Compromise of 1850 Three Views

Compromise of 1850

Three Views from Statesmen who Mattered

The Compromise of 1850- Three Views from Statesmen who Mattered

The Compromise of 1850 was a widely debated and hotly contested congressional measure which sought to prevent, or at least forestall, a formal attempt at secession by the southern U.S. states. At the heart of the compromise, and of the debate were the issues involving slavery, states' rights and U.S. territories. Specifically, would the new states about to be admitted out of the 1845 conquest of the Texas territory be admitted as free states or slave states. Everybody saw this issue as much more far reaching that just the territory in question. The South felt assured that without additional slave states as to the union as a result of the accession, their livelihood as cash crop farmers based on free labor was inevitably doomed.

Three notable congressman and statesmen, William Henry Seward, Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun, gave notable speeches during the March 1850 debates regarding the compromise. There are several noteworthy observations regarding the speeches. First, Seward's and Calhoun's speeches were perfectly consistent with their character, platforms and political histories, while Webster's was quite inconsistent and cost him much of his public honor. Second, each speech drew authority directly from an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Finally, each of the men was acutely aware of the imminent danger of secession and civil war.

Seward, a Senator from New York, was known as an ardent abolitionist. Prior to his speech, Seward gained notoriety for representing an African-American accused of murdering for people. As part of his defense, Seward argued that it is the "spiritual immortal mind" and not the color of one's skin that makes a human, "accepted and approved by his Father." (Seward 417). This notion, that men of all races are men in the eyes of God, became the driving force behind his abolitionist platform.

Seward ultimately wanted no part of adding slave states or the return of fugitive slave, both of which were allowed in limited form under the Compromise. As a result, he campaigned against the Compromise of 1850. When speaking to the Congress during the debates over the Compromise in March of 1850, Seward sang the same refrain in his now famous speech: "There is a higher law than the Constitution…of the common heritage of mankind, bestowed upon them by the Creator of the Universe." Seward was referring to God's Law, which he believed governed Nature and Nations. Though Seward concedes that the Constitution acknowledged the ownership of slaves, Seward did not believe that this conveyed the right to make slaves, as this was purely God's domain.

Seward's speech resonated with Northern Whigs because the north was decidedly and increasingly anti-slavery. The industrial machine of the North was approaching full strength by 1850, and it saw slavery as a stain on the nation's consciousness. Seward's speech also appealed to his constituents because it stressed the superior authority of the federal government over the states (or at least the South). Seward provides evidence of this when he comments that the Constitution confers rights to the people of the states, not to the actual states. Finally,

Calhoun was as decorated a statesman as there was in 1850: former Vice President, Secretary of War and a present-day Senator from South Carolina. His history also included fighting for the rights of southern states to maintain slaves and for fomenting the Nullification Crisis of 1832. It was equally no surprise that his speech rejected the Compromise and the grounds he offered. Essentially, Calhoun's speech was an emotional ploy to the North to understand that without slavery the south could not exist and without the admission of additional slave states, the south could not be an equal partner in the union.

Calhoun's constitutional justification for rejecting the compromise was that the representational republicanism set forth in the Constitution required a semblance of balance of representation between the two distinct sections, the South and the North. However, Calhoun was a tough and hardened war hawk and his speech was not really about frothy emotional appeals to constitutional equality. (Latimer 920). He was primarily advising that with full concession to the South as to its demands of admitting slave states, the South would secede. Then, Calhoun's only questions to the north would be- when this happens, will you be taking up arms against us.

Favoring the notion of the compromise was Daniel Webster. Webster was steeped in federalism and favored a stronger federal government. His speech is one of appeasement to the south for the sake of preserving the union. Webster cites to the constitutional acknowledgment of slavery and the relative deleterious impact of abolitionism on the nation as a whole as moral justification for supporting the Compromise. His only real objective is to prevent secession.