the slopes of the Sierra Nevada soon
created a population that qualified Cali-
fornia for admission to the Union even
before Congress had been able to set
up a territorial government for the
newly acquired territory on the Pacific
coast. Undismayed, the Californians
chose to leapfrog the territorial stage
by summoning a convention, drafting a
state constitution which prohibited slav-
ery, choosing a governor and legislature
under the new constitution, and then
confidently awaiting a ratification of this
fait accompli from the Congress. By this
action, the die was cast for the members
of Congress; decisions could no longer
be postponed concerning the territorial
questions which had filled the air with
such fulgurous rhetoric in the years since
David Wilmot had become a hero.

And so the stage was set for the great
debate of 1850. It was a debate in the
grand style, dealing with fundamental
questions concerning the nature of the
Union and the Constitution. It was a de-
bate in which the sections, North and
South, sought to re-examine the basis for
their reciprocal relations in the Union.
It was a debate which engaged the old
and the new generations: grand old polit-
ical leaders like Clay, Calhoun, Webster,
and Benton and rising young political
leaders like William Henry Seward. and
Stephen A. Douglas. The days of debate
were full of color and excitement; craggy
brows, graveyard coughs, baleful stares,
nervous maiden speeches, stentorian de-
claiming, ladies in the gallery, commo-
tions without the Senate Chamber-all
were there.

Yet, despite the historical uniqueness
of the activities associated with the Com-
promise of 1850, we may also view the
Compromise as a case study of the prob-
lem of preserving a democratic consensus
in an expanding and complex commu-
nity. Democracy is sometimes defined
as a political system which subordinates
the rule of force, in the struggle of
groups and interests, to the rule of opin-
ion. And the rule of opinion requires a
willingness to accept the continuous co-
existence of conflicting opinions. In a
democracy, then, men may cherish their
dogmas, but not to the extent of destroy-
ing other men for their contrary dog-
mas.

This, then, is the question which a
historian (or a sociologist or political
scientist) must ask himself concerning
the Compromise of 1850: Did the Com-
promise really accommodate the compet-
ing beliefs and dogmas of the groups
and sections which were involved in the
political conflict that followed the Mexi-
can War? The arrangement of materials
in this volume is designed to give the
reader an understanding of this con-
troversy in Congress and in the country
at large in 1850.

The first selection sets the stage for
the reader with a well-rounded summary
of historical events relating to the Com-
promise of 1850. This is an account of
"the crisis" of 1850 written by Avery
Craven as a part of his objective study
(from the angle of the South) of the
coming of the Civil War.

The next five selections are crucial
for the study of this problem. They are
lengthy selections from the speeches of
Henry Clay, Thomas Hart Benton, John
Calhoun, Daniel Webster, and William
Seward delivered in "the great debate"
during the first session of the 31st Con-
gress. These speeches indicate the differ-
ing political strategies that were pro-
posed to the Congress and the reason-
ing and value systems on which they are
based.

The three selections which follow
represent differing historical interpreta-

-vi-