Chapter Four: Texas, Mexico, and the Compromise of 1850 - Vocabulary Flashcards
The Compromise of 1850: Overview and Controversy
The Compromise of 1850 was described in the transcript as the "compromise" of 1850, but its nature is questioned as a genuine compromise. A majority of Northerners voted against measures they deemed proslavery, while a majority of Southerners voted against measures they considered to be antislavery. Bills passed only because the procompromise bloc of Northern Democrats and upper-South Whigs supported each one, and because a large number of Northern congressmen abstained on the bills pertaining to Utah, New Mexico, and fugitive slaves. This has led historian David Potter to call it the Armistice of 1850.
The compromises’ consequences diverged from expectations, notably:
California entered as a free state, yet its electors sent mostly proslavery representatives and senators to Washington. The text suggests California could scarcely have aided the South more if it had been a slave state, implying the political gain for the South was not as strong as anticipated.
The territorial provisions for New Mexico and Utah were a hollow victory for the South: Utah adopted a code in 1852, but the territory contained only twenty-nine slaves by 1860. New Mexico saw only a few slaves taken there by the South and a slave code enacted in 1859, but the 1860 census recorded no slaves in New Mexico.
The District of Columbia ended the transportation of slaves into the District for sale and trade, but it did not end buying and selling of slaves within the District itself.
The Fugitive Slave Law, though one of the least-debated elements of the Compromise, proved to be its most explosive feature.
Overall effect: the Compromise averted a gravest sectional crisis in 1850, or at least postponed it. Most Americans, even those opposed to compromise, breathed a sigh of relief. President Millard Fillmore framed the Compromise as a final and irrevocable settlement of sectional differences; acceptance of the Compromise was more hearty in the South than in the North. A North Carolina Whig captured the sentiment: "We of the South had a new protection for slave property… It was more secure than it had been for the last quarter of a century."
Political repercussions in the South and across the states:
Moderate coalitions of Whigs and Democrat moderates in the Lower South defeated efforts by Southern Fire Democrats to gain control of state governments or push for secession.
In Georgia (and other Deep South states), the Georgia Unionists adopted resolutions in December 1850 that provided a platform for the South for the next decade. The platform emphasized Unionism but stated a willingness to abide by the Compromise as a permanent settlement of the sectional controversy, even though Georgia did not wholly approve of it.
Major Provisions and Consequences of the 1850 Settlement
The transcript notes several key provisions and their practical outcomes:
California admitted as a free state, but its electoral and legislative outcomes did not offer the South the anticipated political leverage.
The territories of New Mexico and Utah were organized with a key clause: when admitted as states, they would be received into the Union with or without slavery, according to the constitution they drafted at admission. The practical impact was limited; Utah’s 1852 code and the 1859 slave code in New Mexico had little to no lasting slave presence by 1860.
The Texan boundary dispute was addressed, with compensation to Texas to finance its public debt (the figure is recorded in the historical record as 10{,}000{,}000 in some sources; see notes).
The District of Columbia abolition of the slave trade (the slave trade in DC) was enacted, but the purchase and sale of slaves within DC persisted under the new terms.
The Fugitive Slave Law was the centerpiece of debate and conflict, becoming the most explosive feature despite being one of the least debated.
Immediate political responses:
The South perceived the compromise as a strategic victory for slave property protections, while the North saw it as a pragmatic, temporary settlement that postponed a deeper crisis.
The compromise did not immediately resolve tensions over slavery expansion or abolition; tensions persisted and re-emerged in subsequent political realignments.
Political Reactions and the Georgia Platform
The Compromise generated mixed acceptance across the nation:
Moderates and Unionists in both parties accepted the deal, but the degree of enthusiasm varied by region.
The South, particularly its Whigs, generally viewed the Compromise as favorable and a safeguard for slave property, though some Southerners were wary of the long-term consequences.
The Georgia Unionist platform (Dec 1850) served as a political blueprint for the South during the 1850s:
It was a platform of conditional Unionism: Georgia would abide by the Compromise as a permanent adjustment, but it also established a readiness to resist measures that could threaten slavery.
The platform reflected a strategic approach to national politics by tying Southern unity to the acceptance of the Compromise as a lasting settlement.
The broader political context for the South:
The Georgia platform helped blunt disunionist drives by providing a structured, limited approach to sectional conflict.
In the immediate aftermath, the Democrats benefited more than the Whigs in the 1852 political landscape, as Unionist and anti-slavery sentiment grew within the Northern wing of the Whig party and among Free Soilers.
The 1852 Election: Parties, Platforms, and Results
Background: The 1848 Barnburners (a faction within the Democrats) had been an anomaly caused by intraparty factionalism rather than genuine antislavery conviction; by 1851, most Barnburners returned to the Democratic fold.
Democratic nominee: Franklin Pierce (New Hampshire) for President, 1852, on a states’ rights platform denouncing abolitionists and reaffirming the Compromise of 1850. Despite Pierce’s Yankee roots, he had a clearly proslavery record, contributing to Democratic unity across sections.
Northern Whigs vs. Southern Whigs:
Northern anti-slavery Whigs supported Winfield Scott (the Mexican War hero) for the nomination; Southern Whigs supported Fillmore (a New Yorker).
The Whig convention produced a platform that largely acquiesced to the Compromise of 1850, but Scott’s delegates largely opposed this plank, supporting it only as part of an implicit bargain to secure conservative support for Scott.
Booth and deadlock:
The convention lasted 52 ballots, ending in a deadlock between Scott and Fillmore.
Scott carried a majority of votes from free states; Fillmore carried a dominant share from slave states (roughly 85% of Fillmore’s votes came from slave states).
Free Soil candidate: John P. Hale of New Hampshire, on a platform denouncing the Compromise of 1850, demanding repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law, opposing any future admission of slave states, and branding slavery as a sin and a crime.
Southern Whig defections: Although some Southern Whigs defected to the Democrats, many supported the Scott/Fillmore tension or abstained; Southern Whigs were wary of Seward-like abolitionist influence and sought to avoid pushing the party toward a pro-emancipation stance.
Electoral dynamics in the South:
In six Lower South states, Scott won only about 35 rac{1}{0} percent of the popular vote; in contrast, Taylor had carried about 50 rac{1}{0} percent in 1848.
Scott won only two slave states and carried just two free states; the Whig share in the North stayed relatively stable despite internal divisions. Free Soil support collapsed to about 6 ext{%} of the Northern vote, reflecting Barnburner realignment with the Democrats.
Representative consequences:
The combination of Northern anti-slavery sentiment and Southern defense of slavery’s expansion weakened the Whig party, especially in the South.
By 1853, Democrats controlled every one of the future Confederate states; Whigs were reduced to a minor presence, with only 14 of the 65 Southern congressional seats held by Whigs.
The Whigs effectively became a Northern party with deep internal divisions; the two-party system stood on fragile footing in the era leading to the Civil War.
Notable statements and observations:
Alexander Stephens declared bluntly in the South that "the Whig party is dead."
Footnote references:
29: Roy and Jeannette Nichols, Election of 1852, in Schlesinger (ed.) History of American Presidential Elections, II, 954.
30: Cooper, The South and the Politics of Slavery, p. 330; Holt, The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party, pp. 732–733.
31: Cooper, The South and the Politics of Slavery, p. 343.
Chapter Four: Texas, Mexico, and the Compromise of 1850 — Legislative Path and Aftermath
After the opening rhetoric, the Senate formed a “committee of thirteen” with Clay as chairman to turn the resolutions into legislation. A bloc of compromise supporters coalesced, mainly Midwestern Democrats and upper-South Whigs, comprising less than a quarter of all senators and representatives.
Opposition: Northern Whigs and some Southern Democrats opposed the parts they viewed as slavery-related, while Southern Democrats and lower-South Whigs opposed parts they viewed as antislavery.
Clay’s strategy and its failure:
Clay introduced the compromise components hoping for a majority across sections to support the whole package, but opponents used a party-line tactic to defeat the whole by voting against the entire set to strike the parts they opposed.
Leadership change and strategy shift:
Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois replaced Clay as the leader of the procompromise forces. Douglas was pragmatic and skilled at parliamentary maneuvering, and he believed in separating coalitions for each part of the package.
Two pivotal events that aided Douglas:
June Nashville Convention, aimed at fire-eaters, failed to ignite common action; most Southerners favored a cautious approach and awaited events.
The death of President Taylor from a form of infection (the transcript notes “gas-nteritis”) altered the executive stance. The new President, Millard Fillmore, favored the Compromise and leveraged his influence to persuade several Whig congressmen to abstain on compromise-related roll calls, reducing opposition votes.
The five separate bills passed from mid-August to mid-September 1850:
Admission of California as a state
Adjustment of the Texas border
Organization of New Mexico and Utah territories with a provision that when admitted as states, they would be received into the Union with or without slavery, as their constitutions prescribed at admission
Enactment of a stringent Fugitive Slave Law
Abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia
Implementation details:
The bill admitting California as a state; organizing New Mexico and Utah as territories without slavery; and adjusting the Texas boundary in New Mexico’s favor; Texas received $10,000,000 to finance its public debt.
A separate Fugitive Slave Law and a separate abolition of the DC slave trade were also enacted.
Political consequences of the package:
The Compromise was debated as a political tool, with the Georgia platform and Southern strategy influencing national alliances.
The events around the Compromise shaped party alignments and foreshadowed the sectional realignments that culminated in the 1852 and 1856 elections.
The Georgia Platform and the Subsequent Political Landscape
The Georgia platform emphasized Unionism but also pledged to resist measures that would threaten slavery, especially if Congress acted to abolish slavery in DC, repeal or fail to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law, prohibit slavery in Utah or New Mexico, refuse admission of a new slave state, or suppress the interstate slave trade.
The platform was seen by Southern slaveholders as a political blackmail tactic tied to antislavery agitation and abolitionist pressure from Free Soilers and Northern Whigs.
Moderate Southern Whigs anticipated benefits from accepting the Compromise, while Democrats reaped the greatest long-term gains, rendering the Whig party in the South increasingly vulnerable and divided.
Commentary: Legacy and Context for the 1852 Election
The 1852 election showcased the fragility of the existing party system:
The Whig party faced a split between Northern anti-slavery factions and Southern proslavery factions, undermining national cohesion.
The Democrats, buoyed by a unified platform on states’ rights and the Compromise, captured the southern states and built a stronger national coalition.
The broader trend toward sectional polarization was already evident in the 1852 campaign dynamics and in the shifts within the Whig party.
Notable Takeaways and Connections
The Compromise of 1850 did not settle the issue of slavery forever; it relieved immediate tensions but also laid groundwork for further conflicts by:
Defining congressional power to admit new states with or without slavery in their constitutions, effectively letting popular sovereignty play out in new territories.
Enacting a strict Fugitive Slave Law that intensified abolitionist opposition in the North and motivated antislavery activism and political realignment.
Establishing a precedent for contentious federal-state interactions over slavery that would reappear in later decades.
The politics surrounding the Compromise show how coalitions can form and dissolve across party and sectional lines, with moderates from both parties playing pivotal roles in steering policy.
Key Figures and References (as cited in the transcript)
David Potter: Called the 1850 settlement the Armistice of 1850.
President Millard Fillmore: Used influence to reduce opposition to the Compromise by abstaining WHIG roll calls.
Stephen A. Douglas: Replaced Clay as leader of the procompromise forces; pursued a package-splitting strategy.
Nashville Convention (June 1850): Aimed at consolidating fire-eater positions but failed to unify Southern action.
John P. Hale: Free Soil nominee denouncing the Compromise and advocating abolition.
Notable quotes:
"We of the South had a new protection for slave property" (Southern sentiment on the Compromise).
The Georgia platform described as a platform for Unionism and a framework for the South’s stance during the ensuing decade.
Alexander Stephens: "the Whig party is dead" (reflecting the party’s collapse in the South).
Numerical and Reference Notes
The Five Bills Enacted (mid-August to mid-September, 1850):
California admission
Texas border adjustment
NM and Utah organization with admission conditional slavery
Fugitive Slave Law
Abolition of slave trade in the District of Columbia
Texas compensation: 10{,}000{,}000 to finance its public debt
Balloting and regional support (1852 convention):
52 ballots to resolve the convention deadlock between Scott and Fillmore
Scott: majority support from free states; Fillmore: ~85 ext{ ext{ percent}} of votes from slave states
Slave states carried by Scott in 1852: 2 out of 15 slave states; Free states carried by Scott: 2; North’s Whig vote declined slightly from 1848; Free Soil vote fell to 6 ext{ ext{%}} of the Northern total
By 1853, Democrats controlled every one of the future Confederate states; Whigs held only 14 of the 65 Southern congressional seats
References to the Transcript (for study notes only)
26–28: Discussion of the Armistice label, California outcomes, Utah/NM outcomes, DC slave trade, and the Fugitive Slave Law; Georgia platform.
27–28: Footnotes referencing David Potter and Cooper/Holt on party dynamics and the South’s politics of slavery.
29–31: Election of 1852, Hale, Scott vs. Fillmore, and the decline of the Whig Party; Stephens’ remark.
Overall context: The Compromise of 1850 as a postponement of a deeper crisis, with long-term consequences in party realignments and the sectional split that culminated in the Civil War.
A possible quiz question based on the provided notes could be: What specific provision of the Compromise of 1850, despite being one of the least debated elements, proved to be its most explosive and controversial feature?