When thinking back who from American history (focusing on American history because my project focuses on radicalism in American politics) I should write about for this blog post, I decided early on that I should write about someone more pragmatic than a Bernie Sanders type.

I began my thought at George Washington, one of the most level headed politicians of all time — someone who I respect very much. However, it’s important to remember that Washington was the commanded of the Continental Army…making him quite literally a revolutionary. This exception extends to all the Founding Fathers — all revolutionaries and radicals in their own rights, no matter how moderate or pragmatic their politics were.

The next point in American history I thought about was the lead-up to the Civil War — a time filled to the brim with compromise. It was in this time period I found my answer: Henry Clay. The man who is known as the “Great Compromiser” would be perfect to spotlight and think about the tough compromises he made throughout his career, and whether they paid off.

Now, even though pre-Civil War was a time of compromise, it was also a great time to be a radical. The abolition movement (or at the very least, abolition of slavery in the new territories) was no longer unrealistic. In fact, shortly following Clay’s death, a dissolution of the Whigs (the party that Clay was a leader in and member of) due to internal struggles about slavery partially brought rise to a political party with the sole intend of abolishing slavery — with no compromises — called the Radical Republicans.

I bring this up because this was a time of compromise, yes, but also a time of radicalism. It was a time where you could pick a path. It just so happens that Clay took the path of compromise, and he did so in hopes of preserving the Union. Slavery had been a pressure point since the establishment of the Union — our country almost wasn’t founded because of it — but time and time again, people forged compromises as a way to keep the loose bond that kept out country tied.

Clay did just this. The first of his two largest compromises was the Missouri Compromise. This was one of the first cases where the slavery question was viably raised about new territories. Emancipation had begun in the North, was there was a strong feelings among the Northern Delegation that new territories shouldn’t admit slavery. But, since it wasn’t against the law, Southerners believed that it wasn’t up to Northerners — it was up to the state to decide. This argument was largely ignited by the (purposeful) clause in the Constitution that slavery was to not be discussed until 1808. This debacle occurred in the late 1810’s.

To speak concretely about the argument — Missouri wanted to be admitted into the Union as a slave state, and Maine wanted to be inducted as a free state. Southerners didn’t want any kind of legal restrictions on slavery though, and refused to pass any legislation that included this. Clay brokered a deal that kept the balance of slave and free states (through the admission of Missouri and Maine in their respective capacities), thus keeping the peace in the Union for a while…

…until the late 1840’s. Clay also drafted the Compromise of 1850, a package that created New Mexico, created California as a free state, gave the new states of Utah and New Mexico popular sovereignty (the ability to decide whether or not to enact slavery), stopped the slave trade in D.C, and established stringent Fugitive Slave laws (if a slave runs away, folks are legally obligated to turn them in). These competing ideas showed the relentless tit-for-tat that Clay had to broker, a theme common in both compromises.

I think that, despite the disgusting institution that Clay protected indirectly (and directly) through these compromises, there is something to be said about his ability to compromise in the first place. In such a turbulent time, Clay was able to find the common ground, and please both sides, while preserving the Union. If Clay had been more radical in his approach, would the Civil War had broken out sooner? Would he have actually achieved anything? These questions are important to keep in mind when thinking about my own political life and activism, and Clay, these compromises, and this time period gives me a good lens to think about compromise vs. radical action.

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.