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.
I do not really think there were any good solutions available at that point. That said, I do not think that that Compromise of 1850 was even a very good try at solving the slavery issue. Mainly, it seems to me that the Fugitive Slave Act was sure to make Northerners really unhappy. Second, I think that Bleeding Kansas had showed that popular sovereignty was a good way to deal with the question of slavery in new territories and states.
However, it's probably unfair to expect any compromise to actually fix the problems by the time they had reached this point.