The world society had a difficult pass from making decisions in the way of enforcement to discussing them with every side involved. That is how the concept of governance was developed in time, starting from inevitable violence and ending with the complex system of the global politics – so complex that it turned into the set of games, the battle of minds and strategies. Although the main purpose of these games began to consist rather in a draw since the general methods of problem solving have become more or less liberal, history knows many examples of when somebody’s victory or defeat was just skillfully hidden behind the idea of equality.
One of the appropriate illustrations is the case of so-called Compromise of 1850 in America – the situation when two opposite opinions battled for the question of slavery on the territories got from war with Mexico. Despite the fact that both North and South had to achieve seemingly equal benefits from the set of laws, the time then showed that the North got more of them.
To start off, for every country or its part the acquisition of the new territories has always meant the prevalence in power. The case of the Compromise and California, which was added to the north part of America, namely the Union, was not an exception from the rules. In his famous speech to the president, Senator Henry Clay provided several resolutions on the problem, one of which stated the following:
Resolved, That California, with suitable boundaries, ought, upon her application to be admitted as one of the States of this Union, without the imposition by Congress of any restriction in respect to the exclusion or introduction of slavery within those boundaries. (244)
That did not actually mean the total collapse of the idea of slavery in California; neither did it support it. The suggestion of Clay was so wisely compounded that looked like a compromise at the first glance. However, as long as California began to flourish, making the decision concerning the acceptance of slavery became rather immediate than postponed. As Finkelman argues, the inhabitants of the territory had quite a formed opinion:
While this issue festered, the California gold rush brought about 100,000 settlers there, making California eligible for immediate statehood. With fewer than a thousand blacks in California – most of whom were not slaves – the settlers there demanded immediate admission to the Union as a free state. (857)
Hence, the Compromise simply allowed California to be free from slavery, and it used its chance. Moreover, it was not just a temporary win for the North. Historians claim that this law was a key point of its victory in the Civil War, as long as every single year from 1850 made the contribution into the advancement of the territories and strengthening of the northerners’ power.
Secondly, the deportation of the fugitives enlightened in the Fugitive Slave Act was considered to be one of the prime aspects among southerners’ achievements. According to its content, all the slaves that run away from their hosts had to be returned to continue working; the wardens could get a profit of 10 or 5 dollars if decisions of returning their slaves back to the bondage or an exemption respectively had been made (“The Fugitive Slave Law” par.2).
As it can be deduced, the system was indeed well-thought and structured. However, hardly did the southerners realize that they would be deprived of their highest triumph. Finkelman points out that “the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 outraged the North because it was so antithetical to American values of justice, fairness, and due process.” (855). A series of laws that were intended to protect so-called “personal liberty” was triggered by the northerners, and this wave was then hard to stop and withstand (“The Fugitive Slave Law” par. 4).
All things considered, the Compromise of 1850 had genuinely great impact on the further course of events in America. Virtually, that law did not match its name since the compromise does not allow for a superiority, which was indisputably peculiar to what northerners obtained from the deal. They managed to throw the bait in the right time and the right place, and cleverly rummage out the strategic benefits, accurately and insensibly fettering the rods of the southerners.
From the viewpoint of those days, the representatives of the North succeeded due to both instantaneous and far-reaching perspectives of the slavery abolishment, which was a remarkable donation to the determination of the history of the following centuries. Nevertheless, if one contemplated on the winners and the losers now, he would certainly find out that it was nothing more than the necessary step of the evolution of humanity; it was more about the victory of the idea for the fulfilment of which all the terrible things have been done.
Works Cited
Clay, Henry. “The Slavery Question.” Congressional Globe. 1850: 244. Print.
Finkelman, Paul. “The Cost of Compromise and the Covenant with Death.” Pepperdine Law Review. 38.5 (2011):845-888. Digital Commons. Web.
The Fugitive Slave Law. 2014. Web.