missouri – American History to 1877

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

Thomas Jefferson “trembled” on behalf of his country when he remembers God’s just nature; he abolished the international slave trade on the first date the constitution allowed it, and all the while refused to veraciously stand against slavery (Wilentz, 114-15). Many wealthy northern politicians did exactly the same, and even many areas on the fringes of slavery condoned it as a “necessary evil,” despite not directly benefiting from it. All the while, southern plantation owners were claiming its “benevolence” and remained aggressive with the rhetoric of protecting and civilizing the slaves from their own bestial nature. Therefore, there came two forms of the “golden rule” being played out in the slavery argument, one of the plantation owners claiming benevolence, and the others of the non-slave owners who condoned the practice or did not actively fight it because those who have the gold make the rules.

There is no question slavery was extremely economically valuable and that, overall, the country benefited economically from the practice. There is similarly no doubt that, purely on an economic standard, new western states would benefit from slavery. With the addition of Maine, there was an imbalance of power that swayed towards the northern political sphere. More delegates for northern free states than southern. As Charlotte points out in her post, these political divides became more about geography and less about political philosophy, instituting a slave state gave more power to the south and vice versa. The question then becomes who the north was actually fighting for. It is convenient (and perhaps uplifting) to assume that the northern politicians were fighting for the abolition of slavery in new states when perhaps a complication of that reading could entail the northern politicians fighting for political power on the playing field of slavery with morality as the central argument.

Therefore, the Missouri Compromise was not so much a compromise on slavery, but rather on power and money. There was no compromise on slavery; slavery won. So long as slavery was still a part of the southern states and they maintained at least equal power on the senate floors, slavery was still an economic cornerstone of the south. Thus, the “Era of Bad Feelings” commenced with this unsettling notion that it was not a compromise but rather perhaps a delay of the inevitable. This ties neatly into Davis’ reading and again to Charlotte’s point that there were no innocent sides in this debate. It may have been a political one just as much as a moral one, albeit played out on a moral battleground. Underneath it all, however, was the addictive promise of wealth, cotton, and trade that was inherent with the slavery society.

Wilentz goes into the complex politics that surround slavery in the early part of the 1800s in chapter 7. However, it is interesting to note that the decline of Caribbean plantations in the 1790s led to an increase in sugar and cotton demands from Southern slave-holding states. This in addition to the recent land acquired in the Louisiana Purchase led to a revival in plantations of the South, which also caused much more debate over laws of slavery in the new territory. Included in this was the heated debate over Missouri.

Through the debate of the terms of Missouri’s admission, political parties (and Northerners vs. Southerners) became increasingly polarized and tensions grew. More than just giving Southerners more political power through the 3/5ths law, the Republicans said that their anti-slavery argument was a “preservation of individual’s rights” and
“strict construction of the Constitution demanded slavery’s restriction” (118). Thus, slavery was not only morally wrong, it was also unconstitutional. The Constitution allowed for future leaders to abolish slavery and prevent new slave states from entering the Union. The North began many anti-slavery campaigns, which created a lot of fear and anxiety in the slave-holding South, where many believed this sort of conversation would lead slaves to rebel and revolt. It was easier to keep track of sides due to geographic location, rather than over other issues (such as War of 1812), where political parties in different locations had differing opinions on the matter. This was presented as pretty much black and white — Notherners verses Southerners.

With Maine being granted statehood, Missouri was then admitted without slavery restrictions. However, an amendment was made that anything within the Louisiana purchase above a certain latitude was not to have slavery. However, even though this “compromise” was reached, the debate over Missouri was significant in its solidifying where Northerners and Southerners stood on slavery.

Chapter 9 of Inhuman Bondage, Davis goes into reasoning as to why Southern states thought slavery in new territory was so important. Because many plantations were expanding westward with the new land, they needed laborers to clear land and then establish the plantations. However, slavery was also such a thriving part of the Southern economy that it must have been hard to imagine a South without slavery. By 1860, two-thirds of the wealthiest Americans were Southern large planters. “By 1840, the South grew few more than 60 percent of the world’s cotton”, showing how the national and international community condoned slavery, even if not directly. Davis thereby adds an interesting perspective to the North verses South obvious debate that Wilentz describes — that maybe the North was not “innocent” in its bystander position.

Tag: missouri

The “Golden Rule”

The Politics of Slavery and Guilty Bystanders