Zachary Taylor Compromise Of 1850

What was the 1850 Compromise and Why did it Fail? In 1850, Henry Clay one of the most influential political leaders in American history introduced a set of resolutions, which aimed to please both North and South America. The five proposals were rolled into a single 'omnibus' bill, which offered a solution to the growing sectional conflict over slavery and westward expansion, which arose from the 1846 Mexican War. The 1850 Compromise, which Senator Douglas stripped down and effectively helped pass, failed for a number of reasons, the greatest of which was that it was unable to please both anti-slave and pro-slave groups.

In an essay that incorporates the textbook, lecture and power-point notes compare and contrast the compromises of 1820 and 1850.

The compromise of 1850 was a settlement on a series of issues plaguing the unity of the states. The primary issue to address was the institution of slavery, which was causing much dissension between the north and the south. Additional items to be addressed were territory issues and to prevent secession by the south. Henry Clay stepped forward to present a compromise, which had Congress in an eight-month discussion known as the “Great Debate”. As a result of the proposal, there were strong oppositions. One outspoken person who opposed the proposal was John C Calhoun. Calhoun was an intellectual southern politician, political philosopher and a proponent to the protection of Southern interests. He was an advocate for states’ rights and

The 1850s were a time of attempted compromise when compromise was no longer possible. The Union was becoming divided through many events in the time leading into the Civil War. The North and South had too many hostilities to account for. Socially, the North and the South could not stand what the other would do or say with anything. Politically, the government was completely divided and undecided. And economically, the South began to prosper as the North began to struggle. Thus, during the 1850s, socially, politically, and economically there was not any compromise that could fix the problems beginning to occur.

The measures, a trade off planned by Whig Senator Henry Clay, who neglected to get them through himself, were shepherded to entry by Democratic Senator Stephen Douglas and Whig Senator Daniel Webster. The measures were contradicted by Senator and previous Vice-President John C. Calhoun. The Compromise was conceivable after the demise of President Zachary Taylor, who was in resistance. Succeeding him was an in number supporter of the trade off: Millard Fillmore. It briefly defused sectional strains in the United States, deferring the withdrawal emergency and the American Civil War. The Compromise dropped the Wilmot Proviso, which never got to be law however would have banned subjugation in domain gained from Mexico. Rather the Compromise further embraced the regulation of "Mainstream Sovereignty" for the Territory of New Mexico and the Territory of Utah. The different bargains reduced political controversy for a long time, until the relative respite was broken by the divisive Kansas-Nebraska Act. Basically it was a progression of bills set out to keep the country united. Despite the fact that it postponed progression, it is seen as just a makeshift fix..

The Compromise of 1850 was a desperate attempt to keep the southern states from seceding from the United States of America. While the goal was to keep the south from seceding, the new laws actually created more tension than it solved. Since the division in America over slave ownership had been holding a delicate balance with the states on both sides, the North and the South. When California petitioned to join the Union in 1849 as a free state, that delicate balance tipped and the conflict once again erupted. The Compromise consisted of 5 laws, admitting California as a free state, creating Utah and New Mexico territories with the question of slavery in each is determined by popular sovereignty, settling a Texas-New Mexico boundary dispute in the former’s favor, ending the slave trade in Washington D.C. and making it easier for southerners to recover fugitive slaves (History).

In early 1850, the legendary statesman and orator, Daniel Webster, convened with Henry Clay of Kentucky to accumulate approval for Clay’s plan to conserve the Union from itself. This Compromise, appropriately recognized as the Compromise of 1850, guaranteed to address five principal issues at the time. The foremost, was the recognition of California as a free state. At the time, California had not yet amalgamated with the United States, leaving its situation questionable. Next, was the acknowledgement of both New Mexico and Ohio as unresolved states, to refrain from biasing the amount of slave and free states and subsequently, annulling the Wilmot Proviso. As expected, the two Northern politicians wished to expel slave exchange from the prestigious United States capital of the District of Columbia. However, even as Northern men, the Compromise included one last circumstance; a harsher enactment of the Fugitive Slave Law, guaranteeing runaway slaves in the North an unfortunate return to slavery, so as to gain the approval of slave owners and abolitionists

After working tirelessly to set forth his Compromise, Henry Clay’s Compromise finally became a law in 1850. Initially, the Compromise of 1850 slit up guidelines about slavery for the North and South. In the North, CA was a free state, the slave trade was prohibited in Wash. DC, and unrelated to slavery, TX lost their boundary conflict with NM. In the South, slaveholding was permitted in Wash. DC, and the creation of the Fugitive slave act. The fugitive slave act gave federal support to slave catchers. Although the N and S both benefitted from the compromise, the North technically gained more out of it. The Compromise of 1850 was significant because it gave the South the Fugitive slave law, and gave the North a new free state, CA—everybody wins!

A little after the Manifest Destiny, the U.S. faced a series of troubles of sectional balances over whether or not the land acquired should be free or slavery states. The Compromise of 1850, proposed by Senator Henry Clay, included measures that dealt with the land acquired specifically from the Mexican War.

There were countless individuals who helped fugitives going through Connecticut. As this primary source showed, most of the agents were from New Britain. This was probably because abolitionist were more lenient in helping slaves escape from slavery than other towns were. Connecticut was divided on the issue of slavery, but the "Compromise of 1850 seemed to bring about a steady growth of anti-slavery unity within the state" (Connecticut Humanities). Therefore, after 1850 were more willing to help slaves escape, even if the "conductors" would get in trouble if they were caught.

“I know no South, no North, no East, no West, to which I owe any allegiance, The Union, sir, is my country” - Henry Clay (United States History). The Compromise of 1850 was once considered despising, loathing, and abhorring. This would become altered, as it would turn out to be one of the greatest compromises in the United States and would make its mark in history. The Compromise of 1850 adopted the Fugitive Slave Act and the reason for California statehood. The compromise attempted to avoid a crisis between the North and the South, with the assistance of Henry Clay and his colleagues. The document came to be with three main ideas: significance, conflict, and compromise. The Compromise of 1850, proposed by Henry Clay, dealt with disputes

Since Zachary Taylor won the war, he was seen as a hero to the Americans. Whig politicians saw him as a possible presidential candidate. Even though he was not interested in politics, Taylor gained nomination on the fourth ballot. However, he made it clear that he was not going to agree with all the beliefs of the Whigs. His views dealing with tariffs, banking, and internal improvements were different from the Whigs. As a candidate, he managed to defeat the Democratic candidate, Lewis Cass, winning the Electoral vote 163 to 127.

Although Zachary Taylor was educated, it’s easy to see why he didn’t fit the image of the President of the United States. He wasn’t a refined man, his handwriting, spelling and grammar were crude his whole life. Zachary Taylor was chosen to run for president, parties went to him and wanted Taylor to be their candidate, then he ran for president without a platform. Zachary Taylor didn’t seem to fit in a party, that is why he always thought of himself as an independent. He liked to think of himself as a Jeffersonian-Democrat, but didn’t like the democratic party’s stand on money, he wanted a strong and sound banking system.

For instance, the three presidents that ruled during this time were Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan. Firstly, Fillmore's presidency was characterized by appeasement; all he did was appease the southern slave interest time and time again with the Compromise of 1850 to the Fugitive Slave Act.   Secondly, Pierce introduced the country to the concept of popular sovereignty and the Kansas Nebraska Act, which later led to Bleeding Kansas and opening the west to slavery. Lastly, Buchanan "…wanted to avoid the issue by conspiring with Chief Justice Taney on the Supreme Court to Appease the southern slave interest with the Dred Scott ruling open the west to slavery" (Civil War Talk).

In efforts to better understand the Civil War most historians examine the Sectional Crisis and the Compromise of 1850 in the decades leading up to the worst years in American History. Some historians prefer to focus on the underlying theme of the war, others tightly examine individual leaders, events, and political parties, connecting them all together like puzzle pieces to define the years prior to the war. Despite the contrasting views, it is clear to realize the constant prevailing issues of the Antebellum Period, the Sectional Crisis and the Compromise of 1850. In particular, the Compromise of 1850 is deceivingly taught as only establishing 3 pivotal elements: the status of slavery in future territories (popular sovereignty), California statehood, and the fugitive slave law. Granted these elements of the compromise provide a great amount of controversy long after their birth, but one element of the compromise perceives to fail in obtaining recognition. The Texas-New Mexico boundary resolution seems to find itself fading away from its relevancy to the civil war, shadowed by more prominent issues regarding the stability of the Union. Abandoning the traditional teaching of the compromise, the Texas-New Mexico border decision figuratively and literally changed the identity of Texas. This was the long awaited result caused by deep rooted social and political issues dating back to the Texas Revolution.