Compromise of 1850 Is Regarded

¶ … Compromise of 1850 is regarded by most scholars as an important event in the history of the United States. From a general point-of-view, it can be said that for the respective period, it represented an immediate resolution of the issue of slavery, an element that had marked America's evolution from its very beginning as a state. However, the following events, and especially the subsequent development of slavery as an institution proved the limited impact this set of laws, known as the Compromise of 1850 had on the definite resolution of the issue of slavery.

Indeed, there are different perspectives that would shed some light on the actual failing of the initial and official stated aims of the legislative initiative. These however take into account the historical background of the time with its factors that determined the evolution of events, as well as the actions that set in motion the implementation of these laws. In order to have a better understanding of the precise impact the Compromise had and on the reasons for its failure, it is important to take these matters into consideration.

On the one hand, there is the matter of the historical background that clearly defined the general guidelines under which the debate would be conducted.

First, the different stand between the southern states and the northern ones in terms of accepting or not the practice of slavery was a rather well-known fact. While the South relied heavily on the manual labor force of the blacks, the North adopted a modern stand in terms of productivity and oriented its interests towards a mechanized development. (Jenkins, 1997) From this perspective, the Louisiana Compromise of 1820 was one of the first steps made by the Congress to exclude slavery from public territory acquired from different European states following the establishment of the Constitution. This legislative act empowered states to decide, to a certain degree, on the acceptance or refusal of slavery as a means of production.

Secondly, the Mexican-American war set the framework for a new configuration of the equilibrium in terms of percentage of states willing to accept slavery. The battle was in fact taken for the number of votes in Congress; therefore, following the independence of California and Texas and their integration in the Union, a rather heated debate was imminent due to the high stakes the control over such a rich land imposed.

Finally, it can be said that the Presidency of the U.S. played an important role in establishing the grounds for the eventual compromise. Zacharia Taylor had met the possibility of a compromise in the matter of the Californian state and the situation of Texas with fierce conviction and left little room for negotiation. Soon after his death however, the next president Fillmore was more willing to reach a common stand on the issue.

Taking all this into account, the compromise reached in 1850 was the result of fierce debates, but, above all, the expression of a desire to maintain the Union. By comparison, in 1861, the opposing forces failed to see beyond party lines and private interests prevailed.

First and foremost, in 1850, the Missouri Compromise was relatively untouched. By then, each state had followed the rule imposed by the 1820 agreement. California's desire to be admitted in the Union as a free state met the opposition of the South which saw this as a threat of the equilibrium. However, the Compromise had balanced this decision by agreeing on the Fugitive Slave Law, which stipulated serious punishments for any person aiding a fugitive Southern slave in the North. In this sense, consensus was reached and a certain balance was kept, while the basics of the democratic constitution were kept. (Rozwenc, 1957)

Secondly, there was the matter of political will which determined the desire to reach a middle ground. (Jenkins, 1997) at the time of the 1850 Compromise, the leadership was less divided in terms of slave and Free states. As the Union was a relatively new construction, the views expressed throughout the political debates were less intransigent than in the early 1860s. The election of Abraham Lincoln proved decisive in this sense. Aware of the growing tensions arising inside the union with regard to the issue of slavery, he advocated, throughout his electoral campaign and following his appointment, a determined policy of maintaining the Union at all costs. In this sense, he considered slavery to be a dividing element for the Union. In his famous speech "A divided house" Lincoln underlined the fact that "A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all, one thing or all, the other" (Fehrenbacher, 1989, p. 426). Therefore, he admitted no compromise solution. This can also be considered as an emphasis on one of the main causes of the Civil War that followed.