The Missouri Compromise: South and State

That the number of slaves was rapidly increasing became very evident, and colonization-schemes were proposed to dispose of free negroes and illegally-imported slaves. It was supposed that by this method some amelioration of slavery might be produced, though it was not clear what useful effect could result.

There had by this time arisen a decided distinction between the industrial systems of the two sections of the country. The North had grown more and more distinctively commercial and manufacturing, the South more and more agricultural. In the one slavery became destitute of utility; in the other it appeared to be absolutely essential. The cotton-gin, invented by Whitney in 1793, made cotton-raising the special industry of the South, the cultivation of this staple at once receiving a vigorous impulse. Slave labor, which had begun to grow highly unsatisfactory, at once advanced in importance, and the demand for slaves rapidly increased. Meanwhile, the representation of the Northern States in Congress was steadily outnumbering that of the South. In 1790 the North had thirty-eight representatives to the South's thirty-one. In 1820 the North had one hundred and eight, the South eighty-one. The South was evidently losing power in legislation, and saw the necessity of taking active measures to increase its representation. This could be done only by an extension of slave territory. The Territory of Missouri applied in 1819 for admission as a State, and the question of slavery-extension at once came up in Congress. An account of the controversy which succeeded, with its vitally-important termination, we extract from Dr. Von Holst's "Constitutional and Political History of the United States," as translated from the German by John J. Lalor and Alfred B. Mason.]

IN February, 1819, the House of Representatives went into committee of the whole over the admission of Missouri as a State. The recommendation of the committee provided in the ordinary manner what was necessary to this end. Tallmadge of New York moved the amendment that the admission should be made dependent upon the two following conditions: prohibition of the further introduction of slaves, and emancipation of all the slave children born after the admission as soon as they reached the age of twenty-five. This motion gave life to the whole strife, and the idea embraced in it remained the essence of the strife until the decision of its most important points. The majority of the House of Representatives voted to make the admission of Missouri as a State dependent upon such a limitation of her power in regard to slavery; but the majority of the Senate decided against this. Both houses insisted on their respective resolves, and Congress adjourned without coming to any final decision. When the question again came up in the next session, the opponents of the so-called "Missouri limitation" found them-selves materially aided by a new circumstance. Maine, which had hitherto been a district of Massachusetts, applied for admission as an independent State. The majority of the Senate coupled together the Maine and Missouri bills, and so put before the majority of the House the alternative of admitting Missouri without any limitation, or denying, for the present, the admission of Maine. The House was not yet ready to acknowledge itself so easily beaten. Neither earlier nor later has a struggle been fought out in Congress in which the majorities of both houses have stood by the decision once arrived at with such stiff-neckedness. The close of the session constantly drew nearer, and an agreement seemed farther off than ever. The whole country was in a state of feverish excitement. At the last moment, in the night between the 2d and 3d of March, 1820, free labor and the principle of nationality yielded to slavery and the principle of State sovereignty. It the matter had affected Missouri alone, the defeat would have been of small practical significance; but two principles had been given up, and these two principles involved the weal and woe of the republic.

The South by no means limited itself to a discussion of the mere question of law, but brought forward a cloud of pleas in justification. It was asserted that the Louisiana Territory, to which Missouri belonged, had been obtained at a cost of the whole Union, and that it would there-fore be unjust to deprive the inhabitants of half the Union of the "colonization right;" but this would evidently be the case if they were forbidden to take their property with them. It was said, on the other hand, that slavery would present an impassable wall to immigration from the North. Where labor bears the stamp of shame the free laborer cannot turn his steps. But how could there be hesitation when the choice was to be made between the exclusion of slavery or free labor? The Union should be a nursery of freedom, and not a breeding-place for slavery. The South itself declaimed with the greatest pathos over the curse of slavery. Was it not, then, a self-evident duty to preserve the land from any extension of the curse?