that any territory obtained from Mexico would be closed to slavery. The voices of an increasingly vocal and influential group of New England and Midwest abolitionists demanded a final reckoning with the South. The abolitionists felt that containing slavery only to where it currently existed (so that it would eventually die out) was a step in the right direction, but the only solution was destroying the institution altogether. As long as slavery existed, they believed, the future health of the republic was in danger. Allowing slavery to expand into the new territories would only lengthen the life of the institution, and in the end it would destroy the democratic base upon which the nation had been founded. Abolitionists and their supporters spoke darkly of the “slave power,” a tyrannical, satanic entity in the South that sought to undermine and overwhelm the North. Southerners responded by loudly defending slavery as a positive good, benefitting both masters and slaves alike.
Playing a Part in the Controversy: The Constitution
Since the founding of the United States, the South had maintained a strong hold on political power of the country. This situation often insulated the South and kept the slavery question out of the national dialogue, while also allowing Southern leaders to shape the national agenda. Over time, however, the growing population (nearly half of which lived across the Appalachian Mountains in 1860) gave Northern states proportionately more representatives in the House of Representatives. In addition, between 1846 and 1855, three million immigrants came to America; nearly 90 percent of them settled in states that did not have slaves. By this time, the balance of power had slipped away permanently from the South in the House of Representatives.
Struggling for Power
Southerners sought to preserve the political status quo. By the 1850s the Senate became the only legislative body on which the South could rely to maintain a balance of power. Because every state had two senators, regardless of population (so says Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution), Southern senators could block anti-slavery legislation coming from the Northern majority in the House of Representatives. Increasingly, bills were introduced into the House proposing all sorts of measures to end slavery or limit its expansion any further. So, for the ten years between 1850 and 1860, the North and the South waged a political struggle to gain an advantage or maintain the current balance of power by bringing in new states allied with one region or the other.
Amassing states: The political stakes involved
The political stakes were high for both sides (something like the end of a Monopoly game): Whoever had the most states at the end of the contest would have a majority of representatives in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Whichever side could do this could dictate the agenda for the country and determine the nation’s future. For the South, political power meant ironclad protection for slavery and the agrarian way of life. For the North, gaining control of the country meant securing progress and prosperity through an urban-industrial-agricultural alliance based on free labor. As the differences between the sections sharpened, neither side believed it could afford to give up power or control.
As long as the number of states in the Union remained the same, there would always be a relative balance between slave and non-slave (free) states. As the population of the United States moved westward and unsettled territories filled with people, however, new states were being created and admitted into the Union. The existence of these new states raised the political stakes. The focus of sectional conflict soon rested on determining which new states would be admitted as either a slave or a free state, while also maintaining the equal balance between slave and free states. It was a daunting political problem.
Entering the Union: The politics of compromise, 1850
As new settlers poured into California seeking gold in 1849, the debate began in Congress over how the new state should enter the Union. At this time, Congress was equally balanced in representation between slave and non-slave states. Thirty years earlier, Congress had avoided a crisis by admitting two states, one allowing slavery (Missouri) and one without slavery (Maine). However, in this instance, California’s admission as a new state would tip the balance of power in favor of one region or another, most likely for the North, adding more members in the House and further building the Northern majority there, while also adding two senators, which would likely give the North control of the Senate.
California: The Compromise of 1850
The original outline of the compromise surrounding California’s admission was the product of three political giants of their time — Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, Henry Clay of Kentucky, and John C. Calhoun of South Carolina.
Under the compromise, California entered the Union as a free state (no slavery allowed). This pleased Northerners, but they were shocked to find that California’s elected representatives supported the South. The compromise also allowed the territories of Utah and New Mexico to be organized as states in the future with or without slavery, depending on what the state constitution said. The South, initially pleased, soon discovered that very few people, let alone slaves, were entering into these territories, certainly not enough to organize either one as a state for some time. Eventually, both territories did allow slavery to exist, but did so on the brink of war in 1860.
The Fugitive Slave Law
For Southerners to accept California as a free state with its potential shift of power to the North, the Congress took action to involve more Americans in sustaining the institution of slavery. The Fugitive Slave Law mandated that states return fugitive slaves to their owners. The law gave federal officers the power to capture suspected fugitive slaves and provided severe penalties for those who harbored or protected a fugitive slave. At the time, the Fugitive Slave Law was seen as a throwaway concession to the South, but it was extremely unpopular in the North because many citizens viewed the arbitrary seizure of an individual by federal law enforcement as a violation of basic individual rights and a threatening symbol of the slave power’s evil influence on freedom in America. Federal officers attempting to arrest or transfer suspected fugitive slaves (this meant virtually any Black person — there was no way to determine who was legally free and who was not) were often met with violent resistance from citizens. The law simply could not be enforced, leading Southerners to decry the lawlessness of mob rule in the North.
D.C. is free
The last part of the compromise was largely symbolic, a throwaway concession to Northerners who were offended that slavery existed within the District of Columbia, an area under federal control.
