In the 1800s, there was a firm establishment of slavery in the USA. A number of decrees and policies had been issued to govern the activities of black people, with special attention to the differentiation between slaves and free blacks. However, along with the political aspect of slavery, there was the question of its geographical expansion. The division of the USA into free and slave states was quite a disputable issue, which made the matters in the country rather complicated. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was an attempt to gain territorial stability, which seemed rather successful at first, but failed soon.
The Compromise of 1820 was the agreement aimed at regulating slavery in the country. The problem with slavery was expanding, making the USA look “bitter and sarcastic” in the eyes of other countries (Forbes 34). Whereas American society was generally admired for its literacy, government’s economy, religious toleration, and population growth, it was simultaneously condemned for its unprecedented involvement in the slave trade (Forbes 34). Hence, slavery was viewed as “the greatest threat” to Americans, and the country’s government was forced to come up with effective measures to eliminate the danger of losing its image (Forbes 34). The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to stabilize the situation with slavery in the country.
Due to its geographic location, the State of Missouri was a favorable point for governing the situation with slavery in the country. In 1820, a suggestion was made to prohibit slavery north of the 36°30´ parallel with the exclusion of Missouri. The main point of such a division was to gain “orderly progress toward statehood” (Forbes 33). However, as it turned out soon, the question largely concerned not morality but power (Zeitz 448). The Monroe administration, which had been at the rule for several years prior to 1820, was considered as the marker of the Republican Party’s breakdown. However, in 1819-1820, an unexpected “forceful reassertion” of the Party’s power was noticed both at the level of the state and that of the nation (Forbes 69). North states continued to support the restriction of slavery, which resulted in the opposition of northern politicians to allowing any new states to admit slavery. Still, Republicans ruling in Missouri managed to obtain no slavery restriction for the state.
The Republican Party had several reasons for confronting the restriction. First and foremost, by accepting slavery in Missouri, Republicans were hoping to promote the slavery expansion in the West virtually, while in fact, they excluded it (Forbes 69). In order to gain their aim, antislavery pragmatists guided by Monroe were forced to hide their true intentions both from “uncompromising restrictionists and antirestrictionists” (Forbes 69). Thus, Republicans cooperated with the antirestrictionists while disguising their true final objective. They were so successful in moving toward their purpose that their double game remained a secret both for the contemporaries and the majority of followers for many years to follow (Forbes70). However, there was no unanimity among the participants of the process as to its outcomes.
Overall, the restrictionists in the North were demoralized after the Missouri Compromise. They saw themselves as “conquered” and “subdued” (Forbes 98). At the same time, southerners considered the Compromise as their victory, even though many of them viewed it as the “abject surrender” of their rights (Forbes 98). Still, one cannot say that opinions were unanimous, since not all southerners were happy about the decision, and not all northerners were mournful.
Ultimately, the Missouri Compromise, which was expected to improve the order in the country, failed to fulfill its mission. The admission of Missouri to the Union threw the nation into “its greatest political crisis” between the Revolution and the Civil War (Forbes 33). Hence, the Compromise turned out to be only a transitioning point between two rather significant stages in the history of the USA. Some scholars consider the Compromise of 1820 as the “chronological divide” between the Early Republic and Antebellum America (Zeitz 450). Due to the period when the Compromise took place, it offered useful explanations of the evolutionary transition from the antislavery period and the free labor one. However, while both of these stages of the country’s history received much attention, the Compromise, which was an intermediary stage, did not draw much recognition or concern.
The history of slavery in the USA is comprised of many episodes, both shameful and hopeful. During the evolution of the states’ attitudes toward slavery and its role in their progress, there had been many attempts of politicians to expand slavery on the American territories. At first sight, the Missouri Compromise of 1820 may seem like another endeavor to increase the spread of slavery in the country. However, digging deeper into the causes behind the idea, one can notice that the goals politicians pursued were not so straightforward. All in all, despite not occupying a prominent place in the chronological development of the country’s history, the Missouri Compromise of 1820 may be viewed as an important political crisis, which inevitably affected the future.
Works Cited
Forbes, Robert Pierce. The Missouri Compromise and Its Aftermath: Slavery and the Meaning of America. The University of North Carolina Press, 2007.
Zeits, Joshua Michael. “The Missouri Compromise Reconsidered: Antislavery Rhetoric and the Emergence of the Free Labor Synthesis.” Journal of the Early Republic, vol. 20, no. 3, 2000, pp. 447-485.