On Jan. 29, 1850, after Southern states threatened to secede from the Union, Sen. Henry Clay proposed a number of laws designed to placate both northern and southern interests. The Compromise of 1850, as the legislation came to be known, eventually passed but only delayed Southern secession for a decade.
The early 19th century saw the United States trying to form a national identity even as one-half of the nation embraced the institution of slavery while the other half rejected it. Carved out of the Louisiana Purchase territory, Missouri applied for statehood in 1820. This presented a problem for two major reasons. First, a balance had been struck in the Senate with an even number of slave and free states. As the proposed constitution for the state of Missouri allowed slavery, the balance in the national government would end. Second, extending northward into the Midwest, many northerners felt that Missouri brought slavery too far north.
The Compromise of 1820, or the Missouri Compromise, which had been brokered largely by Clay, then Speaker of the House, dealt with these issues. First, the compromise stated that from that point on, no one state would be admitted to the Union. Rather, a free state and a slave state must be admitted at the same time, (Maine was admitted at the same time as Missouri). The compromise also stated that, with the exception of Missouri, slavery would not be allowed in the Louisiana Territory above the 36-degree, 30-foot parallel.
On the national stage, the problem of slavery within the framework of the national government appeared to be solved. The United States victory in the U.S.-Mexican War in 1848, however, opened the door to a new national debate over slavery.
When the war began in 1846 many expressed concern that a victory over Mexico would lead to annexations of vast territory from northern Mexico (today's American southwest). Such annexations, many Northerners feared, could lead to a large number of slave states petitioning to come into the Union at the same time, once again upsetting the balance before more Northern states could be organized. President James K. Polk, himself a slave owner, stated simply that he doubted slavery would spread to the new territories.
The issue cut across party lines. Democrat David Wilmot, a Pennsylvania Congressman, proposed a rider to a war appropriations bill that stated that any territory won as a result of the war must be free. The measure, supported by Whig Congressman Abraham Lincoln, passed twice in the House of Representatives but failed twice in the Senate.
The 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo did indeed see vast territories transferred from Mexico to the U.S., and many Southerners celebrated the fact that these new lands could see the expansion not only of the United States, but of slavery as well.
Clay, who had run for president several times before, most recently as a Whig in the 1844 election, tried again in 1848. Skeptical of the old politician's chances, and aware of his advanced age (Clay had been born in 1777), the Whig Party instead selected Gen. Zachary Taylor, hero of the Mexican War, to be the nominee. A Southern slave owner like Clay, many Southerners supported Taylor's bid for the White House, believing he would support Southern attempts to expand slavery to the West.
Taylor surprised all after his electoral victory, however, when he came out against the expansion of slavery into the new territories. The California Gold Rush saw that state's population balloon rapidly, and Taylor urged the territory leaders, as well as that of New Mexico (which included modern Arizona), to quickly organize a constitution and apply for statehood as a free state. Taylor's position soon alienated him from many of his earlier supporters.
Additionally, many in the South were outraged that such a prime piece of real estate as California would soon become free, and there was little Southerners could do about it. Soon, many in the South began making noises that, if California were indeed admitted into the Union, Southern states would secede. Secession had always been something of a “nuclear option” for the South, and the threat, made explicitly or not, had lingered on the periphery of American political considerations since the foundation of the republic.
When Congress met in December 1849, statehood for California and the mollification of the South were the paramount issues. Now a senator, Clay was at the forefront of the debate and hoped to craft a compromise that would be as well received as the Missouri Compromise had been. On Jan. 29, 1850, Clay addressed the Senate. In the biography of the 16th president, “A. Lincoln,” Ronald C. White Jr. wrote:
“(Lincoln) applauded the efforts of Senator Henry Clay, who… was busy cobbling together a series of measures to ease the growing tensions between the North and the South. The 70-year-old Clay had introduced… resolutions proposing 'an amicable arrangement of all questions in controversy between the free and slave states, growing out of slavery.' Clay hoped his resolutions, which would become known as the Compromise of 1850, would promote 'a great national scheme of compromise and harmony.'”
The compromise included five main points that addressed various issues that plagued the nation. First, California would be admitted to the Union as a free state. Second, for years Northerners had detested the open slave trade in Washington D.C., a Southern city. It was not uncommon that as the various congressmen from throughout the republic walked from their hotels and houses to the capital building, they would pass by a repugnant slave auction. Clay proposed that the slave trade, though not the institution of slavery itself, be banned in Washington, D.C.
Third, the newly acquired territories of Utah and New Mexico were to be organized under the principal of Popular Sovereignty. This legal concept held that the federal government would not attempt to influence whether these territories eventually applied for statehood as free or slave states, but rather let the people living there organize the states as they saw fit. Southerners delighted at this proposal, as it opened up the modern-day states of Utah and Nevada, territories above the 36-degree, 30-foot parallel, to the possibility of slavery.
The fourth point dealt with the state of Texas. Only formally admitted to the Union a few years before, Texas held massive debt to foreign governments, American firms and its residents. The state also claimed vast territories beyond its present-day borders, most of it extending into the New Mexico territory. Clay proposed that the U.S. government give Texas $10 million to pay off its debts, and in exchange Texas must relinquish its claims to land in the New Mexico territory.
What really succeeded in ultimately mollifying many Southerners, however, was Clay's proposal for a new, stronger Fugitive Slave Act, to help slave owners more easily track down and recover escaped slaves. Law enforcement officials in any capacity now had the authority to deputize anyone on the spot and force them to help capture a suspected escaped slave. Anyone who refused to help could be fined $1,000 (roughly $30,000 today). Anyone who aided an escaped slave could be fined $1,000 and face up to six months in jail.
Additionally, suspected escaped slaves would not be brought before judges and juries where they could present evidence in their defense. Rather, special commissioners were appointed to hear cases of escaped slaves. According to the law, if the commissioner found for the accused, and the suspect slave was allowed his freedom, the commissioner was paid $5. If the commissioner found for the claimant, and the accused was then deemed to be a slave, the commissioner received $10.
Few were happy with everything that Clay proposed, but most were ultimately willing to accept it. Sen. William H. Seward from New York opposed the compromise, and in March gave his “Higher Law Speech,” in which he stated that Fugitive Slave Act was morally wrong. Many Southerners likewise disliked the compromise, though for different reasons. In his book, “The Civil War: A History,” historian Harry Hansen wrote:
“Although Senator Jefferson Davis voted for the Compromise, he was 1 of the 10 Southern senators who protested formally that admitting California as a free state was fatal 'to the peace and equality' of their states, and warned that if this policy were persisted in, it would lead to dissolution of the confederacy (meaning the United States) 'in which the slave-holding states have never sought more than equality, and in which they will not be content to remain with less.'”
Taylor derisively referred the compromise as the “Omnibus Bill,” because it was supposedly going to solve all of the nation's problems. When the various pieces of legislation that made up the compromise passed in the summer of 1850, Taylor threatened to use his veto power, but he died July 9. Millard Fillmore, Taylor's successor, looked favorably on the legislation.
Clay, known to history as “The Great Compromiser”, saw his health go downhill largely as a result of his efforts to get the compromise through Congress. He died of tuberculosis in June 1852. The Civil War, that Clay hoped to avoid, began in 1861.
Cody K. Carlson holds a master's in history from the University of Utah and teaches at Salt Lake Community College. An avid player of board games, he blogs at thediscriminatinggamer.com. Email: ckcarlson76@gmail.com