I believe the arguments (pro and con) about slavery, for the most part, were along party lines. One of the arguments for slavery in the new territories was based on the concept of Popular Sovereignty. The concept of popular sovereignty was that settlers in the territories should be able to decide for themselves if they wanted slavery or not – keeping the federal government out of local issues.
Another pro-slavery stance was based on economics. The idea was that if slavery was allowed to move west with the expansion, wealthy landowners would purchase vast amounts of land, use slaves, and ultimately create a more diverse economy. This argument went two ways; the pro-slavery meant economic growth and prosperity for the larger land owners and those associated with the trade. The anti-slave argument meant it would slow or null the ability of settlers to own their own land and create a monopoly in the South (Schultz, 2013 & U.S. History.org, 2017).
Then there was the religious argument. At that time, America was going through its Second Great Awakening and slavery was argued as a Christian virtue with excerpts from the Bible, e.g. Genesis, 9:20-27 (KJV) and Leviticus 25: 44-46 (KJV) which speak to slavery, and that Abraham, Jacob, Job and Isaac all had slaves. To …show more content…
It was designed to allow for a give and take and restore some sense of stability to a country quickly becoming divided. The Compromise had five provisions; A) California would be a free state; B) the issue of slavery in the newly acquired territory would be decided at the state/territory level - Popular Sovereignty; C) slave trade was abolished in D.C (not slavery, but the trade); D) the Fugitive Slave Act was introduced – which became a catalyst for the Civil War; E) Texas would receive $10 million and was prohibited from influencing New Mexico on the subject of slavery (Schultz,
Another pro-slavery stance was based on economics. The idea was that if slavery was allowed to move west with the expansion, wealthy landowners would purchase vast amounts of land, use slaves, and ultimately create a more diverse economy. This argument went two ways; the pro-slavery meant economic growth and prosperity for the larger land owners and those associated with the trade. The anti-slave argument meant it would slow or null the ability of settlers to own their own land and create a monopoly in the South (Schultz, 2013 & U.S. History.org, 2017).
Then there was the religious argument. At that time, America was going through its Second Great Awakening and slavery was argued as a Christian virtue with excerpts from the Bible, e.g. Genesis, 9:20-27 (KJV) and Leviticus 25: 44-46 (KJV) which speak to slavery, and that Abraham, Jacob, Job and Isaac all had slaves. To …show more content…
It was designed to allow for a give and take and restore some sense of stability to a country quickly becoming divided. The Compromise had five provisions; A) California would be a free state; B) the issue of slavery in the newly acquired territory would be decided at the state/territory level - Popular Sovereignty; C) slave trade was abolished in D.C (not slavery, but the trade); D) the Fugitive Slave Act was introduced – which became a catalyst for the Civil War; E) Texas would receive $10 million and was prohibited from influencing New Mexico on the subject of slavery (Schultz,