Missouri Compromise

Document 1: The substance of two speeches, delivered in the Senate of the United States, on the subject of the Missouri bill. (modified) Rufus King was an anti-slavery U.S. Senator; he was born in Maine, but eventually moved to and served as a Senator from New York. He wrote this pamphlet summarizing two speeches he gave during the Missouri Compromise debates of 1819. The existence of slavery impairs the industry and the power of a nation; and it does so in proportion to the multiplication of its slaves: where the manual labor of a country is performed by slaves, labor dishonors the hands of freemen. If her laborers be slaves, Missouri may be able to pay money taxes, but will be unable to raise soldiers, or to recruit seamen; and experience seems to have proved that manufactures do not prosper where the artificers are slaves… The motives for the admission of new states into the union, are the extension of the principles of our free government, the equalizing of the public burdens and the consolidation of the power of the confederated nation. Unless these objects be promoted by the admission of new states, no such admission can be expedient or justified. The states in which slavery already exists, are contiguous to each other; they are also the portion of the United States nearest to the European colonies in the West Indies; colonies whose future condition can hardly be regarded as problematic. If Missouri, and the other states that may be formed to the west of the river Mississippi, are permitted to introduce and establish slavery, the repose, if not the security of the union may be endangered…the establishment of new states west of the river Mississippi, will serve to extend slavery instead of freedom over that boundless region. Vocabulary: artificers: skillful at making something confederated: united expedient: tending to promote the desired result contiguous: in close proximity; touching Document 1: The substance of two speeches Questions 1. What are some of the reasons that King says slavery is a problem? 2. Why is King against the admission of Missouri as a slave state? Document 2: Thomas Jefferson to William Short, April 13, 1820 (modified) Thomas Jefferson, former president of the United States, wrote this letter to William Short on April 13, 1820. He mentioned the question of the Missouri Compromise. (Library of Congress link: http://www.loc.gov/item/mtjbib023789/) …the Missouri question aroused and filled me with alarm. The old schism of federal & republican, threatened nothing because it existed in every state, and united them together by the fraternization of party. But the coincidence of a marked principle, moral & political with a geographical line, once conceived, I feared would never more be obliterated from the mind; that it would be recurring on every occasion & renewing irritations until it would kindle such mutual & mortal hatred, as to render separation preferable to eternal discord. I have been among the most sanguine in believing that our Union would be of long duration. I now doubt it much, and see the event at no great distance, and the direct consequence of this question: not by the time which has been so confidently counted on. The laws of nature control this, but by the Potomac, Ohio, and Missouri, or more probably the Mississippi upwards to our Northern boundary, my only comfort & confidence is that I shall not live to see this: and I envy not the present generation the glory of throwing away the fruits of their fathers sacrifices of life & fortune, and of rendering desperate the experiment which was to decide ultimately whether man is capable of self-government? This treason against human hope will signalize their epoch in future history, as the counterpart of the medal of their predecessors. Vocabulary: schism: division fraternization: to be friendly with discord: strife, disagreement sanguine: optimistic Document 2: Thomas Jefferson to William Short, April 13, 1820 Questions 1. What about the Missouri Compromise alarmed Jefferson? What do you think in his point of view is a “schism” greater than that of Federalists and Republicans? 2. What does Jefferson think will be the ultimate result of such legislation? Is he in any way correct? Explain. Document 3: Thomas Jefferson to John Holmes, April 22, 1820 (modified) Thomas Jefferson, former president of the United States, wrote this letter to John Holmes on April 22, 1820. He mentioned the question of the Missouri Compromise as well as the issues of slavery and emancipation. (Library of Congress link: http://www.loc.gov/item/mtjbib023795/) I had for a long time ceased to read newspapers or pay any attention to public affairs, confident they were in good hands, and content to be a passenger in our bark to the shore from which I am not distant. But this momentous question, like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. It is hushed indeed for the moment. But this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. a geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every , new, End, irritation will mark it deeper and deeper. I can say with conscious truth that there is not a man on earth who would sacrifice more than I would, to relieve us from this heavy reproach, in any practicable way. the cession of that kind of property, for it is so misnamed, is a bagatelle which would not cost me a second thought, if, in that way, a general emancipation and expatriation could be effected: and, gradually, and with due sacrifices, I think it might be. But, as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other. of one thing I am certain, that as the passage of slaves from one state to another would not make a slave of a single human being who would not be so without it, so their diffusion over a greater surface would make them individually happier and proportionally facilitate the accomplishment of their emancipation; by dividing the burthen on a greater number of coadjutors. An abstinence too from this act of power would remove the jealousy excited by the undertaking of Congress; to regulate the condition of the different descriptions of men composing a state. This certainly is the exclusive right of every state, which nothing in the constitution has taken from them and given to the general government. Could congress, for example say that the Non-freemen of Connecticut, shall be freemen, or that they shall not immigrate into any other state? Vocabulary: bark: ship knell: warning sound, funeral bell reprieve: pardon obliterated: destroyed emancipation: set free expatriation: banishment from one’s native country coadjutors: assistants abstinence: to refrain from Document 3: Thomas Jefferson to John Holmes, April 22, 1820 Questions 1.) What does Jefferson mean when he says he considers the Missouri Compromise the “knell of the Union”? 2.) Does Jefferson think the peace created by the compromise will last? 3.) Jefferson compares the existence of slavery in the United States to holding a “wolf by the ears”; what does the analogy mean? Document 4: Letter about Missouri Compromise, 1820 (modified) Joshua Cushman (1761-1834) of Winslow, a Democratic-Republican U.S. Representative, wrote a letter supporting the vote of Congress against the Missouri Compromise, which let Missouri join the Union as a slave state and Maine as a free state and forbid the spread of slavery to the West. Cushman noted that only one New England member of Congress voted for the compromise, Sen. John Holmes of Maine. His letter was intended to prevent Holmes re-election to the Senate after Maine Statehood went into effect. (Maine Memory Network link: https://www.mainememory.net/artifact/23979) …I question the correctness of that policy which would urge sacrifices on the altar of conciliation. Not on the indiscriminate offerings of peace, but on the balance of power, depends the safety of our republic. The representatives from the east and north, have been sufficiently partial in their attachments. They are sincerely desirous to preserve the integrity of the Union, and to live in harmony with their sister states and brethren of the south. But if the sine qua non of amity and concord be self-immolation, and the sapping of the foundation of our national edifice, the most beautiful structure of liberty the world ever beheld, they cannot subscribe to the conditions. To secure a momentary calm to themselves, they cannot consent to entail on their posterity a series of the most deleterious evils. There are some sacrifices too great to be made even for the all glorious blessing of peace! Such, Sir, are my reflections on the subjects, which are not without interest to the people of Maine, and their rulers. With some of the latter, I fear, my opinions and views are not in unison. I have no personal designs; I feel for the honor of Maine. I am anxious for her consistency of character––and I humbly trust in Heaven, that she will never be so unguarded as to sanction a policy which must degrade her in public estimation, and fix on her escutcheon a stain––a deep and black stain––which no time could obliterate. Vocabulary: conciliation: resolution indiscriminate: thoughtless sine qua non: absolutely essential amity: friendship concord: harmony self-immolation: sacrificing oneself edifice: structure deleterious: harmful sanction: authorization escutcheon: the part of a ship where the name is displayed obliterate: destroy Document 4: Letter about Missouri Compromise, 1820 Questions 1. What is Cushman afraid is being sacrificed for the sake of compromise? 2. What does Cushman think will the consequences for Maine if they vote in favor of the compromise?