did the compromise resolve the slavery issue? explain?
928410
According to the compromise, Texas would relinquish the land in dispute but, in compensation, be given 10 million dollars -- money it would use to pay off its debt to Mexico. Also, the territories of New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah would be organized without mention of slavery. (The decision would be made by the territories' inhabitants later, when they applied for statehood.) Regarding Washington, the slave trade would be abolished in the District of Columbia, although slavery would still be permitted. Finally, California would be admitted as a free state. To pacify slave-state politicians, who would have objected to the imbalance created by adding another free state, the Fugitive Slave Act was passed.\n\nOf all the bills that made up the Compromise of 1850, the Fugitive Slave Act was the most controversial. It required citizens to assist in the recovery of fugitive slaves. It denied a fugitive's right to a jury trial. (Cases would instead be handled by special commisioners -- commisioners who would be paid $5 if an alleged fugitive were released and $10 if he or she were sent away with the claimant.) The act called for changes in filing for a claim, making the process easier for slaveowners. Also, according to the act, there would be more federal officials responsible for enforcing the law.\n\nFor slaves attempting to build lives in the North, the new law was disaster. Many left their homes and fled to Canada. During the next ten years, an estimated 20,000 blacks moved to the neighboring country. For Harriet Jacobs, a fugitive living in New York, passage of the law was "the beginning of a reign of terror to the colored population." She stayed put, even after learning that slave catchers were hired to track her down. Anthony Burns, a fugitive living in Boston, was one of many who were captured and returned to slavery. Free blacks, too, were captured and sent to the South. With no legal right to plead their cases, they were completely defenseless.\n\nPassage of the Fugitive Slave Act made abolitionists all the more resolved to put an end to slavery. The Underground Railroad became more active, reaching its peak between 1850 and 1860. The act also brought the subject of slavery before the nation. Many who had previously been ambivalent about slavery now took a definitive stance against the institution. \n\nThe Compromise of 1850 accomplished what it set out to do -- it kept the nation united -- but the solution was only temporary. Over the following decade the country's citizens became further divided over the issue of slavery. The rift would continue to grow until the nation itself divided.
532664
OSome do but I did not have that problem. Yes many suffer from the effects of slavery. I came across this trying to figure out some of the conditions that blacks are in today. When I traced it's origins it does go back to slavery and segregation. Here's what Dr. king had to say\n\n"Whenever this issue [compensatory treatment] is raised, some of our friends(Whites) recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race three hundred years after another man, the second would have to perform some incredible feat in order to catch up." \n"A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis." \n"... for 15 centuries the Negro was enslaved and robbed of any wages — potential accrued wealth which would have been the legacy of his descendants."
563680
They didn't do a lot except give the blacks the right to vote, made them citizens and something else I don't know.\nIf I was you I will say that it didn't unify the culture using the following:\n1 The southerners had literacy tests and etc to keep black from voting. \n2 most of the blacks thus ended up becoming sharecroppers under white elites. See so no unification. \n3 Separate but equal segregation later on completely destroyed the meaning of these amendments by going around them and making blacks less equal. \nHope that helps.
283913
If the government was going to pay descendants of former slaves, this would lead to a series of problems.\n\n1. How does the government tell who was a descendant of a former slave and who immigrated after the Civil War?\n\n2. If we are going to pay descendents of slave reparations, what about all the families (like mine) who sacrificed everything running underground railroads? These, mostly white, families often lost EVERYTHING, including their lives, when the bounty-hunters and pro-slavery forces found out who ran a station.\n\n3. What about every other indentured servant or forced laborer and their descendants?\n\n4. Who will pay for this? What about descendants of people who never owned slaves or fought against those who did?  Why should they pay?  What about those who came to America after the Civil War?  Also, since the money from the government comes from taxes, how do we know "who" exactly paid?  How do we know the descendant of a slave is just not paying more taxes to pay themselves?\n\n5. How much is the per capita reparation?  What should each person get?  Will we need, yet another, expensive bureaucracy to manage it?\n\n6. Is this a one time payment or an installment?  If so, then for how long?  Does this reparation mean other assistance programs are discontinued?  If so, which ones? Does this payment continue from generation to generation or just the current generation?  If not, why not?  If so, why?\n\n7. Should we not then demand that EVERY nation which ever held slaves or participated in their trade be forced to pay reparations?  Would it matter if they were not the same country, or a country at all, when it happened?  What about Italy who, when they were the Romans had slaves fight to the death?  What about the Greeks, or the Egyptians, or the Philistines (Palestinians), or the Syrians, or the Chinese, or pick a country? What about the Dutch who had a large role in the slave trade?  Do they not owe reparations as an accomplice in the African slavery issue?  What about the tribes in Africa who helped the Dutch get slaves?  What about those that still own slaves in Africa (Sudan is the center of modern slave trading)?\n\nThese are just a few of the questions this issue raises.
289142
happy do do your home work for you\n1. Reperesentation there were 3 plans pushed the Virginia plan(big states) the  New Jersey plan(small states) and the Connecticut compromise which balanced the powere\n2. Commerce between states\n3. the issue of slavery
23933
During the 1850s, the compromise over land had made the country divided. Not only was it due to slavery, it was the lack of state's rights (that differ from the federal government). President Andrew Jackson even argued with his Vice President that states do not have any reason to disband from the country and its rules after the states have signed the ultimate contract, the Declaration of Independence. The secession of South Carolina demonstrated the frustrations of state's rights and slavery disputes.\n\nIf you need to cite any failed compromises, the biggest one that could be used would be the Missouri Compromise. It was eventually considered as a failure once Dred-Scott jurisdiction contested with it.
886548
Yo...E.I...the people who signed the constitution weren't thinking about equality for their slaves were they?\n\nThe founding fathers probably never would have thought that society would have developed into what it has become...but...they layed the basic principle of what our county was founded on....equal treatment for all....even though they didn't practice equal treatment,  they were themselves slaves to their society. It was accepted to have slaves at that time period...but eventually common sense kicked in and after a little cival war,  slavery became abolished.  \n\nEventually homosexuals will have equal treatment in this country...it's just a matter of time...idiots like you will fade away...and common sense will prevail.
916326
The US civil war was about states' rights and how the federal government trampled all over them.  The slavery issue was added by the Union to keep the British out of the war because they sided with the South.
309233
Didn't know that slavery was classed as an institution??  It divided the whole country and caused a terrible war.  It also made human beings treat others like animals.
48705
It was mostly political, the abolition movement was very strong in the north, and obviouslty opposed in the south being it powered their mostly agricultural society...(there weren't a lot of farm Machines back then). Political force threatened to divide the country. Lincoln didn't want the country to divide the country on his watch...(wouldn't have looked too good in the history books). The abolition movement would never have lost steam, the industrial north had the upper hand so reasonably Lincoln sided with the north...that's just a practical view....But he also had a personal reasons for choosing the ending of slavery.
525479
the three-fifths compromise was a compromise made by the US. to count three-fifths of slaves in the south as part of the population of a southern state. this compromise wasmade as most a southern state's population was mostly african american slaves. southern officials wanted more people represented in the house of representatives at the time this compromise was made.
133223
Slavery had little to do with the Civil War. The prime issue was balance of power between Federal and State. Slavery happened to be the issue that fell along this divide. Could also throw in north-south economic disparacy.
200055
??? Slavery has existed since the beginning of time. The N. American Slave trade existed for a very short time in comparison to other historical slave periods.\n\nThe United States has done an extraodinary thing in correcting a lot of its wrongs with Affirmative Action, Brown v The Topeka Board of Education, the Voting Rights Act and other measures.\n\nWe have a way to go, but of late we have the likes of the Oprahs, Powells, Woods, and other pioneers that we can point to and say America is overcoming.
325920
Well, it definately didnt work...if it did, we wouldnt have had a Civil War in 1861.  It attempted to keep Slavery restricted to the South(32 30 lat., Now the Missouri Kansas border) Anything Kansas and above were free states and everythign below were slave states.It ultimately failed because of the Dred Scott decision which said that slaves were property adn not people, so they could not be freed(case originated in Indiana) and declaring the Compromise of 1820 unconstituional. The South also wanted to expand, due to the new territory gained from the Mexican war in 1848.  With the new territories in, once granted statehood would jeopardize the South's representation in the government adn started to complain again. This lead to another compromise in 1850 which also failed because of an abused concept of Popular Sovereignty.\n\nPopular Sovereignty was the idea that the state would choose wheether it would allow Slavery or not.  The states in question at the time were Kansas and Nebraska. Nebraska was mainly populated by Northerners and less Southerners since the climate waspoor for farming their stales.  But Kansas presented a problem.  Citizens in Neighboring Missouri fled to Kansas and claimed to be citizens in that State so that they could vote in Slavery.  THis also caused violence known as Bleeding Kansas.  Although the majority of the population in Kansas were Northern anti slvery people, because of all the illegal voting from people from Missouri allowed an illeagl constitution and the sitting President, James BUchanan failed to act.  By 1860, tensions were high, a person who threattened the Southern way of life was elected into office adn S. Carolina Seceeded...and the forst shotw were fired the following April.
70308
The original point was after the civil war to get the confederates to pledge their allegiance to the united states.  The original purpose was for the individual to renounce the Confederacy.  Based on this, I would say no that it should not be restored to its original meaning.
864608
I can certainly see from the answers you've gotten not many people know the history of our great nation,that is most unfortunate.\nThe South did not break away from the union based on slavery it was a greater issue one of economics one that had to do with 'states rights' and with how much tariffs they could charge.\nIt all really began to boil over in the Kansas debates of 1848,and spread even into N.Y. \nRead crack a book some of you folks sometime read the 'war of the republic' 50 volume set written/published by the United States war Dept. just after the war.\nThe Northern States also had slavery before during and even after  Lincoln's Emancipation proclamation.\nIn fact the Northern rich states and the U.S. Flag flew over more slavery than the the Confederate 'battle flag',and certainly more so than the poor mostly ag Southern states could ever dream of having.\nThe South won virtually every major,and minor battle-the South chose to up until the end remain in the South however the North was starving the South,and it had to go north which was the demise of the The Army of Virginia.
313435
Actually, Abolitionism was a major political force before the Civil War, primarily in the North but some in the South (where it was extremely dangerous because of lynching, etc). And, slave labor in the South was not free, there were huge costs entailed in housing and disciplining the slaves. There was also the huge moral and psychological cost of keeping slaves, as there is always at least some implied violence in the Peculiar Institution. In fact, because at the founding of the country there were so many people in the South who unilaterally freed their slaves, most Southern states placed huge financial disincentives against emancipation.\n\nAnyways, to finally get to the question at hand. Abolitionism got most of its support because it advocated the emancipation of slaves because of religious and moral reasons, and as such they tried to take the moral high ground from the Southern slave holders. People in the South tended to believe the propaganda that blacks could not take care of themselves, could not live in society, and would never be amenable to Christianity if not forced to live as slaves. This attitude from the Abolitionists to portray slavery as an indefensible and amoral evil practice made many people on both sides of the debate feel there was no room for argument. The radical fringe of Abolitionists also wanted to end the idea of governmental emancipation with federal compensation to owners and colonization of the freed slaves either to Haiti (with disastrous results) and Liberia (not much better). With absolutely no common ground from which to seek compromise, the two sides grew farther and farther apart until conflict was almost inevitable. In fact, when the Southern states were discussing secession, the congressional delegations from several Northern states suggested that a compromise could be reached if the Southern states would agree to even a rudimentary hearing to determine if black people seized as Runaway Slaves under the federal act were actually slaves at all, but because of the hard feelings the suggestion that a Southern gentleman could actually be mistaken about who was and was not a slave simply made the Southerners even more angry.\n\nMany people, myself included, see a corollary between Abolitionism and the tactics of the Pro-Life movement, who portray all abortions as indefensible murders of innocent children, thus allowing no meaningful debate on the issue at all.