The Compromise of 1850 should not be passed
The Compromise of 1850 will increase tension between distinct parts of the Union. It contains the following provisions: California to become a whole state; Utah territory to be admitted to the Union; New Mexico territory to decide their status with slavery. Texas to give land to New Mexico; DC to abolish the slave trade. It will fail and be unpopular if the main purpose of this compromise is to preserve the Union. It will encourage greater discussion and lead to the inevitable secessionist movement of the Southern States, since the compromise doesn’t resolve all issues that affect both the Northern and Southern regions.
Northerners oppose the FugitiveSlaveLaw Act. It is a compromise that will only succeed if the northerners can enforce such legislation. This is an excerpt of Fergus M. Bordewich’s America’s Great Debate. The South obtained the harsh Fugitive Slave law it sought for years, and the North gave up the hated Wilmot Proviso. This would have allowed the South to abolish slavery in the new territories. This act was one element that allowed the Compromise to 1850 to be passed. The Northern states have developed a tendency to feel more strongly about abolition and would be unable to fulfill their goals. There are two main flaws to the Fugitive Slave law. One, it is difficult to enforce, and one, it is being discussed publicly by Northerners. First, the belief system of slavery is not shared by the people living in these Northern states. They must adhere to the Fugitiveslave Law act’s guidelines. The second problem is that Northerners are so anti-slavery, it will be difficult for them to enforce this act. Southerners will suffer more from the Compromise, which only promises a very uncertain enforcement to return ranaway slaves. In addition to threatening the balance between free and slave states, admitting California as a state free of charge will also give Congress more power over the Northern states. In one resolution of the Nashville Convention, it was stated that “…slavery is an independent entity in the United States. The Constitution recognizes it in three different ways. First, as property. Second, as a domestic relationship of service or labor to a state’s law. Finally, as a basis for power. And, as a result, Congress is not authorized by the Constitution to create, destroy, or alter it in any way. Such power can only be obtained from the Constitution’s amendments. Another point that was mentioned in the convention’s resolutions was “…it stated that the territories must be treated as property and divided between the sections within the Union. According to this Convention, we are open to accepting the adoption 36deg 30′ North latitude, extending into the Pacific Ocean as an extreme concession. This compromise would create tensions between the slave and free states and upset this balance. The North will be stronger and California will become a bigger problem than the Compromise of1850 was meant to reduce.
It is against the Constitution to abolish the District of Columbia’s slave trade. This was decided in the Nashville Convention. In which states, “…the Constitution does not give Congress the power to prohibit or regulate the sale or transfer between states of slaves” (Nashville Convention). A provision to stop the growth and dependency of the Southern economy’s slave industry would be unconstitutional. DC is an independent state. A provision prohibiting the slave trading there cannot be Constitutional unless amended. A northern perspective doesn’t necessarily suggest that the ban on the slave trading will end slavery.
The Fugitive slave law’s extreme demands force Northerners into violating their personal ethics. California should be admitted as a state free from the imbalance of admission. Also, banning the District of Columbia’s slave trade is unconstitutional and ineffective.
