Max Ames
AP US History
Ms. Rizzo
December 4, 2009
Journals
1.
The Compromise of 1850 was just one more dying breath that gave the country the air it
needed to limp on for another decade. The Compromise of 1850 was a measure pushed forth by
Henry Clay that would provide the means of pleasing both the North and the South. The
Compromise consisted of six concessions: three to the North and three to the South. The
Compromise of 1850, though perpetuating the problem of slavery, was met with success as fair
as sectional equality was concerned. Neither the free North overwhelmed the slave-holding
South, nor did the slave-holding South overwhelm the free North. The “sacred balance” that the
South pushed for so urgently was kept by admitting California as a free state and the Mexican
Cession territories of New Mexico and Utah as potential slave states on the basis of popular
sovereignty.
The Compromise of 1850 was merely one more measure taken to push slavery out of the
political spot light. Previous to Clay’s compromise, the Whigs and the Democrats themselves
would not even take a stand on slavery. Neither of their platforms even mentioned slavery. This
was one reason for the creation of the Free-Soil party which became the standing anti-slavery
political party. Because the political parties were not yet entirely sectional, bringing up the issue
of Slavery would split them. In the years following the Compromise of 1850, such a split
occurred among the Whigs and lead to the end of the political party.
The compromise could not have happened without the level head mind of Henry Clay,
“The Great Compromiser.” Two times when the nation was heading on its way to turmoil
concerning the slavery issue, Clay was there to lead the compromises. In 1820, the sectional
balance was on its way to tipping towards the favor of the North. The fate of the territories of the
Louisiana Purchase was decided by Henry Clay and his Missouri Compromise. To keep the
sectional balance and order between the North and the South, the Missouri Compromise drew a
line at 36 degrees and 30 minutes. North of the line, the territories (besides for Missouri) would
be admitted as free states. South of the line, the territories would be slave states.
Again in 1850, the slavery issue arose to threaten the balance between the North and the
South. Henry Clay, once more, came to the forefront of compromise. His Compromise of 1850,
as was stated earlier, was enough to put off the issue of slavery.
Henry Clay is deemed the “Great Compromiser” to his credit. He healed national wounds
without himself being sectional. He cared about no individual states, but, rather, he cared for the
Union.
2.
In a Republic like the United States, where the people are controlled and protected by the
laws, it is never justifiable to openly violate a law. Sometimes violating an unjust law is a good
thing, however, this does not mean that one would be able to justify oneself. Just because
something is the more moral and more just thing to do, does not mean that it is a defendable
action. In court, someone is either guilty of committing a crime, or innocent for not committing a
crime. If someone commits a crime, for whatever reason, they are still held accountable by the
law and by the authorities.
People who break laws may not be legally justifiable, but they can find moral
justification. Breaking laws that people deem wrong is an important part of society. When a large
number of people continually break laws they think have no purpose, it shows the need for
reform and as a result, progress is made.
Breaking the Fugitive Slave Act would most certainly be unjustifiable to the United
States. Yet, the future would vindicate those that broke the Fugitive Slave Acts. It was because
citizens were presented with an unjust law that their eyes were open to the need for reform.
When the Fugitive Slave Act was forced onto the North, the number of Abolitionist spiked and
the anti-slavery force grew like never before. The people began to see that there was a national
problem that needed to be fixed. Laws like this eventually are thrown away. If a law is
continually broken and the people will not relent from breaking it, there is no purpose for the
law; the law is just empty words with no persuasion. Another time in history where such a thing
can be seen was prohibition in the early 20th century. Just because there was a law prohibiting
alcohol did not mean that the people followed it. The number of bootleggers and criminal that
reaped the benefits of the manufacture and selling of alcohol was testament to the fact that
Prohibition was too harsh for any of the citizens to actually follow. It hurt the country, as did the
Fugitive Slave Act, and created organize crime. The Fugitive Slave Act was a major reason for
the creation of the Underground Railroad.
The majority should have more sway over the minority, but the majority should never
have full power. During his Presidency, Tomas Jefferson was an advocate of such an idea. He
was extremely bipartisan and believed that just because a majority had voted him in, the minority
still had to be made happy; after all, they still consisted of half the nation. To have one half of the
country be content and the other displeased would be wrong. The laws passed and the measures
taken to should intent on pleasing the nation, not one political party.
3.
Repealing the Missouri Compromise Line was completely immoral. It was brought about
by the greed of Stephen Douglas who was in pursuit of riches and power. He sought profit from
a transcontinental railroad and angled towards winning the Presidency in 1854.
In order to build the rail road, Douglas needed the support of the south and he gained
their support by opening up the Kansas and Nebraska territories to popular sovereignty. This was
not a concession to an ailing south. The south never even considered having Kansas as a slave
state. For Douglas’s proposition of popular sovereignty to go through, Douglas sought the
outright repeal of the Missouri Compromise of 1820. The Missouri Compromise in the eyes of
the North was a pact as sacred as the Constitution.
Douglas’s actions forever inhibited the compromises between the north and the south.
Repealing the Missouri Compromise filled the North with so much rage that many of them swore
to forever resist all pro-slavery demands. Without the North’s willingness to make any
concessions in the slightest bit to the south, compromise was impossible.
During the 1850’s, it might be fair to say that the North was the aggressor concerning
slavery. With the Compromise of 1850, the North was more favored. The acquisition of
California as a free state tipped the senatorial balance against the South. Not only did the North
have more political power now over congress, but they did not abide by the conditions of the
Compromise of 1850. Many ignored the Fugitive Slave Act and some were in outright defiance
of it by helping the Underground Railroad.