# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sound Smart: The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 | History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When the thirteen colonies met to draft the United States Constitution, the Northern states and the Southern slave-owning states disagreed on issues such as the slave trade and tariffs on imports and exports. Eventually, they reached a compromise on both.

The commerce compromise was a compromise reached on import and export taxes, and most importantly, the slave trade. It was finalized after heated debates during the drafting of the United States Constitution in 1787. During negotiations, the urban northern states and the southern agricultural slave-owning states realized that some fundamental differences would have to be put aside, even for just a short time, in order to move forward with the Constitution. Hence, the compromise was born.

Commerce Compromise on Imports and Exports

The northern states wanted the federal government to levy import tariffs on finished products coming into the country to protect against foreign competition and to encourage the southern states to purchase goods made in the North. They also wanted export taxes on raw materials coming into the U.S. The southern states disagreed, arguing that tariffs on the export of raw materials would hurt their agricultural economy. The commerce compromise permitted tariffs only on imports from foreign countries and not on exports from the U.S. to other countries. Most significantly, this commerce compromise made the regulation of interstate commerce the responsibility of the federal government. All commerce legislation would be regulated by a two-thirds majority of the U.S. Senate.

Commerce Compromise on the Slave Trade

The question of slavery was a divisive issue in the United States even before the official establishment of the federal government. The commerce compromise regarding the slave trade was agreed upon in order to bring the northern and southern states together. At the time Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence in 1776, there were an estimated 500,000 African slaves in the Colonies. Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison and other founding fathers owned hundreds of slaves themselves. African slaves lived primarily in the southern colonies and made up about one-fifth of the entire Colonial population and comprised 40 percent of the southern population.

Jefferson called slavery a "hideous blot" on America. Washington called it "repugnant," and many Colonists, even some slave owners, hated slavery, too. The problem was that the southern economy relied on agricultural products like tobacco, indigo and rice that were produced by slave labor they could not afford to lose. At one point, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, the three states that still permitted the slave trade threatened to leave the Constitution convention if importing slaves was outlawed.

Two Key Commerce Compromises

To protect their economy and standard of living, the southern states came up with two proposals. The first compromise was to prevent Congress from taxing American exports in order to protect their agricultural trade. The second compromise was a proposal that would forbid the newly formed United States from banning slave importation. Those opposed to slavery argued passionately against it, calling slave trade a moral issue that was dishonorable to the America character. George Mason of Virginia called the business of slave trading "nefarious traffic" and slave owners "petty tyrants."

However, it became clear that a compromise would have to be reached to move forward as a country. The agreement provided that Congress could not tax exports and that no slave trade laws could be passed until 1808, about 10 years after the convention and ratification of the Constitution. The commerce compromise also included a fugitive slave clause as an additional concession to the southern states, but when the 13th Amendment was passed after the Civil War, the provision requiring fugitive slaves to be returned was eliminated.

The importance of the Commerce Compromise is evident from the that it was included in Article I of the U.S. Constitution. It also tells us that, despite moral principles and lofty ideals of equality, the founding fathers were prepared to do whatever was necessary to keep the country united.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When the thirteen colonies met to draft the United States Constitution, the Northern states and the Southern slave-owning states disagreed on issues such as the slave trade and tariffs on imports and exports. Eventually, they reached a compromise on both.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Constitutional Compromises: Crash Course Government and Politics #5

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Constitutional Convention - @MrBettsClass

# data[].attributes.body
The delegates to the Convention had a very difficult time deciding how many representatives each state would get in the new congress. Bicameral is 2 house of burgesses  and they all have 2 cinters.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Great Compromise of 1787, also known as the Sherman Compromise, was an agreement reached during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 between delegates of the states with large and small populations that defined the structure of Congress and the number of representatives each state would have in Congress according to the United States Constitution. Under the agreement proposed by Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman, Congress would be a "bicameral" or two-chambered body, with each state getting a number of representatives in the lower chamber (the House) proportional to its population and two representatives in the upper chamber (the Senate).

Key Takeaways: Great Compromise

Perhaps the greatest debate undertaken by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 centered on how many representatives each state should have in the new government's lawmaking branch, the U.S. Congress. As is often the case in government and politics, resolving a great debate required a great compromise-in this case, the Great Compromise of 1787. Early in the Constitutional Convention, delegates envisioned a Congress consisting of only a single chamber with a certain number of representatives from each state.

Weeks before the Constitutional Convention convened on July 16, 1787, the framers had already made several important decisions about how the Senate should be structured. They rejected a proposal to have the House of Representatives elect senators from lists submitted by the individual state legislatures and agreed that those legislatures should elect their senators. In fact, until the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913, all U.S. Senators were appointed by the state legislatures rather than elected by the people.

By the end of its first day in session, the convention had already set the minimum age for senators at 30 and the term length at six years, as opposed to 25 for House members, with two-year terms. James Madison explained that these distinctions, based on "the nature of the senatorial trust, which requires greater extent of information and stability of character," would allow the Senate "to proceed with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom than the popular[ly elected] branch."

However, the issue of equal representation threatened to destroy the seven-week-old convention. Delegates from the large states believed that because their states contributed proportionally more in taxes and military resources, they should enjoy proportionally greater representation in the Senate as well as in the House. Delegates from small states argued-with similar intensity-that all states should be equally represented in both houses.

When Roger Sherman proposed the Great Compromise, Benjamin Franklin agreed that each state should have an equal vote in the Senate in all matters-except those involving revenue and spending.

Over the Fourth of July holiday, delegates worked out a compromise plan that sidetracked Franklin's proposal. On July 16, the convention adopted the Great Compromise by a suspenseful margin of one vote. Many historians have noted that without that vote, there would likely have been no U.S. Constitution today.

Representation

The burning question was, how many representatives from each state? Delegates from the larger, more populous states favored the Virginia Plan, which called for each state to have a different number of representatives based on the state's population. Delegates from smaller states supported the New Jersey Plan, under which each state would send the same number of representatives to Congress.

Delegates from the smaller states argued that, despite their lower populations, their states held equal legal status to that of the larger states, and that proportional representation would be unfair to them. Delegate Gunning Bedford, Jr. of Delaware notoriously threatened that the small states could be forced to "find some foreign ally of more honor and good faith, who will take them by the hand and do them justice."

However, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts objected to the small states' claim of legal sovereignty, stating that

"we never were independent States, were not such now, and never could be even on the principles of the Confederation. The States and the advocates for them were intoxicated with the idea of their sovereignty."

Sherman's Plan

Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman is credited with proposing the alternative of a "bicameral," or two-chambered Congress made up of a Senate and a House of Representatives. Each state, suggested Sherman, would send an equal number of representatives to the Senate, and one representative to the House for every 30,000 residents of the state.

At the time, all the states except Pennsylvania had bicameral legislatures, so the delegates were familiar with the structure of Congress proposed by Sherman.

Sherman's plan pleased delegates from both the large and small states and became known as the Connecticut Compromise of 1787, or the Great Compromise.

The structure and powers of the new U.S. Congress, as proposed by the delegates of the Constitutional Convention, were explained to the people by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers.

Apportionment and Redistricting

Today, each state is represented in Congress by two Senators and a variable number of members of the House of Representatives based on the state's population as reported in the most recent decennial census. The process of fairly determining the number of members of the House from each state is called " apportionment."

The first census in 1790 counted 4 million Americans. Based on that count, the total number of members elected to the House of Representatives grew from the original 65 to 106. The current House membership of 435 was set by Congress in 1911.

Redistricting to Ensure Equal Representation

To ensure fair and equal representation in the House, the process of " redistricting " is used to establish or change the geographic boundaries within the states from which representatives are elected.

In the 1964 case of Reynolds v. Sims, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that all of the congressional districts in each state must all have roughly the same population.

Through apportionment and redistricting, high population urban areas are prevented from gaining an inequitable political advantage over less populated rural areas.

For example, if New York City were not split into several congressional districts, the vote of a single New York City resident would carry more influence on the House than all of the residents in the rest of the State of New York combined.

How the 1787 Compromise Impacts Modern Politics

While the populations of the states varied in 1787, the differences were far less pronounced than they are today. For example, the 2020 population of Wyoming at 549,914 pales in comparison to California's 39.78 million. As a result, one then-unforeseen political impact of the Great Compromise is that states with smaller populations have disproportionately more power in the modern Senate. While California is home to almost 70% more people than Wyoming, both states have two votes in the Senate.

"The founders never imagined ... the great differences in the population of states that exist today," said political scientist George Edwards III of Texas A&M University. "If you happen to live in a low-population state you get a disproportionately bigger say in American government."

Due to this proportionate imbalance of voting power, interests in smaller states, such as coal mining in West Virginia or corn farming in Iowa, are more likely to benefit from federal funding through tax breaks and crop subsidies.

The Framer's intent to "protect" the smaller states through equal representation in the Senate also manifests itself in the Electoral College, as each state's number of electoral votes is based on its combined number of representatives in the House and Senate. For example, in Wyoming, the state with the smallest population, each of its three electors represents a far smaller group of people than each of the 55 electoral votes cast by California, the most populous state.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Great Compromise of 1787, also known as the Sherman Compromise, was an agreement reached during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 between delegates of the states with large and small populations that defined the structure of Congress and the number of representatives each state would have in Congress according to the United States Constitution.

# data[].attributes.body
Delegates

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Three Fifths Compromise for kids ***

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Three Fifths Compromise for kids. The Three Fifths Compromise reached at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. Facts about the Three Fifths Compromise for kids, children, homework and schools.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Table of Contents

1. What Were the Fugitive Slave Acts?

2. Fugitive Slave Act of 1793

3. Prigg v. Pennsylvania

4. Fugitive Slave Act of 1850

5. Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Acts

The Fugitive Slave Acts were a pair of federal laws that allowed for the capture and return of runaway enslaved people within the territory of the United States. Enacted by Congress in 1793, the first Fugitive Slave Act authorized local governments to seize and return escapees to their owners and imposed penalties on anyone who aided in their flight. Widespread resistance to the 1793 law led to the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which added more provisions regarding runaways and levied even harsher punishments for interfering in their capture. The Fugitive Slave Acts were among the most controversial laws of the early 19th century.

What Were the Fugitive Slave Acts?

Statutes regarding refugee slaves existed in America as early as 1643 and the New England Confederation, and slave laws were later enacted in several of the 13 original colonies.

Among others, New York passed a 1705 measure designed to prevent runaways from fleeing to Canada, and Virginia and Maryland drafted laws offering bounties for the capture and return of escaped enslaved people.

By the time of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, many Northern states including Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and Connecticut had abolished slavery.

Concerned that these new free states would become safe havens for runaways, Southern politicians saw that the Constitution included a "Fugitive Slave Clause." This stipulation (Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3) stated that, "no person held to service or labor" would be released from bondage in the event they escaped to a free state.

Fugitive Slave Act of 1793

Despite the inclusion of the Fugitive Slave Clause in the U.S. Constitution, anti-slavery sentiment remained high in the North throughout the late 1780s and early 1790s, and many petitioned Congress to abolish the practice outright.

Bowing to further pressure from Southern lawmakers-who argued the slave debate was driving a wedge between the newly created states-Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793.

This edict was similar to the Fugitive Slave Clause in many ways, but included a more detailed description of how the law was to be put into practice. Most importantly, it decreed that owners of enslaved people and their "agents" had the right to search for escapees within the borders of free states.

In the event they captured a suspected runaway, these hunters had to bring them before a judge and provide evidence proving the person was their property. If court officials were satisfied by their proof-which often took the form of a signed affidavit-the owner would be permitted to take custody of the enslaved person and return to their home state. The law also imposed a $500 penalty on any person who helped harbor or conceal escapees.

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 was immediately met with a firestorm of criticism. Northerners bristled at the idea of turning their states into a stalking ground for bounty hunters, and many argued the law was tantamount to legalized kidnapping. Some abolitionists organized clandestine resistance groups and built complex networks of safe houses to aid enslaved people in their escape to the North.

Refusing to be complicit in the institution of slavery, most Northern states intentionally neglected to enforce the law. Several even passed so-called "Personal Liberty Laws" that gave accused runaways the right to a jury trial and also protected free blacks, many of whom had been abducted by bounty hunters and sold into slavery.

Did you know? The passage of the Fugitive Slave Acts resulted in many free blacks being illegally captured and sold into slavery. One famous case concerned Solomon Northup, a freeborn black musician who was kidnapped in Washington, D.C. in 1841. Northup would spend 12 years enslaved in Louisiana before winning back his freedom in 1853.

Prigg v. Pennsylvania

The legality of Personal Liberty Laws was eventually challenged in the 1842 Supreme Court case Prigg v. Pennsylvania. The case concerned Edward Prigg, a Maryland man who was convicted of kidnapping after he captured a suspected slave in Pennsylvania.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Prigg, setting the precedent that federal law superseded any state measures that attempted to interfere with the Fugitive Slave Act.

Despite decisions like Prigg v. Pennsylvania, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 remained largely unenforced. By the mid-1800s, thousands of enslaved people had poured into free states via networks like the Underground Railroad.

Fugitive Slave Act of 1850

Following increased pressure from Southern politicians, Congress passed a revised Fugitive Slave Act in 1850.

Part of Henry Clay 's famed Compromise of 1850-a group of bills that helped quiet early calls for Southern secession-this new law forcibly compelled citizens to assist in the capture of runaways. It also denied enslaved people the right to a jury trial and increased the penalty for interfering with the rendition process to $1,000 and six months in jail.

In order to ensure the statute was enforced, the 1850 law also placed control of individual cases in the hands of federal commissioners. These agents were paid more for returning a suspected runaway than for freeing them, leading many to argue the law was biased in favor of Southern slaveholders.

The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was met with even more impassioned criticism and resistance than the earlier measure. States like Vermont and Wisconsin passed new measures intended to bypass and even nullify the law, and abolitionists redoubled their efforts to assist runaways.

The Underground Railroad reached its peak in the 1850s, with many enslaved people fleeing to Canada to escape U.S. jurisdiction.

Resistance also occasionally boiled over into riots and revolts. In 1851 a mob of antislavery activists rushed a Boston courthouse and forcibly liberated an escapee named Shadrach Minkins from federal custody. Similar rescues were later made in New York, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Acts

Widespread opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 saw the law become virtually unenforceable in certain Northern states, and by 1860 only around 330 enslaved people had been successfully returned to their Southern masters.

Republican and Free Soil congressmen regularly introduced bills and resolutions related to repealing the Fugitive Slave Act, but the law persisted until after the beginning of the Civil War. It wasn't until June 28, 1864, that both of the Fugitive Slave Acts were repealed by an act of Congress.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fugitive Slave Acts - Definition, 1793 & 1850 | HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Fugitive Slave Acts, passed in 1793 and 1850, were federal laws that allowed for the capture and return of runaway enslaved people within the United States.