Tallmadge Amendment
Background:
The opportunity for the spread of slavery was real. Pressure for the admission of Missouri as a
state grew at the same time that pressure to block the extension of slavery was growing as well.
Conflict in Congress was virtually inevitable. One man in particular was caught in the middle of
the crisis. Historian Noble E. Cunningham, Jr., wrote: “Early in 1818, Henry Clay, the Speaker
of the House, and John Scott, the territorial delegate from Missouri, presented on separate days
petitions from the Missouri Territory ‘to form a constitution and state government, and for the
admission of such state into the Union on an equal footing with the original states.’ With the end
of the session approaching, the House referred the bill to the Committee of the Whole and took
no further action before it adjourned on April 20. Early in the next session, on December 18,
1818, Clay presented a petition from the Legislative Council and House of Representatives of the
territory of Missouri, renewing the plea for permission to form a constitution and be admitted as
a state.” Opposition, however, was building. Thomas Crump wrote that in “December 1818 –
delegates from anti-slavery societies in New York, Pennsylvania, and Delaware, meeting in a
convention in Philadelphia, appointed a committee to prepare a memorial to Congress, to be
signed by American citizens, requesting that ‘slavery be prohibited in all territories established in
the future as well as in any states erected from such territories.’” Though himself a slaveholder,
Clay’s attitude toward slavery was ambivalent and somewhat contradictory. He opposed it on
moral grounds, but supported it politically.
Missouri was a hot topic but many politicians like Clay had pressing financial issues. The
Missouri Controversy took place amidst other national problems – including a severe recession
that began in 1819. Historian Glover Moore wrote: “The South might have received more aid
from the Middle states in 1819-1821 if it had not been at daggers’ points with that section on the
subject of the tariff and internal improvements. Furthermore, the disagreement over the tariff was
accentuated by the Panic of 1819, which began shortly before the Missouri Controversy.
American manufacturers, finding themselves driven to the wall by the panic, sought salvation in
clamoring for higher protective duties.” That alienated them from the anti-tariff South.
Amendment Text:
And provided, that the further introduction of slavery or involuntary servitude be prohibited,
except for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been fully convicted; and that
all children born within the said State, after the admission thereof into the Union, shall be free at
the age of twenty-five years.
Writing Task:
Charles Pinckney from South Carolina and Arthur Livermore from New Hampshire had differing
opinions on the crisis facing the nation in 1820. Which Congressman had a better
interpretation of the Tallmadge Amendment and status of Congressional Power? Develop and
defend an argument regarding whether the Pinckney or Livermore had a better argument
regarding the Tallmadge Amendment and the status of Congressional power. Support your
position with references to relevant historical data from class as well as the documents.
This assessment will take one night and one class period. The night before the assessment
students should read the provided documents. The following day in class students should
compose a five-paragraph argument establishing whether Charles Pinckney or Arthur Livermore
had the better argument regarding the Tallmadge Amendment and Congressional power
regarding the territories. Students should provide reasons for their position supported by
historical data and references to the documents. The argument must also reference the opposing
position. The assessment will be graded according to the attached argumentative rubric.