Do you think the compromise of 1850 was a good solution?

I think the previous thoughts were quite accurate.  I am
not sure any of the solutions, including the one of 1850, were feasible.  It seems to me
that the fundamental premise of all of these compromises were that the nature of
individual convictions can be negotiated and bartered away.  On many levels, this might
be true, but the reality is that when two sides fervently and passionately believe in
the sincerity and veracity of their convictions and feel that a conviction, in its most
pure form, must be realized, compromise is futile. One side believed slavery was right. 
Another side believed it to be wrong.  At its core, these were not luke- warm and tepid
responses.  Rather, they were passionate convictions that could not be minimized. 
Compromises like the Missouri and the one of 1850 proved that democracy does not work
well when convictions upon which action is contingent to their fulfillment are such a
present component in the political lexicon.