The Missouri Compromise and Sectional Conflict
Political and Economic Groupings
North
Federalist stronghold
Commerce and trade
Creditor region
Feared the Virginia Dynasty
Divided on issue of tariffs and internal improvements
West
More Republican than Federalist
More debtors than creditors
Favored internal improvements and low tariffs
South
More Republican
Favored low tariffs
Split on debtor/creditor lines
John C. Calhoun and the Constitution
South Carolina Senator, one of the War Hawks of 1812
Worried about power of North, especially on high tarrifs
Calhoun's theory of the nature of Constitutional union
Would provide the basis for much of the South's sectionalism up to Civil War
Theory of union
Sovereignty rested, undivided, in states
Colonies had been founded separately by different groups
Each had become sovereign with Revolution
They had given up a portion of the authority to Federal govt. under Constitution
But they had not given up any political sovereignty
States ultimately had the right to leave the union in the same way they had joined it - voluntarily.
Nullification
Calhoun believed that if Congress passed a law with out getting a concurrent majority, a majority of votes from each section of the country, a state could declare that bill unconstitutional and not enforce it
Only possible if state remain sovereign
Saw it as a safety valve for sectional conflict
Missouri Compromise (1820)
Few settlers across the Mississippi (mostly fur traders)
Missouri applies for statehood, 1818
About 2-3000 slaves in Missouri territory
If comes in as a slave state, would tip the 11-11 balance free vs. slave
North generally wants no slavery in Louisiana Purchase territory
Tallmadge Amendment
Called for end of importation of slaves into Mo. upon becoming state
Would have freed all slaves in Mo. by age 25
Defeated in Senate
Maine petitions for statehood in 1820
Compromise
Maine enters as free, Missouri as slave
But - all Louisiana Territory north of 36'30" latitude would forever be free
About 4/5 of Louisiana Territory
Jefferson called the compromise "a firebell ringing in the night" - a forerunner of serious dispute
The debate
South not yet arguing slavery is a moral good - will in the future
North not yet fully committed to idea that slavery is evil
Not yet a moral question, politically.
When it becomes a moral question politically, compromise will be impossible
Sets stage for sectional debate up to Civil War