During the Martin Billtmore of the compromise of 1850, was it ever proposed that California be cut in half, along the Missouri Compromise 36°30' line? That would have allowed another northern (free) state and another southern (slave) state to be admitted. Kingturtle 20:59, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have never heard of that, but it is possible. Henry Clay always made compromises and some of his propositions never made it into the final "compromise." Alexandros

Yes. Senator Foote proposed cutting California along a line slightly south of 36°30' ("Foote's line" is discussed in Frehling's The Road to Disunion, Vol. 1.), and the idea of extending the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific, and making it part of the Constitution, came up frequently in 1860-61, during the secession crisis. I've also read that some inhabitants of southern California wished to divide the state, and were working to get it accomplished. The northern portion didn't care, iirc, and were willing to go along. Saintonge235 ( talk) 01:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC) reply

There was discussion of extending the 36-30 line to the Pacific Ocean, which would have divided California in half. It is discussed in Jefferson Davis' "Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government," and other places. John Paul Parks ( talk) 14:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply

That's an interesting thought, though. But anyway, the statement, "Known as the "Great Debate," this debate produced the three senators (Clay, Calhoun, and Webster) who are arguably our nations three greatest senators in history." They were already famous before this debate, I don't think it works to say it produced them. Juan Ponderas 03:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, Clay died very shortly after this- most of his work was behind him (Treaty of Ghent, forming the Whig Party, and all of that jazz).-- Deridolus 10:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Still, we have yet to answer, why wasn't California just cut into two halves? Kingturtle 22:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Probably due to minimum population requirements, my dear. LochNessDonkey 00:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply

In fact a Southern California slave state (or territory eventually becoming a slave state) was a principal Southern demand and perhaps the biggest single issue in the whole controversy over slavery in the new territories. The North refused to agree to it to restrict the growth of slave territory, not simply as a mechanical application of population requirements. -- JWB ( talk) 23:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply

The South was more interested in other things, like a tougher fugitive slave law. Most of the population of California was in the northern portion of the state, and they'd applied for admission to the Union as a free state. In exchange for California coming in as a free state, the Utah Territory was allowed to be organized for slavery. Further, the South had begun to assert that Congress had no Constitutional right to prohibit slavery in the Territories; instead, only the population of a Territory could prohibit slavery, and then only when it became a state. They couldn't quite bring themselves to assert that there could be slaves in any Territory, and then ask California be divided along the Missouri Compromise line, when the California inhabitants were requesting that it be a free state. Later, they probably wished they had, but by then everyone was past compromise on the territorial slavery issue. Saintonge235 ( talk) 01:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC) reply

why not? Everything past the mountains was so far away, why shouldn't it be one place? Slx03 ( talk) 20:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC) reply

The California constitutional convention aired many viewpoints on both California's boundaries and division and the national North-South conflict over slavery. Try searching within Report of the Debates in the Convention of California on the Formation of the State Constitution in September and October, 1849. -- JWB ( talk) 00:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply

The article states that Texas relinquished claims to lands east of the Rio Grande. Shouldn't that be west of the Rio Grande?

Another note: The article talks about what to do with various other mexican areas, and says this territory included parts of Vermont, New Jersey.....somehow I don't think that is correct.because mexico was one of the best country in the world

Obviously it is west of the Rio Grande, becuase New Mexico IS west of Texas, not east. And Mexico is not one of the best countries in the world. Besides, what does it have to do with mexico being great?

yes it would —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.218.162 ( talk) 21:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC) reply

The article CORRECTLY refers to lands EAST of the Rio Grande. Specifically to the teritory between the Rio Grande and the 103rd meridian, north of latitude 32 degrees. This encompasses more than half of the modern state of New Mexico, including most of Albuquerque (which straddles the Rio Grande). The 103 meridian became the western boundary of Texas, which had previously claimed ALL lands north and east of the Rio Grande, to its headwaters. Texas lost a substantial amount of claimed territory by the compromise, although at the time it was not felt by many Texans to be very valuable land that they were losing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.235.144.148 ( talk) 16:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply

It was enough of an issue to nearly start the Civil War early - see Compromise of 1850 for references on the confrontation and military threats by the State of Texas and the U.S. government. However Texas never had any control or even presence whatsoever in New Mexico; the closest they got was the failed Texas Santa Fe Expedition of 1841. The capture of Santa Fe was by the Army of the West (1846) from Fort Leavenworth, Kansas which was closer to Santa Fe and connected by the well-traveled Santa Fe Trail, unlike Texas which was widely separated from New Mexico by the hostile Comancheria that beat the Republic of Texas and was only subdued by the U.S. Army after annexation to the U.S. The claim was strictly a fantastic assertion by Texas and had no more basis in actual occupation than the claim to the Californias that the Republic of Texas Congress also asserted in a fit of pique after the failure of the Santa Fe Expedition. El Paso was the only part of New Mexico that Texas persuaded to accept Texas government in 1850, and only due to the talents of the more conciliatory Robert Neighbors who was later murdered by other Texans for being too friendly to Indians. -- JWB ( talk) 18:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply

When Mexico revolted against Spain, in 1821, the rebels captured the Spanish viceroy, put a proclamation of Mexican independence in front of him, put a gun to his head, and told him he choose what would be on the document, his signature or his brains. He signed.

If true (there is nothing on it in Juan Ruiz de Apodaca, 1st Count of Venadito or Mexican War of Independence) this still did nothing to bind Spain to recognize Mexico, which it did not do until December 1836 [1], months after Santa Anna signed the " Treaties of Velasco". -- JWB ( talk) 00:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply

When Sam Houston captured Santa Anna after the Battle of San Jacinto, he put a gun to Santa Anna's head and a proclamation of Texan independence, with the Rio Grande as it's southern and western border, and gave Santa Anna the 'viceroy's choice.' Santa Anna signed.

When the U.S. annexed Texas, Mexico simultaneously refused to recognize the annexation, and objected that the southern and western border of Texas ran up the Nueces river from the Gulf, and then zig-zagged north to what is now the Texas panhandle. The disputed area, known as the Nueces strip, compromised almost all of what is now western Texas, eastern New Mexico, and part of Colorado and Wyoming. It was about half the territory Texas claimed as its own. President Polk tried to negotiate its status with Mexico, but the negotiations failed.

After the War with Mexico, the territory was definitely in the U.S. At the time, the Texas state govt. was broke. The state agreed to surrender title to the land in exchange for the Federal govt. taking over the state's debt. Saintonge235 ( talk) 02:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I think the massive changes in this period left a worse article, not a better one. Details about the final bills, stripped of much context and written in a voluminous and archaic style, were put up front and now make up most of the sections of the article. Discussion of the causes, context and debates has been relegated to the end of the article, out of chronological order. The changed text also uncritically endorsed the Texas claims to northwestern territories, obscuring much of what the debates were about. -- JWB ( talk) 08:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC) I've added and revised more since then but would like to consider taking out some more of the stilted, inflated prose, which I suspect may have been plagiarized from some old law book. -- JWB ( talk) 23:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply

It's missing a caption, and I don't know what it's about and so can't fix it, because it's missing a caption. Circular (il)logic hurts. Dude1818 ( talk) 22:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, it illustrates all boundary changes of the continental US. It's relevant to various points in the article. See also Territorial evolution of the United States. -- JWB ( talk) 23:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Is there a good reason for the crop on the lead image? ( orig vs. crop) The work really should be presented in its entirety, especially since we aren't simply illustrating Henry Clay here. Jujutacular  ^{T ·  C} 13:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Reverted back to full version. Discuss here if anyone disagrees. Jujutacular  ^{T ·  C} 05:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC) reply

The second image, the map showing the Missouri Compromise line, is highly misleading. It shows Nevada and Oregon as states, Kansas as a territory, and West Virginia as part of Virginia. Oregon became a state in 1859, Kansas in 1861, West Virginia in 1863, and Nevada in 1864. Oregon and Nevada were not states in 1850, and Nevada was never a state when Kansas was a territory or West Virginia was part of Virginia.

Further, the map shows the Utah Territory as not permitting slavery. This is simply wrong. Though there were never many slaves in Utah, the Territory did permit it until the Congress outlawed territorial slavery in 1862.

Another error is that the borders shown for the Kansas and Utah Territories are incorrect. This is minor (someone obviously adapted the map from a U.S. States map), but Nevada Territory was initially part of Utah Territory. We need a better image here. Saintonge235 ( talk) 02:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, this map really doesn't belong in this article. Nevada wasn't admitted until 1864 (after Kansas), "Bleeding Kansas" is inflammatory in this context (not to mention an anachronism, as that didn't begin until 1856 or so), and the states are colored as of the Civil War, more than a decade after the Compromise of 1850. If nobody can come up with a better map, I'd simply delete this one from the article.-- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 19:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC) reply

This map is a poor choice for the article. It has states labeled as "Confederate" states, even though there was no CSA for more than 10 years after the passage of the Compromise of the 1850. There are numerous other anachronisms as well. I'm sure its placement here was well-intended, but it can only serve to confuse those seeking their first information on the subject. I'm removing it. 98.82.193.135 ( talk) 13:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I originally reverted you and then changed my mind. I don't think the map creates confusion and do believe that it provides proper visual context for new readers. I'll wait to see if anybody comes up with an adequate replacement. Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 14:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I appreciate that you decided to give this matter a bit of time. That was very civil of you. If you don't mind, let me elaborate further.

As I imagine it was for you, when I first saw the map, I did not find it objectionable. The lines were familiar, and it seemed to cover the ground. But the first thing that caught my eye was the reference to "Confederate States". Then I saw that the Civil War border states were also colored differently. Only then did realize that this was simply a Civil War map. And that's the problem. It took me (a history teacher!) several minutes before I realized the map was not a map of the Compromise of 1850. And I see on your userpage that you are something of an expert on the Civil War, so you too are apparently comfortable with the anachronistic elements of the map.

But now think about it from the perspective of a high school student learning about this Compromise for the first time. He's probably had a cursory introduction to US history already in an earlier grade, and if he has, he has almost certainly has been exposed to the Civil War fought between the Union and the Confederate states. But it's also likely that his elementary and middle school teachers did not discuss the intricacies of the great sectional compromises. So now this 11th grader is hearing about the Compromise of 1850 to learn more, and he sees a map broken into Union and Confederate states. Wouldn't it be easy for him to assume that the Compromise of 1850 is contemporary with the Civil War? If you think that's an unlikely leap of logic, perhaps you haven't spent much time with the American teenagers. Believe me, it would not be a stretch at all for them to see it this way.

Additionally, the map suffers from a few shortcomings besides the mislabeling of the states. For example, to be of service, a Compromise of 1850 map should really make it clear that the Utah and New Mexico territories both shared the same status, namely as places that both were subject to popular sovereignty on the slavery issue. This map labels the New Mexico area as allowing slavery and the Utah Territory as forbidding it, something that was in no way settled by the Compromise. A more accurate map would look something like this. While the borders of New Mexico and Utah are actually more accurate on this map I've linked to, that's not the most important part. More important is the fact that it shows the fact that slavery in those areas is undecided.

So, as I see it, the Civil War map that was in here before will just confuse many of the tens of thousands of students who will view this article every year, and I hope you will agree to leave it out. 98.82.193.135 ( talk) 17:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi, I am the author of the map. (meaning adding the latitude line to an existing map)

The purpose of the map is to show the 36°30' line including its extension to the Pacific coast, which was significant in the Compromise debates. This is not shown in any of the other maps.

The map does show eventual state boundaries, some of which were drawn as late as 1889; see Territorial evolution of the United States. This is OK as the aim is to indicate which of today's cities, towns and regions would have been included in a slave territory or state under the proposed extension of the 36°30' line.

The caption and the coloring of the states are secondary. The caption can easily be changed in the article. The SVG map could also easily be altered - the very simplest alteration would be just to make all states the same color and not show any of the Civil War alignments.

That said, I think some information on Civil War alignments is useful, at least for the Eastern states already existing by 1850 - this is only the slave state vs. free state distinction, other than the information that four slave states eventually stayed in the Union; the color difference between the border states and other slave states could be made more subtle. I agree the current shading is misleading in the West, where almost all of the territory was up for grabs as free or slave in the pre-Compromise of 1850 standoff (and later with the Kansas-Nebraska Act) and most of the current boundaries had not been drawn in any form.

I suggest that all the Western states not yet existing in 1847-1850 be the same color (gray would be appropriate) and that Texas get special coloring and that the caption note that the post-Compromise border is shown. Other than the Texas boundary (which is explained in another of my maps later in the article) this would be a good rendering of the pre-Compromise situation.

For the post-Compromise situation, I suggest adding File:United States 1850-1853-03.png which has accurate boundaries. -- JWB ( talk) 19:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Some replies to your points:

• You write: The purpose of the map is to show the 36°30' line including its extension to the Pacific coast, which was significant in the Compromise debates. This is not shown in any of the other maps. Not to put too fine a point on it here, but this is one of the worst things about the map--this line that you added. While it extending the Missouri Compromise 36 30 line was considered, it didn't happen (if it had, California would have been two states, plus other changes). That's another reason to not use the map.

• You write:The map does show eventual state boundaries. . . the aim is to indicate which of today's cities, towns and regions would have been included in a slave territory or state under the proposed extension of the 36°30' line. Well, I don't know what to say. I suppose I understand how that might be intriguing to some persons, as a matter of trivia, but since it didn't happen, it's not central to this article, since the primary focus of this article should be to tell us what the Compromise did, more than what it didn't do.

The debate and conflict preceding the Compromise are vitally important to understanding not just the Compromise itself but the process leading to the Civil War and the history of American expansion and later imperialism. They are severely undercovered in the summaries of the Compromise in most recent general histories of the United States, and the focus of my involvement with this article over the years has been to bring in sources covering and allowing greater understanding of the whole process and the choices involved. I hope you can agree this part of American history merits coverage in Wikipedia.

The map could also be moved farther down in the article closer to the sections describing the runup and debate. -- JWB ( talk) 23:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• You write:The caption and the coloring of the states are secondary. While you are correct that the caption can be changed, I'm sorry, but as an educator for more than 25 years, I tell you that you are 100% wrong about the coloring being secondary. We add coloring to maps like this for the expressed purpose of clarifying information; in fact, a map with no color is more useful than a map whose colors do not align with the information that the map is intended to convey. Until 1863, West Virginia did not exist as a separate entity from Virginia. Until 1861, there was no reason why Missouri and Kentucky should be colored differently than Mississippi and South Carolina. This map utterly fails the test of clarity, simply because of the colors.

OK - I have changed the border states coloring to be nearly indistinguishable from the rest of the slave states. The new map is visible at [2]. (When we reference new versions of images directly in Wikipedia, they take some minutes to be rendered at specific sizes and show up.) Please note that the captions on the Commons page for the image do not need to be reproduced in the Compromise article, which can have its own captions suitable for that article. -- JWB ( talk) 23:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

The variety of alterations you propose are interesting, but really, you're talking about doing major surgery on a patient that is already dead. I don't know the first thing about altering or creating images, but it is clear to me that a new map is needed. 98.82.193.135 ( talk) 21:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I have done what is easy via relabeling and hope it will satisfy some of your concerns. Redrawing boundaries would be quite a bit harder. You are most welcome to research and propose any new maps. -- JWB ( talk) 23:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I see your work here, and I must say, I envy your talents . . . I have no idea how you change stuff like that. If your most recent version of the map was in the article, it would indeed address the major concerns in terms of "Union", "Border", and "Confederate" states, and so yes, it would be less problematic. But I still think it offers little to the article. It does show, with some degree of accuracy, the status of things before the Compromise, but it doesn't show us any of the effects of the Compromise (California statehood, pop sov in Utah & New Mexico).

Thanks, because the source format of that map is SVG which specifies coordinates, colors etc. in plain text which can be edited with a plain text editor, and because vector graphics are not limited by pixel resolution, I was able to do it just by editing text. Many SVG files are written obscurely enough so that it would be difficult to find what's what, but this file's outlines are clearly labeled with state codes.

I don't see the article as restricted to the final form of the Compromise, which itself is somewhat mysterious without knowledge of the issues leading to it. One problem is that there is no separate name for the standoff between North and South over division of Mexican territory between them, a bitter sectional conflict which extended all the way from the Wilmot Proviso up to the Compromise, a period of 4 years, and therefore no separate article. Mark Stegmaier's book has good coverage of this period. I'm open to discussion of better places in Wikipedia to cover the material, but so far this seems to me to be the best. -- JWB ( talk) 14:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm guessing that the reason we can't add a map like the one I linked to above is because of free use requirements (which I respect but don't really understand), is that correct? Oh well. 98.82.193.135 ( talk) 02:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, see WP:COPY and WP:FU. You would have to document that the site with the map gives an appropriate license with free use for all, and has authority to do so. -- JWB ( talk) 14:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Could you take this map and color in one color for slave states, another for free states, and a third for the popular sovereignty territories of NM and Utah? 98.82.193.135 ( talk) 02:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

This one is in a pixel-oriented format instead of vector graphics and I suspect the results of recoloring would not look as good, especially the text, so if you want to work from this map it might be best to involve the map's author, User:Golbez, who might have an original format with better definition.

Also the Compromise's option for slavery and Southern alignment via popular sovereignty in Utah and NM was very much a nominal face-saving gesture - the New Mexicans sided with the North against Texas and the South, and no more than two dozen Negro slaves were brought to New Mexico by the Civil War, even as the local institution of peonage continued. It is certainly one of the Compromise's provisions to be documented, but map coloring can give the impression there was some actual effect over the whole territory shown, while in fact the only region open to Southern dominance post-Compromise was the southern half of NM which became the Confederate Territory of Arizona. I would be fine with explaining the popular sovereignty provision in the caption and article text, though a map is OK too if we can find or make one. -- JWB ( talk) 14:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

But that was exactly the point of "popular sovereignty", not the slavery would develop, but that it would be something that, over time, the population would decide upon. And while in New Mexico there was little slavery, in the Utah Territory there was already slavery in 1850, and, given enough time, it might have become a significant economic institution. But of course, there were only ten years for that to happen before the whole thing became moot.. Also, the status during the war is, again, immaterial to a map explaining the terms of the Compromise of 1850.

I am interested in your sources on slavery in Utah. I don't know of Negro slavery in Utah beyond a few federal officers taking their slaves there.

Ok, Black_people_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Utah_sanctions_slavery says that the Utah legislature enacted a slavery law in 1852 and there were only 29 slaves in 1860. [3] adds that there were 26 slaves in 1850. The total population rose from 11,000 to 40,000 between 1850 and 1860. ( Demographics_of_Utah#Demographics) This is similar to the New Mexico figure.

The definition of popular sovereignty was that the white voting population would later decide. The political purpose was to further postpone the slavery question, and the particular purpose in the Compromise of 1850 was to throw a sop to the South after the South's loss of Southern California, which was the largest prize closely contested in both the 1846-1850 North-South standoff and the 1846-1848 Mexican War itself. This does not mean there was a realistic prospect of either territory voting to be a slave state. -- JWB ( talk) 22:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Question: Where do the maps we use come from? Does anyone create original maps? What prevents someone who can develop Wikipedia maps from just copying a common map of the compromise, as found on many web sites? 98.82.193.135 ( talk) 15:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, people sometimes create original maps. Some sources are public domain, for example the US Government. Copying a copyrighted map is a copyright infringement.

I have some questions about your changes in captions etc. but will start another section to discuss. -- JWB ( talk) 22:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

(Note: An early contributor to this discussion, I was asked to weigh in by 98.82.193.135) This is a related subject (as noted earlier); if a map (or other illustration) is to be removed, the obvious question is: what (if anything) should replace it? From the length and depth of this conversation, it seems a good idea to have some map. It would certainly help those (such as me) who benefit from visual depictions. Some possibilities appear here [4] and here [5]. I'm not saying to copy what is likely copyrighted material, but these give an idea as to what the map could look like. It seems to me that a map illustrating the Compromise of 1850 should have:

• 1850 borders, also showing the Texas cession
• color coding to show slave and free territory, and possibly additional colors for "to be determined later", etc.
• maybe a line for the Missouri Compromise line, as it could have been extended to the Pacific (this might better be in a map showing proposals)
• possibly a note to show where the District of Columbia is, as it wouldn't show on a national map, not everybody in Norway or India knows where it is, and it was the effective situs of 1/5 of the compromise

I don't see, however, that the Mason-Dixon line needs to be included. It was important in the Missouri Compromise, but was old news by 1850.

I'm sure that most good US history books have something with these elements. -- Piledhigheranddeeper ( talk) 16:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• [6]: Should reflect that the conflict started just after the beginning of the two-year Mexican War, not after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
• [7]:
  • Division of California was the biggest question at stake (Stegmaier) and deserves to be mentioned.
  • The Missouri Compromise line was not extended west, but it was only one of several proposed divisions of the conquered territory between North and South; for example, Southerners proposed 34th parallel north for California.
  • "Texas agrees to the borders it has today" is correct but again less informative of what was at stake; Texas aggressively pursued its claim to NM, even taking the nation to the brink of civil war, but had little hope of gaining the claimed territories farther north; on the other hand, none of the proposals sought to deny El Paso to Texas even though Texas had only first taken control of El Paso earlier in 1850.
  • Popular sovereignty in New Mexico and Utah: again you want to keep only the letter of the law, and delete information about the real political situation and views at the time, which is well documented in sources like Stegmaier, even if less widely known, precisely because most general histories take the easy way out and supply a similarly bland, legalistic view papering over the actual political conflicts. -- JWB ( talk) 22:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Regarding your first point, on when the conflict started, yes, I agree, you are correct, feel free to make the change.

Regarding the material I edited out, I think some perspective is needed. I only edited the caption on a map. All of this other stuff can and should be included in the article, because (like every historical compromise) there is lots of background and negotiations that go into the final solution. But all the map needs to do is show what the result was, not what went into it. Of course, it would be perfectly acceptable to have a series of maps, showing various proposals that were considered. But a map purporting to represent "the Compromise of 1850" should show what the compromise consisted of, not what it might have consisted of.

Again, regarding the Texas claims to New Mexico and the possibility of California being split: The caption accurately summarizes the end result of the negotiations. If the Missouri Compromise line is not extended, there's no need to split California. If Texas accepts its current boundaries, it necessarily cedes the other lands brought in when it joined the United States. It's just not feasible (nor necessary), in my opinion, to give all this background in the caption. But if you want all that background in map form, fine, create another map or maps to show that. As a cartophile, I'd rather like that.

As far the as the pop sov situation in the Mexican Cession territories, I think you're missing a key point. You apparently are operating under the assumption that providing for popular sovereignty in those territories would make slavery legal in the same. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It was about the fact that the people could, if they chose, make slavery legal in their territories. Utah, in fact, did so (in 1853, if my memory is correct). And had the Civil War not intervened, who is to say what would have happened in the next 30 years? Given Brigham Young's pronouncements about blacks, it would not have been a stretch to think that a Southern-style interpretation of the Bible could have reinforced slavery in 19th century Utah. But we can never know what would have happened, all we can know is that the provisions of the Compromise of 1850 made either eventuality (slavery legalized or slavery prohibited) possible. 98.82.193.135 ( talk) 23:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I agree conciseness is of value in a map caption, and wrote my caption to explain key facts concisely and clearly. Your rewrite, while cutting information, made the caption slightly longer, not shorter.

"If the Missouri Compromise line is not extended, there's no need to split California. If Texas accepts its current boundaries, it necessarily cedes the other lands brought in when it joined the United States." You have causality backwards in both of these cases, hiding the real issues involved, without making the caption clearer or more concise.

I suspect New Mexico and Utah were quietly urged to nominally legalize Negro slavery in an effort to maintain an illusion that the South actually got something (other than the Fugitive Slave Law) from the Compromise. Brigham Young's attitude to blacks was similar to that of Northern Free Soilers, abhorring not only slavery but the presence of blacks at all, and approving that the Utah law had "nearly freed the Territory of the colored population"; see page 240 of Brigham Young: American Moses. New Mexico had applied for admission as a free state. -- JWB ( talk) 03:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I wasn't claiming my edit was shorter, merely that it was simpler. And I was well aware that my explanation reversed the causality, but the point is, I didn't feel that the causality needs to be in the caption. We have an entire article to cover that. Anyway, let me share with you my thinking as I looked at your caption text:

• California a free state instead of a Southern territory in Southern California. I just thought that this was awkward phrasing. I still see it that way. I guess what you are saying is "The whole of California is admitted as a single free state instead of being divided between a northern free area and a southern slave area" but I don't think, to someone unfamiliar with the topic, that that is clear at all. This was the sentence that drew me in to rewrite the caption.

How about California admitted as a free state; no Southern territory in Southern California?

By the way, Mexican Alta California was not limited to today's California, but included the great majority of the " Mexican Cession, so "the whole of California" is problematic as well.

• Texas drops claim to New Mexico. Yes, this is true. But most readers--who are less knowledgeable than you--will likely think that this means that Texas's claim was either to the New Mexico territory as shown on the map or perhaps to the boundaries of New Mexico as they are today. Of course, as you know, Texas's claim included less than half of the land in the New Mexico Territory yet also included lands up to Wyoming. Simply saying that they give up "New Mexico" is not clarifying, it's potentially confusing.

The article does currently feature no less than three maps showing the extent of the Texas claims.

Texas was already unlikely to hold the claimed territory in the far north so this was less of an issue in the Compromise debates. The Texas Annexation already included a provision that any states formed from Texas-claimed territory north of the Missouri Compromise line would be free states, making that area less attractive to other Southerners.

Only the 1850-1863 New Mexico Territory included Arizona; neither the Mexican territory Santa Fe de Nuevo México nor the later American New Mexico Territory and state did.

Most of New Mexico's (Hispanic and Pueblo) population lived east of the Rio Grande, and almost all of the settled population in the Texas-claimed area lived in north-central New Mexico, so in terms of populations the dispute for control was between the Texans and the New Mexicans, while the Comanches who actually controlled much of the claimed area were not part of the legal contest.

We could certainly add a more precise description like New Mexico east of the Rio Grande; in the original caption I was trying to keep it short. -- JWB ( talk) 08:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• two new territories, New Mexico and Utah, where slavery is possible in principle via popular sovereignty, though unlikely in practice I'm sorry. I agree that NM would be an extremely unlikely place for slavery to flourish. I think that the record of BY on slavery in Utah is certainly unclear, but I'll separate my response to your words on Young from these comments on the article.* JWB, my initial response is that I think you tread close to OR with your comments about that slavery would be "unlikely in practice", but maybe I'll sleep on that before I come down for sure on it.

There are abundant quotes from the time saying that slavery would never flourish in the Mountain West, that we could cite. Or we could just say that slavery in fact did not flourish in NM or UT after the Compromise. -- JWB ( talk) 08:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I know I'm sensitive to the needs of the casual reader, but I think we must be. We should not only not be writing for experts in the field (not that you have gone that far), nor even for people currently studying the topic. Our articles need to be written so that a person who is of normal intelligence can come to a topic that they've never before encountered, and not be confused. And that directs my editing. I've learned over the years (teaching students from middle school through college) that those of us who are familiar with a topic sometimes miss opportunities to be clear to novices. I mean, sometimes, perhaps in a technical field, it's just not possible to make an article comprehensible to a novice. But that should be our goal, and even if we can't do that, we should at least examine whether or not we can write more clearly to the novice, and avoid potential places for misunderstandings. 98.82.193.135 ( talk) 05:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I agree with this, as I think anyone would. I also think a reader of average intelligence can understand a simple "A not B" statement. -- JWB ( talk) 08:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I've rewritten the caption again, this time as a bullet list for additional readability. I addressed some of your objections above, including not specifically mentioning the proposed Southern California territory, not identifying the Texas claims as NM, and using uncondensed English sentences. I put information on the denied proposals in links that interested readers can follow, instead of text that readers must read now. I hope we are close to achieving both goals, simplicity and clarity, and access to information on the conflicts resolved in the Compromise. -- JWB ( talk) 18:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Looks great. Thanks for your patience. 98.82.193.135 ( talk) 03:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Brigham Young and Africans

• Your suspicions that he had it legalized due to pressure from outside is stretching, as BY would have been unlikely to have yielded to such pressures--that just wasn't in his nature. The simpler explanation is that there were Mormons who had brought slaves to Utah with them, and (despite the fact that they were few in number) BY sought to protect their property formally. BY did share the belief that Africans were not only inferior, but cursed by God, and he believed that slavery was a part of the divine design of the world. He claimed to abhor it, but only insofar as its existence was evidence of the continued depravity of man. He was not an abolitionist who saw it necessary to end slavery to elevate society, rather, he believed that once and only when Man was elevated to a higher state would slavery be no longer practiced. That's a huge difference. 98.82.193.135 ( talk) 05:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Why did New Mexico Territory legalize Negro slavery which it had previously opposed? If NM did in response to pressures, why wouldn't the same forces also act on Utah, whatever Young's opinion might have been? And a belief that Africans were inferior was shared by many if not most Northerners, but this did not imply they wanted to protect property in slaves and encourage it in their states and territories.

But please take a look at the source I quoted - Young praised the legislation not for protecting property but for reducing the colored population. -- JWB ( talk) 08:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC) reply

More generally, while it is natural today to see traditional Mormon beliefs as self-motivated and firm since they survived over a century, they were also very much attempting to navigate the dangerous political landscape of the time. The early Mormons accepted blacks including as priests, then when this got them in trouble in the racist climate of the time, they accepted the Curse of Ham from conventional Christianity. See Black people and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which also notes that the Utah slave code mandated schooling for slaves and emancipation if masters failed to care for slaves adequately in several ways or tried to remove them from the territory, all of which were anathema to Southern slaveholders.

The Mormon migration to Utah must be seen in context of the 1846-1850 limbo in status of the "Mexican Cession" territory while North and South wrangled over its division; the official story is that the Mormons migrated to Mexican territory to flee persecution, then American expansionism caught up with them by surprise; in fact American troops had occupied California and New Mexico with clear intent to keep the territory and the North-South standoff had begun with the Wilmot Proviso before the migration even started. Mormonism was very much involved in the runup to the Civil War with Southerners accusing the North of tolerating polygamy, and Northerners eventually countering by lumping polygamy and slavery together as similar evils and accusing the Democratic doctrine of popular sovereignty of tolerating polygamy (see Utah War#Plural marriage, popular sovereignty, and slavery) with the Democrats reacting by attacking Utah. -- JWB ( talk) 17:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I think we're debating matters not material to this article, so I'm going to end my participation in this tangential thread (that I made the mistake of starting). 98.82.193.135 ( talk) 03:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Henry Clay Senate3.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 9, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-09-09. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng { chat} 19:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Picture of the day

U.S. Senator Henry Clay gives a speech in the Old Senate Chamber calling for compromise on the issues dividing the United States. The result was the Compromise of 1850, a package of five bills, the first two of which were passed on September 9. Ironically, these led to a breakdown in the spirit of compromise in the years preceding the Civil War, particularly after the deaths of Clay and Daniel Webster.Artist: Peter F. Rothermel; Engraver: Robert Whitechurch; Restoration: Lise Broer and Jujutacular

Archive – More featured pictures...

The lead made an unsourced claim (until I deleted it), that Texas threatened war over New Mexico. As a native Texan, I have taken multiple Texas History classes from 7th grade through college level, I've pored over Fehrenbach, and I've read a lot on the Compromise of 1850, and I have never seen anything to indicate that Texas ever threatened war over New Mexico. I'm guessing it comes from this sentence in the Background section: "Senator Joseph Underwood referred to 'the threatened civil war, unless we appease the hot bloods of Texas.'" I have found Underwood's entire speech [8]. The speech makes it clear Underwood did not actually believe that Texas might go to war over the New Mexico territory. He seemed to be responding to what he saw as speculation by other politicians in favor of paying Texas for the lands that if they did not, Texas might threaten war. His words were:

"We are told that the strongest motives urging its passage are, the prevention of civil war between Texas and the United States [...] That we have talked so much about civil war and bloodshed in this Chamber, and so much has been poured out by the press on the same subject, as to alarm persons of weak nerves, I shall not deny. That there ever was, nor now is, any real danger growing out of the dispute in relation to the boundaries of Texas, I cannot believe. [...] Sir, I have seen no evidence of any threat coming from any one in Texas authorized to speak for her. [...] I have from the beginning regarded the idea of a civil war growing out of the claim of Texas to extend her boundaries to the sources of the Rio Grande as preposterous." 

With this in mind I have also deleted the awkward sentence in the Background section with the fragment of a quote of Underwood's speech. It was isolated and awkward, and completely misleading. Mmyers1976 ( talk) 19:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Stegmaier’s Chapter 10 is on the proposals for a military expedition, could you take a look? The "war bill” finally failed to pass on September 2, see p. 256. -- JWB ( talk) 20:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC) reply

I realize that some people feel that "political correctness" is running amok, but I do wonder if "Native American territory" might be more-fitting and more-accurate than "unorganized territory," in the map. "Unorganized territory" seems to me to be inaccurate, potentially-offensive and biased. -- 128.230.233.158 ( talk) 23:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Unorganized territory is a technical term meaning no Organic act. -- JWB ( talk) 20:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC) reply

There's a line in the article now ("the Compromise of 1850, as it became known") that implies it was not called the Compromise of 1850 at the time, which makes sense because that sounds like a name you give to something later.

• When did it become known as the Compromise of 1850? This is not a definitive approach, but it looks like Google's n-gram search doesn't find the phrase in print until 1871.

• And if it wasn't called the Compromise of 1850 until later, what was it known as at the time? I think knowing this would be helpful for understanding how the people of the time were thinking about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paco2718 ( talk • contribs) 17:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC) reply

This is the lead but there's nothing about it in the actual article body, or in An Act for the Admission of the State of California. Does anyone have a source or further info on this? - Elmer Clark ( talk) 00:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Elmer Clark: I have removed it, because I too read that when I was rekerjiggering the lead and thought "boy, that doesn't seem right". CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 01:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC) reply