March 6, 1820: The Missouri Compromise is ratified.

The issue of slavery was, in the early years of the United States, treated cautiously, handled warily, and often tip-toed around altogether. In the Constitution, slaves were only vaguely referred to - as “such Persons” and  ”other Persons”. Article one, section nine of the U.S. Constitution provided the earliest year Congress would be able to abolish the slave trade (1808) but was mum on the subject of slaves already living in the country and the countless thousands who would be born into bondage in the future. Therefore, responsibility for dealing with the future of slavery and the debate between slaveowners and northerners over the westward spread of slavery was shifted to the federal government, which fumbled with the subject as well for decades until its resolution by the Thirteenth Amendment. 

The acquisition of the Louisiana Territory in 1803 exacerbated the conflict. When Missouri requested admission to the Union as a slave state in 1819, the government was faced with an important decision regarding sectional balance, settled finally by the Missouri Compromise; this solution temporarily quieted debate until its terms were violated by the provisions of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, but until then, it remained an inviolable and almost sacred resolution. The Missouri Compromise prohibited slavery in the Louisiana Territory north of the 36° 30´ latitude line except for Missouri, which was admitted as a slave state. At the same time, the state of Maine was also created and admitted to the Union, thereby maintaining a balance between slave and free states. In 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act opened the territories of Kansas and Nebraska to popular sovereignty, through which residents rather than the federal government could decide the future of slavery in their respective territories despite the fact that the Missouri Compromise had closed Kansas to slavery. 

In 1857, the Taney Court ruled (on same day as the ratification of the 1820 Compromise) in Dred Scott v. Sandford  African-Americans were not permitted to sue in federal court, and also that the Missouri Compromise had never been constitutional in the first place, because slaves, like farm animals, were “property” that the federal government could not take away under the Fifth Amendment.

  1. ofsoutherngraceandcharm reblogged this from unhistorical
  2. americahistory reblogged this from unhistorical
  3. happyfluffer3 reblogged this from unhistorical
  4. angeladwomoh722 reblogged this from unhistorical and added:
    politics
  5. unclesamgotanamechange reblogged this from unhistorical
  6. ladykrampus reblogged this from unhistorical
  7. byhapnstance reblogged this from unhistorical
  8. xaenne reblogged this from unhistorical
  9. shelbes reblogged this from unhistorical
  10. myparchedmemory reblogged this from unhistorical
  11. artificialgun reblogged this from unhistorical
  12. marchennoire reblogged this from unhistorical
  13. factsare-stubborn-things reblogged this from unhistorical
  14. ihadtogoonxanaxforitlydia reblogged this from kmamaaa
  15. hilaryrodhamclinton reblogged this from unhistorical
  16. thereareliterallydozensofus reblogged this from captainchekov
  17. christhimselfwouldcringe reblogged this from captainchekov
  18. tea-and-mango-juice reblogged this from unhistorical
  19. captainchekov reblogged this from unhistorical
  20. iheartsynchro reblogged this from unhistorical
  21. hey-lady-wanderlust reblogged this from cacafueg0
  22. sportychicworld reblogged this from unhistorical
  23. lynorran reblogged this from unhistorical
  24. sixlittleindians reblogged this from unhistorical
  25. il45steward reblogged this from unhistorical
  26. rollercolster reblogged this from unhistorical
  27. infinitypeach reblogged this from marthajefferson
  28. tothesticking-place reblogged this from unhistorical