By Allen Guelzo, Princeton University
With an aim to put the territorial dispute in Mexican Cession to rest, Henry Clay proposed a compromise that included eight resolutions. Having met opposition from John C. Calhoun and the likes, the proposal initially fizzled out at the Senate. After much efforts, Stephen A. Douglas finally succeeded in bringing the Compromise to fruition.
A Few Supporters of the Compromise
Even though there were many defections, Clay’s draft of the Compromise did find a couple of supporters. Daniel Webster was one of those supporters who denounced disunion, and called for the adoption of Clay’s compromise as the only way of saving the Union.
On July 31, 1850, all but the provisions for the territorial organization of Utah had crashed to defeat. When the Senate Committee on Territories finally reported out Clay’s compromise resolutions as a single bill, its component pieces were hacked out by amendments and counter-proposals. An enfeebled Henry Clay left the Senate, his political career effectively over.
At this last point before the abyss, the enemies of the Compromise obligingly removed themselves from the scene. John Calhoun was dead on March 31, 1850. This was followed by the unexpected death of President Zachary Taylor in July, and Taylor’s successor—a self-made and surprisingly capable antislavery New York Whig named Millard Fillmore—quickly proclaimed his support for Clay’s compromise.
This is a transcript from the video series A History of the United States, 2nd Edition. Watch it now, on Wondrium.
Stephen A. Douglas
Clay himself withdrew from the Senate after the July 31 debacle, but into his shoes stepped the junior senator from Illinois—a short, scrappy Democrat named Stephen A. Douglas. Committing from the beginning of these debates to the principle of popular sovereignty, Douglas had sided with Clay, the old Whig hero, for the sake of the popular sovereignty provisions in Clay’s comprehensive scheme.
Since he had never favored the omnibus approach, though, Douglas craftily split Clay’s omnibus bill into five separate bills, and very craftily and candidly built separate congressional coalitions around each of those bills, with his own fellow Democrats cajoled and caressed into supporting them.
The Great Compromise
With President Taylor out of the way, Fillmore—in an unusual display of bipartisanship—linked forces with Douglas and pressured congressional Whigs to back the Douglas bills. By mid-September, all five of them had been passed, and the substance of Henry Clay’s great compromise—the substance if not the form—became law.
“The difference between Mr. Clay’s compromise bill and my bills was a wafer,” wrote Douglas before the final votes, “and when they are all passed, you see, they will be collectively Mr. Clay’s compromise, and separately the bills reported by the Committee on Territories four months ago.”
The Terms of the Great Compromise
So, what exactly did this great Compromise of 1850—designed by Henry Clay and brought to fruition by Stephen A. Douglas—do?
In general, it averted a showdown over who would control the new western territories—the territories to be carved from the Mexican Cession. That was the chief reason people around the country celebrated the passage of these bills with bell ringing.
In specific terms, though, the Compromise of 1850 allowed the old Missouri Compromise to stand as law in the old Louisiana Purchase territories, but it established the new principle of popular sovereignty as the rule for organizing the Mexican Cession.
The Rise of Stephen Douglas
Now, California, of course, was allowed to dodge both compromises completely, and enter the Union directly as a free state without passing through the debated stage of territorial government. The territory of Utah—which actually lay above the 36°30’ line—and the territory of New Mexico—which lay below it—would be allowed to make their own determinations about slavery or non-slavery as they saw fit.
The compromise also added a new Fugitive Slave Law to the federal code, and promised non-interference by Congress in the interstate slave trade. It also did one other thing: it made Stephen A. Douglas into a little giant, and Douglas would emerge—after the deaths of Calhoun, Clay, and Webster—as one of the most powerful men in the Senate.
Common Questions about the Great Compromise of 1850
Committing from the beginning of these debates to the principle of popular sovereignty, Stephen Douglas had sided with Clay, the old Whig hero, for the sake of the popular sovereignty provisions in Clay’s comprehensive scheme. Since he had never favored the omnibus approach, though, Douglas craftily split Clay’s omnibus bill into five separate bills, and very craftily and candidly built separate congressional coalitions around each of those bills, with his own fellow Democrats cajoled and caressed into supporting them.
The Compromise of 1850 was significant because, in general, it averted a showdown over who would control the new western territories, the territories to be carved from the Mexican Cession. That was the chief reason people around the country celebrated the passage of these bills with bell ringing. In specific terms, though, the Compromise of 1850 allowed the old Missouri Compromise to stand as law in the old Louisiana Purchase territories, but it established the new principle of popular sovereignty as the rule for organizing the Mexican Cession
With the Compromise of 1850 being passed, California was allowed to dodge both compromises completely, and enter the Union directly as a free state without passing through the debated stage of territorial government. The territory of Utah—which actually lay above the 36°30’ line—and the territory of New Mexico—which lay below it—would be allowed to make their own determinations about slavery or non-slavery as they saw fit.
