Compromise, a resolution of a conflict that is achieved only if both sides come to a mutual conscientious, was used to terminate political conflicts. The North and South relied heavily on this aspect since they had two distinct perspectives regarding slavery. However, compromise did not have the great effect as it was visioned because it furthered tension between the North and South by rewarding the South fully with slavery. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 initially was seen as just because there was a 36°30 N line established to balance the amount of free and slave states. However, slavery was prohibited in the leftovers of the Louisiana Purchase which angered the South. The South used slaves for cash since slaves' labor stimulated their economy. Though, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 formed by President Jackson was applied to gain land from the Native Americans in the East which some of the South used. The South still gained access to land to put more slaves to work thus gratifying them. Additionally, the North and South reached another issue regarding runaway slaves in 1850. …show more content…
It required both sides to seek fugitives which went against the North's belief and caused them to be under the impression of being part of the slave system. Slavery was considered morally wrong to them and they made many attempts to have it abolished. Comparatively, the South received slaves and were seen as possessing a free pass. The Compromise of 1850 included this law along with the abolishment of the slave trade in the District of Columbia hoping to have pleased the North and South. In contrast, the North disunited even more based off of the favoritism towards the South. The government continued to stress the importance of compromise through the Kansas-Nebraska Act and Crittenden Compromise but