Comparison Of Political Compromises Between 1820 To 1861

The period between 1820 to 1861 saw much internal conflict concerning the United States of America, particularly between the North with New England, the South, and the West with the frontier territories. While one may primarily attribute such “sectional tensions” with slavery, it is imperative that they consider the broad range of topics and issues that were associated with such conflicts. These issues vary, but most include economic hardships by method of protective tariffs imposed by the “tyrannical North”, as from the perspective of both the southern plantation owner and frontier farmer, the awful and brutal act of slavery, as viewed from a Northern abolitionist i.e William Lloyd Garrison, and a lack of feeling represented, a key feature

Notable people like Henry Clay were dubbed compromisers because of their effective works; however, a longer look and analysis at these compromises reveals that while they may be effective short term, these tensions were actually worsening, much like pressure building up inside of a pot used for cooking. On a fundamental scale, these compromises were flawed, the three sections of the country each interpreted them differently and these interpretations resulted in illegal moves (Bloody Kansas), increased conflict (South Carolina’s Nullification Crisis), finally building up to secession from the Union by the South and war. Still though, these compromises did prove beneficial to an extent, as they indirectly gave the population more of a say in their daily life and made life better for those people. When viewing these compromises from the perspective of the different sections, these benefits are purely objective and stand as common ground for all

The North and South were divided on whether or not slavery was permitted to exist. When the Missouri Compromise was made, it maintained balance by “allowing Missouri to enter as a slave state and Maine as a free state”[4]. Such balance was vital, because in the perspective of the North, the better the containment of slavery in the south, the less of a chance that it could spread. Furthermore, in terms of sectional tensions, the Missouri Compromise proved adequate short term. It’s advocation of the rights of citizens gave the people of Missouri the option to create a state government that could “write a state constitution that would permit slavery”[2]. This ability gave more say to the people, increasing the level in democracy, and as a result limiting the sectional tensions between the North, South, and West.
However, where the Missouri Compromise appealed to all the sections of the sections short-term, it falls short severely long term. The Thomas Amendment implicitly proves this,