Missouri Compromise facts for kids
The Missouri Compromise was an important law in the United States. It tried to balance the wishes of northern states, which wanted to stop slavery from spreading, with southern states, which wanted to expand it. This law allowed Missouri to join the U.S. as a state where slavery was allowed. It also allowed Maine to join as a free state, where slavery was not allowed.
The compromise also made a rule: slavery would be forbidden in most of the new lands bought in the Louisiana Purchase that were north of a certain line (the 36°30′ parallel). The U.S. Congress passed this law on March 3, 1820, and President James Monroe signed it on March 6, 1820.
Before this, in 1819, a representative named James Tallmadge Jr. from New York suggested that Missouri should only become a state if it limited slavery. Southern states disagreed strongly. They believed that states, not the federal government, should decide on slavery. At that time, the Senate had an equal number of free and slave states (11 each). If Missouri joined as a slave state, the South would gain more power. People in the North, including some who were against slavery, worried about this. They also pointed out that the "Three-Fifths Compromise" in the Constitution already gave the South more power in government because of its enslaved population.
Northern politicians argued that the Constitution meant Congress should limit slavery. They believed it was important for fairness and equality. When Maine wanted to become a state, the Senate decided to link Maine's request with Missouri's. This meant Maine would become a state if Missouri could join as a slave state. Senator Jesse B. Thomas then added the idea of banning slavery in the rest of the Louisiana Purchase lands north of the 36°30' line.
The House of Representatives first rejected this plan because many northern representatives wanted Missouri to be a free state. But Speaker of the House Henry Clay of Kentucky worked hard to find a solution. He convinced some southern politicians to accept the ban on slavery in new territories and some northern politicians to accept Missouri as a slave state. This led to the compromise passing in 1820.
The Missouri Compromise was very controversial. Many people worried it would divide the country. Later, the Kansas–Nebraska Act in 1854 effectively canceled this compromise. Then, in 1857, the Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case. These events increased tensions over slavery and helped lead to the American Civil War. Some historians believe the compromise delayed the Civil War, but also planted the seeds for it. Thomas Jefferson himself predicted that the line drawn by the compromise would eventually tear the country apart. About 40 years later, the North and South did split, largely along that line, and fought a terrible war.
Contents
A Time of "Good Feelings"
The time when James Monroe was president (1817–1825) is often called the "Era of Good Feelings". During this period, the main political parties became less distinct. The Federalist Party had lost much of its power. The other main party, the Democratic-Republicans, started to adopt some of the Federalists' ideas, especially about the economy. This made it seem like there was more unity, but it also led to disagreements within the Democratic-Republican Party itself.
During this time, the government passed laws like the Tariff of 1816 (a tax on imported goods) and created the Second Bank of the United States. These actions showed a shift away from earlier ideas of a very limited federal government. Instead of bringing everyone together, this period of "good feelings" actually led to strong rivalries among the Democratic-Republicans. It was during this time that the idea of limiting slavery in Missouri, known as the Tallmadge Amendment, first came up.
The Louisiana Purchase and Missouri
The U.S. bought the huge Louisiana Purchase lands in 1803 from France, when Thomas Jefferson was president. Before the U.S. bought it, both Spain and France had allowed slavery in this area. Many enslaved African Americans lived in places like St. Louis and Ste. Genevieve.
In 1804, Congress tried to limit how many enslaved people could be brought into the territory. White settlers in Missouri did not like these rules. So, in 1805, Congress removed them. This meant slavery was legal in Missouri under local laws.
In 1812, Louisiana, a big cotton-producing area from the Louisiana Purchase, became a slave state. People in Missouri expected their territory to become a slave state too. After the War of 1812, many slave owners moved to the Missouri Territory. The land in Missouri was good for different types of farming, including growing hemp, which used enslaved labor. Because of this, the number of enslaved people in Missouri grew from about 3,100 in 1810 to 10,000 in 1820. They made up about 15% of the total population.
By 1819, Missouri had enough people to become a state. Most people thought it would easily join the U.S. as a slave state.
Debates in Congress (1819)
When the bill for Missouri to become a state was discussed in the House of Representatives on February 13, 1819, things seemed calm at first. But then, Representative James Tallmadge Jr. of New York proposed a shocking change. He suggested two rules:
- No more enslaved people could be brought into Missouri.
- Children born to enslaved parents in Missouri after it became a state would be free when they turned 25.
Tallmadge was against slavery. He had helped free enslaved people in New York and had spoken out against unfair laws in Illinois that allowed a limited form of slavery. When Tallmadge got sick, another New York representative, John W. Taylor, continued the fight. Taylor had also tried to limit slavery in the Arkansas Territory. He warned that Missouri's decision would affect millions of people in the future.
This debate about slavery caused a big split among politicians. Northern politicians who wanted to limit slavery joined forces with some older Federalists. Southern politicians almost all united against any limits on slavery. This disagreement over slavery, first seen with Missouri, showed how deeply divided the country was becoming.
Some representatives from Maine, like Martin Kinsley and Ezekiel Whitman, were strongly against spreading slavery. They even voted against Maine becoming a state and against the Missouri Compromise because they believed it would allow slaveholders to gain too much power.
Jefferson's Views on Slavery
The Missouri crisis showed a crack in the unity of the Democratic-Republican Party. The Founding Fathers had created the U.S. government with the idea of liberty and equality for all. However, to form the country, they had to allow slavery to continue in states where it already existed. They believed that states should control slavery within their borders. Because of this, they agreed to laws like the Northwest Ordinance (which banned slavery in some new territories) and outlawed the Atlantic slave trade in 1808. Many Founders hoped that slave states would eventually end slavery.
After the American Revolutionary War, many southern states thought slavery would slowly disappear, except for Georgia and South Carolina. Some northern states began to free enslaved people gradually. But then, the invention of the cotton gin and a huge demand for cotton around the world made slavery much more profitable. Slavery spread westward to the Mississippi River.
Even though southerners sometimes argued among themselves about slavery, they united against any outside attempts to interfere with it. They believed northern states should not meddle in their affairs. Southern leaders also worried that northern attacks on slavery could cause unrest among enslaved people.
Northern politicians used the ideas of Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence to argue against expanding slavery. They said that "all men are created equal" meant slavery should not spread. Southern leaders, trying to defend slavery, began to argue against the idea that the Declaration's principles applied to everyone.
The Fight for Political Power
Counting People in the House
The U.S. Constitution had a rule called the "Three-Fifths Compromise". This rule said that for every five enslaved people, three would be counted when deciding how many representatives a state got in the House of Representatives. This gave southern states more power in Congress than they would have had if only free people were counted. This rule also affected how many votes a state got in the Electoral College, which chooses the president.
Northern politicians, especially the Federalists, had long disliked this rule. They felt it gave the South too much influence. Senator Rufus King of New York, a Federalist, strongly spoke out against the Three-Fifths Compromise. He argued that northern states were unfairly treated.
James Tallmadge Jr. and other northern politicians who wanted to limit slavery also disliked the Three-Fifths Compromise. They wanted to stop it from being used in new territories like Missouri.
Even though northern states had more representatives in the House, the Three-Fifths Compromise helped southern states win many votes. However, the real power for southern states on slavery issues was in the Senate.
Balancing Power in the Senate
The Senate was key for states that supported slavery. The Constitution says each state gets two senators, no matter how many people live there. This helped the South, which had fewer free people than the North. By 1815, the number of free states and slave states was equal, with 11 each.
Southern senators often voted together on issues related to slavery. This allowed them to form majorities, sometimes with help from a few senators from free states who supported them. The Senate became a strong defense for slavery. Admitting Missouri as a slave state would keep this balance of power in the Senate. If the Tallmadge Amendment had passed, it would have set a path for new free states in the West, which would have reduced the South's political power.
Arguments About the Constitution
The Tallmadge Amendment was the first big challenge to expanding slavery. It made people question how to interpret the country's founding documents.
Northern politicians argued that Congress had the power to make rules for territories, and these rules should stay even after a territory became a state. They pointed to states like Indiana and Illinois, which became free states because of earlier anti-slavery rules like the Northwest Ordinance. They also said that the Constitution required states to have a "republican form of government," and that slavery went against the Founders' ideas of equality.
Southern politicians argued that the Constitution had always allowed states to decide on slavery themselves. They said that the people of Missouri should be able to choose whether to allow slavery without federal interference. They also argued that the Northwest Ordinance didn't apply to the Louisiana Purchase lands because it was made under an older government system.
Instead, southerners pointed to the treaty that bought the Louisiana lands in 1803. This treaty said that all inhabitants of the new territory would have the rights of U.S. citizens, including the right to own enslaved people as property.
The debates in 1819 focused on these legal arguments, but they mostly avoided the moral issues of slavery. Raising the topic of slavery publicly was very offensive to southern representatives.
Faced with a large enslaved population and profitable cotton production, the South decided not to try to limit slavery. Instead, they came up with an idea called "diffusion," which suggested that spreading slavery geographically would somehow lead to its decline.
The Stalemate
On February 16, 1819, the House of Representatives voted to add Tallmadge's rules to the Missouri statehood bill. The debates were very heated.
- Representative Thomas W. Cobb of Georgia warned, "You have kindled a fire which all the waters of the ocean cannot put out, which seas of blood can only extinguish."
- Representative James Tallmadge Jr. of New York replied, "If a dissolution of the Union must take place, let it be so! If civil war, which gentlemen so much threaten, must come, I can only say, let it come!"
Northern representatives outnumbered southern representatives in the House. Both of Tallmadge's rules passed in the House, mostly along regional lines.
- The rule to stop new enslaved people from entering Missouri passed 87 to 76.
- The rule to free children of enslaved people at age 25 passed 82 to 78.
The bill then went to the Senate, where both parts of the amendment were rejected. The Senate voted 22–16 against stopping new enslaved people in Missouri, and 31–7 against freeing enslaved children at 25. Northern politicians in the House and southern politicians in the Senate could not agree. So, Missouri's statehood was put off until the next session of Congress in December 1819.
The Second Missouri Compromise
The issue of Missouri's final admission came up again in 1820–1821. The fight restarted because Missouri's new constitution, written in 1820, said it would keep "free negroes and mulattoes" out of the state. This was a problem because it seemed to go against the rights of U.S. citizens.
Kentucky Senator Henry Clay, known as "The Great Compromiser," helped find a solution. A new law was passed that allowed Missouri to join the Union. But it included a statement that Missouri's rule about free Black people should "never be construed to authorize the passage of any law" that would harm the rights of any U.S. citizen. This unclear agreement is sometimes called the Second Missouri Compromise.
What the Compromise Meant for Politics
For many years after 1820, Americans saw the Missouri Compromise as a very important agreement, almost as sacred as the Constitution itself. Even though the Civil War started in 1861, many historians say the Compromise helped delay the war.
The debates showed the competition for power between the North and South in Congress and over new territories. They also showed how the Democratic-Republican Party was starting to break apart. In a letter, Thomas Jefferson wrote that the dividing line created by the Compromise would eventually destroy the country. He called it "a fire bell in the night," saying it filled him with terror. He believed this geographical line, tied to moral and political differences, would never disappear and would cause more trouble with every new disagreement.
The debate over Missouri also highlighted the issue of balance. The country had an equal number of slave states and free states (eleven each). If Missouri joined as a slave state, it would give the slave states more power in the Senate. This is why northern states wanted Maine to join as a free state. Maine joined in 1820, and Missouri in 1821. The pattern of admitting a new free or slave state to keep the balance continued until the Compromise of 1850. For example, Arkansas (slave state) joined in 1836, followed by Michigan (free state) in 1837. Later, Texas and Florida (slave states) joined in 1845, balanced by Iowa (1846) and Wisconsin (1848) as free states.
From a legal point of view, the Missouri Compromise was important because it was an example of Congress banning slavery from U.S. territory. However, the Compromise was disappointing for Black people in both the North and South. It stopped the gradual ending of slavery at Missouri's southern border and seemed to make slavery a permanent part of the South.
The Compromise is Canceled
The parts of the Missouri Compromise that banned slavery in the Louisiana Territory north of the parallel 36°30′ north were effectively canceled by Stephen A. Douglas's Kansas–Nebraska Act in 1854. This act allowed people in new territories to decide for themselves whether to allow slavery.
Canceling the Compromise made many people in the North very angry. It also brought Abraham Lincoln back into politics. He strongly criticized slavery and Douglas's act in his famous "Peoria Speech" in 1854.
See also
In Spanish: Compromiso de Misuri para niños
