The Democrats’ were considered the protector of the common man. Yet when the question of allowing slavery to spread to the west, the Northern and Southern Democrats had different views. Southern Democrats advocated for slavery to expand along with the new territories. Northern Democrats worried that plantation owners would claim all the land leaving little for anyone else. Northern Democrats did not approve of slavery, although their motives were racist and self-serving. They knew if slavery was allowed in the new territories the African American population would be extensive, and living with them was not something they desired. The Southern Democrats wanted to preserve their plantation way of life, therefore they argued to allow slavery in the new territories. These …show more content…
The Free Soil Party had a slightly different argument, the felt that the southern slave owners stifled the progress of the North. They too were racist and did not care to live and share land with blacks. Claiming for free soil, labor, speech, and men but not to do away with slavery. Keeping the slaves in southern plantations meant keeping them out of their way. A compromise was needed after President Taylor granted statehood to California and New Mexico without addressing slavery. This action sent southern politicians into a panic, thinking that the citizens of California would vote it a free state and the rest of the western territories would do the same. The Compromise of 1850 was created by Henry Clay in an attempt to push back a national crisis. In the compromise California would remain a free state, and the remaining land would be split into New Mexico and Utah. They would remain open to slavery until they were admitted to the Union, then state legislatures could vote on the issue (Schultz, n.d.) Slave auctions would be banned in Washington D.C. Texas could not influence New Mexico and they would receive $10