Why Was Henry Clay Compromize Slavery Abolished?

The question of slavery expanding or being terminated has been a question that has been asked all throughout the antebellum period. Yet, all through that period it was never answered. Conflict between abolishing slavery which was fought for by the Northerners and preserving slavery, fought for by the Southerners has spiked as time has gone on. Though, each plan that was designed to make a compromise between the two conflicting arguments has just seemed to arouse the fighters even more. For example, The WIlmot Proviso Act was shot down by opposed Southerners, the Compromise of 1850 infuriated both argumentative sides, and the secession of South Carolina angered and feared Northerners. With every new act or establishment that came rolling our

There was one that would frustrate and aggravate many on both sides of the states. This was a domino effect that would arise from the unsolved Wilmot Proviso. This domino would fall right onto the Compromise of 1850. California was a new state that wanted to enter the Union as a free state but this would upset the balance once again of free states to slave states. Southerners were afraid this would cause the abolition in slavery and this made Northerners very happy. So to solve the issue Henry Clay who before proposed the Missouri Compromise came with the new idea of the Compromise of 1850. With the help of Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas, they were able to pass it. Though the compromise came with some unsettling prices that neither of the state's sides liked. The compromise included one to allow California to enter the Union as a free state. Second to organize the remaining land from Mexico into two large territories Utah and New Mexico and let the people decide on whether to allow slavery or not. The third agreement was they would discontinue the slave trade in Washington D.C. Lastly, they would strengthen the fugitive slave law by requiring Northerners to return runaway slaves to souther owners. The Compromised pleased few and only infuriated many. Northerners hated the idea of returning runaway slaves that were not free to turning them back into

While on his deathbed with tuberculous he had his friend senator James Mason of Virginia, read his speech. He argued the fact that slavery was breaking the Union so he suggested a constitutional amendment to have two presidents, one for the South and one for the North. This debate was although rejected his idea would live on. This created three different views towards what South Carolina should do. All groups did support slavery, their attitudes towards the Union were very different. On one end of the spectrum was the secessionists, called “fire-eaters” who passionately believed that South Carolina should secede from the Union no matter what. Unionists were on the other side of the spectrum where they were unhappy with the compromise, and they think it is best to stay with the Union. In the middle you will find cooperationists who felt that the secession was good thing as long as other southern states would join them. Then they started to have state conventions and southern conventions to decide what to do in the response of the Compromise of 1850. South Carolina was very enthusiastic about these conventions, while other states did not take it as a big deal. The we would see that unionists and copestiinist were starting to speak out against the fire-eaters. When there was planning to be another general meeting on the issue it was clear that other southern states were not