Congress and the Crisis of the 1850s

The Appeasement of 1850

36 Paul Finkelman The Appeasement of  The Compromise of 1850 has always been seen as a classic moment of฀American฀political฀history.฀Historians฀wax฀eloquent฀about฀the฀brilliance of the debate, the selXess dedication to the Union of some of the participants,฀and฀particularly฀the฀heroic฀role฀of฀Henry฀Clay฀in฀coming฀out฀ of retirement to craft a compromise in 1850, as he had done in 1820. The traditional฀works฀also฀acknowledge฀the฀other฀“heroic”฀men฀of฀the฀age฀who฀ worked with Clay, especially Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun. Thus the฀historian฀Robert฀Remini฀has฀argued฀in฀his฀recent฀book฀on฀the฀compromise ฀that฀“once฀the฀great฀men฀of฀the฀antebellum฀era฀passed฀away—men฀ such฀as฀Andrew฀Jackson,฀Henry฀Clay,฀Daniel฀Webster,฀and฀John฀C.฀Calhoun฀ —the nation lacked individuals in positions of power who were passionately devoted฀to฀the฀Union.”฀Remini฀argues฀that฀the฀crisis฀of฀1850 was averted “because฀there฀were฀a฀number฀of ฀men฀in฀Congress฀who฀were฀willing฀to฀ compromise—and not simply on one issue, like slavery, but on many related issues฀that฀divided฀North฀and฀South,฀such฀as฀congressional฀control฀over฀the฀ territories, the admission of California, the New Mexico boundary, and the Texas debt.”1 ฀ This฀heroic฀analysis฀of฀the฀compromise฀is฀problematic.฀Remini฀argues฀that฀ the Compromise of 1850฀prevented฀the฀American฀Union฀from฀being฀“irreparably smashed” and says the compromise “is a prime example of how close this nation came to a catastrophic smash-up” and that his heroes in 1 Robert Remini, At the Edge of the Precipice: Henry Clay and the Compromise That Saved the Union (New York, 2010), pp. xi–xii. The Appeasement of  37 Congress฀“avoided฀that฀disaster—just฀in฀time.”2 But of course, the catastrophic smash-up in fact occurred anyway, with a cost of 625,000 or so lives and฀hundreds฀of฀thousands฀more฀wounded฀and฀damaged,฀and฀property฀ costs in the billions of dollars. The Union was not “irreparably smashed” when฀the฀Civil฀War฀began,฀but฀the฀legacy฀of฀that฀conXict still haunts the nation as we mark the war’s sesquicentennial. Remini implicitly concedes that฀the฀compromise฀was฀in฀the฀end฀a฀failure,฀and฀having฀praised฀Congress฀ and฀its฀leaders,฀he฀then฀retreats฀to฀saying฀the฀real฀success฀of฀the฀compromise฀ was฀that฀it฀“gave฀the฀North฀ten฀years฀to฀build฀its฀industrial฀strength฀and฀enable it to overpower the South when the war Wnally broke out.” He asserts that it was in this decade that the North expanded its industrial capacity but that฀when฀the฀war฀began฀the฀South฀“did฀not฀have฀a฀railroad฀system฀by฀which฀ to move men and material to the areas where they were most needed.” He further฀claims฀that฀the฀compromise฀also฀gave฀the฀North฀“ten฀years฀to฀Wnd a leader who could save the Union.”3 ฀ These฀arguments฀are,฀in฀the฀end,฀not฀persuasive.฀Remini’s฀list฀of ฀men฀ “passionately devoted to the Union” includes John C. Calhoun, who left Jackson’s administration over nulliWcation and in 1850 asserted that the Union was฀expendable.฀He฀opposed฀any฀compromise฀and฀had฀a฀long฀record฀of฀defending ฀the฀constitutionality฀and฀the฀expediency฀of฀secession.฀A฀true฀Unionist฀ believed that secession was always unconstitutional and unacceptable. In 1850 Southern senators like Clay, Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri, and Sam Houston of Texas believed secession could never be on the table. They were slave฀owners฀who฀despised฀abolitionists,฀but฀they฀did฀not฀believe฀in฀breaking฀ up the Union. Similarly, northern senators like William Henry Seward of New York, Salmon P. Chase of Ohio, John P. Hale of New Hampshire, and Hannibal Hamlin of Maine were passionately opposed to slavery but were also passionately devoted to the Union. They opposed the compromise because ฀it฀was฀overwhelmingly฀proslavery,฀but฀they฀did฀not฀return฀to฀the฀North฀ and฀campaign฀for฀secession.฀But฀southern฀Senators฀who฀had฀been฀acolytes฀ of John C. Calhoun, like Henry S. Foote of Mississippi, R. Barnwell Rhett of฀South฀Carolina,฀James฀M.฀Mason฀of฀Virginia,฀and฀David฀Levy฀Yulee฀of฀ Florida,฀were฀still฀talking฀about฀secession฀after฀the฀compromise,฀even฀though฀ they฀won฀almost฀everything฀they฀wanted฀in฀the฀compromise.฀Rather฀than฀ 2 Ibid., p. xi. 3 Ibid., pp. xiii, 158. 38 Paul Finkelman stiXe secessionist talk, the compromise emboldened southern nationalists to push฀for฀more฀concessions฀for฀slavery,฀while฀also฀stimulating฀them฀to฀push฀ their฀disunion฀agenda. The Wnal฀compromise฀was,฀as฀I...