The Compromise of 1850: Causes, Impact, and Failure

Introduction

The 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 its period, it represented an immediate resolution to the issue of slavery — an element that had marked America's evolution from its very beginning as a nation. However, the events that followed, and especially the subsequent development of slavery as an institution, proved the limited impact this set of laws had on definitively resolving the question of slavery.

There are different perspectives that shed light on the actual failing of the initial, officially stated aims of the legislative initiative. These perspectives take into account the historical background of the time, the factors that determined the evolution of events, and the actions that set in motion the implementation of these laws. In order to better understand the precise impact the Compromise had and the reasons for its failure, it is important to consider these matters carefully.

Historical Background of the Compromise

On 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 differing positions of the southern and northern states regarding the practice of slavery were a well-known fact. While the South relied heavily on the manual labor of enslaved Black workers, the North adopted a more modern approach to productivity and oriented its interests toward mechanized development (Jenkins, 1997). From this perspective, the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was one of the first steps taken by Congress to exclude slavery from public territory acquired from various 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 the proportion of states willing to accept slavery. The contest was effectively fought over the number of votes in Congress; therefore, following the admission of California and Texas into the Union, a heated debate was inevitable given the high stakes involved in controlling such valuable land.

Finally, the U.S. presidency played an important role in establishing the conditions for the eventual compromise. President Zachary Taylor had approached the possibility of a compromise regarding California and the situation of Texas with fierce conviction, leaving little room for negotiation. Soon after his death, however, his successor President Fillmore proved more willing to reach a common position on the issue.

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

Why Compromise Succeeded in 1850

First and foremost, in 1850, the Missouri Compromise remained relatively untouched. By that time, each state had followed the rules imposed by the 1820 agreement. California's desire to be admitted into the Union as a free state met opposition from the South, which viewed it as a threat to the existing equilibrium. However, the Compromise balanced this decision by including the Fugitive Slave Act, which stipulated serious punishments for any person who aided a fugitive enslaved person from the South while in the North. In this way, consensus was reached and a certain balance was maintained, while the foundations of the democratic constitution were preserved (Rozwenc, 1957).

Secondly, there was the matter of political will, which drove the desire to reach a middle ground (Jenkins, 1997). At the time of the 1850 Compromise, political leadership was less divided along slave-state and free-state lines. As the Union was a relatively new construction, the views expressed during political debates were less intransigent than they would become in the early 1860s.

The election of Abraham Lincoln proved decisive in this regard. Aware of the growing tensions within the Union over the issue of slavery, Lincoln advocated throughout his electoral campaign — and following his inauguration — a determined policy of maintaining the Union at all costs. He considered slavery a divisive element for the Union. In his famous speech known as "A House Divided," Lincoln declared: "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). He therefore admitted no compromise solution, a stance that can also be seen as one of the principal causes of the Civil War that followed.

Conclusion

Overall, the 1850 Compromise stands as proof of democratic rule in practice, despite its obvious shortcomings. It provided a solution for the questions that the historical background had raised; at the same time, however, it postponed resolution of the inevitable question of slavery — an issue that only the Civil War would ultimately settle.

Bibliography

Fehrenbacher, Donald, ed. Lincoln: Speeches and Writings 1859–1865. Vol. 1. New York: Library of America, 1989.

Jenkins, Philip. A History of the United States. New York: Palgrave, 1997.

Rozwenc, Edwin C., ed. The Compromise of 1850. Boston: D.C. Heath, 1957.