Missouri Compromise | blackexistence2

In the 1800’s, major tensions were rising between pro and anti-slavery factions within the U.S. Congress and across the country. The Southern states were in favor of slavery, the Northern states vehemently opposed the idea. They reached a boiling point after Missouri’s 1819 request for admission to the Union as a slave state.

The Missouri Compromise was an effort by the U.S. Congress to defuse this huge disagreement about slavery & whether it will be permitted in Missouri. At the time, the United States contained twenty-two states, evenly divided between slave and free. Admission of Missouri as a slave state would upset that balance; it would also set a precedent for congressional consent in the expansion of slavery. The battle was triggered by Missouri’s request late in 1819 for admission of slavery to be allowed. Earlier in that same year, when Missouri was initially being organized as a territory, Representative James Tallmadge of New York had proposed an amendment that would ultimately have ended slavery there; this effort was defeated, as was a similar effort by Representative John Taylor of New York regarding Arkansas Territory.

This extraordinarily bitter debate ran from December 1819 to March 1820. Northerners, led by Senator Rufus King of New York, argued that Congress had the power to prohibit slavery in a new state. Southerners like Senator William Pinkney of Maryland held that new states had the same freedom of action as the original thirteen and were thus free to choose slavery if they wished. After the Senate and the House passed different bills and deadlock threatened, a compromise bill was worked out with the following provisions: (1) Missouri was admitted as a slave state and Maine (formerly part of Massachusetts) as free, and (2) except for Missouri, slavery was to be excluded from the Louisiana Purchase lands north of latitude 36°30′

The Missouri Compromise was criticized by many southerners because it established the principle that Congress could make laws regarding slavery; northerners, on the other hand, condemned it for consenting in the expansion of slavery (though only south of the compromise line).

It’s important to understand the politics revolving around this issue! An expansion of slavery would have meant an increase in the territorial space and population of the south. This in turn would give the Southern states increased power in the House of Representatives.

The southern states also had a much lesser white population as opposed to the Northern states. Three fifths of the U.S. House of Representatives had black population and the remaining had white population. An approval of Missouri as a slave state would have increased the southern representation making the Northern states insecure & less significant in political ideas and power.

The size of the U.S. doubled after Louisiana Purchase, making it one of the largest countries in the world! The increase in territorial size had its own advantages and disadvantages. While the rich resources and fertile lands of Louisiana were priceless, the increased usage of slavery by the Southern States worried the Northern States.

Not to mention the Southern states were flourishing because of the cotton trade in the region. The soil and temperature for growing cotton plants were ideal in the South but not very conducive in the North. With increased lands being used for cotton production, the southern states wanted slavery to be recognized as legal. (All of this was monetary & greed motivated) They needed an increase in the number of slaves working in the region to manage the huge amounts of crops.

Nevertheless, the act helped hold the Union together for more than thirty years. It was repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which established popular sovereignty (local choice) regarding slavery in Kansas and Nebraska, though both were north of the compromise line. Three years later, the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, on the ground that Congress was prohibited by the Fifth Amendment from depriving individuals of private property without due process of law. (The slaves were at that time considered property!