Compromise of 1850

The main theme of Clay’s speech is that compromise is an integral feature of “the nature of the government and its operations” (Paragraph 1). Furthermore, in this context, compromise is necessary in order to save the Union. In the speech, Clay presents compromise as a final chance to restore some measure of peace; at the time, the South was indeed on the verge of seceding from the country.

Clay opens the speech by effectively undermining what he positions as the central objection to the measure: that “it is a compromise of principle, or of a principle” (Paragraph 1). The measure most certainly is a compromise. Any man, upon reflecting on the nature of how government works and on the nature of his opposition (in fact, his fellow party within the same government), “should be reconciled to the concession” necessary to receive something he wants in return (Paragraph 1). The only thing that could make the act of compromise truly unacceptable would be if the compromise included some “great principle […] such as a violation of the Constitution of the United States” (Paragraph 1), which is certainly not the case here.

Throughout the speech, Clay associates compromise with patriotism, which is, as Clay portrays it, dignified, heroic, and Christian. What prevents compromise are petty, childish feelings that he calls upon listeners to “discard:” “resentment, all passions, all petty jealousies, all personal desires, all love of place, all hankerings after the gilded crumbs which fall from the table of power […] popular fears” (Paragraph 2). Such small mindedness is embarrassing and irresponsible, associated by way of metaphor with impurity. It will be the undoing of his audience if not cleansed in the “limpid fountain of unadulterated patriotism” (Paragraph 2). In contrast, patriotism—and, by extension, compromise—is “solemn” and “pure” and “disinterested” (Paragraphs 2-3). Compromise embodies the qualities that the senators must exhibit in order to “hush all the jarring elements and bring peace and tranquility” (Paragraph 4).

In addressing the South in particular, Clay emphasizes the language of sacrifice in relation to compromise; in the deeply Christian South, this language would be likely to resonate, something Clay would have known given his Kentucky origins. Specifically, though, what Clay argues must be sacrificed are not specific demands but the “hard words, bitter words, bitter thoughts, unpleasant feelings toward each other” (Paragraph 4). He thereby stays neutral in his request of the South, portraying the sacrifice to be made as little more than setting aside pride and ego. Compromise, in that sense, is very much like attending church together: “Let us go to the altar of our country and swear, as the oath was taken of old, that we will stand by her” (Paragraph 4).