Bitter Words before Maine’s Admission into the Union

Maine became the nation’s 23rd state on March 15, 1820, but its entrance into the Union was sullied by an acrimonious debate in Congress over slavery, a fierce disagreement solved by a compromise that pleased few and left many dissatisfied: the Missouri Compromise. In the spring of 1820 the United States had a delicate and precarious balance of 11 free states and 11 slave states. Missouri had applied for statehood as a slave state in early 1819 but anti-slavery forces in the House of Representatives thwarted it. When Maine tried to gain entrance in early 1820 as a free state, the Senate sidestepped the slavery issue by lumping Maine’s application in with Missouri’s into one compromise bill.

Maine’s supporters howled in indignation, insisting the people of Maine had the right to petition for statehood on their own merits, and not have to gain admission in a “devil’s bargain” that came at the cost of enlarging slavery in the Union. This raging debate in the spring of 1820 was a clear warning that the issue of slavery could possibly tear the Union apart—as ex-President Thomas Jefferson wrote: “…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.”

The following newspaper article shows the depth of bitterness and passion felt by Maine supporters over having its fate entwined with Missouri’s. It was printed by the American (New York, New York) on March 1, 1820, five days before President James Monroe signed the Missouri Compromise into law:

The Missouri Question

This question is every day becoming more important. The haughty, acrimonious, and, I may safely add, the abusive manner of the Southern senators in discussing the subject of slavery, has opened the eyes of all true lovers of freedom, and the danger of our situation is displaying itself in colours so glaring as to catch the attention of the most indifferent observer. We had thought that slavery had no advocates here; every statesman had condemned it, and its constant apology was the necessity which had been forced upon us by the British proprietors. At the close of the Revolutionary War the number of negro slaves was too great for any reasonable person to hope an immediate emancipation, and other difficulties so completely occupied our attention, that the subject was committed until 1808 to the care of the state legislatures, in the generous hope that our free and enlightened institutions, our meek and mild religion, would work a favourable change in their condition, until at length we might be wholly innocent of the damning sin of holding the souls and bodies of men in degrading bondage.

But we have been deplorably deceived; no sooner was it proposed to confine slavery within its ancient limits, than the true feelings and temper of slave-holders exposed themselves in open day. They are unwilling to give up any portion of their property, or to sacrifice any one of their comforts to principle. So long as declamation and frothy harangues can prove their attachment to freedom, so long are they Republicans; but the moment they are required to make any effort to extirpate slavery; aye, the moment that we show a determination to stay the progress of this moral pestilence, they are ready to separate from us, and break up the Union. The truth is, they are attached to slavery, and are resolved not to sacrifice the luxury of absolute control over their fellow-beings.

They may pretend that it is unconstitutional, and that they wish to diffuse slavery; but such false and hollow pretensions cannot disguise their real objects. The senators and representatives of the South wish to please their constituents, and their constituents only consult their pecuniary interests, which will be promoted by an extensive slave-market in Missouri.

This is the true cause of the objections of the slave-holders, and this is evident from a consideration of their arguments and conduct. Are the senators of the United States so weak as not to know that slaves would be multiplied if slavery should be spread over our whole unoccupied territory? Never believe it. They well knew that slavery would be extended; but desiring to satisfy their constituents, and being conscious that they were engaged in an unrighteous cause, they were obliged to bolster it up with all the false, sophistical reasonings, which ingenuity or interest could inspire.

Neither is the argument against the constitutionality of the restriction [on slavery] entitled to more respect. Are our representatives so peculiarly constituted, that those sent from the slave states, to a man, plainly perceive the unconstitutionality of restricting slavery, or, in other words, of breaking up slave markets; while on the other side, the members from the residue of the Union find in this instrument nothing prohibiting, everything encouraging, the extension of the blessings of freedom to every human being, no matter of what complexion, or of what country? How is it that this prohibition in the Constitution should be perceived only by those who have a pecuniary interest in extending slavery? For it will not be pretended that the Eastern members, who went all lengths with the advocates of slavery, had any constitutional scruples; that those men, who, in defiance of the rules of justice, respect to their fellow-members, and common decency, united the Maine and Missouri bills, felt some qualms of conscience, lest humanity should prompt them to infringe upon the rights of American citizens. Such tender-souled men cannot be wrong. Their decisions should be reverenced as the dictates of truth herself. Messrs. King, Mellen, Burrill, Roberts, Lowrie, and Sargeant, should submit, and learn the proper construction of the Constitution from the learned and tolerating Lanman, the wise and eloquent Parrott, and perhaps the upright and independent Holmes, the man who never adhered to his party when his party were in the wrong, may throw new light upon the subject by his ingenious calculations. These are the supporters of the interests of slave owners, in opposition to a declared will of the majority of the people. On one side you see men actuated by humanity and Republican principles; and, on the other, men who either imagine that their pecuniary interests will be affected by the restriction, or men whose character or talents would disgrace any cause. Such supporters manifest its weakness; and the measures adopted to secure its success betray their consciousness of unrighteous designs. Would men confident in justice and truth stoop to a measure which would be disgraceful in a pensioned parliament, but doubly so in an American Senate? A measure which has outraged all ideas of equity, embittered the feelings of the citizens of Maine, by insulting her at the moment she applies for admission into the Union, and scattered the seeds of discontent through the whole country. How low must have fallen their sense of dignity and honour, before they could have consented to rest their cause upon the merits of another measure! How pitifully mean to purchase the support of men who must have acknowledged their dishonesty by consenting to the bargain! Is this the conduct of the supporters of the Constitution? Do men thus act who are engaged in a good cause? No! The advocates of slavery were conscious of the futility and sophistry of their engagements. They first tried to rouse the smothered fires of party; but this having no effect, except upon a few weak minded men, they appealed to those dishonest feelings which they hoped to find harboured by the members from Maine, and by so doing they have confessed the weakness of their hollow pretensions, and disgraced the Senate and the country.

—Marcus.

For more information, visit the Missouri Compromise Web site maintained by the Library of Congress.

Click here for more articles about Slavery: Precursor to the Civil War.