The revision of the consequences and outcomes of the Compromise act of 1850 were contradictive and did not bring the expected result to the society. Soon after it proved that the law was directed primarily against the free states. The northern reformers organized committees to save the Afro-American slaves and to prevent the arrests and unfair solutions of slavery cases. South lost the contradictions due to saving of slavery and especially because of California the only one united southern state without slavery. The paper maintains the opinion that the north gained more benefits because of the free of slavery opportunities and flexible interpretation of the democratic guarantees of the document, but eventually California obtained the largest political victory.

Place New Order

Type of assignment
Writer level
Urgency
Number of pages
Spacing
Order total:

At first, after the war with the Mexica finished and the government was supposed to arrange minimal contradictions of interests between north and south, the crisis began. It is hard to disagree with G. Feldmeth and C. Custred that After the Mexican-American War in the 1840s, the United States were once again faced with the issue of expanding the institution of slavery into newly acquired territories . The institution of slavery was an issue that affected social, political, and even economical life of the states. It was agreed that north was the area free of slavery, and south maintained saving of old rights of the slaves owners. Thus, the admitting of California to the union with republic established quite convenient ratio: fifteen free states and 15 states with existing slavery.

The political disputes around entrance of California to the United States and the safety of its status of the area without slavery confused expectations of many politicians who put many efforts in preventing that. According to the Library of Congress In 1849 California requested permission to enter the Union as a free state, potentially upsetting the balance between the free and slave states in the U.S. Senate . The Californian condition of being a free state was a political victory that required many efforts to sustain it as an area not obligated with compensations to the south. After that, the territories of Oregon, Utah, and New Mexico joined the United States, which promised new changes in inner social and political area. In the end, the senators Henry Clay (Kentucky) and Stephen A. Douglas (Illinois) have developed a package of proposals on urgent problems of slavery.

After that important political victory the north of the United States refused from enforcing of the Fugitive Slave Act, which was a trap for the southern states. The point was that technically north was supposed to deport slaves who escaped from the south, but nobody was going follow this demand. North used the amendments of the document which had a democratic meaning. One of them, for example, says: SEC. 19. And be it further enacted, that no citizen of the United States shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property, in said Territory, except by the judgment of his peers and the laws of the land . Slavery was something that north was fighting against so people were not going to maintain the process they did not like. The contradictions between north (especially Washington) and south in this context were too serious and the country was on the edge of a new big conflict. One person who supported the idea of the sovereignty of all people proclaimed in the Compromise law of 1950 was Stephen A. Douglas.

    Our custom writing services includes:
  • Custom essay writing for the best grades;
  • CV, resume and cover letters which would
    make you successful
  • Thesis and dissertations writing by academic
    authors

His amendments of the document were highly democratic and it gave another advantage to the slavery conflict: the problem was deducted from the walls of Congress. Nevertheless, the document did not recruit the necessary amount of votes to be accepted, so Douglas offered a great solution to divide the law into several parts. People who supported statehood for California would not have voted for the return of fugitive slaves to their owners and vice versa. Each of the parts of law in separated form could get the majority of votes, despite that every time it was collected from the different elements of electorate.

One of the points that the Congress submitted by this Compromise law was a guarantee of protection of the slave owners property by federal authorities. This decision has transformed the federal government into an active hunter for the Afro-American fugitives. The Federal Commissioner was supposed to examine complaints of the slave-owners; he also could appoint marshals, whose function was to arrest fugitive slaves. Along the way, the marshals could apply for assistance to any citizen, and those who refused marshals in this assistance expected high fines or jail. In order to organize the pursuit of fugitive, the owner was required to give a verbal or written confirmation of ownership of this slave. Later, the commissioner solved the matter on his own, without any involvement of the judicial authorities. Practice showed that the salaries of commissioners depended on the nature of the decisions they took. In case the slave was returned to the owner, the commission doubled. The arrested fugitives could not testify in their favor or protect themselves in some other way.

What are you waiting for?
Order with 15% discount NOW!

ORDER NOW

Hence, after the American-Mexican war the United States faced new challenge of satisfying the demands of northern and southern states voting for opposite principles. The institution of slavery was still popular even though many states tried to abolish it. The Senator Stephen A. Douglas was one of the persons who made the acceptation of the Compromise act of 1950 possible despite the flexible policy. Obviously, the act proclaimed some principles that obligated free-of-slavery states deport escaping fugitives back to their owners. On the other hand, the north applied to protection of slaves relying on democracy guarantees provided by same act. Even though south gained good bonuses for agreeing to compromise, the north received more chances to use the agreement in own benefits. However, California as a southern state gained the largest political privilege of being not northern state free of slavery and having more competences as a state.

Related essays