Slavery vs. Anti-Slavery

Compromise of 1850 Compare and contrast the arguments of the speeches. The different arguments presented by Seward, Calhoun and Webster are illustrating how divisive slavery was to the nation. William Henry Seward was an abolitionist, who felt that slavery should be outlawed in every state. Anything less than this standard, was considered to be unacceptable. This is because he felt that the practice violated the basic ideals established under theological and moral grounds.

Evidence of this can be seen with him saying, "All men are equal by the law of nature and of nations. But states are only lawful aggregations of individual men, who severally are equal. Therefore, states are equal in natural rights. All this is just and sound.

But assuming the same premises, to wit, that all men are equal by the law of nature and of nations, the right of property in slaves falls to the ground; for one who is equal to another cannot be the owner or property of that other." This is illustrating these views and how slavery is going directly against them. As a result, the federal government should ban these practices all together. ("William Henry Steward's Higher Law Speech," 1850) John Calhoun was pro-slavery.

He felt that each state had the ability to nullify any kind of federal regulations. This meant that its citizens and state governments had the right to determine what practices and policies were utilized within its borders. Slavery is one of those institutions, where they could to determine if it should be lawful. Moreover, he claims that slavery is considered to be a moral practice, as it existed in many societies since the beginning of time.

("John Calhoun," 1850) In his opinion, he believed that the compromise was defying the rights of the people. This meant that they should decide for themselves, if slavery should be allowed in new territories. These arguments are different from Seward, as it is illustrating how federal laws are interfering in the affairs of states. While at the same time, he is saying that slavery is moral and has existed throughout human history. ("John Calhoun," 1850) Daniel Webster created a compromise.

Basically, he gave both sides something and asked them to bend on their position. In this case, he felt that California should be admitted to the Union as a free state. While new territories (such as: New Mexico and Utah) will not be considered to support or go directly against slavery. At the same time, he created the Fugitive Slave Law. This meant that runaway slaves could be captured anywhere in country and returned to slavery by bounty hunters.

("Daniel Webster," 1850) In this case, Webster is trying to appease both sides. This occurs by not taking a position on slavery. Instead, it is an extension of the status quo. The results are that, the issue of slavery is pushed down the road, with no real solution being introduced. Once this happened, is the point both sides felt as if they gained something. Yet, it increased the overall amounts of anger and animosity by giving up something in return. ("Daniel Webster," 1850) Which argument do you find the.