The Missouri Compromise

 

Missouri Compromise, THE. In 1817 the inhabitants of the Territory of Missouri petitioned Congress for admission into the Union as a State. A bill was introduced into Congress (Feb. 13, 1819) for that purpose, when James Tallmadge, Jr., of New York, moved to insert a clause prohibiting any further introduction of slaves within its domains, and granting freedom to the children of those already there, on their attaining the age of twenty-five years.

This motion brought the slavery question again before Congress most conspicuously. After a three days' vehement debate, it was carried, 87 to 76. As a companion to the Missouri bill, an-other to organize the Territory of Arkansas was introduced (Feb. 16).When it was taken up, John W. Taylor, of New York, moved to add a provision that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude should hereafter be introduced into any part of the Territories of the United States north of lat. 36° 30' N., the northern boundary of the proposed new Territory of Arkansas. Arthur Livermore, of New Hampshire, who had been zealous for the Missouri restrictions, conceived that this proposition had been made " in the true spirit of compromise," but thought that line of division not sufficiently favorable to freedom. Gen. W. H. Harrison agreed to the necessity of some such partition, but he proposed a line due west from the mouth of the Des Moines River, thus giving up to slavery the State of Missouri and all territory south of that latitude.

This partition policy was warmly opposed by a large number of members of Congress from the North and the South, declaring themselves hostile to any compromise whatever. Slavery was either right or wrong, and there could be no compromise. Taylor withdrew his motion.
The proposition for a compromise which was finally agreed to was originated by a Northern member, and not by Henry Clay, of Kentucky, as is generally supposed.

This Missouri bill caused one of the most exciting debates on the slavery question ever before known in the national legislature. Extreme doctrines and foolish threats were uttered on both sides. Southern members threatened a dissolution of the Union. There was much adroit management by the party leaders, who used great dexterity in trying to avoid a compromise—for one party insisted upon Missouri entering, if at all, as a free-labor State, and the other party insisted that it should enter as a slave-labor State.

Read The Follow Of This Story On The Next Page