After still more deeply divided argument, a proposal put forward by delegates from Connecticut (a small population state ), struck a compromise that narrowly got approved. They suggested that representatives in each house of the proposed bicameral legislature be selected through different means. The (or ) would reflect the importance of state sovereignty by including two people from each state regardless of size. Meanwhile, the (the ) would have different numbers of representatives from each state determined by population. Representation would be adjusted every ten years through a federal census that counted every person in the country.
By coming up with a mixed solution that balanced state sovereignty and popular sovereignty tied to actual population, the Constitution was forged through what is known as the . In many respects this compromise reflected a victory for small states, but compared with their dominance in the Congress under the Articles of Confederation it is clear that negotiation produced something that both small and large states wanted.
As you know by this point, the debates over the Compromise of 1850 proved vicious and intense. Below are three speeches about the Compromise of 1850, one penned by William Seward (a powerful New York politician), one penned by John C. Calhoun and one by Daniel Webster. Two are against the bill (Seward from an abolitionist perspective and Calhoun from that of slavery) and one is in favor of Clay’s bill (Daniel Webster’s). Read through all three of them before writing your paper. Make sure to address all three, to compare and contrast them, and to provide good historical insights.
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....
After hot summer months of difficult debate in Philadelphia from May to September 1787, the delegates had fashioned new rules for a stronger central government that extended national power well beyond the scope of the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution created a national legislature that could pass the supreme law of the land, could raise taxes, and with greater control over commerce. The proposed rules also would restrict state actions, especially in regard to passing . At the end of the long process of creating the new plan, thirty-eight of the remaining forty-one delegates showed their support by signing the proposed Constitution. This small group of national superstars had created a major new framework through hard work and compromise.
Abolitionists in the North tried to preserve the Union while abolishing slavery, while southerners supported slavery in the new territory and threatened to secede; the Compromise of 1850, especially the Fugitive Slave Law, increase...
The composition, which was once the solution to problems that the Union was having, had the opposite effect in the 1850s, when arguments and different interpretations of the Constitution resulted in sectionalism, threat of secession, and tension between the North and the South.
Another advantage of the Compromise of 1850 to the south was that the rest of the Mexican Cession territory was to be divided into the two territories of Utah, and New Mexico.
The advantages the south included a stronger fugitive slave law, the possibility for slavery to exist in the remaining part of the Mexican Cession, the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and the eventual plan to build the Southern Pacific Railroad.
The delegates agreed that a strengthened union of the states was more important than the Revolutionary ideal of equality. This was a pragmatic, as well as a tragic, constitutional compromise, since it may have been possible (as suggested by George Mason's comments) for the slave state of Virginia to accept some limitations on slavery at this point.