Compromise of 1850

Henry Clay, known as the “Great Compromiser” for his ability to broker legislative deals, delivered this speech before the Senate of the United States early in the year of 1850. The speech was Clay’s final effort to advocate for the Compromise of 1850, which aimed to address a crisis arising from two major challenges: (1) the territory of California, in 1849, requesting admission to the United States with a constitution that prohibited slavery and (2) the ongoing problem of how to manage slavery’s expansion into areas ceded by Mexico after the Mexican-American War (1846-1848). The “measure” described in the speech, a resolution consisting of five bills mainly concerning slavery, was successfully passed. However, the resolution was not as successful as Clay predicted: a decade later, the South seceded, divisions deepened dramatically by several features of the compromise.

This guide uses the text of the speech provided in the textbook Kentucky: Government, Politics, and Public Policy (Clinger, James C., and Michael W. Hail, editors. Kentucky: Government, Politics, and Public Policy. University Press of Kentucky, 2013).

Clay opens the speech by observing that objections against the measure for which he is about to advocate are centered on it being a compromise—specifically, a compromise of principle, or perhaps, of “a” principle. Having identified the nature of the objections, he then defines what a compromise is, leaning heavily on the importance of concession and reciprocation. Any party would like to get what they want while not having to accept anything that the opposition wants. However, ultimately, the opposition is a fellow party in a shared government; accordingly, representatives must appreciate and respect that when working with their fellows in government, it is necessary to give one thing up in order to secure another. The exception to supporting a compromise, of course, is if some “great principle” is involved, such as one that would violate the Constitution of the United States; in that case, the compromise should certainly be rejected. However, Clay challenges all senators present to point to any provision in the measure proposed that does indeed commit such a violation.

Clay states that, at this point, the matter is now out of the committee’s hands, including his own hands—the responsibility is now in the hands of the governing body. He acknowledges the weight of this responsibility, expressing in the same breath two hopes: that the senators will approach their decision-making with the appropriate gravity and that the senators grasp the nature of the choice before them, that is, a choice between peace and chaos. Drawing on metaphor and elevated language, Clay states his belief that the measure will reunite the states, soothing the unsettled people across the land. He calls upon the senators to cleanse themselves of any petty feelings in the pure waters of patriotism. By refocusing on the Union, they may all avoid its dissolution, which would, in turn, mean their own downfall.

To punctuate his call to the senators, Clay concludes by beseeching his colleagues one last time to put aside their individual attachments and come together in the name of patriotism. Using rhetorical questioning once again, he warns against allowing the very mechanisms that have allowed the country to advance thus far, presumably the art of compromise, to be their undoing now.

Clay then turns to the South, addressing the people in this region as one. He acknowledges how bitter and harsh feelings have become as this measure has progressed. However, he urges everyone to “sacrifice” these feelings at “the altar of our country” (Paragraph 4). His expansive call is a refrain of his call above, referring to the measure as healing and capable of soothing the discord that threatens the union of the states.

In closing his speech, Clay identifies the severe consequences of “doing nothing” to provide answers to the distressed country regarding the “great questions” at hand (Paragraph 5). He asserts that the United States will be judged harshly as a failure by foreign people and governments. Though he stops short of saying that God will condemn the men if they don’t provide a sense of order by signing the measure, he assures them that they will be condemned by their fellow man and by their own consciences. He acknowledges his own awareness that failure is entirely possible. He is certain, though, that such a failure would mark a victory for abolitionists and freesoilers, which he equates with extremism, senselessness, and discord. He ends with a prayer to God that such a failure does not come to pass, given that the result would be disastrous for the country.