but they had to put up with because it already existed in American. Lincoln had the same mentality. He thought it was morally wrong and evil, but he had to put up with it because if the slaves were freed there would be a gigantic uproar, that would tear America apart.…

    • 1209 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Save The Union Analysis

    • 483 Words
    • 2 Pages

    “If I could save the Union by freeing no slaves I would do it, if I could save the Union by freeing all of the slaves I would do it.” Abraham Lincoln’s thinking was that it was bad about slavery, but it was States’ Rights. It was only when the South was using slavery to support its illegal uprising that he functioned to free the slaves. Lincoln abhorred slavery, and always had. He didn't think the Constitution gave the President the power to act on it, but that didn't change his view that slavery was an abomination. Surely, Lincoln did put one thing above the issue of slavery, the protection of the Union, which is the foundation for his speech claiming that if he could protect the Union by allowing slavery he would do it.…

    • 483 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays