Friday, October 4, 2013

Compromise?



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?

14 comments:

  1. Politicians thought that the compromise could save them because there were many ways that it would help them. One way it would help them is that they would have more time to make decisions for the war. The compromise delayed the war and allowed there to be a lot more time for politicians to form their opinions on everything going on in the war and to relax a little before the war. The politicians all had their own opinion. The president at the time thought that every state should decide for themselves wether or not they were a slave state. Both the north and south disliked some of the decisions that were made, but politicians were all very confident that the compromise would save them because it would better the whole country and be the start of the end of slavery.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The compromise of 1850 was at the time of the civil war. this was just to buy time before the war because they all knew it was going to happen sooner then later. So the talk between California and Texas on whether it would be a free state or a slave state, caused big problems because this argument got rid of the peace they had and these big pieces of land were wanted for both sides. But they knew it was only something to delay or give them some time before they can come up with a better solution.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Although some contemporary politicans, such as John Calhoun, had thought that the compromise could save the union, others thought that it was necessary to take more extreme actions. For instance, John Calhoun blamed the Northeners as "insincere" and blamed them for not following the constitution, in which he believed that keeping the slaves(following the constitution), is the only way to save and preserve the union. In addition, Daniel Webster too, thought that keeping the constituiton the way it is would be the only way to prevent the civil war. He had claimed that peaceful secession would be impossible and secession of states would mean civil war.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The intentions of The Compromise of 1850 were meant to prevent a war from eventually happening, but instead it ended up delaying the problem. For example John Calhoun says "Do that and discontent will cease, harmony and kind feelings between the sections be restored, and every apprehension of danger to the Union removed". What i think John is trying to say is the the North and the South need to agree peacefully together on a compromise, and that the compromise will take all of the danger to slave out of the South. Also when I read what John Calhoun had to say, i felt like he was being nicer to the South then he was the North. Overall i think that the reason why the Compromise of 1850 didn't work was because it just wasn't a reasonable compromise that pleases both sides.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Compromise of 1850 was supposed to prevent the Civil war, but it just delayed it. Some believed that preserving the Constitution would prevent the war, and that if the South seceded, then it would mean war. The politicians truly believed that the war could be avoided by making this compromise. Abraham Lincoln talks a lot about slavery, and that it is not the South's fault. He acknowledges that the existence of slavery is no more the South's fault than it is the North. Lincoln says that he would not really know what to do about slavery. But he says he would send all the slaves back to Liberia, but that wouldnt be possible. So there is the choice of freeing all of them but they are still below us, or free them all and make them our equals. John Calhoun says that saving the Union rests on the North, and not the South.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The comprise was intended to "appease" both sides, when in reality all it did was push the war off. The compromise did not work because it didnt deal with the real issues at hand, the issues would still continue to be a problem even after the compromise. I agree with Meghan that the treaty was more towards what the south wanted then what the north wanted. I think because it was a little onesided thats why it want really a "compromise" and why it didnt last.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The compromise of 1850 was at first a plan to prevent the war but ended up being a way to put off the war from starting for a little bit longer. I think it wasnt fair to both sides and in order to make peace, everyone has to be happy or at least content with their side of the bargain. As webster said, the secessions of states would just cause a civil war. I agree with Tina's statement about the delay caused by the compromise gave politicians time to form their own opinions about everything that was going on.

    ReplyDelete
  8. At the time, the compromise must have seemed like a win-win situation. The Northern states were appeased because California was entered into the Union as a free state, and the Southerners were satisfied because their runaway slaves would be brought back to them due to the stricter Fugitive Slave Act. However, the congressmen didn't seem to realize that what each region wanted was detrimental to the other. The Northerners abhorred the fact that they were being forced to help Southern slave owners to return slaves that had become free. And the Southerners felt cheated when the new states from the Mexican cession were free because most of the American soldiers that fought in the war were from the South, and they felt even more cheated when the Northerners refused to follow the Fugitive Slave Act. The congressmen surely assumed that they were helping the Union, but in reality they only exacerbated the sectional tensions and deepened the divide between the North and the South.

    ReplyDelete
  9. At that time, The Civil War was obviously falling sooner or later, and both South and North. But the North especially wanted to avoid war and cared deeply about finding a solutionto the conflict that was going on between the two parts of the country without having to go through a war. Therefore, the Compromise of 1850. for the simple reason of delaying the war, I believe because of the fear they experienced..as all humans by nature are afraid of war.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Compromising maybe was meant to avert war. The war did happen after a decade. As Chandler said in the post that all pliticians knew the war was going to happen sooner or later, what those politicians actually want was to earn time so that possibly they would have the big states like California to one side or the other. Then, when the war really starts, either the North or the South can be stronger from owning the big states.

    ReplyDelete
  11. In the first piece Daniel Webster isn't talking about the compromise so much as just the abolition movement in general. He basically says that the rise of abolitionism although obviously a good cause to the northerners had the opposite effect on slavery in the south. That the rise of an ideology against slavery made slavery advocates in the south fight harder for the cause "the bonds of slavery were held tighter than ever before". Calhoun then suggests that the focus should be more on making the south happy rather than having both sides be content like gwen said. he also says that to be in the union is to obey the constitution which the north technically didn't do by not abiding by the fugitive slave act, although he does address this point. He's thinking that an agreement needs to be maid by the north which the south can follow rather than the south come up with what they want; that the issue at hand is the responsibility of the north. He also removes the option of the north just ignoring the south when he says that they will take their silence as complacency with the south succeeding as the south sees that as their only option to show their discontent. Although they say that the compromise was a solution to the further separation encroaching i don't think they truly believed that. When this was decided they knew that the south wasn't going to pleased and because of this they would succeed like they threatened to before. The government thought that because they saw this compromise as an actual rational compromise that the south would as well but in all actuality all the south is stubborn and holds too much pride in slavery to be okay with the thought that america is going to progressively stray from slavery.

    ReplyDelete
  12. All the materials implies the inevitability of the war. People held total different views according to their own benefits, and no one wanted to step back. According to John Calhoun, the problem between these two groups: the Southerners and the Northerners/Abolitionists is Northerners' selfishness. "Northerners(her)' love of power and aggrandizement is far greater than her love of the Union." It is pretty obvious that Northerners care more about their own group instead of thinking for the benefit of the whole union. Daniel Webster mentioned the impossibility of "peaceable secession" in his attempt to speak to the president. Those conflicts that stimulates between the North and the South could not be solved just by a plain compromise. The real situation is way more complex than the idealistic plan. Their conflicts are involved with economy, labor, morality, power and so on. In Calhoun's statement, which supports the Southerners, a solution is offered. Calhoun thought that The North is the relatively stronger one compare to the South. Therefore, it would be easy for the North to yield, and the North would not even have to make any sacrifice. However, the North apparently did not agree with Calhoun and the South was not treated with just. The compromise of 1850 was just like an oven that heats up the whole situation, eventually fail to prevent the war.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Everyone knew the war was inevitable, the political, financial, and moral conflicts between the North were too great in order to remain unsettled. However, the compromise of 1850 was a feeble attempt at trying to appease both sides. Many politicians thought that this compromise would save them because it gave something to both sides, allowing the North to have more land but at the same time allowing the South to keep their slaves. However, I believe that both sides knew this "peace" would only be temporary because of the struggles between both sides from the past. This Compromise was merely a delay for something that was long over due, giving both sides to prepare for the war.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Henry clay was the man in charge of drafting up the compromise of 1850. the compromise was made to if only temporally keep the north and south from ripping each other to pieces. the compromise divide the territory that had just been won from mexico evenly among the north and southern territories. The compromise was used to delay something america has been trying to delay and not talk about for years if the civil breaks out what are you going to do with the millions of impoverished people that have known nothing but slavery there entire lives. that was the reason it was drafted up the north and south were clearly having a rivalry trying to control american politics and the north knew if it attacked slavery they would win any war.

    ReplyDelete