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?
I believe the idea of a compromise of Texas and even California seemed like a pretty fair way to settle thing. Now clearly we now understand that this did nothing to prevent the war, but their was of course reason for this. I think the biggest reason lies between who gets what. Of course Texas is a huge state that can with stand a huge population. Does it become part of the Union? or part of the South? Any solution to these problems was a little bit of hope that the Civil War could somehow be avoided.
ReplyDeleteCivil war, I agree, was inevitable at the time of the Compromise of 1850 due to incredibly high controversies about almost everything between the north and south. But, perhaps it is the fear of this "inevitable war" that drove politicians to draft up something that would give them time to suspend it even if it is only for a little while. Examples of this fear is seen everywhere in our own lives, its just human nature. For example if you are told that you are going to develop a certain disease, then you will try everything you possibly can to prevent is even though it may be inevitable because you are stricken with fear. Daniel Webster says that even with the word "secession" he hears "pain, anguish, and distress". He adds on listing all of these questions that must be answered after seccession...in essence the fear of "what comes next" worries many and it is this fear that forces the scramble to prevent change.
ReplyDeleteI believe that at this time, the war between the north and south was certain to happen. During the time of the compromise, the majority of everything said between each other resulted in conflict. And for this reason I think that the compromise of 1850 was literally just a way of delaying time. Like what nicki said, politicians needed to buy time so they came up with this. I think that politicians believed that this could save them, because maybe by some miracle it could possibly work and they would have to go to war with each other. Because for politicians, wars is the last thing that is wanted.
ReplyDeleteI think that the 1850 compromise was actually a good idea-but only on a short term. It helped enough to calm down both sides of the argue, but only to a point where they tolerated the situation. But the politicians thought that the accomodations toward the south would calm down the whole dispute.
ReplyDeleteI was extremely disappointed when Lincoln's speech was cut short. He was just about to speak about what he thought of blacks being socially equal. Lincoln seemed extremely even headed, admitting that he was in no position to judge southerners and that if he was in their position he would probably be the same way. I'm curious as to what platform Lincoln ran on, because wasn't the Republican Party started as the party against slavery.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dave when he said politicians may have written up the compromise as an attempt to buy time. It's as if they knew the war was inevitable, but they had to do something in their power to try and stop it. They would use this as a temporary solution while they thought of something else. Of course, we know that nothing else was thought of and the ear broke out a decade later to devastating effect.
ReplyDeleteThe Compromise of 1850 was a placebo, it calmed people for a while but eventually it runs out or is found out. This compromise was a bid to buy time, it was used so politicians could have a few more years to find a new, better, more permanent fix.
ReplyDeleteThe compromise of 1850 was a speed bump in the road to the civil war. Even though both sides didn't want war, the way the two parts of the nation grew apart demanded there be a war. there was also the question of texas and California and weather or not they would go to the slave states or the free states. i think that this problem crippled the talks of peace between the north and south and was a big reason for war. Could of war been avoided, yes, only if as Calhoun said the North would want to talk things out and create a plan, but they didn't and the war was the result.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nicki that the inevitability of the war or a form of fear drove the politicians to think there was a way to prevent even if the subconsciously or they might have even been very well aware of the fact yet still denied it. But as Ms. Sutton mentioned our "hindsight" and top-down view we know that the war is inevitable. But a question is how well did they know that then, and to what extend? Would it have been better if one side began preparing early as to get ready< could that have made this a much shorter war?
ReplyDeleteThe compromise of 1850 was enacted for the sole purpose of delaying the inevitable. The way I see it, the compromise was not a failed compromise between the North and the South, rather something to tide the people over, and delay the war. The North was worried about finding a real solution without having a war before it could be found.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWell, first of all, i agree with jack that the compromise of 1850 was enacted for the sole purpose of delaying the inevitable. Indeed, that both south and north need to take a breath , and then think about what should they do the next. Also, if i was in their shoes i would have done the same thing just because the war would be expensive and harmful, if i could done something to avoid the damage and solve the problem peacefully, i think it definitely worth a try. it just would be like if one person is falling of an cliff, he would try to grab what ever he can even knowing that it won't hold him for long.
ReplyDelete