Write a 750 essay, describing the efforts to reach a political compromise between North and South in the 1850s. Explain the position of at least two key figures (one from the North and one From the South. You may discuss more than two if you would like).
1. Describe how these efforts led to such phenomena as Bleeding Kansas and John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry.
2. Explain why compromise failed?
The new nation was growing in more directions than can almost be counted. Sectionalism was dividing the country into 3 parts. The causes of sectionalism were the differences between the geographic areas which ranged from social to economic to political. The federal government was desperately trying different compromises to ease the controversies which seemed to stem from the question of slavery. States which allowed slaves to be owned were called slave states and others were known as free states. As new territories opened up and settlers rushed to gain the benefits of new lands, the choice of slave v free states was at the top of the political agenda so that all states would be equally represented, both in the Senate as well as the House of Representatives.
The Compromise of 1850 was inspired by Henry Clay, a senator from Kentucky who was determined to find a solution. The issues at hand were whether or not the territory gained by the war with Mexico should allow slavery or be declared free. A third choice was the possibility of the inhabitants to decide the question of slavery for themselves (known as popular sovereignty). The California territory was also in dispute. Washington D.C. was the largest slave market in the U.S. This compromise didn’t fail, but its solution was only temporary. The nation remained united but unhappy.
A series of bills were eventually sent through Congress to take care of these concerns. As with all compromises, not everyone was happy with the results, but the most controversial and horrifying portion of the compromise was the Fugitive Slave Act which required citizens to recover fugitive slaves. It is doubtful that the writers of the bill even suspected the reign of terror which would result from the monetary gain for returning slaves.
William H. Seward of New York opposed the compromise. His position was one of moral attitude. He maintained that the government had no right to legislate such an institution as slavery, but rather that there was a “higher law” (Compromise of 1850, paragraph 3), higher than the Constitution which should govern slavery.
The most elaborate attempt at compromise was in 1860. It was inspired by John Crittenden, another senator from Kentucky. This compromise called for six constitutional amendments including the “extension of the old Missouri Compromise line” (Compromise Between the North and the South, n.d.). Similar issues to Clay’s compromise had to do with the status of future states, the issue of slavery in the District of Columbia, the monetary retribution for slaves who ran away to the free states. Crittenden’s attempt at compromise failed, the amendments were not sent through Congress, but tabled. The Civil War followed.
Surprisingly, Abraham Lincoln from Illinois opposed the compromise. Lincoln knew that slavery was sanctioned by law (although he opposed it). He also believed that the Constitution guaranteed that the owners had rights to both keep their slaves and have them returned should they become fugitives.
Between the Compromise of 1850 and 1860, the Kansas Nebraska Act of 1954 undid another compromise (the Missouri Compromise). The new act allowed the citizens of territories to vote as to whether they wanted to enter the union as slave or free states. After the act passed, those in favor of slavery as well as those who opposed slavery poured into the newly created territory of Kansas. They brought their fiery opinions with them and it wasn’t long before an undeclared guerilla type conflict erupted. This was commonly known as “Bloody Kansas.” Both sides acted dishonest and immoral ways with acts of intimidation, murder and arson. Soon the warfare was out of control.
John Brown was one of the anti-slavery individuals who moved to the Kansas Territory. He organized a paramilitary group, leading various raids against pro-slavery settlers. These acts led Brown to national fame and he began to receive funding from other militant abolitionists. Further acts saw him liberating slaves in Missouri and take them to freedom in Canada (John Brown’s 1859 Harpers Ferry Raid, paragraph 7). His last raid was to assault a federal armory in Harpers Ferry, Virginia where he attempted to “seize the arsenal, distribute the guns and muskets, mobilize anti-slavery forces, incite slave insurrections and organize raids against slaveholders across the South” (John Brown’s 1859 Harpers Ferry Raid, paragraph 8). Ultimately he failed, was tried and sentenced to death.
All of the compromises between North and South were meant to mediate a problem that couldn’t be mediated since it involved human beings and their civil rights. No law can be passed which allows one person to own another person, and trying to create compromises between individuals who had opposite believes were bound to fail. The basis behind owning slaves was economic and entire societies had been built around the legality of owing slaves simply for the economic benefits of growing a crop for the least amount of money. Not paying slaves certainly reduced the expenditures for growing cotton. People, therefore convinced themselves, backed by scriptural verses of the superiority of the white race and their responsibility to own and watch out for the black race. Morally this is just wrong and enough people knew that. The compromises failed based on conflict of morals.
References
Compromise Between the North and the South, (n.d.). Retrieved April 2013 from
Compromise of 1850, (n.d.). Retrieved April 2013 from
John Brown’s 1859 Harpers Ferry Raid (October 17, 2011). Retrieved April 2013 from