The Compromise of 1850

Рет қаралды 11,362

3 жыл бұрын

The Compromise of 1850 was a solution to a problem that threatened to tear the United States apart limb from limb. After the Mexican American war, American leadership had many difficult choices to make about slavery, territorial acquisition, and the future of the United States. In this video, we discuss why the compromise of 1850 was necessary, how it was constructed, and what it did.
As I say in the video, I made this video largely because I was interested in learning more about the legacy of Millard Fillmore.
The links to some of the articles about Millard Fillmore's legacy can be found here:
www.ubspectrum.com/article/20...
www.ubspectrum.com/article/20...
www.ubspectrum.com/article/20...
www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...
Again, as I say in the video, I personally feel as though many of these articles are missing historical context, and I think that this video provides that necessary context.
Specifically regarding the article written by the UB Black council and the claim that Fillmore referred to African Americans as a "wretched race", I would have those interested in learning more refer to this publication:
www.google.com/books/edition/...
Page 447 of this book quotes Millard Fillmore as referring to black people as a "wretched population". This may be what the UB Black council was referring to. As I say in the video, I encourage you to explore this further so that you can come to your own conclusion about Fillmore and the meaning behind what he wrote there.

Пікірлер: 12

@zyxwut321 3 жыл бұрын

It's so difficult to judge 19th Century men by 21st Century standards. It was a different world that lived in different conditions and by different rules. Fillmore certainly was no visionary and seemed to be a mediocre president, a man of his time, probably no better no worse. I do hope that these re-evaluations of historical figures eventually start to take these factors into account. The same barbarity we accuse people of other eras living in will be the same barbarity we'll likely be accused of in future times (23rd Century scholars: What? People in the 2000s ate whole ANIMALS before lab grown meat? They used FOSSIL FUELS? Look at the developing world sweatshops! Look at all that plastic and those gas guzzling cars! Disgusting! etc.).

@TheDCShow0 3 жыл бұрын

I love this perspective.

@fieryweasel 3 жыл бұрын

Fillmore was at least, open to compromise. Having been sitting in the senate during the pre-compromise debates (to put it mildly) he had a first-hand look at where the country might have been heading. Taylor was only interested in bringing in California and likely would not have been interested in any compromise. When he died and Fillmore took over there was at least a better shot at compromise. The best thing the compromise did was buy ten more years of industrial, population, and railroad growth in the northern section; those higher numbers provided a bit of a leg up on the logistics of the eventual war.

@rickwillard2002 2 жыл бұрын

good job

@grantorino2325 2 ай бұрын

I'd like to add that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was really more "window dressing" than anything else. Namely-even after it became law-if those who had fled North via the Underground Railroad could prove their having resided on free soil for 7 years, then their masters down South would lose all ownership of them. It was actually the Supreme Court, in Dred Scott v. Sanford, who flung America into disarray. Namely, the chief justice of the United States, Roger Taney, wrote for the majority that statutes of limitations did not apply to "the least-favored race," and thus escaped slaves had to live in fear of repatriation until they died. This led to John Brown's ill-fated raid on Harper's Ferry, which in turn catalyzed the outbreak of the Civil War.

@andre1987eph 2 жыл бұрын

The people who support cancel culture of these northern leaders are the same ones who blindly support the current medicine rules. The corollary is when the gov. is very harsh in sentencing of certain types of individual crimes (getting sentenced 200 years for managing a lady in the oldest pro), when it’s actually institutionalizing the same crime on a much larger scale and to a massive societal detriment. This gaslighting serves two purposes: 1 eliminates competition and 2 provides an effective smokescreen based on cognitive dissonance and plausible deniability. Knowing this will help you to anticipate some very absurd things coming. For example, if they are cancelling slavery promoters from the 1700s, guess what’s going to be institutionalized in a highly disguised form? You got it, slavery. This will probably occur via the complete digitalization of currency, medical record, and identify records. Your entire existence will literally be cancelled from being able to buy or sell, get medical treatment , or leave the country Etc by a federal contractor (ie, alphabet), for opinions you wrote online that go against the objectives.