Compromise of 1850

The opening of Clay’s speech relies on reductionism, portraying the many complex objections at hand as singular and simple. Clay begins by identifying a single objection against the measure: “that it is a compromise of principle, or of a principle” (Paragraph 1). Clay’s absolute focus on a single objection, as well as his use of passive voice, suggests that there is only one objection issued by someone perhaps not worth naming or unwilling to be named. Clay gives an extended definition of the term “compromise” next, using repetition within a single long sentence to communicate not only the definition itself but the nature of the concept: compromise is “a measure of mutual concession—a measure of mutual sacrifice” (Paragraph 1). By its nature, compromise entails giving as much as taking. Clay then swiftly identifies what he claims is the only valid concern that could arise regarding compromise, that is, the involvement of some “great principle […] such as a violation of the Constitution of the United States” (Paragraph 1). By specifically demanding one of the senators to “point out from the beginning to the end […] a solitary provision in this bill which is violative of the Constitution of the United States” (Paragraph 1), only to be presumably met by silence, Clay expands on the effect created by the passive voice in his opening sentences. The rhetorical question is built on a complex task that, even if given the opportunity to respond, orators might struggle to accomplish quickly. Nonetheless, once again, the opposition remains silent and unnamed.

Given that the only objection to the measure is its nature as a compromise, Clay then orients the next part of his speech around establishing a dichotomy regarding the outcomes of the vote: “[t]he alternatives […] are concord and increased discord” (Paragraph 2). This dichotomy establishes The Necessity of Compromise. Acknowledging that the staggering responsibility of passing “this great measure” (Paragraph 2) is out of his hands and in the hands of the Congress, Clay begins his use of metaphor to communicate “the magnitude of the consequences that may ensue […] one way or the other” (Paragraph 2).

Clay first emphasizes the “beneficent effects” of passing the measure, directing his listeners toward the desirable reward of Restoration of Peace and Harmony. He equates the measure with the reunification: “the measure is the reunion of this Union” (Paragraph 2). The measure is therefore also “the dove of peace” (Paragraph 2), capable of bringing “assured peace and restored harmony to all the remotest extremities of this distracted land” (Paragraph 2). The use of reductionism assists further here, as many elements are lumped into one: the concept of compromise, the measure, preservation of the union, patriotism, and tranquility. By incorporating symbols drawn from Christian iconography, Clay further emphasizes that passing the measure is the right decision not only politically but also morally. His use of repetition assists with this mental organization: “our God, our country, our consciences, and our glorious Union” (Paragraph 2).

In contrast to the “concord” to be achieved by passing the measure, which is desirable, there is the “increased discord” that threatens if Congress fails to act. Clay associates the former with The Pressure of Judgment, which serves as a deterrent. Using the same techniques of repetition and reductionism, Clay compacts many negative images and concepts into one. In this case, though, Clay puts particular emphasis on what voting against the measure says about the man who casts such a vote. Clay’s call is for everyone present to “discard all 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” (Paragraph 2). These things are “selfish, sinister, and sordid impurities” (Paragraph 2), a description that makes great use of alliteration that might be associated with the hiss of snakes. The implication is thus that the man who votes against the measure is himself petty and impure, someone who would ignore a Christian call toward betterment. The motif of fragmentation is evident in the outcome of such choices: should these men fail to protect the Union, “we shall be torn into hostile fragments, and sooner or later become the victims of military despotism or foreign domination” (Paragraph 2).

Clay also directs a specific call toward the South. He appeals to ethos with the acknowledgement of past offenses and states his desire to move forward using anaphora, repeating his refrain of “Let us.” Clay also plays into cultural norms by addressing “all the South” as “Sir” (Paragraph 4) while personifying the country as a woman, specifically a woman in need. Incorporating further the emphasis on sacrifice, which is core to Christianity, and portraying the country as having an altar at which to worship, also compounds the sense of moral obligation that Clay strives to create here.

Following Clay’s many calls to action, as he begins to wrap up his speech, he deepens his contrast of the two opposite possible outcomes by portraying failure to pass the measure as an absence of action. Specifically, as Clay returns to directing his words to the president, he equates failing to pass the measure with “doing nothing to satisfy and tranquillize the country” (Paragraph 5). He shortly after compounds the sense of inaction by employing language associated with battles: the measure, “if defeated,” would mark “a triumph” or “a victory” of undesirable elements (Paragraph 6).

The theme of the pressure of judgment is especially explicit in these final paragraphs with Clay’s use of rhetorical questions. Clay calls attention to the experimental nature of the United States as a country. Dissolution of the Union would mark not only the end of the United States. It would also signify failure of “this scheme of self-government […] which holds the highest hopes and expectations of ameliorating the condition of mankind” (Paragraph 5). Thus, via what is arguably slippery slope logic, failure to pass the measure will enable the dissolution of the Union, which will lead to grave judgment by “all the monarchs of the Old World” (Paragraph 5). Then, in turn, the country’s people will become “victims of military despotism or foreign domination” (Paragraph 2) as hope for self-government globally is snuffed out. Part of this chain of failures will include, of course, being “condemned in our own consciences, by our own constituents, and by our own country” (Paragraph 5). Though Clay claims it is “not for [him] to speak” (Paragraph 6) of the judgment of heaven, the implication is clear, driven home by his final appeal: a prayer “to Almighty God” that the measure will not be defeated.