Transcript of Missouri Compromise (1820)
Missouri Compromise summary: The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was an effort by the U.S.
Senate and House of Representatives to maintain a balance of power between the slaveholding
states and free states. The slaveholding states feared that if they became outnumbered in
Congressional representation that they would lack the power to protect their interests in property
and trade.
Missouri Applies For Statehood In 1819, the slaveholding territory of Missouri applied for
admission to the Union. Northern states opposed it, feeling that Southern slaveholding states held
too much power already. The Constitution allowed states to count each slave as three-fifths of a
person for purposes of determining population, and therefore, the number of Congressional
representatives the state was entitled to. This had given the South an advantage in Congress.
Slavery In The Northwest Territory Slavery had already been creeping into the Northwest
Territory (the area between the Ohio River and the Great Lakes), even though the Northwest
Ordinance of 1787 prohibited slavery there. Southerners migrating into that region took their
slaves with them under the guise of indentured servitude, which was legal in the area.
Northerners, most of whom favored "free states" in which slavery was prohibited, feared slavery
would become de facto in the states carved from the Northwest Territory. The admission of
Missouri, which came from lands obtained through the Louisiana Purchase and lay outside the
Old Northwest, added to their fears of the expansion of slavery.
Representative Jame Tallmadge, Jr., of New York offered two amendments to the
Missouri statehood bill on Feb. 13, 1819. The first prohibited any further importation of slaves
into Missouri; the second required gradual emancipation for the slaves already there. The House
passed his amendments, along strictly regional voting lines, but the Senate, where representation
of free and slaveholding states were balanced, rejected it.
Congressional debates on the issue raged for a year until the District of Maine, originally
part of Massachusetts, sought statehood. Henry Clay of Kentucky, the Speaker of the House,
maintained that if Maine were to be admitted, then Missouri should be, too. From this came the
notion that states be admitted in pairs, one slave and one free. Senator Jesse B. Thomas of
Illinois proposed an amendment allowing slavery below the parallel 36 degrees, 30 minutes in
the vast Louisiana Purchase territory, but prohibiting it above that line. That parallel was chosen
because it ran approximately along the southern border of Missouri.
The Missouri Compromise Becomes Law The Missouri Compromise, after much debate,
passed the Senate on March 2, 1820, and the House on February 26, 1821.
Though the compromise measure quelled the immediate divisiveness engendered by the
Missouri question, it intensified the larger regional conflict between North and South. It served
notice to the North that Southerners not only did not intend for slavery to end, they wanted to
expand its presence. In the South, the belief grew that Northerners were using slavery as a
smokescreen behind which they could resurrect the Federalist Party and strengthen the central
government at the expense of states’ rights.
For nearly 30 years, the compromise worked, with two states being admitted together,
one slave, one free. Then, in 1850, California was admitted as a stand-alone free state, upsetting
the balance 16–15, in exchange for a Congressional guarantee no restrictions on slavery would
be placed on the territories of Utah or New Mexico and passage of the Fugitive Slave Act, which
required citizens of all states to return any runaway slaves to their masters. In 1857, the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled Congress had no right to prohibit slavery in territories, as part of the
decision in the Dred Scott case. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 repealed the 36-30 dividing
line for slavery in the Louisiana Purchase area.
The Compromise of 1850
Background of the compromise
HENRY CLAY of Kentucky, JOHN C. CALHOUN of South Carolina, and DANIEL WEBSTER of
Massachusetts dominated national politics from the end of the War of 1812 until their deaths in the early
1850s. Although none would ever be President, the collective impact they created in Congress was far
greater than any President of the era, with the exception of Andrew Jackson. There was one issue that
loomed over the nation throughout their time in power — slavery. They were continuously successful in
keeping peace in America by forging a series of compromises.
After 30 years in Congress and three unsuccessful attempts at the Presidency, Clay wanted badly to make
good with yet another nation-saving deal. He put forth a set of eight proposals that he hoped would pass
muster with his colleagues. 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.
Compromise of 1850
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.
North Gets
California admitted as a free state
Slave Trade prohibited in Washington
D.C.
Texas loses boundary dispute with
New Mexico
South Gets
No slavery restrictions in Utah or New
Mexico territories
Slaveholding permitted in Washington
D.C.
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 of 1854
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. 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 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.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN laid out his objections to the Act and resurrected his political career in a
brilliant speech at Peoria on October 16, 1854. In it he vigorously attacked the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise line, noting that restricting slavery above that geographical boundary had been a southern
concession to match northerners' accession to allowing Missouri to enter the Union as a slave state. Now
that concession had been inexplicably withdrawn, and with it, the sixty year old policy of restricting the
expansion of slavery. Lincoln criticized popular sovereignty, questioning how it was that this doctrine
could supersede the famed Northwest Ordinance and the sacred Missouri Compromise.
Most importantly, Lincoln attacked the morality of slavery's extension and of slavery itself, while
tempering this assault on the "peculiar institution" with moderate rhetoric toward the South. Douglas's
contentions were perfectly acceptable if the black man (Lincoln used the archaic term "Negro") were no
different than a hog. But Lincoln argued for the humanity of the slaves. They were people, not animals,
and consequently possessed certain natural rights. "If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith
teaches me that `all men are created equal;' and that there can be no moral right in connection with one
man's making a slave of another." Still, Lincoln attached no blame to the South for slavery, and confessed
that he was not ready to accept black social and political equality. Though he strongly condemned any
extension of slavery, he was still willing to tolerate even that to preserve the Union. Despite the radical
nature of some of his statements, Lincoln was still a Whig, not an abolitionist.
Name: _________________________________________________ Pd: _____
Compromise of 1850
1.
Take a blank map of the United States. Make a color key. Color the map according to the Compromise of
1850:
Free States, Free Territory, Slave States, Slave Territory,
2. Draw the “imaginary line” across the U.S. representing the Missouri Compromise. (From
Atlantic to Pacific)
3. What were three main parts of the Compromise of 1850?
i.
ii.
iii.
4. Explain why the Missouri Compromise line did not apply to California’s Statehood.
Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854
Make a color key. Color the map according to the following regions in the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Draw in
the Missouri Compromise Line of 1820.
Free States, Free Territory, Decision on Slavery left to the People of the Territory, Slave State, Slave Territory,
Indian Territory
Answer these questions:
1.
How did the Kansas-Nebraska Act change the Missouri Compromise?
2.
What slave states joined the Union between 1820 and 1854?
3.
Why did Lincoln oppose the Kansas-Nebraska Act?
4.
If the Kansas Nebraska Act had not been passed, how would this have affected sectionalism? Why do you
think this?
Missouri Compromise of 1820
On the map above, make a key and color code the areas: Free States, Slave States, States
created by Missouri Compromise, Compromise line, free territories, slave territories, Spanish
Territory, the Oregon Country
Answer the following questions based on the Missouri Compromise:
1 What was the earlier Congressional decision on slavery in the Northwest territory?
How had people responded to this?
2. How and why was the line drawn dividing the nation between slave and free states?
3. What was the agreement on adding free states and slave states?
4. Explain why the Missouri Compromise lasted for 30 years, but ultimately did not
answer the slave questions.