American Slavery: The Compromise of 1850


Figure 1.-- Perhaps the most famous American painting about fugative slaves was this dramatic painting by Eastman Johnson--'A Ride for Liberty—The Fugitive Slaves'. He was ine of the few period American artists who has left us images of slaves and black Americans. Run away slaves were perhaps the most volitile issue in the nationl debate over slavery and the most controversial compoment of the Compromise of 1850, both in the North and in the South. Actually very few slaves manged to run away, almost all from the border states. It was virtually impossible for slaves to escape from the Deep South. Ironivally, it was only Secession and the Civil War that made it possible for slaves to run away in numbers. And Eastman's 1862 painting demonstrates this. If you look closely in the background you can see the glistening bayonets of the blue-clad Federal soldiers.

The Compromise of 1850 was an effort to defuse the sectional rancor over the spread of slavery in the vast new territories acquired from Mexico. Congress attempted to balance the interests of the free and slave states. Texas was the first state to enter the Union from former Mexican territory War. Some southerners had assumed that Texas would come into the Union as several new slave states. This did not transpire, largely because of Texan wishes. Whatever the reason, it meant only one new slave state was added to the Senate. The next territory which asked to be admitted to the Union was California, another large state (1850). This created a problem because the Missouri Compromise line cut California in half. Northen and Southern Congressmen argued over whether California should enter the war as a free or slave state. The great figures of the early 19th century (Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John C. Calhoun) played their final role in American politics. Calhoun who was dieing and opposed the compromise had to be carried into the Senate chamber. A new generation of leaders, especially Stephen A. Douglas emerged and it was Douglas who was lagely responsible for brokering the final agreement. The result was the Compromise of 1850. It was in effect a mixed bag of legislation. Congress rejected the Wilmot Proviso. The individual measures could not be passed by Congress, but were passed as a result of a comprehensive basket consisting of five measures. 1) Congress admitted Califirnia as a free state. 2) Slave trading in Washington, D.C. was ended. (D.C. residents could still own slaves, but could not buy or sell them. 3) Texas was compensated for relinquishing claim to the area west of modern day Texas (New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah). This not only apeased Texas, but also other slave states who wanted new slaves states. 4) Congressmen accepted that at least some of the southwestern land acquired from Mexico could enter the Union as slave states, depending on the desires of the settlers there. The territory of New Mexico (which including modern Arizona and Utah) was organized without any prohibition of slavery. This esentially endorsed Douglas' Popular Sovereignty doctrine. 5) The South was further appeased by a tough new Federal Fugitive Slave Law. Federal marshalls were empowered to arrest and return escaping slaves to their masters even in free states. Bounty hunters would be paid for finding and returning slaves. This created a range of problens. Some bounty hunters kidnapped free blacks. And northerns who resisted the bounty hunters could be procecuted. These actions enraged public opinion in some northern states. The northern reaction to the Fugitive Slave Law enraged southerners. Rather than defuse the sectional tension as the Missouri Compromise had done, the Compromise of 1850 while resolving the immediate problem and postponing civil war, in the long run intensified sectional feeling, especially after the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The Compromise has thus been criticized as only temporary and bowing to slave interests. Temprising in this case, however, probably meant survival of the Union.

The Mexican War (1846-48)

The Mexican War was a conflict between the United States and Mexico. It is one of the most important wars fought by the United States because of the vast area of land annexed, about one-third of Mexio. It has, however, been given relatively little attention by American historians, possibly because it does not fit well into America's self image. Assessments of the War vary among both Mexican and American historians and among American historians. And these assessments have varied over time. The War began when Mexican units attacked U.S. troops in dispured territory between Mexico and Texas (April 25, 1846). Ther initial fighting took plasce in northern Mexico when General Zacrarry Taylor attacked across the Rio Grande. A small American force took New Mexico and California. When Mexico refused to make peace the United States invaded Mexico at Vera Cruz. The forced commanded by Gen. Winfield Scott moved inland and occupied Mexico City (September 14, 1847). A peace treaty was signed a few months later at Guadalupe Hidalgo (February 2, 1848). Mecico recognized the U.S. annexation of Texas and ceded California and New Mexico to the United States. Mexican historians have always seen the Mexican War as naked agression by the United States. Some American historians in recent years have also come to this conclusion. This is considerable truth in this, but a strong jigoist element in Mexico desiring to retake Texas has to be considered. One often ignored question is why so few Mexicans moved into the northern territories. One reason the United States prevailed in the War was that so few Mexicans lived in California and New Mexico. The War is also notble because of the roles played by key figures in the coming American Civil War.

Abolitionist Movement

The debate in the Congress over Missouri statehood brought out some empassioned speeches for and against slavery. Movements were a foot to abolish slavery in the northern states and more criticim was being directed at the South's "peculiar institution". Representative Livermore (New Hampshire) asked "How long will the desire for wealth render us blind to the sin of holding both the bodies and souls of our fellow men in chains?" The Abolitionist movement in America was built around Protestant churches in the northern states. At first Quakers were the most prominent voice, but other religious groups in the North also began to question slavery. Southern churches, however, saw no religious problem with slavery. Southern slaves, however, saw considerable paralells with the bondage of the people of Israel in Egypt and their plight. American abolitionism soon found it faced a major problem that the British abolitioinist movement never had to confront. Slasvery so divided Americam on a sectional basis that it threatened the very existence of the nation--breaking apart the national union. The abolitionist movement was a northern moverment. There was no southern aboliionist movement. TYhe movement as it developed was led by a number of agitators. William Lloyd Garrison founded the American Anti-Slavery Society. Noted authors John Greenleaf Whittier and Harriet Beecher Stowe became influential. Former slaves also had some influence, especially Frederick Douglass. Abolitionists could not become major nationmal political figures because of the need to apease southern voters. Only when the natiobal political parties broke apart on a sectional basis was it possible for an anti-slavery party and presidential candidate to win election. Abrahan Lincoln was not an abolitionist, jhe was, however, a clear anti-slavery candidate who opposed the spread of slavery. This was a turning point in the abolitionisdt movement. Abolitionists could not end slavery even after the Peoublican victory (1860). Ir was the secession of the Southern states and Civil War that made this possible. Lincoln Issuyed the Emancipastion Proclamation (1863). With out southern Congressmen, the Republicans were able to pass Constitutiona;l Amendments enshrining the Emancimation Proclamation in the Constitution with the 13th Amendment.

Division in the Senate

The Compromise of 1850 was an effort to defuse the sectional rancor over the spread of slavery in the vast new territories acquired from Mexico. Congress attempted to balance the interests of the free and slave states. Texas was the first state to enter the Union from former Mexican territory War. Some southerners had assumed that Texas would come into the Union as several new slave states. This did not transpire, largely because of Texan wishes. Whatever the reason, it meant only one new slave state was added to the Senate. The next territory which asked to be admitted to the Union was California, another large state (1850). The Senate at the time was evenly divided with 15 lkave states and 15 free states. There was another problem, the Missouri Compromise line cut California in half. Northen and Southern Congressmen argued over whether California should enter the war as a free or slave state. Southern senators made it clear that they would not tolerate an northern majority in the Senate. The growing northern population meant that the North already had a majority in the House of Represetatives. Therecwas a slight northern majority before the entry of Texas, but now with the rising influence of the Abolitionist Movement, many southeners were no longer willing to toleate a northern majority in the Senate.

Senate Leaders

The period after the NMexican War was an era of great transitioin. The great figures of the early 19th century (Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John C. Calhoun) played their final role in American politics. Calhoun who was dieing and opposed the compromise had to be carried into the Senate chamber. Henry Clay, the Great Compromiser, alson played a key role. At the very time that his great dream of Manifest Destiny was about to be achiueved with the admission of California, the Union was about to unravel. And if this was not bad enough, Texas and New Mexico was threatening to go to war over their border. Clay also attemoted to resolve this issue he failed in both instances. A new generation of leaders was emerging in theSenate, including Jefferson Davis, William H. Steward, and Stephen A. Douglas. Douglas at the time, a young little known senator from Illinois, proclaimed himself a new voice of the 'West'. And it would be Douglas who was lagely responsible for brokering the final agreement which precented southern secession.

The Compromise

The result was the Compromise of 1850. It was in effect a mixed bag of legislation. Congress rejected the Wilmot Proviso. The individual measures could not be passed by Congress, but were passed as a result of a comprehensive basket consisting of five measures. 1) Congress admitted Califirnia as a free state. 2) Slave trading in Washington, D.C. was ended. (D.C. residents could still own slaves, but could not buy or sell them. 3) Texas was compensated for relinquishing claim to the area west of modern day Texas (New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah). This not only apeased Texas, but also other slave states who wanted new slaves states. 4) Congressmen accepted that at least some of the southwestern land acquired from Mexico could enter the Union as slave states, depending on the desires of the settlers there. The territory of New Mexico (which including modern Arizona and Utah) was organized without any prohibition of slavery. This esentially endorsed Douglas' Popular Sovereignty doctrine. 5) The South was further appeased by a tough new Federal Fugitive Slave Law.

Fugitive Slave Law

A critical part of the Compromise foir apeasingthe South was the Fugitivec Slave Act. Federal marshalls were empowered to arrest and return escaping slaves to their masters even in free states. Bounty hunters would be paid for finding and returning slaves. This created a range of problens. Some bounty hunters kidnapped free blacks. And northerns who resisted the bounty hunters could be procecuted. These actions more than any aspect of the Compromise enraged public opinion in some northern states.

Popular Soverignty

Popular sovereignty was the political doctrine which held that the people who lived in a state or new territory should determine for themselves the nature of their government. It was primarily assiociated with slavery and the decision to enter the Union as a slave or free strate. The first proponent of the popular soverinity was northern Senator Lewis Cass who enuciated put the principle while opposing the Wilmot Proviso (1846). The concept is most associated witg Senator Stephen A. Douglas who saw it as a way of defusing the increasingly acrimonious sectioinal divide over slavery. Douglas coined the term (1854). He insisted that the settlers in a territory should decide on their status early in territorial developmenttoward statehood. Other supporters of popular soverignity believed that the free/slave status should be settled after the territory was prepared for statehood. Douglas invoked popular soverignity in the Compromise of 1850 and subsequently in the debates over the Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854). The subsequent events in Bleeding Kansas exposed tragic consequences associated with the the doctrine. Popular sovereignty was called 'squatter sovereignty' by the aging southern Senator John C. Calhoun. Critics seized on this as a more accurate description as slavers from neigboring Missouri poured over the border into Kansas. This made it clkear that Popular Soverignity wa ni solution to the sectional divide. It was, however, a major issue in the Lincoln-Douglas debates (1858). Douglas conceded to Lincoln that local opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law could essentially nullify them. Thus many southerners saw that the docrine of popular soverignity could clearly cut both ways.

Sectional Tensions

Not only did the Fugitive Slave Act inflame northern opinion, but The northern reaction to the Fugitive Slave Law enraged southerners. Thus rather than defuse the sectional tension as the Missouri Compromise had done, the Compromise of 1850 while resolving the immediate problem and postponing civil war, in the long run intensified sectional feeling, especially after the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

Kansas Nebraska Act (1854)

The Missouri Compromise (1820) has been called as perhaps the "most fatefull single piece of legislation in American history." [Catton] We might suggest Lend Lease, but the "Act to Organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas" was undeniably a Congressional act of enormous consequences. The Missosuri Compromise worked for over three decades to defuse the slavery issue until Congress, spearheaded by Seator Stephen Douglas, undid it with the Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854). Douglas wanted Congressional support to support the construction of a trans-continental railroad. Southern legislators were unwilling to support the railroad without opening the new western territories. Douuglas' answer was the Kansas-Nebraska Act which in effect repealed the Missouri Compromise. The issue of slavery would be taken out of Federal hands and put in the hands of the people in the territories. Douglas termed this "popular soverignty". Douglas believed that this would difuse the increasingly vitriolic debate over slavery in the Congress. Rarely has a politican been more wrong about the consequences of his actions. The result proved to be rising tensions, "Bleeding Kansas", the and a the breakdown of compromise, John Brown's raid on the Federal arsenal, and at last the final breakdown of comprosise and a terrible civil war.

Historical Assessment

The Compromise has thus been criticized as only temporary and bowing to slave interests. Temprising in this case, however, probably meant surviuval of the Union. [Bordewich. America's] The two sections in 1850 were much more evenly balanced. The industrial development in the North had just begun. Measured by any indicator such as stell production and railway tracks, the North was just beginning the phenomnenal insustrial expansion that woukd remke the United States. Given the fact that it was the North's industrial might that played a key role in the preservation of the Union, despite its many shortcomings, the Compromise of 1850 probably did in fact save the Union.

Sources

Bordewich, Fergus M. America's Great Debate: Henry Clay, Stephen A. Douglas anbd the Compromise that Saved the Union (2012), 448p.

Catton, William and Bruce.







HBC







Navigate the Children in History Website:
[Return to Main American debate on slavery page]
[Return to Main American slavery page]
[About Us]
[Introduction] [Biographies] [Chronology] [Climatology] [Clothing] [Disease and Health] [Economics] [Freedom] [Geography] [History] [Human Nature] [Ideology] [Law]
[Nationalism] [Presidents] [Religion] [Royalty] [Science] [Social Class]
[Bibliographies] [Contributions] [FAQs] [Glossaries] [Images] [Links] [Registration] [Tools]
[Children in History Home]





Created: 1:21 AM 5/4/2012
Last updated: 12:50 AM 6/26/2017