Part 6

The following year, when Maine applied for admission into the Union, Henry Clay of Kentucky engineered the famous Missouri Compromise. This agreement provided that Missouri would come in as a slave state but that no more slave states would be admitted from territory north of Missouri’s southern boundary. This compromise is important because it foreshadows the struggle between the North and South that eventuated in the Civil War a generation later. Although most of the oratory dealt with the slavery issue, the struggle also concerned the broader matter of political control in the West.

Representative Arthur Livermore Argues Against Extending Slavery

The following selections illustrate the debate in Congress over the Missouri question. The first speech is by Congressman Arthur Livermore of New Hampshire against the extension of slavery.

I propose to show what slavery is, and to mention a few of the many evils which follow in its train; and I hope to evince that we are not bound to tolerate the existence of so disgraceful a state of things beyond its present extent, and that it would be impolitic and very unjust to let it spread over the whole face of our Western territory. Slavery in the United States is the condition of man subjected to the will of a master who can make any disposition of him short of taking away his life. In those States where it is tolerated, laws are enacted making it penal to instruct slaves in the art of reading, and they are not permitted to attend public worship or to hear the Gospel preached.

Thus the light of science and of religion is utterly excluded from the mind, that the body may be more easily bowed down to servitude. The bodies of slaves may, with impunity, be prostituted to any purpose and deformed in any manner by their owners. The sympathies of nature in slaves are disregarded; mothers and children are sold and separated; the children wring their little hands and expire in agonies of grief, while the bereft mothers commit suicide in despair. How long will the desire of wealth render us blind to the sin of holding both the bodies and souls of our fellow-men in chains!

But, sir, I am admonished of the Constitution, and told that we cannot emancipate slaves. I know we may not infringe that instrument, and therefore do not propose to emancipate slaves. The proposition before us goes only to prevent our citizens from making slaves of such as have a right to freedom. In the present slaveholding States let slavery continue, for our boasted Constitution connives at it; but do not, for the sake of cotton and tobacco, let it be told to future ages that, while pretending to love liberty, we have purchased an extensive country to disgrace it with the foulest reproach of nations.

Our Constitution requires no such thing of us. The ends for which that supreme law was made are succinctly stated in its preface. They are, first, to form a more perfect union and insure domestic tranquility. Will slavery effect this? Can we, sir, by mingling bond with free, black spirits with white, like Shakespeare’s witches in Macbeth, form a more perfect union and insure domestic tranquility? Secondly, to establish justice. Is justice to be established by subjecting half mankind to the will of the other half? Justice, sir, is blind to colors, and weighs in equal scales the rights of all men, whether white or black. Thirdly, to provide for the common defense and secure the blessings of liberty. Does slavery add anything to the common defense? Sir, the strength of a republic is in the arm of freedom. But, above all things, do the blessings of liberty consist in slavery?

Senator James Barbour Defends Slavery

In the second selection we have chosen, Senator James Barbour of Virginia defends slavery:

The gentleman from Pennsylvania asks shall we suffer Missouri to come into the Union with this savage mark [_of slavery_] on her countenance? I appeal to that gentleman to know whether this be language to address to an American Senate, composed equally of members from States precisely in that condition that Missouri would be in, were she to tolerate slavery. Are these sentiments calculated to cherish that harmony and affection so essential to any beneficial results from our Union? But, sir, I will not imitate this course, and I will strive to repress the feeling which such remarks are calculated to awaken.

... They assure us that they do not mean to touch this property [_slavery_] in the old states.... What kind of ethics is this that is bounded by latitude and longitude, which is inoperative on the left, but is omnipotent on the right bank of a river? Such a doctrine is well calculated to excite our solicitude; for, although the gentlemen who now hold it are sincere in their declarations, and mean to content themselves with a triumph in this controversy, what security have we that others will not apply it to the South generally?

Let it not, however, be supposed that in the abstract I am advocating slavery. Like all other human things, it is mixed with good and evil—the latter, no doubt, preponderating.... Whether slavery was ordained by God Himself in a particular revelation to His chosen people, or whether it be merely permitted as a part of that moral evil which seems to be the inevitable portion of man, are questions I will not approach; I leave them to the casuists [_debaters_] and the divines [_preachers_]. It is sufficient for us, as statesmen, to know that it has existed from the earliest ages of the world, and that to us has been assigned such a portion as, in reference to their number and the various considerations resulting from a change of their condition, no remedy, even plausible, has been suggested, though wisdom and benevolence united have unceasingly brooded over the subject.

However dark and inscrutable may be the ways of heaven, who is he that arrogantly presumes to arraign [_challenge_] them? The same mighty power that planted the greater and the lesser luminary in the heavens permits on earth the bondsman and the free. To that Providence, as men and Christians, let us bow. If it be consistent with His will, in the fullness of time, to break the fetter of the slave, He will raise up some Moses to be their deliverer. To him commission will be given to lead them up out of the land of bondage.

Representative James Stevens Argues for the Compromise

In the final selection James Stevens, Representative from Connecticut, pleads with Congress to accept the Compromise:

I have listened with pain to the very long, protracted debate that has been had on this unfortunate question. I call it unfortunate, sir, because it has drawn forth the worst passions of man in the course of the discussion....

If the deadliest enemy this country has, or ever had, could dictate language the most likely to destroy your glory, prosperity, and happiness, would it not be precisely what has been so profusely used in this debate—sectional vaunting?... Indeed, sir, there is no view of this unhappy division of our country but must be sickening to the patriot and in direct violation of the dictate of wisdom, and the last, though not least, important advice of the Father and Friend of his Country. He forbids the use of the words Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western, as descriptive of the various parts of your country.

But, sir, we have now arrived at a point at which every gentleman agrees something must be done. A precipice lies before us at which perdition [_ruin_] is inevitable. Gentlemen on both sides of this question, and in both Houses, indoors and out of doors, have evinced a determination that augurs ill of the high destinies of this country! And who does not tremble for the consequences?...

I wish not to be misunderstood, sir. I don’t pretend to say that in just five calendar months your Union will be at an end;...

But, sir, I do say, and, for the verity of the remark, cite the lamentable history of our own time, that the result of a failure to compromise at this time, in the way now proposed, or in some other way satisfactory to both, would be to create ruthless hatred, irradicable jealousy, and a total forgetfulness of the ardor of patriotism, to which, as it has heretofore existed, we owe, under Providence, more solid national glory and social happiness than ever before was possessed by any people, nation, kindred, or tongue under Heaven.

The Monroe Doctrine

Although the United States was mainly concerned with internal problems during Monroe’s presidency, there was one important policy established during this period in the area of foreign relations. This was the Monroe Doctrine. It was a statement of policy made by the President in a message to Congress in 1823, which defined the role of the United States in international affairs and which, in some respects, is still vital United States policy.

The Doctrine states that the United States will not tolerate further foreign colonial expansion by European powers in North or South America. This policy was necessary because Spain’s colonies in Latin America had recently revolted, and it looked as though the other European powers might try to reconquer Spain’s former colonies. In addition, Russia was moving southward from Alaska and claiming land down to the 51st parallel, which would have taken in much of what is now British Columbia. The Monroe Doctrine also declares that the United States will not interfere with existing European colonies in the Americas nor with the internal affairs of European nations. In the following selection we reprint part of the Monroe Doctrine.

Excerpts from the Monroe Doctrine

In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers....

We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.

In the war between those new Governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgment of the competent authorities of this Government, shall make a ... change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security....

Our policy in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government _de facto_ [_actually ruling_] as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to those continents circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different.

It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent [_North or South America_] without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference.

John Quincy Adams

Lighthouses in the Sky

John Quincy Adams, who succeeded James Monroe as President in 1825, was the son of John Adams, the second President. He too had served a long apprenticeship in government, having been Senator, minister to Great Britain and Russia, and Secretary of State. Although he served only one term and was defeated for re-election by Andrew Jackson, he was a forward-looking President. We illustrate his interest in science and the internal development of the United States by a portion of his first message to Congress. He begins with a plea that the object of government is to improve the lot of the people. He favors roads and canals, but even more, moral and intellectual improvements.

Excerpts from Adams’ First Message to Congress

Upon this first occasion of addressing the Legislature of the Union, with which I have been honored, in presenting to their view the execution so far as it has been effected of the measures sanctioned by them for promoting the internal improvement of our country, I can not close the communication without recommending to their calm and persevering consideration the general principle in a more enlarged extent....

Among the first, perhaps the very first, instrument for the improvement of the conditions of men is knowledge, and to the acquisition of much of the knowledge adapted to the wants, the comforts, and enjoyments of human life public institutions and seminaries of learning are essential. So convinced of this was the first of my predecessors in this office [_George Washington_], now first in the memory, as, living, he was first in the hearts, of our countrymen, that once and again in his addresses to the Congresses with whom he co-operated in the public service he earnestly recommended the establishment of seminaries of learning, to prepare for all the emergencies of peace and war—a national university and a military academy. With respect to the latter, had he lived to the present day, in turning his eyes to the institution at West Point he would have enjoyed the gratification of his most earnest wishes; but in surveying the city which has been honored with his name he would have seen the spot of earth which he had destined and bequeathed to the use and benefit of his country as the site for an university still bare and barren.

In assuming her station among the civilized nations of the earth it would seem that our country had contracted the engagement to contribute her share of mind, of labor, and of expense to the improvement of those parts of knowledge which lie beyond the reach of individual acquisition, and particularly to geographical and astronomical science. Looking back to the history only of the half century since the declaration of our independence, and observing the generous emulation with which the Governments of France, Great Britain, and Russia have devoted the genius, the intelligence, the treasures of their respective nations to the common improvement of the species in these branches of science, is it not incumbent upon us to inquire whether we are not bound by obligations of a high and honorable character to contribute our portion of energy and exertion to the common stock?...

In inviting the attention of Congress to the subject of internal improvements upon a view thus enlarged it is not my design to recommend the equipment of an expedition for circumnavigating the globe for purposes of scientific research and inquiry. We have objects of useful investigation nearer home, and to which our cares may be more beneficially applied. The interior of our own territories has yet been very imperfectly explored. Our coasts along many degrees of latitude upon the shores of the Pacific Ocean, though much frequented by our spirited commercial navigators, have been barely visited by our public ships....

The establishment of an uniform standard of weights and measures was one of the specific objects contemplated in the formation of our Constitution, and to fix that standard was one of the powers delegated by express terms in that instrument to Congress. The Governments of Great Britain and France have scarcely ceased to be occupied with inquiries and speculations on the same subject since the existence of our Constitution, and with them it has expanded into profound, laborious, and expensive researches into the figure of the earth and the comparative length of the pendulum vibrating seconds in various latitudes from the equator to the pole....

Connected with the establishment of an university, or separate from it, might be undertaken the erection of an astronomical observatory, with provision for the support of an astronomer, to be in constant attendance of observation upon the phenomena of the heavens, and for the periodical publication of his observations. It is with no feeling of pride as an American that the remark may be made that on the comparatively small territorial surface of Europe there are existing upward of 130 of these light-houses of the skies, while throughout the whole American hemisphere there is not one. If we reflect a moment upon the discoveries which in the last four centuries have been made in the physical constitution of the universe by the means of these buildings and of observers stationed in them, shall we doubt of their usefulness to every nation? And while scarcely a year passes over our heads without bringing some new astronomical discovery to light, which we must fain receive at second hand from Europe, are we not cutting ourselves off from the means of returning light for light while we have neither observatory nor observer upon our half of the globe and the earth revolves in perpetual darkness to our unsearching eyes?

Transcriber’s Notes

--Retained publication information from the printed edition: this eBook is public-domain in the country of publication.

--Silently corrected a few palpable typos, leaving period spellings unchanged.

--In the text versions only, text in italics is delimited by _underscores_.

--Added subheadings in the text to match entries in the Table of Contents.

--Added captions to illustrations based on the attributions in front matter.