Download The Missouri Compromise: Opinions through U.S. Newspapers, by Britney Deruchowski

University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Oshkosh Scholar Submission – Volume VII – 2012
Congratulations to author Britney Deruchowski and her faculty adviser, Dr. Gabriel Loiacono.
The author went through a rigorous review and revision process and is to be commended for her
excellent work.
The Missouri Compromise: Opinions through U.S. Newspapers
Britney Deruchowski, author
Dr. Gabriel Loiacono, History, faculty adviser
Britney Deruchowski graduated from UW Oshkosh in May 2011 with a B.A. in history and a
minor in journalism. Her research on the Missouri Compromise was done during her senior year.
She is currently pursuing a master’s degree in educational leadership at UW Oshkosh.
Dr. Gabriel Loiacono is an assistant professor of history and received his Ph.D. from Brandeis
University in 2008. His research interests include poor relief in colonial North America and the
early republican era of the United States.
Abstract
Forty years prior to the American Civil War the tension between the northern and
southern states became more apparent when the expansion of slavery in the developing western
states was debated. The Missouri Compromise, which granted Missouri statehood as a slave
state, became a question of politics, economics, and morals for the citizens of the United States.
In my research, editorials and articles in newspapers from both the North and the South were
used to uncover the differing opinions regarding the compromise. These opinions reflect not only
the sentiment toward slavery and the division of the United States at that time, but also the
secession and war that would come in the following years. The Missouri Compromise was one of
the significant events that led to the Civil War and the written opinions in this research clearly
show that the division in the United States would not be settled by acts of Congress.
The Missouri Compromise had a profound effect on the United States before the Civil
War. The legislative results from the Compromise would be debated between the southern and
northern states based upon the issues of continuing slavery in the United States. The debate
between whether slavery should continue on in the western territories and in the newly admitted
states was not only for reasons of abolition and morals, although this too was an issue in the
compromise. The main debate over the compromise revolved around political and economic
power and fears of a dissolution of the union. There were also concerns over the constitutional
rights of the states. The South felt that the continuation of slavery in the expanded territories
would help with the agricultural growth that was substantiated by slavery, while the northern
states felt that slavery in the western territories would lead to an unfair advantage to large
plantations compared with the smaller farms of new western settlers. The debate over whether to
admit Missouri as a free or slave state would divide the House of Representatives and create a
sectionalism that would be present in the United States until the Civil War.
These debates and sentiments can be seen through the editorials and news articles from
newspapers throughout the United States during this era of “Good Feelings.” The articles from
newspapers in northern and southern states will provide primary sources detailing the sentiments
of citizens regarding the issues of the compromise. The political divide between the North and
South will be shown in the different editorial opinions from both southern and northern papers
detailing the proceedings of Congress at the time. The economic divide between the South and
North was also at issue for the divide on whether Missouri was to enter as a free or slave state.
The North felt that slavery was an issue of morality, and large plantations were also seen as a
threat to the developing Western economy. The South felt that the North was threatening a longstanding institution when they wanted slavery banned in the western territories.
The Sources
The primary sources in this research are from newspapers of both the northern and
southern United States. They were found using the database America’s Historical Newspapers.
By using a database the results were limited and often repetitive, which gave a small sample
from which to work. When using newspapers from earlier time periods in America it is important
to understand certain biases that come along with them. Early American newspapers differed
from the newspapers we see today because the majority of the news was written in an editorial
style. This is a great way to get a perspective on individual thoughts during a certain time period,
but it cannot always be rendered as fact. For my research this is exactly what I wanted—the
opinions of individuals who were living through the turmoil before the Civil War erupted.
History is more than the facts and dates that can be memorized. When we can learn the personal
stories and opinions of people, then a real connection to history can be made.
Background Information
When Thomas Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 there was great potential
for the expansion of the United States, but it also introduced the question of whether the states
that were created out of the purchase should be admitted into the union as slave states or free
states. When the Missouri Territory, a part of the Louisiana Purchase, wanted to enter the union
in 1818 this led to a controversy because the United States was balanced with 11 free and 11
slave states. This balance was made after Alabama was admitted as a slave state in 1819 and both
sides wanted to maintain the balance. James Tallmadge, a representative from New York, saw in
the admission of Missouri as a state an opportunity to bring the issues of the abolitionist
movement to the House of Representatives.1 Tallmadge proposed that statehood should be
granted to Missouri under the conditions that slavery importations should be abolished. He also
made a proclamation that all slave children should be granted emancipation when they reached
the age of 25. This plan for admission to statehood was not granted with support from southern
congressmen. Congressman Henry Cobb, from Georgia, was irate at Tallmadge’s plan. Cobb
would state concerning this matter, “You have kindled a fire which all the waters of the ocean
cannot put out, which seas of blood can only extinguish. If dissolution of the Union must take
place, let it be so! If civil war, which gentlemen so much threaten, must come, I can only say, let
it come!”2 At this time it can be seen from the oppositional opinion between Tallmadge’s plan
for Missouri and Cobb’s opinion on this plan that there would be a sectional crisis. This crisis
would result directly from the issue of expanding slavery in the western territory. Cobb’s
statement, which threatened the potential of the dissolution of the Union and that of a Civil War,
would be a reaction from the South more than 40 years after the Missouri Compromise.
Jefferson, too, knew that the expansion of slavery into the western territories would be
controversial. He stated to a friend in a letter that the Missouri conflict was “like a fire bell in the
night, and awakened me and filled me with terror.”3 Jefferson’s fear over this controversy and its
result on the future of the United States was not without merit. He, just as Cobb, knew that the
issue of slavery would be a division between the North and South that would stem further than
just the conflict of entering Missouri into statehood. Tallmadge’s plan for the statehood of
Missouri was passed in the House of Representatives in February 1819 but it did not pass in the
Senate.4 It wouldn’t be until December 1819 that the issue of Missouri’s statehood would again
be considered.
At the same time Maine requested statehood, as it had previously been part of
Massachusetts. Henry Clay, who assumed that Maine would enter as a free state, argued that
Missouri should enter as a slave state in compromise. Clay was Speaker of the House, and was a
slaveholder from Kentucky. However, he stated, “he was an American first and a Southerner
second.”5 Clay would use his authority as Speaker of the House to convince both northern and
southern representatives that a proposal made by Illinois senator Jesse B. Thomas would be the
best solution for both sides. In the senate, Thomas voted for a plan that would limit the
expansion of slavery in the western territories but still allow it in Missouri. Senator Thomas’s
plan included adding Maine as a free state and Missouri as a slave state, but he also added the
condition that slavery would not be allowed in any other states formed out of the Louisiana
Purchase north of the 36 degrees 30 minutes latitude line. This plan would become known as the
Missouri Compromise. Initially the compromise passed in the Senate, but it would not pass in the
House of Representatives as it was met with much debate. This only solidified the sectional
divide that was continuing to grow in the United States. Only after Clay used some persuasion on
his fellow congressmen did the compromise pass in March 1820.6
Although a compromise was met in Congress the debate over the admission of Missouri
as a slave state would continue in subsequent years. The debate would also include the
elimination of slavery in the western territories due to the proviso of the 36 degrees 30 minutes
line. Abolitionists in the North disagreed with the compromise because it still allowed slavery in
Missouri and they were trying to eliminate slavery as an institution in the United States. Arthur
Livermore, a New Hampshire congressman, stated, “How long will the desire for wealth render
us blind to the sin of holding . . . our fellow men in chains?”7 The question of the moral issues
with slavery were not the only reservations the northern states had toward the compromise, as it
was also a matter of economic gain. The northern states had concerns over whether the growth of
slavery in the western territories would result in large plantations throughout the West, thus
destroying opportunities for smaller family owned farms.8
The Northern Opinion
An article from the Boston Daily Advertiser that was published in February 1820 before
the compromise was passed in Congress details one reader’s concerns over the compromise and
its influence on the Constitution of the United States. The article stated:
Mr. Thomas’s scheme goes to the whole tract of country, without regard to its being
state or territorial; but let that pass; say that it is only the foot of the Chinese child that is
to be bandaged—that the rule goes only to the territory, and ceases when it becomes a
state: by what right does the Congress impose this shackle upon the people of a
territory?9
The constitutional rights of the people living in the territories were a concern when it came to the
decision of the compromise. The writer of this article, who goes unidentified, finds that
regulations coming from the line drawn at the 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude line should
not be warranted in the Constitution because it further divides the country into the North and the
South. It would isolate those in the North from entering the southern part of the territory because
of matters of principle and morality with the issue of slavery. It would also isolate the southern
portion of the territory because of support for slavery in that area. The writer validates this point
by stating,
Shall we yield so vast a disproportion of country north of that line, sweeping off in
magnificent dimensions away to the Pacific Ocean, for us to be cooped up, south of it, by
the Spanish line on our west? Shall we give up to the eastern states ten times, as much
land, for their people to settle on, as the slave-holding states shall have?—Look at the
map: draw the line; and then let the southern advocate of compromise justify it, if he
can?10
The writer of this article seems to have sympathetic feelings for the southern side of the
compromise believing that Senator Thomas’s plan is not a compromise at all. It would be unfair
for the southern states to be denied the right to practice their institutions in all of the Western
territory. It is not stated in this article who wrote this or where they were located, but it is
possible that this article was published in the Boston Daily Advertiser to expose the Northern
citizens to Southern opinions. It could also be written by a Northern citizen, who had
sympathetic views to Southern issues, and was supportive of slavery in the United States. Not
everyone in the North had abolitionist ideals.
In New York’s Commercial Advertiser the sentiments of a Southern editor of the
Richmond Enquirer are distinctively critiqued: “Notwithstanding all this parade of calmness and
candor, it will be found, that the tranquility of this sober and dignified Editor resembles very
much the fury of a madman—.”11 The editor of the Richmond Enquirer sent a letter to the
Commercial Advertiser concerning two previous letters published in a paper from Virginia. The
editor writes in regards to the attitudes of Virginians,
Other states may talk of our pride; they may charge us with an arrogant and domineering
spirit: some panic-struck politician may regret the heat of the ‘Virginians at Richmond’
on a late memorable occasion: let them vituperate as much as they please. We trust that
Virginia will never sleep at her post; that she will never suffer others to violate the
constitution in silence, or subscribe herself to any compromise with her principles.12
Again, the issue of the Constitution being in violation is a matter of concern in this
editorial. The New York paper describes the Virginian letters that they previously published as
being of a tone that portrayed the Virginians as possible elitists who did not care about violating
the Constitution as long as they were able to keep their institutions in the western territories.
Nevertheless, the editor’s letter from Virginia proclaims that they do not have an elitist attitude
as they do not want other people to have their constitutional rights or principles infringed upon.
It seems, however, that continuing slavery in the western territories is a violation of principles
for the citizens in the northern states because to consider slavery in the Western territories would
force them to comply with an institution that they did not believe in. The editor from Virginia
makes a comment that foreshadows the future of the United States quite clearly if the sectional
divide continues: “These are certainly no ordinary times. A storm is gathering over our heads,
which it may be difficult to disperse. The eastern representatives may threaten dissolution of the
Union, or the election of another President; in spite of these menaces, it becomes us to be calm,
but unwavering and unshaken as Mount Atlas.”13 Although this editor was considered a
“madman” by the Commercial Advertiser, he clearly understands that the debate over slavery
and the continued division between the Northern and Southern states will have repercussions on
the United States as a whole. Comparing the problems that were present as a gathering storm
foretells the conclusion that the conflicts over the sectionalism of the union will bring forth
violence and turmoil in the future. The article in the Commercial Advertiser concludes with a
“Letter to the Editor” from Washington, D.C. This letter concludes that politicians are
considering a compromise and that the dissolution of the union is a far stretch from occurrence.
Our object is to exhibit the extent of folly to which the advocates of the extension of
slavery, in this free country, can descend. The friends of humanity, the opposers of
oppression, will remain cool, but firm,—they have taken their position, and the
threatening and exasperated language of Virginia cannot drive them from the ground on
which they stand. They may tell us that the Union is in jeopardy. It is an idle tale. We
have already said, and we repeat it—the Northern States, at present, wish not, and the
Southern dare not withdraw from the Union.14
The writer of this editorial had a differing opinion compared to the editor of the Commercial
Advertiser who felt that there was a possibility of the dissolution of the union. There was concern
in politics in Virginia over the issue of slavery for reasons of oppression of humanity most likely
motivated by the abolitionist movement. However, at the same time in Virginia there was
support for slavery to be expanded into the Western Territory. The importance of this article
from the Commercial Advertiser is that it displays two different opinions that were present in
Virginia at the time. The politicians from the North in D.C. had a different opinion on the
expansion of slavery in the West as well as the state of the Union than those politicians and
citizens of Virginia of Southern support.
The issue of the expansion of slavery in the territories and the state constitution of
Missouri comes into question in an article from the New York Advertiser that was reprinted in the
Massachusetts Spy in November 1820. This article was written by an unknown author but clearly
describes that the issue of slavery in the western territories, particularly if Missouri is granted
statehood, is not just a conflict for moral reasons but also because it violates a clause in the
Constitution of the United States. The author criticizes pro-slavery papers in the United States
for not mentioning that there is a provision in the U.S. Constitution that conflicts with the
conditions of the State Constitution of Missouri.
It is a little remarkable that the papers friendly to slavery in our country, have almost,
with one consent, maintained the most profound silence on the subject of the provision in
the Constitution of the new state of Missouri, “which makes it the duty of the Legislature
of that state to pass laws to prevent all free blacks and mulattos from settling within its
limits under any pretext whatever.”15
This provision in the state constitution violates the federal Constitution because freemen in the
United States are guaranteed rights in certain states as citizens and therefore should not be
excluded in the newly formed states based solely upon its state constitution. The issues regarding
states’ rights to expand slavery over the federal right to abolish slavery entirely again shows how
the Missouri Compromise would be a substantial issue leading up to the Civil War. This article
describes the actions that Congress needs to take in determining where state constitution
provisions stand in the matter of violating a clause of the U.S. Constitution. The author of the
article felt that rejecting this clause of the state of Missouri’s Constitution would only result in
another constitution being formed, possibly considering a reformation that restricts slavery.
“Rejecting this Constitution cannot affect the right of the people of the territory to form a
Constitution. If this should be disapproved, they will, unquestionably, be authorized to form
another; and the rejection of this, on the ground above mentioned, will not make it necessary for
them to introduce into another, a clause restricting slavery.”16 The author makes two statements
in this article that show his motives for both rejecting a compromise that expands slavery and
allowing a provision in a state constitution that trumps a citizens’ rights clause in the U.S.
Constitution. The author writes both that “Has a State the Right of Restricting Freemen?” and
that Congress needs to come to a decision with “A Compromise with Their Consciences for a
Palpable and Willful Violation of Their Constitutional Oaths.”17 These are strong remarks that
show a passion for the humanitarian thoughts behind the discontent with the Missouri
Compromise. While some thought that the compromise would limit slavery’s expansion because
it would eradicate slavery from the north part of the western territory, others felt that it still was
not enough of a compromise. It was not enough for abolitionists and northern supporters because
it still allowed some slavery in the western territory.
One of the more interesting letters to come from Northern newspapers during the time of
the compromise is from Poulson’s American Daily Advertiser that was published on November
14, 1820, in Philadelphia. The letter is titled “Apology for the Missouri Compromise, with
Remarks Thereon” and is written by Congressman Samuel Eddy directed toward Moses Brown.
It was written on April 4, 1820, after the decision was made in Congress to accept the conditions
of the compromise. Eddy wrote the letter to explain his reasoning for voting in favor of the
compromise in the Senate because he felt that it was the only way to have some limitations on
the expansion of slavery. He stated:
“It is to be remembered, that before the compromise, Slavery was permitted in all the
territory of the United States west of the Mississippi.—To refuse the compromise,
therefore was to permit Slavery still to continue in all this territory. . . . The territory
therefore within which slavery is permitted, is a small space, compared with the whole
territory from which it is excluded.”18
Eddy seems to be almost ashamed of his decision based on his numerous apologies and defenses
toward his decision to agree to the compromise. His decision was one of concession because he
felt that he had no other option to gain some ground for his own principles in the western
territories. Brown’s significance is unknown, other than that he wanted an explanation from
Eddy regarding his vote on the compromise. There was an abolitionist named Moses Brown, but
it is unclear if he is the same Moses Brown that the letter is directed to. Brown was granted
permission to print this letter as he saw fit, as it was published almost seven months after it was
written. Eddy simply states that “It was to lose all and gain nothing.”19 The situation that
abolitionists and northern supporters had was difficult because of the conflicts that revolved
mainly around the state of Missouri. The states south of Missouri would still allow slavery, and
therefore there was still a divide even though a compromise was made within the Senate
decision. Also, Eddy felt that even if they allowed the state of Missouri to make up its own
decision to prohibit slavery it would not happen because most citizens of the state were not in
favor of abolition.
In Boston’s Daily National Intelligencer the question about the admission of Missouri as
a state based on the issue in its constitution again comes up. In an article that was published in
the Daily National Intelligencer from the Boston Patriot an unknown author describes that
Congress has to make a decision to accept Missouri based upon debate over its constitution. The
newspaper this was printed in offers an opinion that the matter should be quickly solved without
too much debate as a compromise was already settled for the matters in the Missouri Territory in
March. The newspaper, however, offers its view on the matter of the expansion of slavery with:
“We think we need hardly to repeat here what we have before often asserted that we are no
friends to slavery where its abolition can effect without committing outrage upon civil rights of
any portion of our citizens.—‘It is not that we love Caesar less but we love Rome more.’”20 The
paper conveys a feeling with this comment that Missouri’s state Constitution, which would not
recognize free African Americans in the state, is a violation of citizens’ civil rights. The
comment about loving Rome more reflects that some felt that preserving the Union was a more
important matter than having a total abolition of slavery. Some politicians may have agreed to
the compromise because they felt that by allowing the South to have slavery in Missouri and the
territory south of it would keep the Union together and prevent a civil war. Preserving the Union
would be seen as a more important matter at the start of the Civil War some 40 years later. It
wouldn’t be until the war began that most Northerners would see that the true significance of the
divide was to stop the travesties of slavery in the United States.
The Southern Opinion
Southern newspapers also contained articles and editorials that debated the “Missouri
Question,” as it would be known before the compromise. In the South the issues were more
focused on maintaining slavery in the western territories because it was an institution of the
South that its economy depended on. There were also fears among southerners that granting
emancipation to slaves, even a gradual emancipation, would lead to wars and riots that revolved
around race. This fear of rebellion and the effects that emancipation would have on the southern
economy would hinder the southern politicians and citizens from supporting the abolition of
slavery. Again, this shows a power issue for the South; if the institution of slavery was abolished
then they would lose power over the slaves, which would result in loss of economic and political
power.21
In an editorial from the Newbern Sentinel of North Carolina published on February 26,
1820, a letter was printed from a man in Washington City to his friend in Virginia that discussed
the issues of a compromise over the statehood of Missouri. The letter goes into detail about the
procedures of Congress during the discussion of a compromise. The author of the letter claims,
“The Missouri Question continues to occupy, almost exclusively, the whole attention of
Congress. The debate is still going on in both Houses, and God only knows when or how it will
terminate.”22 The decision over the statehoods of both Maine and Missouri were an important
discussion in the Senate and House of Representatives because it was divisive and it needed to be
settled soon if the sectionalism was going to be resolved. There was concern over whether a
compromise would be met between the divided opinions of the representatives from the North
and the South because at the time this letter was published there were still disagreements over the
provisions of Senator Thomas’s plan. This letter also explains the opinions of Rufus King, a
senator from New York, who was present at the Senate discussions and acknowledged that the
United States Constitution “had not sanctioned slavery; that it had only forborne to interfere with
it, and that there had been no attempt to tolerate it beyond the limits of the old thirteen.”23 King’s
opinion went along the ideals of the Second Great Awakening, which had influence on the
abolition movement. He would go on to say in the same meeting “. . . one man could not make a
slave of another that a plurality of individuals could not do so: and for the same reason,
communities, however organized, could not do it, that all laws or compacts imposing such a
condition upon any human being were absolutely void, which was the law of God, and above all
human control.”24 The influence of the Second Great Awakening and the moral issues of slavery
were both persuasions for the limitations of slavery in the western territories and for the nonacceptance of the terms of the compromise. The author of this letter is concerned that if there is
no will for a compromise for the admission of Missouri as a state, then dissolution of the union is
possible from either side of the argument.
The author also believes that King would pursue a presidency over a new confederacy of
New England states, but would be just as happy to preside over the United States as is. He feels
King is using the conflict over the compromise as a ploy to get into some sort of leadership role
by dragging out the conflict further. The author states that King’s motives are to “derive every
possible advantage from the excitement it is so well calculated to produce.”25 It is hard to
determine from this article and the quotes by King if his true intentions for not seeking a
compromise were to end slavery for moral reasons or to drag out the debate on the compromise
to gain a more powerful role in the government. The author of the letter alludes to the possible
crisis that threatens the United States if a settlement between Northern and Southern politicians
is not reached in Congress:
The crisis is indeed a most inauspicious one, and nothing but the prudence and wisdom
of practical men can avert the dangers which it threatens. If either party completely
triumphs, it is much to be feared that the other will not submit; and I am penetrated with
the deepest regret and horror at seeing that too many on both sides view disunion with so
little repugnance.26
This letter that was submitted to the Newbern Sentinel displays that the major concern for U.S.
citizens was that expansion of slavery would result in a Civil War. People feared that there
would be no solution regarding admitting Missouri as a slave state, and that the representatives
on both sides would agree to nothing but dissolution of the United States. The author did not
foresee that a compromise would be made a month later at the persuasion of leaders like Clay,
but even with a compromise the issue of slavery would remain divisive for the nation.
Another letter submitted to the Newbern Sentinel expresses an opinion from a writer who
is against any form of congressional control over the assessment of admitting a state. The writer
felt that Congress should not be able to determine the admission of statehood of Missouri based
solely on the issue of slavery, because slavery was allowed in other states of the union:
I do not believe that Congress possesses a constitutional right to shackle the sovereignty
of any State: I do not believe that Congress possesses the right of prescribing terms and
conditions to the admission of any State in the Union; I do not believe that Congress has
a right to deny privileges to one State which another possesses and therefore, without
regard to the object, which is of minor importance, I think that Missouri is entitled to
admission in the Union on the same terms enjoyed by other States.27
This writer showed a different opinion from the South that wasn’t based on keeping slavery in
the West because he didn’t believe that it was a moral wrong or that it was economically
essential to the plantation life of the South. His opinion was based on political ideas that
Congress shouldn’t have control over state policies that were available to some states and not to
others.
A letter published in the communication section of the Charleston Courier on August 14,
1820, details a very different opinion on the pro-slavery sentiment of the South compared to the
previous letter published in the Newbern Sentinel. This letter is written from a “southron” who
has a prejudiced opinion on the culture of African Americans in the South. He portrays southern
slavery as not oppressive by describing the scenes of an African American festival as bright and
cheerful, as though all African Americans in the South experience such events. He writes to the
Northern leaders who have described the emotions of slaves in the South as they “have nothing
left them but their tears and their groans.”28 The southron writing this communication says that
there are no groans or cries coming from the slaves in the South because they are having so much
fun at balls and festivals. His opinion that the slaves are not truly suffering leads him to argue
that there is no need to debate over the Missouri Question. He describes the events as amusing,
but it is almost at the expense and mockery of abolitionists in the North.
Why, then, will not the sensitive Mr. Sergeant, and the philanthropic Mr. Walsh, and
tender-hearted Mr. Senator Rufus King pay us a visit? Once more, I promise to wait upon
them to some of these colored festivals, where they shall be placed to windward of Tucky
Squash; and then, if the custards and jellies, pies, and puddings, ices, and champagne, do
not convert themselves into ‘sighs and groans’ expressly to furnish matter for
declamation-then I say, the above name Liberals will probably return to the non-slave
holding States, wiser then they came, and less inclined to declaim at our expense.29
This article shows the distorted view that some southerners had of slavery. They saw it as an
institution that should be continued for the sake of plantation life. This writer did not think
expanding slavery into the West was wrong because he did not see it as dehumanizing or
immoral. He associated one festival that celebrated African American culture in the South as fair
treatment for slaves and a southern tradition. To have continued power in the United States the
South needed economic stability and plantation life was the source of that economic stability. In
the North there was more industry where agriculture was more prevalent. If Missouri entered as a
free state it could signal the possible continuation of the abolishment of slavery throughout the
entire country. If slavery was eliminated in the South the economy would decline, which would
make the South less powerful than the North.
An editorial in the March 4, 1820, edition of the St. Louis Enquirer gives a sense of what
one Missouri resident felt over the Missouri Question. He agrees with Congress’s decision about
Missouri but not with the power that certain states, like New York, have over congressional
decisions.
The proceedings of the senate of the United States in coupling Maine and Missouri
together and making one dependent on the other for the rights of state government, is a
just and wise exercise of power. The design of the north, in relation to Missouri, are
easily penetrated and understood: New York is making rapid a strides towards that power
which is to give law to the Union-and the control over the great country west of the
Mississippi, is no small part of her plan-and it seems that the Hartford Convention
Federalists of New England are in her leading strings.30
This writer finds that New York and other New England states are using their power in Congress
to have control over the state constitution provisions of Missouri. The writer finds that their
opposition to the compromise is not due to values or morality, but to their desire for power and
economic control over the Western territories. The writer of the editorial states:
The opposition to the admission of Missouri into the Union is not bottomed on
constitutional grounds, or the principles of justice or humanity-all power possessed by
Congress is to ascertain whether Missouri has the constitutional number of inhabitants; to
pass a law enabling them to form a constitution and state government, and to judge
whether that constitution when presented is republican.31
There was concern that Congress was formulating the whole constitution of the state of Missouri
without the concerns of Missouri residents in mind. The writer supported slavery being allowed
in the western territories, particularly Missouri, because he felt that treatment of slaves would be
more civil in the West. The writer claimed that the North did not have the morality behind its
opposition to the spread of slavery into the West, because it still wanted to contain slavery in the
South, an area where slaves were mistreated. “The slaves in Kentucky and Missouri are better
fed and clothed, and are as free as the white people of the Atlantic states, and yet the ‘honor’ of
the U. States is concerned in confining slaves to places where they nearly perish for food and
raiment.”32 There was also the issue of the constitutional right of Missouri to have slavery as a
state because it was the constitutional right of Southern states like South Carolina or newly
admitted states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana to have slavery. Some northern
politicians, in this writer’s opinion, accepted that slavery was expanding in new southern states
but not into the western territories.
This again brings up the issue of power and morality regarding the expansion of slavery.
It is difficult to know by the opinion articles of dissenters if the true intention of northern
politicians’ opposition toward slavery in the West was to abolish slavery or to maintain their
power and control. If they were able to get slavery abolished in the western territories this would
be a power over the South, which felt that slavery was an institution that should continue on in
the West. This power struggle is mentioned in this editorial when the author writes, “The
formation of the great country west of the Mississippi, into states, and their admission into the
Union on terms of Louisiana will tie south and west, and deprive a certain great state of that
commerce and political power, expected by imposing the attempted restriction on Missouri.”33
The possibility of tying the South and West together would be seen as an economic and political
threat to the northern states. This would give the South more electoral support for its policies
with the addition of the western population on its side.
This writer’s support for Congress’s decision could be seen differently because the writer
may have been supporting Congress’s compromise because it allowed Missouri to enter into
statehood. For some citizens, the matter of whether to have slavery in the state of Missouri may
have been of secondary concern compared to gaining the admission of the state to the Union.
Accepting slavery allowed the citizens of Missouri to become part of the Union. If Congress had
decided that there would be no slavery in the West, Missouri residents may still have supported it
if they were granted statehood.
Conclusion
The Missouri Compromise was significant historically because it was one of the first
situations in which the expansion of slavery in the West became a matter for Congress. It was
also a threat to the Union of the United States, something that would continue on until the Civil
War. Abolitionists in the United States saw the opportunity to slowly emancipate slaves by
granting Missouri statehood with restrictions on slavery. The South, however, disagreed because
slavery was an institution the economy was dependent upon. To have gradual emancipation start
in the United States would lead to the eventual fall of all slavery and the South feared that
possibility because it would lose power. This loss of power would be both political and economic
because slaves would not count toward Southern states’ populations for purposes of taxes and the
number of representatives in the House. This is because the Three-Fifths Compromise would
have to be reconsidered with the emancipation of slaves because slaves could no longer be
considered only three-fifths of a citizen but full citizens, who would most likely leave the South
for the North.
The North would gain significant power if slavery was restricted in the West because of
the problems it would cause the South both economically and politically. Morality was important
when addressing the expansion of slavery because many knew that it was immoral and needed to
end. However, it was not the first motivating factor for the compromise in 1820 as seen in the
presented news articles. Matters of state constitutional rights and preserving the Union were seen
as important factors as well. There was a sectionalist attitude within Congress and this caused
fear of a Civil War. The debate over the compromise would continue on into the following years.
During the 1857 Supreme Court case of Dred Scott v. Sandford the issue of the Missouri
Compromise was brought up when Dred Scott sued for his freedom because he lived in states
that prohibited slavery in the Midwest because of the conditions of the compromise. However,
the Supreme Court found that people of African descent were not protected by the Constitution
and were not citizens. It was a horrible setback for abolitionists and the possibility of nationwide
emancipation. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 repealed the provisions of the Missouri
Compromise and opened up the debate over the expansion of slavery again. The Missouri
Compromise saved the Union at the time by giving both the South and North provisions that
pertained to their needs in the Western territories. The debate was a political and economic
power struggle between the North and South. The compromise, for a short time, prevented a
sectional crisis but the debate over slavery and the power struggle between north and south
United States would continue until the Civil War.
Notes
1. Parke Pierson, “The Missouri Compromise Exposed the Raw Nerve of Slavery,” America’s
Civil War 21 (2009): 25.
2. Daniel Walker Howe, “Missouri, Slave, or Free?” American Heritage 60 (2010): 21.
3. Pierson, 25
4. “Missouri Compromise,” The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6thed., 2001, accessed March 18, 2011,
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-MissrComp.html.
5. Pierson, 25.
6. Howe, 23.
7. Pierson, 25.
8. Howe, 23.
9. Boston Daily Advertiser, February 18, 1820, 2.
10. Ibid., 2.
11. Commercial Advertiser, February 23, 1820, 2.
12. Ibid., 2.
13. Ibid., 2.
14. Ibid., 2.
15. “Missouri,” Massachusetts Spy, November 8, 1820, 2.
16. Ibid., 2.
17. Ibid., 2.
18. Samuel Eddy, “Apology for the Missouri Compromise with Remarks Thereon,” Poulson’s
American Daily Advertiser, November 14, 1820.
19. Ibid.
20. “State of Missouri; From the Boston Patriot,” Daily National Intelligencer, December 12,
1820, 2.
21. Howe, 21.
22. “Missouri Question,” Newbern Sentinel, February 26, 1820, 1.
23. Ibid., 1.
24. Ibid., 1.
25. Ibid., 1.
26. Ibid., 1.
27. “Domestic: Missouri Question,” Newbern Sentinel, March 3, 1820, 2.
28. “Communication,” Charleston Courier, August 18, 1820, 2.
29. Ibid., 2.
30. “Missouri Question,” St. Louis Enquirer, March 4, 1820.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid.
Bibliography
Boston Daily Advertiser. February 18, 1820.
Commercial Advertiser. February 23, 1820.
“Communication.” The Charleston Courier. August 18, 1820.
“Domestic: Missouri Question.” Newbern Sentinel. March 3, 1820.
Eddy, Samuel. “Apology for the Missouri Compromise with Remarks Thereon.” Poulson’s
American Daily Advertiser. November 14, 1820.
Howe, Daniel Walker. “Missouri, Slave, or Free?” American Heritage 60 (2010): 21-23.
“Missouri.” Massachusetts Spy. November 8, 1820.
“Missouri Compromise.” The Columbia Encyclopedia. 6th ed. 2001. Accessed March 18, 2011.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-MissrComp.html.
“Missouri Question.” Newbern Sentinel. February 26, 2010.
“Missouri Question.” St. Louis Enquirer. March 4, 1820.
Pierson, Parke. “The Missouri Compromise Exposed the Raw Nerve of Slavery.” America’s
Civil War 21 (2009): 25.
“State of Missouri, from the Boston Patriot.” Daily National Intelligencer. December 19, 1820.