Results for Compromise of 1850
On this page:
 
US Military Dictionary:

Compromise of 1850

A series of measures adopted by the Congress on September 9, 1850, prior to the Civil War, to address slavery and territory issues and to avert secession by the South. Proposed largely by Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky, it included several measures to ensure a balance between free and slave states. It admitted California to the Union as a free state, and from the remaining land acquired in the Mexican War (1846-48), it established Utah and New Mexico as territories with an open status of slavery, a measure that overruled the Missouri Compromise.

See the Introduction, Abbreviations and Pronunciation for further details.

 
 

Series of measures passed by the U.S. Congress to settle slavery issues and avert secession. The crisis arose in late 1849 when the territory of California asked to be admitted to the Union with a constitution prohibiting slavery. The problem was complicated by the unresolved question of slavery's extension into other areas ceded by Mexico in 1848. In an attempt to satisfy pro- and antislavery forces, Sen. Henry Clay offered a series of measures that admitted California as a free state, left the question of slavery in the new territories to be settled by the local residents, and provided for the enforced return of runaway slaves and the prohibition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia. Support from Daniel Webster and Stephen A. Douglas helped ensure passage of the compromise. Moderates throughout the Union accepted the terms, which averted secession for another decade but sowed seeds of discord.

For more information on Compromise of 1850, visit Britannica.com.

 
US Government Guide: compromise of 1850

After the United States won vast southwestern territories from Mexico in 1848, Congress was faced with the question of whether to permit slavery in this region. Antislavery Northerners endorsed the Wilmot Proviso, an amendment to ban the spread of slavery, while Southerners insisted that any restriction on slavery would split the Union. The House of Representatives was so divided that it could not even elect a new Speaker, so solving the territorial problem fell to the Senate. Henry Clay (Whig-Kentucky) returned from retirement to craft one more compromise to save the Union. Clay put together an omnibus bill that would admit California to the Union as a free state, allow New Mexicans to decide whether they wanted slavery, preserve slavery in the District of Columbia, and enact a tough fugitive slave law to allow slave owners to hunt down runaway slaves in the North. Daniel Webster (Whig-Massachusetts) delivered an eloquent appeal for the compromise, warning Southerners who threatened to secede from the Union that there could be “no such thing as peaceable secession.” By contrast, John C. Calhoun (Democrat–South Carolina) spent the last days of his life fighting against the compromise. Clay's strategy was to have the Senate vote upon his compromise as a whole, so that senators would have to accept even the portions of the package they disliked. When this tactic failed, an exhausted Clay left Washington to rest. In his absence, the young Stephen A. Douglas (Democrat-Illinois) took apart the omnibus bill, put together different majorities for each of its parts, and won their passage separately. Although not popular in any section of the country, the Compromise of 1850 delayed civil war in the United States for another decade.

See also Benton, Thomas Hart; Calhoun, John C.; Clay, Henry; Webster, Daniel; Wilmot Proviso

Sources

  • Holman Hamilton, Prologue to Conflict: The Crisis and the Compromise of 1850 (New York: Norton, 1964)
 
US History Encyclopedia: Compromise of 1850

Compromise of 1850, a designation commonly given to five statutes enacted in September 1850, following a bitter controversy between the representatives of the North and South. The controversy reached a fever pitch during the weeks following the assembling of Congress in December 1849, when the election of a speaker under the customary majority rule was prevented by the unwillingness of the Free Soil members, who held the balance of power, to be drawn into an arrangement with either of the two major parties. In the course of the prolonged balloting, criminations and recriminations passed between the hotheaded spokesmen of the two sections. Pointing to indications that the principle of the Wilmot Proviso might be enacted into law and receive the signature of President Zachary Taylor, southerners insisted as a matter of right upon the recognition of the Calhoun doctrine, which stated that under the Constitution all the territories should be deemed open to Slavery. There was talk of secession unless this principle was recognized in fact or as a basis for some adjustment. Plans were underway for the discussion of a satisfactory southern program at a southern convention called to meet at Nashville in June.

In the face of increasing sectional strife Henry Clay returned to the U.S. Senate in 1849 and on 29 January 1850 suggested a series of resolutions intended to provide the basis for the prompt adjustment of the main questions at issue between the two sections. His resolutions were shortly referred to a select committee of thirteen, of which he was made chairman. Its report (8 May), which covered the ground of Clay's resolutions, recommended an "Omnibus Bill" providing for the admission of California under its free state constitution, for territorial governments for Utah and New Mexico silent on slavery, and for the settlement of the boundary dispute between Texas and the United States. It also recommended a bill for the abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia and an amendment to the fugitive slave law.

The hope of compromise was tied up with the fate of the omnibus bill. Clay rallied to his support the outstanding Union men, including Daniel Webster, Lewis Cass, Henry S. Foote, and Stephen A. Douglas; the latter became the active force in the promotion of the necessary legislation. President Taylor wanted the admission of California but no action on New Mexico and Utah until they should be ready to become states; he was, therefore, a formidable obstacle to the plans of the compromisers until his death on 9 July. Even the active support of the bill by his successor, Millard Fillmore, did not offset the fact that the idea of compromise "united the opponents instead of securing the friends" of each proposition.

Compromise as such had clearly failed; the ground that it had contemplated was covered in five statutes each formerly included as sections of the proposed omnibus bill. The act establishing a territorial government for Utah (9 September) contained the important Popular Sovereignty clause providing that any state or states formed out of this territory should be admitted with or without slavery as their constitutions should prescribe. Popular sovereignty deftly removed slavery as an obstacle to congressional organization of these territories, but it did not remove the divisive issue of slavery in the territories from the national political scene. An identical clause was appended to the New Mexico territorial act (9 September), which also resolved the conflict between Texas and the federal government over the Santa Fe region by a cession, with compensation to Texas, to the newly created territory. On the same date, the act admitting California under its constitution—prohibiting slavery in the new state—was approved. The Fugitive Slave Act of 18 September 1850, which amended the original statute of 12 February 1793, provided for the appointment of special commissioners to supplement the regular courts empowered after a summary hearing to issue a certificate of arrest of a fugitive "from labor," which authorized the claimant to seize and return the fugitive (with a fee of ten dollars when the certificate was issued and of only five dollars when denied); in no trial or hearing was the testimony of the alleged fugitive to be admitted as evidence nor was a fugitive claiming to be a freeman to have the right of trial by jury; federal marshals and deputy marshals were made liable for the full value of fugitives who escaped their custody and were empowered to call to their aid any bystanders, or posse comitatus; and any person willfully hindering the arrest of a fugitive or aiding in his rescue or escape was subject to heavy fine and imprisonment, as well as to heavy civil damages. The Act Abolishing the Slave Trade in the District of Columbia was approved on 20 September.

These statutes were presented to the country as a series of compromise measures. They did not, however, magically calm the sectional storm. In the North there was widespread denunciation of the iniquitous features of the Fugitive Slave Act and deliberate declaration that its enforcement would never be tolerated. At the same time the conservative forces organized a series of Union meetings and pleaded the obligations of the North to pacify the South. In the latter section the other four enactments precipitated one of the most serious disunion crises the country had ever faced. In Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina the Southern Rights, or secession, forces were checkmated only by the most strenuous efforts of the Union or Constitutional Union elements. Both sides foreswore old party labels and fought under their new banners to win control over the official state conventions that were ordered. The Southern Rights forces lost in the first test fight in Georgia (see Georgia Platform) and had to carry this moral handicap in the remaining contests. It was not until the elections of 1852 that the country at large made clear its (albeit temporary) acquiescence in what at length became known by the over simple label the Compromise of 1850.

Bibliography

Freehling, William W. The Road to Disunion. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Hamilton, Holman. Prologue to Conflict: The Crisis and Compromise of 1850. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1964.

Holt, Michael F. The Political Crisis of the 1850s. New York: Norton, 1983.

Potter, David Morris. The Impending Crisis, 1848–1861. Edited and completed by Don E. Fehrenbacher. New York: Harper and Row, 1976.

Remini, Robert V. Henry Clay: Statesman for the Union. New York: Norton, 1991.

—Arthur C. Cole/T. M.

 
Columbia Encyclopedia: Compromise of 1850.
The annexation of Texas to the United States and the gain of new territory by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo at the close of the Mexican War (1848) aggravated the hostility between North and South concerning the question of the extension of slavery into the territories. The antislavery forces favored the proposal made in the Wilmot Proviso to exclude slavery from all the lands acquired from Mexico. This, naturally, met with violent Southern opposition. When California sought (1849) admittance to the Union as a free state, a grave crisis threatened. Also causing friction was the conflict over the boundary claims of Texas, which extended far westward into territory claimed by the United States. In addition, the questions of the slave trade and the fugitive slave laws had long been vexing. There was some fear that, in the event of strong antislavery legislation, the Southern states might withdraw from the Union altogether.

The possibility of the disintegration of the Union was deprecated by many but was alarming to some, among them Henry Clay, who emerged from retirement to enter the Senate again. President Taylor was among those who felt that the Union was not threatened; he favored admission of California as a free state and encouragement of New Mexico to enter as a free state. These sentiments were voiced in Congress by William H. Seward. John C. Calhoun and other Southerners, particularly Jefferson Davis, maintained that the South should be given guarantees of equal position in the territories, of the execution of fugitive slave laws, and of protection against the abolitionists.

Clay proposed that a series of measures be passed as an omnibus compromise bill. Support for this plan was largely organized by Stephen A. Douglas. The measures were the admission of California as a free state; the organization of New Mexico and Utah territories without mention of slavery, the status of that institution to be determined by the territories themselves when they were ready to be admitted as states (this formula came to be known as popular sovereignty); the prohibition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia; a more stringent fugitive slave law; and the settlement of Texas boundary claims by federal payment of $10 million on the debt contracted by the Republic of Texas.

These proposals faced great opposition, but Daniel Webster greatly enhanced the chances for their acceptance by his famous speech on Mar. 7, 1850. Taylor's death and the accession of conservative Millard Fillmore to the presidency made the compromise more feasible. After long debates and failure to pass the omnibus bill, Congress passed the measures as separate bills in Sept., 1850. Many people, North and South, hailed the compromise as a final solution to the question of slavery in the territories. However, the issue reemerged in 1854 with the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and seven years later the factions were fighting the Civil War.

Bibliography

See E. C. Rozwenc, The Compromise of 1850 (1957); H. Hamilton, Prologue to Conflict (1964).


 
Law Encyclopedia: Compromise of 1850
This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.

A program of legislative measures enacted by Congress to reconcile the differences existing between the North and South concerning the issue of slavery in newly formed territories of the United States.

The historical background of the enactment of the Compromise of 1850, also known as the Omnibus Bill, involved the increasingly hostile relationship between the northern and southern states of the Union over the existence of slavery. This hostility was partly due to the reluctant enforcement by northern states of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, which established procedures for the return of runaway slaves to their owners. The dissension was exacerbated in 1848 when the United States annexed Texas and gained new territories under the provisions of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which brought about the end of the Mexican American War. Abolitionists continued to favor the antislavery stance of the Wilmot Proviso prohibiting slavery in the lands acquired from Mexico, which was proposed in 1846, but was never enacted into law. The South vehemently opposed the exclusion of slavery from the new territories.

In 1849 the request of California to join the Union as a free state resulted in heated debates on the floor of Congress. Many viewed the situation as a grave threat to the existence of the Union. Henry Clay returned to the Senate to propose measures, based upon the ideas of Stephen Douglas, that would reconcile the different positions of the North and South. The proposals included the admission of California into the Union as a free state, the right of the New Mexico and Utah territories to determine the slavery issue for themselves at the time of their admission to the Union, the outlawing of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, and the congressional enactment of the more stringent Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 (9 Stat. 462).

Due to the efforts of Daniel Webster and others, these controversial measures, which initially caused heated debate, were enacted by Congress in September 1850. Although labeled a compromise due to its position on slavery, the Compromise of 1850 had short-lived effect as a solution to the issue in light of the subsequent problems resulting in the enactment of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 (10 Stat. 277) and the onset of the Civil War less than ten years later.

 
Act of Congress:

Compromise of 1850

Slavery presented innumerable problems to the United States prior to 1850, but none proved more unsolvable than those connected with westward expansion. Heated arguments arose over the Louisiana Purchase (1803), the admission of Missouri into the Union (1820–1821), and the annexation of Texas (1845). Each time politicians responded with some type of compromise that allowed the Union to continue with a slaveholding section and a free labor section. The Compromise of 1850 was the last important compromise between North and South over slavery and it did not last. By the end of 1863, in the midst of Civil War, almost all the provisions of the Compromise of 1850 had been repudiated.

The Mexican War of 1846–1848 generated the conflict that produced the Compromise of 1850. Northern Democrats, upset at Southern domination of the party, rallied behind a slogan of slavery prohibition from any territory acquired from Mexico—the Wilmot Proviso. But President James K. Polk desired to fill out the continental boundaries of the United States, and in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) he obtained the area now consisting of California, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah. Southern politicians immediately denounced the Wilmot Proviso and insisted slavery could expand into any territory acquired by the United States. Between 1847 and the beginning of 1850, Congress was consumed by the slavery expansion issue and it burned away all other issues. The problem simply would not go away.

At the same time California was annexed to the United States as a territory, settlers found gold and within one year California had enough population to become a state. But if California became a free state, it would tip the balance of free to slave states in the nation in favor of the free states. The politics of the situation became desperate. In the 1848 election, the citizenry voted Zachary Taylor into the White House. Taylor, who was a Louisiana slaveholder, nonetheless believed the western territories would be free and so he favored the admission of both California and New Mexico as free states. This outraged Southern politicians and by December 1849 they were speaking of secession.

Henry Clay, called the "Great Compromiser" because of his previous roles in resolving sectional conflicts, was sent back to the U.S. Senate by Kentucky to forge a compromise. He fashioned legislation that he believed resolved all standing issues between the free and slave states. These issues were the admission of California as a free state; the implementation of a settler decision on slavery in the territories of Utah and New Mexico; the abolition of the slave trade in Washington, D.C.; a new fugitive slave law; a new boundary between Texas and New Mexico; and the federal government's agreement to pay the state debts of Texas. Clay placed all these matters in one bill called the "Omnibus." The Omnibus, however, failed to obtain the necessary majority to pass and failed on July 31, 1850. Clay soon left the Senate in disgust.

What changed the situation, however, was the death of Zachary Taylor and the installation of Millard Fillmore as president. Fillmore gave signals that he would sign a compromise act if one were passed by Congress. Illinois senator Stephen A. Douglas and Georgia representative Howell Cobb leapt at the opportunity. They divided the Omnibus into separate bills, calculating they could win a majority for each bill even though the composition of the majority would change with every vote. And so in August and September 1850, separate bills passed the Senate and the House representing the elements of Clay's original Omnibus bill; those separate pieces of legislation were referred to as "The Compromise of 1850."

But the Compromise of 1850 was weak and destined to a short life. The Fugitive Slave Law created a furor in the North;

Southerners in the Gulf states debated leaving the Union in 1850 and 1851, but retreated in the face of overwhelming support for the Union. More importantly, Stephen A. Douglas's ill-conceived legislation to start territorial government in the Kansas and Nebraska territories (the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854), reignited the slavery extension issue and so undid much of the good achieved by the Compromise of 1850. The unsolvable nature of the slavery issue then produced Southern secession in 1860 and 1861, which in turn led to the War for the Union from 1861–1865.

During the Civil War, the Union Congress ended the Fugitive Slave Law, emancipated slaves in the District of Columbia and then throughout the Union with the Thirteenth Amendment. So the Compromise of 1850, except for the settlement of the New Mexico-Texas boundary and the admission of California to the Union, was entirely unraveled in the space of fifteen years.

Bibliography

Brock, William R. Parties and Political Conscience: American Dilemmas, 1840–1850. Millwood, NY: KTO Press, 1979.

Hamilton, Holman. Prologue to Conflict: The Crisis and Compromise of 1850. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1964.

Huston, James L. Calculating the Value of the Union: Slavery, Property Rights, and the Economic Origins of the Civil War. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003.

Johannsen, Robert W. Stephen A. Douglas. New York: Oxford University Press, 1973.

Nevins, Allan. Ordeal of the Union, Vol. 1: Fruits of Manifest Destiny, 1847–1852. New York: Scribners, 1947.

Potter, David M. The Impending Crisis, 1848–1861. New York: Harper & Row, 1976.

Stegmaier, Mark J. Texas, New Mexico, and the Compromise of 1850: Boundary Dispute and Sectional Crisis. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 1996.

 
History Dictionary: Compromise of 1850

A set of laws, passed in the midst of fierce wrangling between groups favoring slavery and groups opposing it, that attempted to give something to both sides. The compromise admitted California to the United States as a “free” (no slavery) state but allowed some newly acquired territories to decide on slavery for themselves. Part of the Compromise included the Fugitive Slave Act, which proved highly unpopular in the North. Senator Henry Clay was a force behind the passage of the compromise.

  • The Compromise of 1850 shows how difficult it was to accommodate the two sides of the slavery question. It failed to prevent the Civil War, which broke out just over ten years later.

  •  
    Wikipedia: Compromise of 1850
    Henry Clay takes the floor of the Old Senate Chamber; Millard Fillmore presides as Calhoun and Webster look on.
    Enlarge
    Henry Clay takes the floor of the Old Senate Chamber; Millard Fillmore presides as Calhoun and Webster look on.

    The Compromise of 1850 was a series of laws that attempted to resolve the territorial and slavery controversies arising from the Mexican-American War (1846–48). The five laws balanced the interests of the slave states of the South and the free states. California was admitted as a free state; Texas received financial compensation for relinquishing claim to lands east of the Rio Grande in what is now New Mexico; the territory of New Mexico (including present-day Arizona and Utah) was organized without any specific prohibition of slavery; the slave trade (but not slavery itself) was abolished in Washington, D.C.; and the stringent Fugitive Slave Law was passed, requiring all U.S. citizens to assist in the return of runaway slaves regardless of the legality of slavery in the specific states.

    The measures, a compromise designed by Whig Senator Henry Clay (who failed to get them through himself), were shepherded to passage by Democratic Senator Stephen Douglas and Whig Senator Daniel Webster. The measures were opposed by Senator John C. Calhoun. The Compromise was possible after the death of President Zachary Taylor, who was in opposition. Succeeding President Taylor was a strong supporter of the compromise, Vice President Millard Fillmore. It temporarily defused sectional tensions in the United States, postponing the secession crisis and the American Civil War. The Compromise dropped the Wilmot Proviso, which never became law but would have banned slavery in territory acquired from Mexico. Instead the Compromise further endorsed the doctrine of "Popular Sovereignty" for the New Mexico Territory. The various compromises lessened political contention for four years, until the relative lull was shattered by the divisive Kansas-Nebraska Act.

    Issues

    Texas

    The Southwestern boundary of Texas was disputed. The Republic of Texas, which had seceded from Mexico, had been admitted to the United States and claimed territory that now comprises New Mexico. Texas also had $10 million in world debt it could not easily pay. The compromise solution was for the U.S. to pay the debts, while Texas allowed New Mexico to become a territory.

    California

    With very slow population growth after the California Gold Rush, a state convention adopted an antislavery state constitution in late 1849, and applied for admission into the Union as a free state.

    Mexican Cession territories

    No territorial government had been formed for the remainder of the territory taken from Mexico, including New Mexico and parts of what became Arizona and other states. The Mormon pioneers had organized the "State of Deseret", but Congress was uneasy with the sheer size of the proposed state (which included all of present-day Utah and Nevada and parts of Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and California) as well as its low population and the dominance of the Mormons.

    Fugitive slave act

    The two issues covered by the compromise that did not grow out of the Mexican-American War were the abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, and the passage of a new fugitive slave law, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. The Fugitive Slave Act greatly heightened tensions between the North and South and was despised by the former. This Fugitive Slave Act is seen as one of the key steps towards civil war. It was included partly because of the public reaction to the Pearl incident.[1]

    Clay and Douglas draft compromise

    Congress convened on December 3 1849. On January 29, 1850, Whig Senator Henry Clay gave a speech which called for compromise on the issues dividing the Union. However, Clay's specific proposals for achieving a compromise, including his idea for Texas' boundary, were not adopted, although Clay later claimed credit for drafting the entire compromise. Rather, it was Senator Stephen A. Douglas, Democrat of Illinois, who largely guided the Compromise to passage. The Compromise came to coalesce around a plan dividing Texas at its present-day boundaries, creating territorial governments with "popular sovereignty" (without the Wilmot Proviso) for New Mexico and Utah, admitting California as a free state, abolishing the slave auctions in the District of Columbia, and enacting a harsh new fugitive slave law.

    View of Davis and Southern Democrats

    Some Southern Democrats, led by Jefferson Davis, opposed Douglas's and especially Clay's compromise because they would have admitted California as a free state, thus disturbing the balance of power between North and South in the Senate, and because they would have negated some of Texas's land claims. They also opposed as unconstitutional the abolition of the slave auctions in the District of Columbia.

    View of Seward and Northern Whigs

    Most Northern Whigs, led by William Henry Seward who delivered his famous "Higher Law" speech during the controversy, opposed the Compromise as well because it would not have applied the Wilmot Proviso to the western territories and because of the Democratic new fugitive slave law, which would have pressed ordinary citizens into duty on slave-hunting patrols; this provision was inserted by Democratic Virginia Senator James M. Mason to coerce border-state Whigs, who faced the greatest danger of losing slaves as fugitives but who were lukewarm on general sectional issues related to the South into supporting Texas's land claims.

    Whig President Zachary Taylor attempted to sidestep the entire controversy by pushing to admit California and New Mexico as free states immediately, avoiding the entire territorial process and thus the Wilmot Proviso question. Taylor's stand was unpopular among Southerners.

    Northern Democrats and Southern Whigs did support the Compromise. Southern Whigs, many of whom were from the border states, supported the stronger fugitive slave law.

    Debate and results

    On April 17, a "Committee of Thirteen" agreed on the border of Texas as part of Clay's plan. The dimensions were later changed. That same day, during debates on the measures in the Senate, Vice President Millard Fillmore and Thomas Hart Benton verbally sparred, with Fillmore charging that the Missourian was "out of order." The heated exchange became so emotionally charged that Senator Benton was nearly shot by Compromise floor leader Henry Foote of Mississippi.

    In early June, nine slaveholding Southern states sent delegates to the Nashville Convention to determine their course of action should the compromise take hold. While some delegates preached secession, eventually the moderates ruled, and they proposed a series of compromises, including extending the geographic dividing line designated the Missouri Compromise of 1820 to the Pacific Coast.

    The various bills were initially combined into one "omnibus" bill, which failed to pass the Senate because only a minority supported all the provisions. The situation was changed by the death of President Taylor and the accession of Fillmore on July 9, 1850. The influence of the new administration was now thrown in favor of the compromise. Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas and his supporters in the House assembled different majorities for each of five separate bills. The Northern Democrats held together and supported each of the bills and gained Whigs or Southern Democrats to pass each one. All passed and were signed by President Fillmore between September 9 and September 20, 1850.

    1. California was admitted as a free state. It passed 97-85.
    2. The slave trade was abolished (the sale of slaves, not the institution of slavery) in the District of Columbia.
    3. The territories of New Mexico (including present-day Arizona) and a much-smaller Utah were organized under the rule of popular sovereignty. It passed 97-85.
    4. The Fugitive Slave Act was passed, requiring all U.S. citizens to assist in the return of runaway slaves. It passed 109-76.
    5. Texas gave up much of the western land which it claimed and received compensation of $10,000,000 to pay off its national debt.

    Implications

    The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 made any federal marshal or other official who did not arrest an alleged runaway slave liable to a fine of $1,000. Law-enforcement officials everywhere in the United States had a duty to arrest anyone suspected of being a fugitive slave on no more evidence than a claimant's sworn testimony of ownership. The suspected slave could not ask for a jury trial or testify on his or her own behalf. In addition, any person aiding a runaway slave by providing food or shelter was to be subject to six months' imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. Officers capturing a fugitive slave were entitled to a fee for their work.

    The Compromise in general proved widely popular politically, as both parties committed themselves in their platforms to the finality of the Compromise on sectional issues. The strongest opposition in the South occurred in the states of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi, but unionists soon prevailed, spearheaded by Georgians Alexander Stephens, Robert Toombs, and Howell Cobb and the creation of the Georgia Platform. This peace was broken only by the divisive Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 introduced by Stephen Douglas, which repealed the Missouri Compromise and led directly to the formation of the Republican Party, whose capture of the national government in 1860 led directly to the secession crisis of 1860-61.

    Many historians argue that the Compromise played a major role in postponing the American Civil War for a decade, during which time the Northwest was growing more wealthy and more populous, and was being brought into closer relations with the Northeast.[2] During that decade the Whigs collapsed, bringing about a major realignment with the new Republican Party dominant in the North.[3] But others argue that the Compromise only made more obvious pre-existing sectional divisions and laid the groundwork for future conflict. In this view the Fugitive Slave Law helped polarize North and South, as shown in the enormous reaction to Harriet Beecher Stowe's novel Uncle Tom's Cabin. The passage of the Fugitive Slave Law aroused feelings of bitterness in the North.

    The delay of hostilities for ten years allowed the free economy of the northern states to industrialize. The southern states, to a large degree based on slave labor and cash crop production, lacked the ability to heavily industrialize [4]. By 1860, the northern states had many more miles of railroad, steel production, modern factories, and population. The North was better able to supply, equip, and man its armed forces, an advantage that would prove decisive in the later stages of the war.

    References

    • H. D. Foster, "Webster's Seventh of March Speech," American Historical Review, 27 (1922), 245-270 online in JSTOR
    • Holman Hamilton, Prologue to Conflict: The Crisis and Compromise of 1850 (1964), the standard historical study
    • Holman Hamilton. "Democratic Senate Leadership and the Compromise of 1850," The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, Vol. 41, No. 3. (Dec., 1954), pp. 403-418. in JSTOR
    • Holman Hamilton. Zachary Taylor, Soldier in the White House (1951)
    • Holt, Michael F. The Political Crisis of the 1850s (1978).
    • Michael F. Holt, The Fate of Their Country: Politicians, Slavery Extension, and the Coming of the Civil War (2005).
    • Johannsen, Robert W. Stephen A. Douglas (1973) (ISBN 0195016203)
    • Morrison, Michael A. Slavery and the American West: The Eclipse of Manifest Destiny and the Coming of the Civil War (1997) (ISBN 0807823198)
    • Allan Nevins, Ordeal of the Union (1947) v 2, highly detailed narrative
    • Mark J. Stegmaier, Texas, New Mexico, and the Compromise of 1850: Boundary Dispute and Sectional Crisis, Kent State University Press, 1996. 434 pp.
    • Remini, Robert. Henry Clay: Statesman for the Union (1991)
    • James Ford Rhodes, History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850, vol. i. (New York, 1896).
    • Rozwenc, Edwin C. ed. The Compromise of 1850. (1957) convenient collection of primary and secondary documents; 102 pp.
    • Sewell, Richard H. "Ballots for Freedom: Antislavery Politics in the United States 1837-1860" New York: Oxford University Press, 1976.
    • Charles M. Wiltse, John C. Calhoun, Sectionalist, 1840-1850 (1951)

    Notes

    1. ^ David L. Lewis, District of Columbia: A Bicentennial History, (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1976), 54-56.
    2. ^ Robert Remini, The House: A History of the House of Representatives (2006) p. 147
    3. ^ Holt, Michael F. The Political Crisis of the 1850s (1978).
    4. ^ Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Fruits of Merchant Capital (1983).

    External links


     
     

    Join the WikiAnswers Q&A community. Post a question or answer questions about "Compromise of 1850" at WikiAnswers.

     

    Copyrights:

    US Military Dictionary. The Oxford Essential Dictionary of the U.S. Military. Copyright © 2001, 2002 by Oxford University Press, Inc. All rights reserved.  Read more