American History

The Compromise of 1850 and the subsequent debates surrounding the issue, illustrated the political polarization that had occurred out of the institution of slavery in the South and the Souths relationship to the North and, more importantly, the central government. The lines between North and South, free state and slave state, started to become more than matters of political debate and had grown to effect these states identities within the larger context of the United States. The debates that hit at the heart of the Compromise of 1850 showed this divide and the emerging mindset of fragmentation that culminated with the Civil War. Arguing from various standpoints, the speeches of John C. Calhoun, Daniel Webster, and William Seward the complexities behind the bill that radiated from the central issue of slavery.

Of the three men, Daniel Webster proves to be the only supporter of the proposed compromise, something meant to assuage certain demands of each but not all. In Websters view slavery cannot be morally or politically defended, by its very definition it undermines the fabric of American society. However, since it does exist rather than abolishing it as an acceptable institution Webster proposes almost an acceptance. If, within the South, human beings are habitually and legally treated as possessions, the laws of the government should accept these states rights to their laws while also upholding certain tenants of the Constitution. He views the other grievances of the South in a similar manner, particularly that of under-representation and unequal distribution of federal wealth. A smaller region than the North, and growing smaller with each new addition, the South could envision a future where grossly outnumbered their way of life would be decided by people unsympathetic to their cause. Webster is catering to this fear in his speech, holding out an olive branch and attempting to smother the cries of secession as a solution to the problems of the Union. Though he was likely unaware at the time, he rightly predicted the road where such rhetoric could lead,   There can be no such thing as a peaceable secession. Peaceable secession is an utter impossibility  (Webster, 1850). In some ways it is admirable to strike a middle ground in such debates, however, in an argument of such fierce ideological undertones the middle ground makes no one happy. The compromise becomes one of personal values and identity disillusioned, people will become further marginalized in their relationship to the government.

Both William Seward and John C. Calhoun strongly disagreed with the Compromise of 1850 for the very reasons Webster supported the motion. On opposite sides of the ideological spectrum concerning the issue of slavery, both men stand passionately behind their ideals. Calhoun opposes the bill as he sees it as not enough in his eyes such a compromise fails to address the problems but rather puts of the day that they will become cataclysmic. Sewards protest against the bill is far more philosophical and based in moral, rather than political, principal than the arguments of the two other men.  He, more than the Webster or Calhoun, addresses the issue of slavery in detail, paying close attention to its affront to not only mans law as proscribed in the Constitution but also with natural law or rather Gods law. Like Calhoun, Seward recognizes that a compromise will only result in a delay in the climax of slaverys relationship with America. An abolitionist and morally supported by what he views as the laws of nature as proscribed by God, Seward viewed the abolition of slavery as a given. Its mere existence flies in the face of all we are taught about God and the nature of man and freedom,  When God had created the earth, with its wonderful adaptations, He gave dominion over it to man, absolute human dominion. The title of that dominion, thus bestowed, would have been incomplete, if the lord of all terrestrial things could himself have been the property of his fellow- man  (Seward, 1850). Man cannot at once live up to the laws of nature while entertaining and perpetuating a practice that undermines its basic values. To make man into a commodity, based upon an antiquated and barbaric custom of forced labor, is to undermine the overall definition of humanity. There is nothing in nature to distinguish the slave from the free man, nothing to predispose one type of man over another, it is an invention of human vices namely greed. To validate it politically, no matter how minor the compromise, is to subvert oneself against the will of natureGod.

Given the play of history following the Clay Compromise, with the rising animosity and the division shown in the tragedy of the Civil War, as well as the later civil rights issues that would plague the South into the mid-20th century, it is easy to see evidence for both sides of this debate. On the one hand, a compromise did nothing to stop the secession of the southern states from the Union, the Civil War, or the abolition of slavery. All sides became entrenched in the tragedy of this fight the compromise merely seemed to delay the inevitable. On the other hand, Webster was correct in his view that if either extreme took the reigns the issue would reach tragic proportions. In all instances, these speeches allow us to see how deeply divided the country had become over this issue and, more importantly, to see the ideological beliefs at the basis of both sides.