The Pros And Cons Of The Compromise Of 1850

When people think of compromise, they normally think of an agreement. In this agreement, the two parties usually have to give up some interest and move toward a middle ground. “The Compromise of 1850 was an attempt to try and find a middle ground on many of the issues that were affecting the United States” (Compromise of 1850). “The main principle of the compromise was to address the growing issues of slavery and possibly avoid a Civil War in the United States” (Urofsky). Sometimes, however, two parties cannot come to agreement and resentment becomes the result. This was the case in the Compromise of 1850.
Prior to this time, the United States was growing at a fast rate. Because of the quick growth of land acquisitions, the United States …show more content…
“Senator Henry Clay introduced a series of resolutions on January 29, 1850, in an attempt to seek a compromise and avert a crisis between the North and the South” (Compromise of 1850). After many attempts at a compromise, several months later, one was finally passed. The compromise included five bills: “California was admitted to the Union as a free state. The New Mexico and Utah territories were to vote on slavery by popular sovereignty. Texas was to receive $10 million from the government for the loss of New Mexico. Slave trade in the District of Columbia was to be abolished. The final bill was to pass the new Fugitive Slave Act” (Compromise of 1850). The Compromise of 1850 eased tensions for a short time. However, in the coming years, the resentment began to grow and the hopes for a compromise grew …show more content…
This was a benefit for the North. “Henry Clay had convinced the law as a benefit to slaveholders, it actually hurt the Southern cause by creating active hostility toward slavery among Northerners who had previously seemed indifferent” (Appleby 327). The act included that “a person claiming that an African American had escaped from slavery had only to point out that person as a runaway to take him or her into custody” (Appleby 327). A biased verdict from the federal commissioner was enhanced by a “financial incentive” (Appleby 327) “The commissioner received $10 if he decided for the slaveholder but only received $5 if the decision went the other way” (Appleby 327). The law forced many Northerners into a corner by making them feel “compelled to help catch African Americans” (Appleby 327). If they did not assist in catching African Americans, they would be put in jail. “Newspaper accounts of the seizure of African Americans and descriptions of the law’s injustice fueled Northern indignation” (Appleby 327). Some even felt that the justice was “justified” (Appleby