The Compromise of 1850 was meant to avert war. Instead, it merely delayed the conflict by a decade. The reading for tonight contains a variety of opinions asserting why the federal government needed to appease both the North and the South. The provisions of the Compromise were drawn up by Henry Clay--a westerner.
So--we have the benefit of hindsight. The so-called "compromise" was nothing but a delaying of the inevitable Civil War. Yet, many of the most prominent politicians were convinced it could save them. How do we make sense of this? Truly--what were they thinking?
Although the Compromise of 1850 didn't do anything real and even added tensions between the South and the North, it delayed the Civil War for 10 years. For most prominent politicians during that period, the Compromise of 1850 really played a big role for the whole country. Because with a dividing country, nothing could be develop and the whole society would be drown into a contradiction, which seems worse for the union. The Compromise of 1850 actually provided more time for both sections and both South and North contributed for their views in order to complete the compromise. Those prominent politicians probably noticed that the sections could get a good chance to develop and the whole country would still be unified if the Compromise of 1850 could solve the conflicts between the South and North so they strongly convinced the it could save them.
ReplyDeleteThe Compromise of 1850, was a compromise between the North and South that talked about how land was going to be divided between the two. The compromise was meant to avoid war which it did, but only for a little while. Many prominent politicians were convinced it could save them because if there was not a war, which the compromise held off, then less people would die, literally saving them. I believe that the Northerners and Southerners thought that this compromise would allow their lives to remain the same. Not only did the compromise delay the inevitable Civil War, it also admitted California as a free state, “the fate of slavery in the rest of the Mexican Cession territory was left to the inhabitants.” Senator Daniel Webster thought that “peaceable secession [was] an utter impossibility.” Others like John Calhoun thought that, “ two burning questions brought the sectional controversy to a furious boil in 1850...[it] was the failure of Northerners loyalty to uphold both the constitution and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793. The second was the effort of California to win admissions as a free state.”
ReplyDeleteThe Compromise of 1850 was a package of five bills passed in the United States Of America in September 1850, which diminished a four-year crisis between the slave states of the South and the free states of the North regarding the condition of territories acquired during the Mexican-American War. The Mexican American War took place from 1846–1848. The compromise, drafted by Whig Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky and brokered by Clay and Democrat Stephen Douglas, avoided secession or civil war and reduced sectional conflict for four years. It consisted of laws admitting California as a free state, creating Utah and New Mexico territories with the question of slavery in each to be determined by popular sovereignty, settling a Texas-New Mexico boundary dispute in the former's favor, ending the slave trade in Washington, D.C., and making it easier for southerners to recover fugitive slaves.
ReplyDeleteThe Compromise of 1850 did indeed delay the war between the North and South, but it was meant for the purpose of dividing the land equally, which many disregarded after tension between the north and south became overpowering. Most of the prominent politicians at the time believed The Compromise of 1850 could save them because they thought they would finally agree on what to do with the land, unlike the constant battle of disagreeing that they endured. Although John Calhoun believed that the only way to fix the division was to adopt measures that satisfied the southern sates. "Do that and discontent will cease, harmony and kind feelings between the sections will be restored and every apprehension of danger to the Union will be removed." This was also very one sided in only protecting the southern states. Constant conflicts like this resulted to the upbringing of the Civil War which the Compromise of 1850 tried to prohibit.
ReplyDeleteThe Compromise of 1850 was a series of bills passed to decide the futures of the newly acquired territories in the west. Politicians were convinced this would save them because if senators from the North and South could finally agree on something it show a light of hope for the country to maybe come together and not lead to the Civil War. " The Breaking up of the fountains of the great deep without ruffling the surface! Who is so foolish- as i beg everyones pardon-as to expect to see any such thing?" This quote by congressman Daniel Webster from Massachusetts proves my statement from before. He says that succession should not be the problem solver for this problem. Although it delayed the Civil War for almost a decade, the idea of war was still inevitable.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, with the benefit of hindsight, we know that the Compromise of 1850 did nothing but delay the inevitable Civil War, politicians of the time truly believed that it could save the Union. Men like Abraham Lincoln, John Calhoun, Daniel Webster may not have totally agreed on the issue of slavery, but they were looking for any way to prevent secession.
ReplyDeleteThe Compromise of 1850 was a series of 5 bills that were designated to prevent war by giving the South equal say in the future of the free western states. The prominent politicians thought that by the North acknowledging the status and equal standing of the South, give in to some of their demands - essentially make friends - we would have a lower chance of war. There was also the idea that anybody patriotic would never use the word secession as they should love every part of this country and never support us breaking apart. These politicians also were looking into their best interest and to achieve the goals they wanted (slave states in the west among other things).
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I want to state that the cartoon above the blog is hilarious and I laughed at it for a good 5 minutes straight. Now, to the reading selection. The Compromise of 1850 was a collection of bills passed in September of 1850. Its main objective was to stop the discussion of war. Now having hindsight, we know that didn't work. The Compromise had certain components such as admitting California as a state that did not allow slavery, while letting Utah and New Mexico use Popular sovereignty, and strengthening the fugitive slave laws in the North. This seems like a logical compromise that includes parts that would please both the North and the South. I believe Daniel Webster said it best, that it would be impossible to avoid a civil war in the country is not equal and together as one, it is impossible to avoid conflict if states are seceding from the Country.
ReplyDeleteThe compromise was a series of bills that were made to prevent war by giving south an equal disposition when considering the future of the free western states. By acknowledging the south's desires, take there demands into account, we can be at peace and prevent war. Civil war was inevitable because of the lack of peace. There were too many contradictory opinions that resulted in war. Despite war being awful, the civil war almost needed to happen because it united our nation afterwards although it didn't settle many differences. The compromise of 1850 was a good idea, but was essentially unsuccessful.
ReplyDeleteThe compromise of 1850 was a package deal between the north and the south “which defused a four-year confrontation between the slave states of the South and the free states of the North regarding the status of territories acquired during the Mexican-American War (1846–1848)”. The compromise did not really do anything but instead added more tension between the northern and southern states. The compromise at first was well off until both territories, the north and the south were fighting for more land whenever a new land was bought or added to the united states.
ReplyDelete