The Missouri Compromise
Henry Clay was first elected to the Senate in 1807, before his 30th birthday. This was against the rules set up in the Constitution
that stipulated 30 as the youngest age for a Senator.
Most white Americans agreed that western expansion was crucial to the health of the nation. But what should be done
about slavery in the West?
The contradictions inherent in the expansion of white male voting rights can also be seen in problems raised by
western migration. The new western states were at the forefront of more inclusive voting rights for white men, but
their development simultaneously devastated the rights of Native American communities. Native American rights
rarely became a controversial public issue. This was not the case for slavery, however, as northern and southern
whites differed sharply about its proper role in the west.
The incorporation of new
WESTERN TERRITORIES
into the United States made slavery an explicit concern of national
politics. Balancing the interests of slave and free states had played a role from the very start of designing the federal
government at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The crucial compromise there that sacrificed the rights of
African Americans in favor of a stronger union among the states exploded once more in 1819
when
MISSOURI
petitioned to join the United States as a slave state.
In 1819, the nation contained eleven free and eleven slave states creating a balance in the U.S. senate. Missouri's
entrance threatened to throw this parity in favor of slave interests. The debate in Congress over the admission of
Missouri was extraordinarily bitter after
CONGRESSMAN JAMES TALLMADGE
from New York proposed that slavery be
prohibited in the new state.
The debate was especially sticky because defenders of slavery relied on a central principle of fairness. How could the
Congress deny a new state the right to decide for itself whether or not to allow slavery? If Congress controlled the
decision, then the new states would have fewer rights than the original ones.
HENRY CLAY,
a leading congressman, played a crucial role in brokering a two-part solution known as the
COMPROMISE.
of
MAINE,
MISSOURI
First, Missouri would be admitted to the union as a slave state, but would be balanced by the admission
a free state, that had long wanted to be separated from Massachusetts. Second, slavery was to be excluded
from all new states in the Louisiana Purchase north of the southern boundary of Missouri. People on both sides of the
controversy saw the compromise as deeply flawed. Nevertheless, it lasted for over thirty years until the
NEBRASKA ACT
KANSAS-
of 1854 determined that new states north of the boundary deserved to be able to exercise their
sovereignty in favor of slavery if they so choose.
Democracy and self-determination could clearly be mobilized to extend an unjust institution that contradicted a
fundamental American commitment to equality. The Missouri crisis probed an enormously problematic area of
American politics that would explode in a civil war. As Thomas Jefferson observed about the Missouri crisis, "This
momentous question, like a fire-bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror."
African Americans obviously opposed slavery and news of some congressional opposition to its expansion circulated
widely within slave communities.
DENMARK VESEY,
a free black living in Charleston, South Carolina, made the most
dramatic use of the white disagreement about the future of slavery in the west. Vesey quoted the Bible as well as
congressional debates over the Missouri issue to denounce slavery from the pulpit of the
CHURCH
where he was a lay minister. Along with a key ally named
GULLAH JACK,
AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL
Vesey organized a slave rebellion in
1822 that planned to capture the Charleston arsenal and seize the city long enough for its black population to escape
to the free black republic of Haiti.
The rebellion was betrayed just days before its planned starting date and resulted in the execution of thirty-five
organizers as well as the destruction of the black church where Vesey preached. Slaveholders were clearly on the
defensive with antislavery sentiment building in the north and undeniable opposition among African Americans in the
south. As one white Charlestonian complained, "By the Missouri question, our slaves thought, there was a charter of
liberties granted them by Congress."
African Americans knew that they could not rely upon whites to end slavery, but they also recognized that the
increasing divide between north and south and their battle over western expansion could open opportunities for blacks
to exploit. The most explosive of these future black actions would be
NAT TURNER'S VIRGINIA SLAVE REVOLT
in 1831.
The Compromise of 1850
U.S. Senate
The "Great Compromiser," Henry Clay, introduces the Compromise of 1850 in the Senate.
The plan was set forth. The giants — Calhoun, Webster, and Clay — had spoken. Still the Congress debated the
contentious issues well into the summer. Each time Clay's Compromise was set forth for a vote, it did not receive a
majority. Henry Clay himself had to leave in sickness, before the dispute could be resolved. In his place, Stephen
Douglas worked tirelessly to end the fight. On July 9, President Zachary Taylor died of food poisoning. His
successor,
MILLARD FILLMORE,
was much more interested in compromise. The environment for a deal was set. By
September, Clay's Compromise became law.
California was admitted to the Union as the 16th free state. In exchange, the south was guaranteed that no federal
restrictions on slavery would be placed on Utah or New Mexico. Texas lost its boundary claims in New Mexico, but the
Congress compensated Texas with $10 million. Slavery was maintained in the nation's capital, but the slave trade was
prohibited. Finally, and most controversially, a
FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW
was passed, requiring northerners to return
runaway slaves to their owners under penalty of law.
The Compromise of 1850 overturned the Missouri Compromise and left the overall issue of slavery unsettled.
Compromise of 1850
North Gets
South Gets
California admitted as a free state
No slavery restrictions in Utah or New Mexico territories
Slave trade prohibited in Washington D.C.
Slaveholding permitted in Washington D.C.
Texas loses boundary dispute with New Mexico Texas gets $10 million
Fugitive Slave Law
Who won and who lost in the deal? Although each side received benefits, the north seemed to gain the most. The
balance of the Senate was now with the free states, although California often voted with the south on many issues in
the 1850s. The major victory for the south was the Fugitive Slave Law. In the end, the north refused to enforce it.
Massachusetts even called for its nullification, stealing an argument from John C. Calhoun. Northerners claimed the
law was unfair. The flagrant violation of the Fugitive Slave Law set the scene for the tempest that emerged later in the
decade. But for now, Americans hoped against hope that the fragile peace would prevail.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act
Stephen Douglas, the sponsor of the Kansas-Nebraska Act as well as the most vocal supporter of popular sovereignty, was known as
the "Little Giant" because of his small stature.
The
KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT OF 1854
may have been the single most significant event leading to the Civil War. By the
early 1850s settlers and entrepreneurs wanted to move into the area now known as Nebraska. However, until the
area was organized as a territory, settlers would not move there because they could not legally hold a claim on the
land. The southern states' representatives in Congress were in no hurry to permit a Nebraska territory because the
land lay north of the 36°30' parallel — where slavery had been outlawed by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Just
when things between the north and south were in an uneasy balance, Kansas and Nebraska opened fresh wounds.
The person behind the Kansas-Nebraska Act was
SENATOR STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
of Illinois.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act began a chain of events in the Kansas Territory that foreshadowed the Civil War.
He said he wanted to see Nebraska made into a territory and, to win southern support, proposed a southern state
inclined to support slavery. It was Kansas. Underlying it all was his desire to build a transcontinental railroad to go
through Chicago. The Kansas-Nebraska Act allowed each territory to decide the issue of slavery on the basis of
popular sovereignty. Kansas with slavery would violate the Missouri Compromise, which had kept the Union from
falling apart for the last thirty-four years. The long-standing compromise would have to be repealed. Opposition was
intense, but ultimately the bill passed in May of 1854. Territory north of the sacred 36°30' line was now open to
popular sovereignty. The North was outraged.
The Kansas-Nebraska act made it possible for the Kansas and Nebraska territories (shown in orange) to open to slavery. The
Missouri Compromise had prevented this from happening since 1820.
The political effects of Douglas' bill were enormous. Passage of the bill irrevocably split the Whig Party, one of the two
major political parties in the country at the time. Every northern Whig had opposed the bill; almost every southern
Whig voted for it. With the emotional issue of slavery involved, there was no way a common ground could be found.
Most of the southern Whigs soon were swept into the Democratic Party. Northern Whigs reorganized themselves with
other non-slavery interests to become the REPUBLICAN PARTY, the party of Abraham Lincoln. This left the Democratic
Party as the sole remaining institution that crossed sectional lines. Animosity between the North and South was again
on the rise. The North felt that if the Compromise of 1820 was ignored, the Compromise of 1850 could be ignored as
well. Violations of the hated Fugitive Slave Law increased. Trouble was indeed back with a vengeance
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
In Dred Scott v. Sandford (argued 1856 -- decided 1857), the Supreme Court ruled that Americans of African descent,
whether free or slave, were not American citizens and could not sue in federal court. The Court also ruled that
Congress lacked power to ban slavery in the U.S. territories. Finally, the Court declared that the rights of slave owners
were constitutionally protected by the Fifth Amendment because slaves were categorized as property.
The controversy began in 1833, when Dr. John Emerson, a surgeon with the U.S. Army, purchased Dred Scott, a
slave, and eventually moved Scott to a base in the Wisconsin Territory. Slavery was banned in the territory pursuant
to the Missouri Compromise. Scott lived there for the next four years, hiring himself out for work during the long
stretches when Emerson was away. In 1840, Scott, his new wife, and their young children moved to Louisiana and
then to St. Louis with Emerson. Emerson died in 1843, leaving the Scott family to his wife, Eliza Irene Sanford. In
1846, after laboring and saving for years, the Scotts sought to buy their freedom from Sanford, but she refused. Dred
Scott then sued Sanford in a state court, arguing that he was legally free because he and his family had lived in a
territory where slavery was banned. In 1850, the state court finally declared Scott free. However, Scott's wages had
been withheld pending the resolution of his case, and during that time Mrs. Emerson remarried and left her brother,
John Sanford, to deal with her affairs. Mr. Sanford, unwilling to pay the back wages owed to Scott, appealed the
decision to the Missouri Supreme Court. The court overturned the lower court's decision and ruled in favor of Sanford.
Scott then filed another lawsuit in a federal circuit court claiming damages against Sanford's brother, John F.A.
Sanford, for Sanford's alleged physical abuse against him. The jury ruled that Scott could not sue in federal court
because he had already been deemed a slave under Missouri law. Scott appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which
reviewed the case in 1856. Due to a clerical error at the time, Sanford's name was misspelled in court records.
The Supreme Court, in an infamous opinion written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to
take Scott's case because Scott was, or at least had been, a slave. First, the Court argued that they could not
entertain Scott's case because federal courts, including the Supreme Court, are courts of "peculiar and
limited jurisdiction" and may only hear cases brought by select parties involving limited claims. For example, under
Article III of the U.S. Constitution, federal courts may only hear cases brought by "citizens" of the United States. The
Court ruled that because Scott was "a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves,"
and thus "[not] a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution," Scott
was not a citizen and had no right to file a lawsuit in federal court.
Second, the Court argued that Scott's status as a citizen of a free state did not necessarily give him status as a U.S.
citizen. While the states were free to create their own citizenship criteria, and had done so before the Constitution
even came into being, the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to define national citizenship. Moreover, the
Court argued that even if Scott was deemed "free" under the laws of a state, he would still not qualify as an American
citizen because he was black. The Court asserted that, in general, U.S. citizens are only those who were members of
the "political community" at the time of the Constitution's creation, along with those individuals' heirs, and slaves
were not part of this community. Finally, the Court argued that, in any case, Scott could not be defined as free by
virtue of his residency in the Wisconsin Territory, because Congress lacked the power to ban slavery in U.S.
territories. The Court viewed slaves as "property," and the Fifth Amendment forbids Congress from taking property
away from individuals without just compensation. Justice Benjamin Curtis issued a strongdissent.
The decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford exacerbated risisng sectional tensions between the North and South. Although
the Missouri Compromise had already been repealed prior to the case, the decision nonetheless appeared to validate
the Southern version of national power, and to embolden pro-slavery Southerners to expand slavery to all reaches of
the nation. Unsurprisingly, antislavery forces were outraged by the decision, empowering the newly formed
Republican Party and helping fuel violence between slaveowners and abolitionists on the frontier. Following the Civil
War, the Reconstruction Congress passed, and the states ratified, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth
Amendments, all of which directly overturned the Dred Scott decision. Today, all people born or naturalized in the
United States are American citizens who may bring suit in federal court.