The Compromise of 1850

¶ … Compromise of 1850

Forming a critical and objective response to these three speeches is far easier said than done. The issues involved, slavery and secession, are both fraught with implications both inside and out of the political realm, which can make objectivity simply impossible. A fair examination of the law during that period seems to necessitate racism, as the laws of slavery were inherently racist. At the same time, any other interpretation other than a completely fair one is, by definition, unfair. The three very different views expressed by William H. Seward, John C. Calhoun, and Daniel Webster illustrate the fact that these same issues were being dealt with during the time of the Compromise. It was impossible to give an answer that was both entirely consistent with law and the Constitution while at the same time upholding emerging moral sensibilities that are considered normative today, and each of these three men had to choose a compromise of their own in coming to their decision, some with greater success than others.

Despite the length and breadth of Seward's argument, it is rather too emotionally and rhetorically driven to be considered a serious scholarly answer to suggestions of compromise. Seward's commitment to his moral sentiments is commendable, but he as much as says that the Constitution can no longer be considered the highest law of the land, but that a higher moral law (and religious law, though the two were synonymous for all intents and purposes at that time) must be used in determining whether or not slavery should be permitted. From the point-of-view of our modern sensibilities, his beliefs and assertions are fully correct; slavery has been (rightly, in the opinion of this author, though how much of that is a product of the time in which we live must always remain unknown) outlawed and decried for its inhumanity, but at the same time moral outrage cannot be effectively used in legislation and governance while retaining any fairness.

The problem of fair treatment of the South was the major issue as Calhoun saw it as well. Though he died shortly after this speech was read (too ill to read it himself, Calhoun was escorted from the floor after someone read it in his place), Calhoun is still considered one of the primary instigators of the Civil War. In this speech, he cites not slavery but general under-representation of the South as the primary reason making Southern states and their representatives feel as though continuance in the Union were impossible. Northern domination of the government had indeed been occurring, but diminishing the importance of slavery in regards to the question at hand, which was largely concerned with the condition of the new territories, seems disingenuous on Calhoun's part. Ignoring the moral issue of slavery, with which the North had a right not to be associated, also ignores a major reason of the North's dominance and increasing lack of compromise with the South in the halls of government.