2J - Missouri, nullification, modernisation and the frontier
By c1845 Americans had already faced serious disputes over slavery, economic policy and the authority of the Union. Learn how earlier compromises supplied both ways to preserve cooperation and arguments that could be used in a new sectional crisis.
Missouri and the balance of states
Missouri's application for statehood raised a national question in 1819: should slavery be allowed to expand into another state formed from the Louisiana Purchase? The House considered the Tallmadge amendment, which proposed restricting further introduction of enslaved people and freeing children born into slavery there after admission when they reached the age of 25. Southern opponents argued that Congress should not impose such conditions on a new state's domestic institutions. The Senate rejected the restrictions, showing how different sectional strengths in the two houses could obstruct agreement.
The settlement of 1820 linked Missouri's admission as a slave state with Maine's admission as a free state. This preserved the balance of free and slave states in the Senate. It also prohibited slavery in the remainder of the Louisiana Purchase north of latitude 36°30′, with Missouri excepted. Missouri entered the Union in 1821 after a further dispute over a state constitutional provision excluding free Black people. The label Missouri Compromise therefore refers to a negotiated settlement whose implementation was not wholly frictionless.
The territorial line was limited to the Louisiana Purchase. It was not a permanent national division applying automatically to every future acquisition. Below the line the settlement did not require slavery; it left expansion possible. These distinctions matter because proposals to extend the line into land later acquired from Mexico were new political choices, not simply execution of an existing rule.
What the Missouri settlement left unresolved
The Missouri Compromise demonstrated that bargaining could avert a breakdown between sections. Henry Clay, then Speaker of the House, helped secure agreement. Each section obtained something valuable, allowing national party cooperation and expansion to continue. Later politicians could appeal to this example when looking for concessions that both sides might accept.
Yet the bargain contained incompatible implications. Restricting slavery in some territories established a precedent for congressional regulation of slavery's expansion. Accepting Missouri as a slave state protected the right of a new state to enter with slavery. Northern restrictionists and southern defenders could therefore select different elements when explaining what the settlement proved.
The compromise also encouraged Americans to think in terms of sectional numbers and geographic boundaries. A new state could be assessed as a gain for one side rather than an addition to a shared nation. Immediate peace came partly from avoiding the fundamental moral issue: enslaved people remained enslaved, and no agreed national answer settled whether further expansion should be permitted. An agreement can be successful in containing a crisis while leaving the causes of future conflict intact.
Nullification and the authority of the Union
The Nullification Crisis of 1832–33 began over tariffs rather than a direct proposal to abolish slavery. Protective duties raised the price of imported goods and supported domestic producers. Many South Carolinians believed the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 favoured northern manufacturers at the expense of an export-oriented South. John C. Calhoun argued that, because the Union rested on an agreement among sovereign states, a state could declare an unconstitutional federal law void within its borders.
A South Carolina convention declared the disputed tariffs null and void in November 1832 and threatened secession if the federal government used force to collect them. President Andrew Jackson rejected the claim. In his proclamation of 10 December 1832 he argued that a state could not unilaterally annul federal law and that disunion endangered the nation. His position shows why a southern-born slaveholding president cannot simply be assumed to favour every assertion of states' rights.
Congress in 1833 combined a Force Bill, authorising measures to enforce customs collection, with a compromise tariff associated with Clay that reduced duties over time. South Carolina withdrew its tariff nullification, while symbolically nullifying the Force Bill. Coercion and concession together ended the immediate confrontation. Other slave states had not united behind South Carolina, limiting its leverage.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account