Moya 1

Jesus Moya

Contemporary Composition

Miss Dormizzi

18 May 2011

1850’s Slavery

“By the 1850’s the Constitution, originally framed as an

instrument of national unity, had become a source of sectional discord

and tension and ultimately contributed to the failure of the union it had

created,” is a very superficial way to look at the 1850’s. Although the

Constitution was based off of life in the 1770’s, the main causes for the

failure of the union are linked to slavery. Last ditch efforts were made,

such as the Compromise of 1850, to try and keep the union intact.

Slavery is an issue that cannot be resolved by men in the 1850’s given

the constitution as a tool to base their political standings on slavery.

The problem is that the government cannot or has not done anything,

to abolish slavery up until the 1850’s. Many different events actually

show that through the power of the constitution there were efforts to

unify the nation time and again.

One major event that happened in 1850 is the Compromise of

1850. Now many may say that with the giants of the day Clay,

Webster, and Calhoun’s inevitable death coming, the nation may be

 Moya 2

sectioned off once again such as the time before the Era of Good

Feelings. The Compromise of 1850’s stated that California would be

admitted as a free state. This proposition was attacked because of its

flail structure and one sidedness. Now allowing for attack, these new

measures would prove to be weak and short lived.

 Moya 3

(“Lincoln/Net: United States in 1850”)

The next step towards the abolishment of slavery was the

Fugitive Slave Law. Congressmen knowing that the south would be

furious thought it out and with the help of Stephen Douglas passed the

Fugitive Slave Law. This is a small step from the north trying to meet

the south halfway. They also let the Utah and New Mexico territory the

flexibleness of popular sovereignty by Lewis Cass. Cass was the

preacher of popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty would mean the

territories would be decided if free or slave by the people settled in the

area. This gives merely hope to the south of slavery in these

territories. Of course there is always the opposition to opinion and

every law is an opinion, so there are those that called themselves Free-

Soilers. These men lived by the Wilmot Proviso, which did not allow

blacks at all in the Mexican annexed territories. The only fault is that

the Wilmot Proviso failed to pass approval. The Fugitive Slave Law was

accepted to a certain degree in the north. Of course the north did not

completely accept it but thought that the south did have rights to their

“property.”
 Moya 4

(Caution!! Colored People, 1851)

The north does seem to work with the south but they have to live

by some rules defined by the founding fathers because “without a

living, vital Constitution is but a vain and empty name.” Of course the

north thought of it as all men are created equal but the south had just

the rights of the state and the north gave them some opportunities to

exercise that right. Since the word slave is not in the Constitution, why

stuff it with their narrow-minded perspectives of their own ideal

interpretation. As George Fitzhugh, a proslavery author, argued for

“equal rights [for] unequal men” (Smith 5). Arguing with Fitzhugh is

William Lloyd Garrison saying that the word slave is not in the

constitution and therefore should be based off moral and ethical values

(Buffum 7). Also, Daniel Webster does help out the cause with his

invigorating speeches. This is one of through his Webster-Hayne

 Moya 5

debates:

This is the sum of what I understand from him to be the South Carolina doctrine,

and the doctrine which he maintains. I propose to consider it, and compare it with the

Constitution. Allow me to say, as a preliminary remark, that I call this the South Carolina

doctrine only because the gentleman himself has so denominated it. I do not feel at liberty

to say that South Carolina, as a State, has ever advanced these sentiments. I hope she has

not, and never may. That a great majority of her people are opposed to the tariff laws, is

doubtless true. That a majority, somewhat less than that just mentioned, conscientiously

believe that these laws are unconstitutional, may probably also be true. But that any

majority holds the right of direct State interference at State discretion, the right of

nullifying acts of Congress by acts of State legislation, is more than I know, and what I

shall be slow to believe... (Webster 33).

Abraham Lincoln is known for not taking a stance in the slavery

issue (“July 4th Message to Congress”).

The Compromise of 1850 was not a sure fire way to stop slavery

or make everyone happy. It was more of a last resort, an experimental

way to handle real life problems. This proved to be fatal and somewhat

premature in execution. Each of the compromises was easily overcome

by people and was overlooked in their power. These were poor

attempts to try and reunify the country.

Works Cited
 Moya 6

Buffum, Arnold, and William Lloyd Garrison. Constitution of the New-England Anti-

Slavery Society with an Address to the Public. Boston: Printed by Garrison and

Knapp, 1832. Print.

"Caution!! Colored People, 1851." The Thomas A. Edison Papers. Web. 24 May 2011.

<http://edison.rutgers.edu/latimer/caution.htm>.

"July 4th Message to Congress (July 4, 1861)." Miller Center of Public Affairs. Web. 24

May 2011. <http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/3508>.

"Lincoln/Net: United States in 1850." Abraham Lincoln Historical Digitization Project.

Web. 24 May 2011.

<http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/gal/us_1850_slvstatus_053101_400.html>.

"The Second Reply to Hayne (January 26-27, 1830)." Dartmouth College. Web. 24 May

2011. <http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dwebster/speeches/hayne-speech.html>.

Smith, Rogers M. Beyond Tocqueville, Myrdal, and Hartz: The Multiple Traditions in

America. Web. 23 May 2011.

<http://www.la.wayne.edu/polisci/kdk/nationalism/sources/nationalism_rsmith.pd

f>.

Webster, Daniel, and Solomon Alofsen. Reply to Hayne a Speech. New York: H.H.

Lloyd &, 25 Howard St., 1861. Print.