Words: 471
The Compromise of 1850 was effective for the southern states even though California was a slave free state in 1849 when California joined the union. (1) Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois managed to push this agreement for California to enter the Union as a free state but there were concessions made to slave owners about other acquisitions. (1)With this result the people in the southern states felt a relief of tension and a cause for celebration. This gave the southerners the right to retain slaves in those territories. (1) Congress cried “The Union is Saved! (2) The Compromise had five bills which was intended to stave off sectional strife. The goal was on to deal with the spread of slavery to territories which in turn to keep northern and southern interests in balance. (2) One of these new bills was the Fugitive Slave Act which enlisted federal magistrates in the task of returning the runaway slaves back to their owners. (2) Another bill was New Mexico and Utah were allowed to use popular sovereignty to decide on the issues of slavery. This meant that the people would pick whether the states would be a free or slave state. 2) Also, one of the other bills was that the slave trade be abolished in the District of Columbia. The ineffectiveness of the Compromise of 1850 was ultimately it led to a Republican victory in 1860 and to the Southern secession. Also, it led so much more animosity between the North and South. (3) The Kansas ??? Nebraska Act was a piece of legislation and Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois was their spokesperson, this was partly because he supported the construction of a transcontinental railroad which linked Chicago to California. (4) But, for this act to be effective it was necessary to repeal the Missouri Compromise.
As well as the boundary restrictions on the territorial extension of slavery that was in place with the Missouri Compromise. This act wasn’t effective and because it was ineffective. This act did not lead to the peaceful settlement of issues that it was intended to. There was violence in Kansas because the antislavery and proslavery proponents disagreed and they were violent in their disagreements. And it undermined the effectiveness of this sovereignty doctrine. Two opposing acts of government was established during this time and the violence and destruction still occurred.
There was even an attack on the town of Lawrence which was an antislavery town. John Brown who was an abolitionist as well as his followers ended up killing five settlers who advocated slavery. This is where the phrase Bleeding Kansas derived from. The war in Kansas took almost two hundred lives. So I would have to believe that this act was ineffective. Works Cited 1. www. vectorsite. com, 1. 4 The Compromise Of 1850 2. www. americanhistoryabout. com 3. Henretta, Brody, Dumenil, America’s History, 2008 4. www. encyclopedia. com Kansas-Nebraska Act