Sectional Compromise Over the Issue of Slavery

The United States of 1850 found itself at a crossroads from many viewpoints; territorially, the nation itself in the preceding several decades had seen a huge increase in size due to such events as the Louisiana Purchase and the like (McPherson, 2001). Along with this progress came the beginning of a pivotal issue that would ultimately threaten to break the new nation in two- the issue of slavery. It has been said that slavery was able to achieve sectional compromise, for example, in 1850 but compromise was nonexistent in 1861 as the Civil War began. This paper will put forth the argument that there was not an instant change from slavery compromise in 1850 to immediate derision in 1861 but rather, in 1850, slavery was actively being opposed, but that opposition took over a decade to blossom.

Socioeconomic Overview of the United States of the 1850s
A full understanding of how the US came to blows over the issue of slavery needs to be prefaced by a discussion of the social and economic fiber of the US in the era of the 1850s. The north and south of the US, as a team of sorts, created an economic powerhouse. The northern US of the 1850s was largely industrialized due to the easy access to many of the raw materials needed for heavy manufacturing, a ready pool of workers, and the sea ports and railroads that were needed to move products not only within the US but worldwide (Kolchin, 2003). The south, on the other hand, was mostly an agricultural region, faced with labor shortages in an industry which required large numbers of physically strong, manual laborers. Therefore, as a matter of financial necessity, the US south turned to the practice of the sale, ownership and trade of African slaves as a readily available, affordable form of labor.

Northern Opposition to Slavery as a Moral and Economic Evil

By the 1850's, slavery was a thriving, commonplace institution in the southern US, but that is not to say that the southern Americans of that time were completely evil people or that slavery in the US was somehow invented by southerners exclusively. Rather, slavery was in existence throughout North America before, and immediately after the foundation of the US as a sort of tradition that was brought from the lands of origin of the early wealthy settlers, including many of the founding fathers of the nation (Kolchin, 2003). With this in mind, it is accurate to say that the compromise over slavery actually began to wear thin by the time 1850 dawned because of a moral and economic awakening in the nation.

Morally, with the increase of the size of the US as was earlier discussed, an influx of new people made their way from the western portions of the US to the north and south as well. Many of these people were devoutly religious, and brought that religion with them from their original homelands. Because most western religions feature the assertion that all people are created equal and deserve to be free, this religious message found its way into the popular mindset of the average person (McPherson, 2001). Also, as the US became more powerful and people embraced the words of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, the fundamental right of all people to be free in itself became a rallying cry for the northerners who wished to see slavery abolished from the southern US altogether.

Economically speaking, the north became convinced that slavery was evil because while the south used slave labor as a major cost savings tool in terms of harvesting crops and so forth, the north, having to pay workers to produce similar goods, found itself unable to sell certain products in its own local areas because southern goods were able to be priced much lower due to almost non-existent labor costs. This, of course, put a huge financial burden on northern businesses domestically and internationally which, if for no other reason, made slavery evil to northern businesspeople.

The Growth of Northern Opposition to Slavery
One of the underpinnings of the Civil War were the differences between the north and south, key among them was the question of slavery, eventually leading to the secession of the southern states from the American union (McPherson, 2001). The north believed in a strong central government, with states being subordinate to that central government (Kolchin, 2003). The south, in stark contrast, believed that states should have the right to act independently of the central government, and that the bulk of the power and freedom should lie in the individual states. In this instance, it can fairly be said that the Civil War was as much as fight for the freedom of all as it was for the freedom of those enslaved.

Southern Sympathies for the Issue of Slavery

Once again, it is critical to understand that it is false to assume that the southern US was totally committed to slavery in 1850, that the northern US was totally tolerant of slavery in 1850, and that the two sides were completely polarized at that time with no objections or questions raised by either side in regard to slavery, and any possible compromise on the question.

When taking a look at legal precedent of 1850 southern US law, there exists examples of efforts to afford rights to freed slaves. For example, a Louisiana court ruled in 1850 that freed slaves could in fact bring legal arguments before any formalized court of the US, thereby giving them a voice to have their concerns and disputes addressed in a fair and balanced manner (Kolchin, 2003). While some may say that this was just a token piece of legal history that ultimately did not do very much to advance the cause of slaves and freed slaves, a closer look into the action reveals some telling details as well as some possible compelling arguments to prove that the compromise over slavery was starting to falter by 1850, and in fact was faltering in the south itself. First, the issue of the fact that this court ruling fell to the advantage of freed slaves is in and of itself quite interesting. This recognition of the possibility that slaves could in fact be freed from bondage can logically be read as a realization on the part of a state in the deep south that slaves can in fact be freed, and likely would continue to be freed in sufficient numbers that they would have enough of a public voice that the legal system would have to address their concerns in an organized fashion. Moreover, by even putting forth one legal right for freed slaves shows that a widespread freedom of slaves was being considered as a real possibility at this time. The bottom line appears to be that the US of 1850 as a whole was beginning to waver on the tolerance of slavery, and that by 1861, the conflict that erupted was not necessarily representative of the voice of all southerners.

Summary

The question of slavery eventually divided a nation and led to years of bloody conflict; in closing, it is fair to say that the moral and economic opposition to slavery on the part of the northern US, begun in 1850 and reaching full power by 1861, was the catalyst that eventually led to the rightful freedom of hundreds of thousands of African Americans.

References

Kolchin, Peter (2003). American Slavery: 1619-1877. New York: Hill and Wang Publishers.

McPherson, James M. (2001). Ordeal by Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction. New York:
McGraw-Hill.