The Effectiveness of The Compromise of 1850

At the hour of the production of the Constitution, the issue of slavery had been put off and maintained a strategic distance from, a choice that would later prompt the debate presently known as the American Civil War. The composition, which was at one time the answer for issues that the Union was having, had the contrary impact during the 1850s when contentions and various understandings of the Constitution brought about sectionalism, the danger of withdrawal, and strain between the Northern and the Southern states. Abolitionists in the North attempted to save the Union while trying to get rid of slavery, while southerners upheld servitude in the new region and took steps to withdraw; the Compromise of 1850, particularly the Fugitive Slave Law, expanded these convictions.

Many changes to the United States had been made mainly because of The Compromise of 1850. First off, California was not a state and a slave-free one. This angered the South because they did not want to be outnumbered in the Senate. Utah and New Mexico were also admitted as states and had popular sovereignty, the only states at the time to have this. Texas was forced to give up some of its land and got a $10 million compensation for doing so. Slave trade had been outlawed in Washington, D.C., but slavery was still permitted there. However, the most critical and controversial provision was the Fugitive Slave Law, which proved to cause many disputes and much anger by the North, who opposed it, and the South, who was upset that the North would not execute it.

Due to the fact that slavery had not been mentioned in the Constitution, there was a dispute over whether or not the states had the right to allow it and spread it to the new territories. There were abolitionists, such as William Lloyd Garrison, who claimed that because slavery was not in the Constitution, it was never meant to be protected or exist. Every citizen is to be protected by the government, as well as their freedom; however, the slaves did not have the freedom and were not protected because, as Garrison states, the government was their enemy. According to Garrison, abolitionists must act accordingly, considering the fact that the government was doing little to nothing to abolish slavery. Some radicals like Garrison believed that separating from the Union was better than staying in the Union, where innocent blood was being shed. Transcendentalists, such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, had similar views. We see in Emerson’s address on the Fugitive Slave Law that laws such as this one are immoral, and citizens have every right to refuse to obey it, despite the consequences. The law declared that runaway slaves were to be captured in the North and even gave $10 rewards to federal commissioners that captured non-freed slaves. It also called for citizens to help these commissioners. Emerson claimed that this was a crime of kidnapping, and it took away citizen's liberties by making them take away the slaves’ liberties. The law was a threat to the Union and was a cause of sectionalism. The only positive thing that came out of it was the spread of abolitionism and awareness of slavery in the North.

Some states shared the views of people like Emerson. One, in particular, is Boston, Massachusetts. As shown through the poster in Document C, Boston even warned blacks of the Fugitive Slave Law and advised them to “Keep a Sharp Look Out for Kidnappers.” Massachusetts nullified the law, and Boston was the center of the anti-fugitive opposition; their actions spread to other states. The Northern reaction to the law was adverse; they opposed it, and those who refused to cooperate with the law received fines. This was the beginning of the tension that would cause sectionalism.

Southerner's opinions on the Fugitive Slave Law were much different from the Northerners. A majority of Southerners wanted slavery in the western territory and opposed the North’s desire for abolitionism. A Georgian Whig, as seen in Document B, states his opinion on why the law is justifiable and how it was a protection of slave owners’ rights. According to him, because slavery is not in the Constitution, it was therefore not illegal for southerners to have slaves; they should not be denied the right to take their slaves into the new territory either. This man likewise had confidence in popular sovereignty, which means the individuals get to pick whether they need to spread it or not. The government was not able to come to an agreement with the goal that the two sides would be fulfilled, henceforth the sectionalism. The Constitution's absence of referencing slavery and its misinterpretations caused it to turn into a wellspring of sectional friction as opposed to an instrument of national solidarity.

President James Buchanan was known to support the south, which is apparent in his fourth yearly message to Congress in 1860. President Buchanan manages the way that the states were sovereign, in this way, reserving the privilege to oversee slavery in their manner. He likewise expresses that the states, especially the South, had the right to oppose the government if every attempt to make peace did not work. Buchanan also mentions that Congress is in no way, shape, or form of the Constitution, enabled to utilize power against the states to forestall severance. He recommends three changes that explain the protection of slavery, and that could help avoid sectionalism within the union.

Poor political decisions contributed to the fail of the Union alongside the Constitution. One that would fall under this class is the Kansas-Nebraska Act, designed by Stephan A. Douglas. Kansas-Nebraska had popular sovereignty, however, pro-south Peirce and impulsive Douglas tried to “force slavery down the throat of a free soilers”, aka Kansas, as shown in the cartoon in Document F. Douglas and Peirce are shown shoving a slave down a giant man’s, representing Kansas, throat, while Buchanan and Cass pull the hair of the giant. Each a democrat, the four men supported the expansion of slavery into the new territories. The Act went against the Missouri Compromise, which angered the North. Decisions made by weak leaders like these helped the Union split and fail.

President Lincoln was elected in 1860, just before the start of the Civil War. Contradictory to political leaders before him, he chose to believe in the Union as something that needed to be preserved. As seen in Document I, the states were always sates of the Union and were, therefore, together through a compact. All states are equal, none having supremacy over the other. The states have the rights within the Constitution, which does not include slavery, and that they do not have the right to secede from the Union. By giving the states too much sovereignty and leeway with the Constitution, the Union could be destroyed.

The Constitution's lack of citing anything about slavery is the reason why it caused sectionalism and added to the disappointment of the Union it was created for, Unfortunately, the Compromise of 1850, which was meant to cause agreement, had too much disagreement over the Fugitive Slave Law, which some claimed it to be unjust kidnapping and others protection of slave owner’s rights and property. If slavery were dealt with the making of the Constitution, this major dilemma could have possibly been avoided with or at least dealt with by means other than war.