ARE COMPROMISES A GOOD THING? YES ABLE TO SATISFY BOTH SIDES AVOID CONFLICT OR WAR NO SIMPLY PUT THE SLAVERY ISSUE ON THE SHELF CIVIL WAR RESULTS ANYWAY
Constitutional Convention Despite beliefs of unalienable rights for all men, the founders had to compromise their views when it came to the slavery issue. A COLONIAL SLAVE-MARKET IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY
Northern View Need an American Policy that will support our UNITED States of America Stimulate our industry and protect our factories We cannot support foreign trade Better to buy American- will keep money in America Protect against the dependence on foreign goods by a tariff
Western View Tariff opposition from cotton and tobacco planters in the South Trade without a protective tariff will result in MISERY, BANKRUPTCY, and, RUIN. We buy from abroad everything we eat, drink and wear Factories of the New England states need to succeed to buy wheat, corn, and hogs form the western farmers
Southern View Foreign cotton is serving as a major competition to our domestic cotton It is British policy to buy cotton that buys the most manufactured goods from them The protective tariff will destroy our cotton economy as it will result in ending trade between the British and the United States Favors the interests of the northern factory system only
Reactions South Carolina’s Exposition and Protest Force Bill of 1832 Compromise of 1833
Despite the resolution of the Tariff of 1833 and the nullification of the Force Act, Calhoun states his fear that, “the struggle, so far from being over,” had just begun.
The wedge between the North and South was deepened…
COMPROMISE OF 1850 New land after war with Mexico Clay is back CA free state UT and NM = popular sovereignty D.C. = slave trade abolished Congress would not interfere with interstate slave trade Strict Fugitive Slave Act
Passage of this law was so hated by abolitionists that its existence played a role in the end of slavery a little more than a dozen years later. This law also spurred the continued operation of the fabled Underground Railroad. Fugitive Slave Act 1850
“SEC. 7. And be it further enacted, That any person who shall knowingly and willingly obstruct, hinder, or prevent such claimant, his agent or attorney, or any person or persons lawfully assisting him, her, or them, from arresting such a fugitive from service or labor, …shall, for either of said offences, be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisonment not exceeding six months…”
“a law which no man can obey without the loss of self respect” -Ralph Waldo Emerson
KANSAS- NEBRASKA ACT 1854 Opening new territories to slavery by popular sovereignty offset the balance between slave and free states. The abolitionists would not stand for it.
BLEEDING KANSAS Free Soilers – anti-slavery settlers who moved into the area to vote against slavery Pro-slavery forces from Missouri went across the border to vote in Kansas Both sides resort to violence
Dred Scott Case (1856) ･ Any person descended from black Africans, whether slave or free, is not a citizen of the United States, according to the U.S. Constitution. ･ The Ordinance of 1787 could not confer freedom or citizenship within the Northwest Territory to Black people. ･ The provisions of the Act of 1820, known as the Missouri Compromise, were voided as a legislative act because the act exceeded the powers of Congress, insofar as it attempted to exclude slavery and impart freedom and citizenship to Black people in the northern part of the Louisiana cession.In effect, the Court ruled that slaves had no claim to freedom; they were property and not citizens; they could not bring suit in federal court; and because slaves were private property, the federal government could not revoke a white slave owner's right to own a slave based on where he lived, thus nullifying the essence of the Missouri Compromise. Chief Justice Taney, speaking for the majority, also ruled that Scott was a slave, an object of private property, and therefore subject to the Fifth Amendment prohibition against taking property from its owner "without due process." U.S. ConstitutionFifth Amendment The court ruled 7 to 2 against Scott, finding that he held no property and therefore was not entitled to file suit in a federal court.The case raised the issue of a slave's freedom when he was in a free state. Congress had not asserted whether slaves were free once they stepped foot on Northern soil. The ruling arguably violated the Missouri Compromise because, based on the court's logic, a white slave owner could purchase slaves in a slave state and then bring his slaves to a state where slavery was illegal without losing rights to the slaves.Missouri Compromise
Now, if it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice, and mingle my blood further with the blood of my children and with the blood of millions in this slave country whose rights are disregarded by wicked, cruel, and unjust enactments - I submit - so let it be done!
“A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe that this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become either all one thing or another.”