Henry Clay – the Moving Force Behind the Compromise of 1850 – Wants the Fugitive Slave Act to Be Maintained and Upheld

On the South’s fear of emancipation and the need to have the South’s cooperation in revising legislation: “That feeling was wearing away, but it is aroused again by what has recently passed and is passing in regard to Slavery. It is only in a period of calm, when the passions are stilted, that an appeal can be favorably made to the South. Without its co-operation to some extent, it would be inexpedient to rely altogether on Northern support.”

 

You “can form no full conception of the violence of the passions boiling over in Congress” as a result of the Compromise

 

Clay will now turn his attention to the colonization idea – sending slaves back to Africa

The Compromise of 1850 was a series of measures proposed by the “great compromiser,” Sen. Henry Clay of Kentucky, and passed by the Congress in an effort to settle several outstanding slavery issues and to avert the threat of dissolution of the Union. The crisis arose from the request of the territory of California (December 3, 1849) to be admitted to the Union with a constitution prohibiting slavery. The problem was complicated by the unresolved question of slavery’s extension into other areas ceded by Mexico the preceding year.

Clay’s purpose was to maintain a balance between free and slave states and to satisfy both proslavery and antislavery forces. The plan adopted by Congress had several parts: California was admitted as a free state, upsetting the equilibrium that had long prevailed in the Senate; the boundary of Texas was fixed along its current lines; Texas, in return for giving up land it claimed in the Southwest, had $10 million of its onerous debt assumed by the federal government; areas ceded by Texas became the recognized territories of New Mexico and Utah, and in neither case was slavery mentioned, ostensibly leaving these territories to decide the slavery question on their own; the slave trade, but not slavery itself, was abolished in the District of Columbia; and finally, Congress passed a new and stronger Fugitive Slave Act, taking the matter of returning runaway slaves out of the control of states and making it a federal responsibility. This proved to be a momentous move.

The compromise measures were enacted in September 1850. President Fillmore called it “a final settlement,” and the South certainly had nothing to complain about. It had secured the type of fugitive slave law it had long demanded, and although California came in as a free state, it elected proslavery representatives. Moreover, New Mexico and Utah enacted slave codes, technically opening the territories to slavery.

The compromise, however, contained the seeds of discord. The new Fugitive Slave Act required citizens to assist in the recovery of fugitive slaves, which triggered such a strong negative – even furious – reaction throughout the North that many moderate antislavery elements became determined opponents of any further extension of slavery into the territories. Thus, while the Compromise of 1850 served as a very temporary expedient, it also proved the failure of compromise as a permanent political solution when vital sectional interests were at stake.

Autograph letter signed, one page both sides, Ashland, November 22, 1850, to Thomas R. Hazard, a social reformer in Newport, Rhode Island. In it, Clay notes that there were strong forces in favor of the Fugitive Slave Act who would oppose any modification or repeal, and Hazard’s proposal for paying slaveowners for escaped slaves would not work. Clay wanted the act maintained as it was.

“I received your favor of the 14th instant which I have perused with much attention and pleasure. It is full of sentiments of humanity, benevolence and patriotism worthy of your heart. I am afraid with you that the Fugitive Slave bill is every where taking strong ground against its repeal or eventual modification. I fear that your remedy of paying a portion of the value of un-reclaimed Slaves would, if practicable to be adopted, would be liable to serious objections, and lead in operation to fraudulent results. I hope that the law can be maintained, unless it can be shown to have unconstitutional defects, which I do not believe.

“You overrate, my dear Sir, my ability to allay the agitation; but whatever I have shall be freely devoted to the object, with the most perfect disinterestedness personally. I had intended to direct my exertions, at the coming session, to the great interests of Colonization, and especially to the object of establishing a line of Steamers on an economical plan; but I now apprehend that the agitation and excitement arising out of the Fugitive Law will render the moment inauspicious for any successful effort. The ultra South has seen, in the scheme of Colonization, through the distant vista, a project of general emancipation. That feeling was wearing away, but it is aroused again by what has recently passed and is passing in regard to Slavery. It is only in a period of calm, when the passions are stilted, that an appeal can be favorably made to the South. Without its co-operation to some extent, it would be inexpedient to rely altogether on Northern support. You, in your great delightful retreat at Vaucluse, can form no full conception of the violence of the passions boiling over in Congress.

“I shall present your petition with great satisfaction, should I receive it during the next session. I thank you for the seeds which you sent me, and which I safely received. Do me the favor to present my respectful compliments to Mrs. Hazard.” Includes the original mailing envelope addressed in Clay’s hand, and franked in the upper right, “Free, H. Clay.”

The compromise helped preserve the Union for a decade, but it played a role in hightening tensions and bringing on the Civil War. This historic letter offers exceptional insight into Clay’s thoughts on the most significant political matter of his time, and one in which he played such a central role.