Sectional Compromises in the 19th Century

Sectional Compromises in the 19th Century

There are two mind paths to choose when considering the statement that the compromises of the 1800s were not really compromises, but sectional sellouts by the North, that continually gave in to the South's wishes. The first is that the compromises really were compromises, and the second is that the compromises were modes of the North selling out. Really, there is only one correct mind path of these two, and that is that the North sold out during these compromises and gave the South what it wanted for minimal returns. The three main compromises of the 19th century, the compromises of 1820 (Missouri) and 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 each were ways for the south to gain more power so that eventually, it could secede. First, the Missouri Compromise of 1820 established the slavery line that allowed slavery below it and forbid slavery above it. It also gave the South another slave state in Missouri and the north a free state in Maine. Although each region gained a state in the Senate, the south benefited most from the acquisition because Missouri was in such a pivotal position in the country, right on the border. Later on with the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854, Missouri had a big role in getting Kansas to vote south because many proslavery Missourians crossed the border into Kansas to vote slavery. The Missouri Compromise also helped slavery because the line that was formed to limit slavery had more land below the line than above it. Therefore, slavery was given more land to be slave and therefore more power in the Senate, when the territories became state. In effect, the north got the short end of the stick and the south was given the first hint of being able to push around the north. The interesting thing is, the north agreed to all these provisions that would clearly benefit the south. Likewise, the Compromise of 1850 was made to benefit both regions but really only benefited the south. The north got their wish, which was California to be admitted free, but other than that, the only beneficial provision was the abolishment of slavery auctions in Washington, D.C. This promise really didn't do anything but move the Washington slave auctions to Arlington, across the river in Virginia. Texas' boundary was limited in this compromise, but then the government paid Texas $10 million, which eventually went towards the southern cause. Also, a stronger fugitive slave law was passed, which just helped slavery because it forced the north to accept that it was a functioning system and promoted the growth due to the slaves being returned so they can produce more slaves. The compromise additionally made the New Mexico and Utah territories open to slavery. Even though they weren't influential territories, it still showed the southern dominance over the north. In fact, all of these provisions showed southern dominance over the north. They got what they wanted and allowed the south to have whatever it wanted. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 also benefited the south and showed the north's inability to fight for what was considered by the abolitionists as right. This act erased the Missouri Compromise line, allowing all territories to be open to slavery. This upset the north because it meant that slavery could be allowed in the north where the majority of people didn't approve of it. Then, if the territories allowed it, the entire plains section of the country could be slave. This act was then considered proslavery, and if the northern politicians were so against slavery, they could have prevented it. However, they had already been pushed around so much that they couldn't hold their own and allowed it to be passed.

These three major acts all show that the north became weaker after the compromises, and it also ‘sold out,' so to speak, by letting the south have anything it wanted after it got what it wanted. In 1820, the north wanted a free state and got it. In 1850, the north wanted California and got it. In each of these instances, the north gave the south more provisions that helped them and left satisfied with another free state. They were, for the majority, fighting for the abolition of slavery, and in each compromise, they didn't succeed in getting any abolition provisions passed, only more free state provisions. The north was totally unsuccessful in any effort at all to abolish slavery in these compromises, and they allowed the south to push them around. They were weak and could not hold their own in the political circles.

In the first fifty years of the 19th century, the North and South constantly fought over the question of slavery- where it should be allowed, who should be allowed to harbor it, and what should be done about the rights of those enslaved. As a solution to these recurrent arguments, several compromises were made. However, the statement, "The sectional compromises of the first half of the 19th century were not in fact compromises but rather a ‘sectional sellout' in which the North gave in to the insistent demands of the slaveholding South," is partially true, because as the years wore on, the North gradually sacrificed more and more in order to keep the Union together. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was the first compromise of the 1800's, and both sections of the country ended up being somewhat satisfied. The balance of slave/free states was equal, and slavery was not permitted above the 36°30' line. The North didn't really have to give up much during this first compromise, because both sides were able to agree without too much fuss. However, in 1833, the North gave in to South Carolina's demands in the Tariff Compromise of 1833 just to keep the state happy. The North, unlike the South, was concerned about keeping the U.S. together during these difficult times. If that meant making a few sacrifices, then so be it. The United States, after all, was supposed to be united under one flag. The northerners definitely gave in to "the insistent demands" of the South in making the Compromise of 1850. The only thing they received was the promise of no auction block selling in the nation's capital, and the addition of California as a free state. The South's gains were even greater. Although the North went along with the stronger fugitive slave law on paper, they tried to fight it as much as they could in practice without greatly upsetting the South. Nevertheless, they were upset. Like a spoiled, whining child, the South protested that the North was violating the Compromise of 1850; an unthinkable crime. And still the North, the ever-submissive parent, only wanting peace, surrendered more. The Kansas-Nebraska Act, the last straw for northerners fed up with "compromise", got rid of the one thing the North was somewhat pleased with- the 1820 compromise. The North gained absolutely nothing. They didn't want slavery above the 36°30' parallel, and as it turned out, the Missouri Compromise became useless. The South was a greedy slaveholding monster, fighting for more and more slave territory and they were only satisfied if they got their way. Up until the mid-nineteenth century, the North was fairly lenient in compromising. Oftentimes, they let the South have the upper hand, especially in the Tariff Compromise of 1833 and the Compromise of 1850. Did the North give "in to the insistent demands of the slaveholding South"? Yes, they did. Yet the South was not grateful at all for this. They responded, in 1860, by seceding from the United States.