The Compromised of 1850 and Kansas-Nebraska Act

474 Words2 Pages
The Compromise of 1850 was effective in what it was designed to do. The Compromise of 1850 was designed to keep the Union together, and it succeeded. However, there was much about this bill that was completely unfair to slaves and freed slaves in the freed states. Like most political bills and compromises, it was a combination of bad and good. In the bill, Texas gave up all the land that today makes up Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. They received ten million dollars for it. There was no mention of slavery when the territories were set up. That was to be determined later by the states themselves. Washington D.C. would no longer be permitted to trade in slavery, but slavery was still permitted in the Capitol. California was admitted to the Union as a free state, as they had requested. Now, the bad part of the compromise would begin. In order to secure the agreement of the other politicians, they passed what came to be known as the Fugitive Slave Act. This was a disaster for the country. Fugitive slaves were denied the right to a trial by jury. Instead, their case were handled by commissioners. However, the system was crooked and set against slaves from the beginning. If a slave was freed, the commissioner was paid five dollars. If he was found to be guilty, he was paid ten dollars. It mandated that citizens were required to help recover fugitive slaves. While the Compromise did what it was intended to, which was help keep the United States together, it incited a fury in abolitionists and anti-slavers. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was an absolute failure. The whole point of this law was to repeal the Missouri Compromise of 1820. This Act outlawed slavery north of latitude 36, 30. Therefore, when Kansas and Nebraska were to be admitted to the Union, they should have come onboard as free states. The Kansas-Nebraska Act declared that the people of the states
Open Document