Compromise of 1850: Questions

Looking at the Compromise as a whole entity, what do you think it's trying to accomplish? Does anything change when the bill is split up into its parts?
How do you see the sectional tension of the time period reflected in the text of the Compromise?
Looking at how the Compromise was passed, do you see any parallels to how laws are passed today?
Who do you think got more out of the Compromise—the North or the South?
Which state do you think benefitted most from the Compromise? The least?
Was there anything in the Compromise that would make you think that it would eventually fail to keep the nation together? Do you think the bill did a good job of propping up the institution of slavery?
What does it say about the Senate in 1850 that Clay, a southerner, and Douglas, from Illinois, worked together to make this thing happen?
How did the Compromise ensure that this kind of cooperation would continue to be possible?
Slavery wouldn't be the reason anymore, but what do you think about the idea of the federal government arranging things so that the Senate would be split equally between parties?
Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun have a staredown in the Senate. Who's your money on?