The Missouri compromise did little to slow down the growth of slavery, it mainly attempted to make sure Southern power did not grow faster than Northern power. The Compromise of 1850 went a little further, Northern supporters of this compromise at least attempted to reduce the spread of slavery. Nevertheless, the strengthening of the Fugitive Slave Law as part of the Compromise of 1850 obliterated any progress made to fight slavery based on ethical grounds. These compromises were obviously not influenced by northern virtue because morals cannot be compromised. If Northern legislators vehemently opposed slavery, they would have done more to reverse it. Even the new “antislavery” political parties that came about some years after the Compromise of 1850 did not attempt to actually free enslaved people. For example, William Lloyd Garrison once described the Free-Soil Party as “…a party for keeping Free Soil and not for setting men free.” Despite the blatant, horrendous moral injustices that slavery presented, self-declared opponents of slavery did little to oppose slavery based on …show more content…
John Brown is a prime example of someone who was ethically opposed to slavery. Unlike many anti-slavery Northern legislators, he did everything in his limited power to stop the spread of and eliminate slavery. He made friends with fugitive slaves, and helped them escape the country. When he was finally charged with treason after his attack on Harper’s Ferry, he was calm. He received his conviction with peace; he believed what he did was just. There was widespread support for John Brown by Northern abolitionists, as many citizens in the North held a similar philosophy and moral disapproval of slavery. The strengthening of the Fugitive Slave Act as part of Compromise of 1850 meant that those who did ethically oppose slavery were forced to defy their own consciences, or risk serious criminal charges. Anyone in legislature who agreed that slavery was unjust would have not allowed the Compromise of 1850 to pass. Not only did it do nothing to end the institution of slavery, but it also forced abolitionists to ignore their