Compromise or Conflict?

All humans have experienced this dilemma when faced with an immovable situation – does one compromise to find a solution, or does one fight to determine a winner? Should we sacrifice our aims, morals, and vision to avert a disaster or do we fight through the predicament, hoping that whatever we believe in, whatever we want, will last the tempest and be fulfilled in the end? A perfect example of compromise can be seen in the Great Compromise, or the Compromise of 1850. Henry Clay, a notable senator during the early and mid 1850, compromised on various accounts, often essential to maintaining the Union and preventing a civil war. His compromises during the Missouri Compromise, the Nullification Crisis, and the Compromise of 1850 helped to keep the South from seceding. Historians have even mentioned that his compromises have been essential to the Union’s victory during the Civil War as it allowed the Union time to build its industries that would have not been available if the Civil War had began 10 years earlier. On the other hand, we can look to the same time period for an individual who would not compromise and weathered the storm. Our 16^th President, Abraham Lincoln refused to compromise during the early and mid days of the Civil War, a time period where the Confederates looked as if they were winning the war. His belief that America was one nation, and his resolve to keep it united proved essential as the Union won the Civil War and reunited a broken nation. Thus, we can see that both compromise and conflict are necessary measures to solve difficult issues, but the question that will always remain is: when do we use either method? That requires one to look to his/her situation and judge the problem. Sometimes the ends justify the means, but at other time the means play a larger in determining what the end might be.