Missouri Compromise

The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism
by Edward E. Baptist
Published 24 Oct 2016

She was attempting to impose a constitution that universalized slavery on her own household.45 During March 1853, in Congress, Senator Atchison called the Missouri Compromise and the Northwest Ordinance the two greatest “errors committed in the political history of this country.” Together these outlawed slavery on three sides of his home state and made the Scotts’ freedom suit possible. It was radical enough to call 1819’s compromise an error, for the Missouri Compromise was the central congressional bargain between North and South in the history of slavery. But by the end of the year, Atchison and his congressional allies perceived that they could use Douglas’s desire to build a railroad as the fulcrum on which to bend a lever that would overturn the Missouri Compromise.

…

In his inaugural address, Buchanan announced that there was no need for Americans to feel agitated about Kansas, or about whether it had been just for Congress to revoke the Missouri Compromise. For soon the Supreme Court would settle all key questions about slavery and expansion. Two days later, Taney’s Court issued a decision. Six of the nine justices agreed that the Scotts had no standing to sue for their freedom. Taney himself delivered an opinion that laid out the case against the Scotts’ freedom in its most extreme form, including a claim that the Court’s majority agreed with him that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. While Justice Peter Daniel (a Virginian) restated the “common-property” doctrine to explain why Congress could not exclude slavery from territories, Taney’s argument was a sophisticated and lengthy rendering of Calhounian substantive due process.

…

While some southerners might complain that a wall of Spanish territory to the west of Louisiana now blocked further expansion, the compromise dealmaker, Clay, thought he could add Spanish Texas to the Adams-Onis Treaty—which already ensured that enslavers would get Florida. He wasn’t able to do so, but southern leaders like President James Monroe still believed that Texas would inevitably fall to the United States. And many, both North and South, now thought that the Missouri Compromise—as it came to be known—had established a precedent of dividing the West between free and slave territory. They would come to refer to the Compromise as a “sacred compact.”26 The Missouri controversy caused many southern enslavers to become overly sensitive to future criticism; northern opposition to the expansion of slavery, however, dissipated when the crisis was over.

On Grand Strategy
by John Lewis Gaddis
Published 3 Apr 2018

Given capabilities at the time, certainly—but not in the light of the aspirations Hamilton had invoked in The Federalist: to deploy “the natural strength and resources of the country” in the “common interest” of baffling “all the combinations of European jealousy to restrain our growth”—in short, “to become the arbiter of Europe in America.”82 There could be no such interest, however, had Madison not shown, in The Federalist, how first to restrain American jealousies. That was the purpose of the uneasy Missouri Compromise of 1820, which equally apportioned new territories as future free or slave states. Adams went along, convinced that the Constitution’s “bargain between freedom and slavery” was “morally and politically vicious, . . . inconsistent with the principles upon which alone our Revolution can be justified”—but also knowing that the bargain was keeping the Union from civil war.

…

Perhaps he was behind the times: the near future of American politics lay with Jacksonian devolution, not Hamiltonian consolidation. Perhaps he was ahead of his times: a more distant future would resurrect federalism to win a civil war. Probably he saw that slavery would start it and hoped to postpone, with distractions, the evil day: knowing the fragility of the Missouri Compromise, Adams like most of his contemporaries hardly dared speak slavery’s name.9 Whatever the explanation, he left office in 1829 much as Napoleon had left Russia in 1812: exhausted, bereft of allies, chased out by his own miscalculations. But Adams regrouped in a way that wouldn’t have occurred to Napoleon: he demoted himself.

…

He did, though, deploy Jefferson,33 a slave owner, Declaration drafter, and founder of Douglas’s Democratic Party, who’d also written the Ordinance of 1787 prohibiting slavery in the territories that became Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin: why now lift such restrictions in Kansas-Nebraska? Nor did asking this question make Lincoln an abolitionist: that claim was “very silly.” Stand with anybody that stands RIGHT . . . and PART with him when he goes wrong. Stand WITH the abolitionist in restoring the Missouri Compromise; and stand AGAINST him when he attempts to repeal the fugitive slave law. . . . What of that? You are still right. . . . In both cases you oppose the dangerous extremes. The point was to deny slavery moral neutrality, to return it to the legality reluctantly granted it by the Founders, and thereby—like them—to preserve the Union.

First Friends: The Powerful, Unsung (And Unelected) People Who Shaped Our Presidents
by Gary Ginsberg
Published 14 Sep 2021

In 1854, he lent his support to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the handiwork of Democratic senator Stephen Douglas from Illinois. The controversial legislation reopened the issue of slavery that had seemingly been settled with the Compromise of 1850, and it effectively nullified the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which prohibited slavery north of latitude 36°30’. Pierce applied the coup de grace by adding language to the act that expressly declared the Missouri Compromise “inoperative and void.” Instead, the act endorsed the notion of popular sovereignty, allowing those in the Kansas and Nebraska territories to decide for themselves whether to permit slavery within their borders.

…

But in the comforts of Jefferson’s home, sipping on French brandy after the main meal, Madison and Hamilton finally reached an agreement that had eluded the legislature for months. The South would support the federal assumption of states’ debts in exchange for the relocation of the capital from New York City to the banks of the Potomac River, right outside Virginia. In the words of historian Joseph Ellis, this Dinner Table Bargain should “rank alongside the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 as one of the landmark accommodations in American politics.” Months of backroom maneuvering had yielded no progress; it was only after Jefferson’s dinner that the deadlocked legislature finally passed the Residence and Funding Acts. The first great political crisis of the nascent republic had been averted, a deadlock many statesmen had feared would destroy the country.

…

Though they did not formally endorse anti-slavery, northern Whigs hewed closer to abolitionism than did Jacksonian Democrats. Lincoln envisioned himself as following in the footsteps of influential Kentucky statesman and Whig leader Henry Clay, who had played a pivotal role in passing the Missouri Compromise of 1820. That legislation had averted the sectional crisis by barring slavery north of the 36°30’ parallel except for Missouri. Echoing Clay, Lincoln in the late 1830s began endorsing a middle-of-the-road, “free soil” stance on slavery: He did not support outright abolition but he did oppose extending slavery westward.

The Sirens' Call: How Attention Became the World's Most Endangered Resource
by Chris Hayes
Published 28 Jan 2025

There are many topics—like the particulars of how the electric grid works and how it must be updated for an era of zero carbon energy, or how, according to one renowned philosopher, secular people should think about the meaning of life if there’s no heaven to aspire to—that have made for fantastic podcast episodes and would fall utterly flat as seven-minute prime-time cable news segments. When we celebrate the Lincoln-Douglas debates, what we are celebrating is that the two men are in the weeds the entire time. They are moving back and forth effortlessly between abstract principles (human equality) and specific legislative issues (the Missouri Compromise). They are responding to each other’s points, no matter how minute or specific. Compare that to what would happen to the very same debate, with the very same speakers, in the confines of a modern TV format: “Senator Douglas, you have ninety seconds to explain popular sovereignty.” “Congressman Lincoln, we’ll give you thirty seconds to respond to Mr.

…

There was a confluence of factors: the fundamental inherent tension in the nation’s founding between its airy vision of self-determination and its horrific multigenerational tyranny over millions of human souls in an institution as ghastly as any ever built on earth. There was the forcing mechanism of westward expansion that required a set of affirmative choices about the expansion of slavery, no longer allowing politicians to simply view the matter as a settled equilibrium. Then there were the attempts at striking compromises over this question: the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which only served to exacerbate the contradictions and tensions. Fundamentally, of course, no compromise could ever have papered over the world-historic human crime that was slavery. But the evil of chattel slavery on the American continents was nothing new.

…

Douglas’s position during the debates on the question of slavery was that the Compromise of 1850 and Dred Scott were both the law of the land and, well, like it or not, you just had to live in the real world where these were established truths. Lincoln’s point, however, was that laws like the Missouri Compromise were the product of public opinion and that prominent politicians like Stephen Douglas had a role in shaping that public opinion. It simply wouldn’t do to say, this is the way things are and there’s nothing we can do to change it; politicians had both the opportunity and the duty to use their communications with the public to move public opinion in the direction they thought best for the union.

The Man Who Saved the Union: Ulysses Grant in War and Peace
by H. W. Brands
Published 1 Oct 2012

Douglas hoped to apply the same principle to Kansas and Nebraska, the territories just west of the Missouri River. The problem was that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 promised that these territories would be free. The opponents of slavery insisted that the promise be kept, but the advocates threatened to veto the organizing of Kansas and Nebraska unless slaveholders were allowed to settle there with their slaves. David Atchison of Missouri, the leader of the proslavery forces on the Kansas issue, vowed to see the region “sink in hell” before he’d vote to ban slavery there. Douglas understood that tampering with the Missouri Compromise was asking for trouble. “It will raise a hell of a storm,” he predicted.

…

Most Southerners supported Douglas, but not all. Sam Houston of Texas, who had learned devotion to the Union at the knee of Andrew Jackson, judged that Douglas had fashioned a formula for secession and civil war. “I adjure you to regard the contract once made to harmonize and preserve this Union,” Houston pleaded. “Maintain the Missouri Compromise! Stir not up agitation! Give us peace!” The opponents of slavery screamed betrayal. A group calling itself the Independent Democrats castigated the Kansas-Nebraska bill as “a gross violation of a sacred pledge” and “a criminal betrayal of precious rights.” William Fessenden of Maine called the Douglas measure “a terrible outrage.”

…

Lincoln stood in front of this platform on the floor and made his speech.” The leading figure in Illinois politics was Stephen Douglas, the law’s author; Lincoln, who hoped to rekindle a political career that had stagnated after he left Congress, challenged Douglas by attacking the Kansas-Nebraska Act. “He began by telling how in the minds of the people the Missouri Compromise was held as something sacred, more particularly by the citizens of Illinois, as the bill had been introduced in the Senate by a senator from Illinois, Jesse B. Thomas. He spoke of the aggressiveness of the slave-holding party, their eagerness to acquire more slave territory; alluded to several arguments Douglas had made in his speeches in favor of the Kansas-Nebraska bill and replied to them.”

Americana: A 400-Year History of American Capitalism
by Bhu Srinivasan
Published 25 Sep 2017

They organized themselves quickly, with unelected but prominent delegates from various areas of California, and prepared a state constitution. In late 1849 these Californians presented themselves for statehood in the Union. To make California a state would require an act of Congress. And Congress was divided. Ever since the Missouri Compromise, the proportion of slave states to free states had been carefully calibrated. The count now stood exactly at fifteen free states to fifteen slave states. For the South, this balance was vital. The populations of the Northeast and the South were more or less equivalent in 1800—but in the five subsequent decades, the burgeoning Northwest and the Northeast had combined to nearly double the population of the South.

…

The math was simple: Famine in Ireland and political turmoil in Europe meant more people. More people simply meant more power. And the cotton economy being entirely dependent on slave labor, the South was not as inviting to new immigrants as the economically diverse North. Since 1820 the Missouri Compromise had set the terms of slavery in the territories that composed the Louisiana Purchase. But as the United States had expanded farther west, each new state had set off a battle of political will. Texas entered as a slave state in 1845. Iowa and Wisconsin were added as free states in 1846 and 1848.

…

Taney argued that the founders did not intend this, and declared that even free blacks—in the North or South—could not ever be considered citizens of the United States, therefore denying Dred Scott the standing to pursue legal recourse in federal court. In addition, the decision enabled a new interpretation that a slave could be moved to any state in the Union, kept permanently there by his owner, and recognized forever as property. In a further blow, the decision held the Missouri Compromise, with its federal limits on the expansion of slavery, to be unconstitutional. At this late hour, from the abolitionists’ perspective, the rights of slave owners were expanding. In Illinois the entire 1858 Senate race between former congressman Abraham Lincoln and Senator Stephen Douglas centered on slavery.

Americana
by Bhu Srinivasan

They organized themselves quickly, with unelected but prominent delegates from various areas of California, and prepared a state constitution. In late 1849 these Californians presented themselves for statehood in the Union. To make California a state would require an act of Congress. And Congress was divided. Ever since the Missouri Compromise, the proportion of slave states to free states had been carefully calibrated. The count now stood exactly at fifteen free states to fifteen slave states. For the South, this balance was vital. The populations of the Northeast and the South were more or less equivalent in 1800—but in the five subsequent decades, the burgeoning Northwest and the Northeast had combined to nearly double the population of the South.

…

The math was simple: Famine in Ireland and political turmoil in Europe meant more people. More people simply meant more power. And the cotton economy being entirely dependent on slave labor, the South was not as inviting to new immigrants as the economically diverse North. Since 1820 the Missouri Compromise had set the terms of slavery in the territories that composed the Louisiana Purchase. But as the United States had expanded farther west, each new state had set off a battle of political will. Texas entered as a slave state in 1845. Iowa and Wisconsin were added as free states in 1846 and 1848.

…

Taney argued that the founders did not intend this, and declared that even free blacks—in the North or South—could not ever be considered citizens of the United States, therefore denying Dred Scott the standing to pursue legal recourse in federal court. In addition, the decision enabled a new interpretation that a slave could be moved to any state in the Union, kept permanently there by his owner, and recognized forever as property. In a further blow, the decision held the Missouri Compromise, with its federal limits on the expansion of slavery, to be unconstitutional. At this late hour, from the abolitionists’ perspective, the rights of slave owners were expanding. In Illinois the entire 1858 Senate race between former congressman Abraham Lincoln and Senator Stephen Douglas centered on slavery.

A Clearing in the Distance: Frederick Law Olmsted and America in the 19th Century
by Witold Rybczynski
Published 1 Jan 1999

The population of the North was also growing, and political power in Congress shifted from rough parity between North and South to 2:1 in favor of the free Northern states. (Slaves could not vote, of course.) New free states in the North entered the Union. The South saw the expansion of slavery into new states as the only solution to redress what it perceived as a political imbalance. A series of Northern concessions resulted. In 1820, the Missouri Compromise prohibited slavery north of the 36°30' line, but admitted Missouri (which was north of the line) to the Union as a slave state. Arkansas entered as a slave state in 1836, Texas in 1845. The latter event led to war with Mexico, the outcome of which added more than a million square miles of new territory—almost half of which lay below the 1820 line—to the United States.

…

Their moving power and the only motives which they can comprehend are materialistic.” Allison’s hope that slavery would spread was not idle speculation. On January 23, 1854, Stephen A. Douglas would introduce the Kansas-Nebraska Act to the Senate. This legislation was enacted by Congress two months later, overturning the long-standing Missouri Compromise. Henceforth, the new territories of Kansas and Nebraska would be free to decide whether to outlaw slavery. This enraged abolitionists and raised the hopes of the pro-slavery factions. • • • • By the time that Douglas proposed his bill, Frederick and John were in Texas. They made their way through the eastern part of the state (“an unpleasant country and a wretched people,” wrote Olmsted).

…

Olmsted contributed a tough-minded introduction to the book, as well as a supplement that brought the reader up-to-date with recent events. He wrote with a sense of urgency. A pro-slavery legislature had been installed in “Bleeding Kansas,” where hundreds were being killed in the fighting. The Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision had effectively annulled the Missouri Compromise. Chief Justice Roger Taney himself had declared that blacks—free or enslaved—were not American citizens. The doors to compromise were rapidly closing. “It is the crime of a coward and not the wisdom of a good citizen to shut his eyes to the fact, that this Union is bound straight to disastrous shipwreck,” Olmsted warned in the introduction, “if the man at the helm maintains his present course.”

Alistair Cooke's America
by Alistair Cooke
Published 1 Oct 2008

In the event, the Congress bowed to Missouri but to maintain its custom of balancing one free state and one slave, it also admitted Maine as a free state. In the same act, it prohibited, from then on, all slavery north of the line of latitude 36° 30’. It is known as the Missouri Compromise line. It was destined to be also a battle line. This geographical balance lasted, precariously, for about thirty years. But it was thunderingly upset by the United States’ war with Mexico, in 1848, out of which the Union acquired vast new lands, most of them south of the Missouri Compromise line: Texas, Territory of New Mexico, California, and Utah well to the north. They had their own strong traditions. Texas had slavery, California had not, and the two territories would test the power to legislate either system.

…

George Brinton 160 McCormick, Cyrus 189 McCoy, Joseph 175–6 McKim, Charles Follen 222 McKinley, William 224 Megarini, Fr. 35 Mencken, H. L. 112, 245 Mendoza, Don Antonio de 29, 30 Mercator, Gerhardus 13 Mexican War 137, 155, 162, 254 Mexico Territory 135–7. see also New Spain Middle Colonies 69–70, 87 militias 253 mining towns 176, 177 Mississippi River 7, 42, 42–3, 127–8, 151–2, 157 Missouri Compromise 154–6 Mitchell, S. Weir 160 monopolies 223, 224–5 Monroe, James 129, 289–90 Monticello, Va. 118, 120, 146 Morgan, John Pierpont 196, 221–4, 238 Morison, Samuel Eliot 66, 127 Mormons 17, 168–71 Morse, Samuel 190 motion picture industry 240 Mount Vernon, Va. 88 Muggeridge, Malcolm 3 Myrdal, Gunnar 297 Nader, Ralph 285 Napoleon Bonaparte 90, 128, 129 National Recovery Administration (NRA) 249–50 National War Command 272, 274 navy 253–4, 255 Negroes 56–7, 88, 93, 105, 146–9, 154–8, 161, 165–7, 226, 234, 277, 289–92, 296. see also slaves Nelson, Thomas 94 Neutrality Act 256 New England Company 64 New France 38–46 New Spain 27–34, 77 Nobs of San Francisco 143, 145 North, Lord Frederick 79, 81 nuclear weapons 270–76 Oakley, Annie 86 O’Banion, Dion 245 Ogden, William 186–7, 188–9 Ohio Company 109 oil discoveries 193–5 Old South Meeting House (Boston) 80 Oñate, Don Juan de 32–3 Oppenheimer, Dr Robert 264, 265, 295 Oregon Trail 134 Orlando, Vittorio E. 231 Otis, James 80–81, 84 Owen, Robert 287–8 Paine, Thomas 46, 104 Palmer, A.

Democracy Incorporated
by Sheldon S. Wolin
Published 7 Apr 2008

It was assumed that the admission of new states to the Union could be orderly and need not disturb issues that the Constitution had either suppressed or postponed, such as slavery, women’s suffrage, and the status of native Americans. The assumption that politics could comfortably accommodate an expanded scale was first put in doubt in the decades preceding the Civil War. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was an attempt to settle the crucial issue of whether new states entering the Union would be free or slave. It admitted Missouri into the Union as a slave state but prohibited slavery in the rest of the territory acquired under the Louisiana Purchase north of the 36-30 latitudinal line.25 The Compromise of 1850 allowed inhabitants of the New Mexico and Utah territories, acquired by the Mexican War, to decide the question of whether they wished to enter the Union with or without slavery.

…

Amidst the increasingly polarized politics of the 1920s and early 1930s, the party could not make up its mind whether to support the Right (Nazis and extreme conservatives) or the Left (Social Democrats and Communists). It ended up supporting the Right and was abolished soon after the Nazis took power. 25. The Missouri Compromise also stipulated that Kansas and Nebraska would be organized as free territories. CHAPTER ELEVEN INVERTED TOTALITARIANISM: ANTECEDENTS AND PRECEDENTS 1. In March 2006, in response to a lawsuit, New York city police commanders made public reports on their arrest tactics during political demonstrations of 2002.

…

Bush’s signing statements, 236 and government, 199 and inequality, 147 and inverted totalitarianism, 45, 47, 61 and Iraq War, 93 and McCarthy, 37 and The National Security Strategy of the United States, 83, 88 privatization of, 213, 284 and Reagan, 272 and religion, 116 and Republican Party, 199, 200 and science, 125 and September 11, 2001, attacks, 5 and Superpower, 60, 62, 132, 147 support for, 112, 198–200 and terrorism, 73 universal training for, 34–35, 39 and World War II, 106 Mill, John Stuart, 219 Miller, Zell, 199 Missouri Compromise of 1820, 208 Mommsen, Hans, 41 monarchy, xxi, 53, 96, 171, 234, 248, 253. See also sovereign Mubarak, Hosni, 47 Musharraf, Pervez, 175 Muslims, 124, 181, 199 Mussolini, Benito, xvii, 21, 22, 44, 51, 53, 84–85, 112, 169 Mutual Assured Destruction, 33 myth: and Cold War, 223 cosmic, 10–11 definition of, 10 democratic, 52 and elections, 148 and George W.

The State and the Stork: The Population Debate and Policy Making in US History
by Derek S. Hoff
Published 30 May 2012

But after the 1810 and 1820 censuses diminished southern power in Congress, many Southerners realized that their region was not the demographic juggernaut imagined in Philadelphia.123 A sense of impending demographic decline was already present during the congressional debates in 1820 about whether to foundations 35 admit Missouri as a slave state. (The Missouri Compromise banned slavery north of 36° 30⬘, except in the territory that became Missouri.) Thereafter, demographic projections became even more politically charged as sectional relations deteriorated and the South’s share of the national population decreased steadily.124 Proslavery Southerners such as well-known propagandist George Fitzhugh turned to Malthus to condemn northern “free labor” society.125 Emerging in the 1830s, free labor discourse updated republican emphasis on the land-owning farmer by lionizing all independent entrepreneurs, including shopkeepers and even small factory owners.126 Its emphasis on the necessity of owning the fruits of one’s own labor also explicitly critiqued the un-free labor of slavery.

…

McCoy, “James Madison and Visions of American Nationality in the Confederation Period: A Regional Perspective,” in Beyond Confederation, ed. Beeman, Botein, and Carter, 230–33. 121. Ibid., 238 and 233. 122. Quoted in ibid., 228. 258 notes to chapter one 123. See, for example, Robert Pierce Forbes, The Missouri Compromise and Its Aftermath (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2007), 45. 124. Anderson, American Census, chap. 2. 125. Spengler, “Population Theory in the Ante-bellum South,” 385–86. 126. The classic study is Eric Foner, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970). 127.

…

L., 67 mercantilism, 18, 26, 29 Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 64; Welfare Division, 63 Mexican-American War, 38, 42 Migration and Economic Opportunity, 102–3 Milazzo, Paul, 168 Milbank, Albert, 64 369 Milbank Memorial Fund (MMF), Division of Research, 64–65, 66 Military Order of the World Wars, 161 Mill, John Stuart: aesthetic critique of population growth, 93, 129, 229; affinities with Malthusianism, 57; Principles of Political Economy, 3, 27, 51, 93, 129; theory of stationary state, 51, 175, 282n107 Mincer, Jacob, 208–9 Mises, Ludwig von, 207 Mishan, Ezra, 223, 233 Missouri Compromise, 35 modernization theory, 108 Modigliani, Franco, life-cycle analysis, 355n124 monetarist school, 230–31 monetary policy, 92, 136, 142, 231 monopolies, 92 Montesquieu, 22–23 Moore, Hugh, 116, 146, 187; and Population Crisis Committee, 179, 188 Morgan, Edmund, 19, 20 Morgan, Judith, 193 Morse, Chandler, 227 Morse, Jedidiah, 31 Moses, Robert, 211–12 Moulton, Harold, 94–95, 95 Moynihan, Daniel Patrick, 1, 196, 200, 201, 203, 204, 212, 239, 333n34, 336n54; Moynihan Report (The Negro Family), 156, 200; “Toward a National Urban Policy,” 203 Muir, John, 167 Mullan, Phil, 240 Mumford, Lewis, 130 Muskie, Edmund, 183, 191, 323n119 Myers, Robert, 237 Myrdal, Alva, 81; Nation and Family, 81–82 Myrdal, Gunnar, 5, 81, 84, 140; An American Dilemma, 81; Population: A Problem for Democracy, 81 National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL), 181 National Bureau of Economic Research, 143, 217 National Catholic Welfare Conference, 215 National Commission on Social Security Reform (Greenspan Commission), 239 National Conference of Social Work, 57 370 National Economic Council, 164 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 185, 186, 325n140 National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933, 100 National Institutes of Health, 147 National Research Council, 64, 65 National Resources Planning Board, 84, 97– 98; Committee on Population Problems, 98; The Problems of a Changing Population, 74, 98–99 National Review, “The Population Explosion,” 210–11 Native Americans, 15, 18, 20, 40, 259n150 Nature Conservancy, 179 Nazi Germany: pronatalist campaign, 82; racial ideologies, 8 Neal, Larry, 231 Nelson, Gaylord: America’s Last Chance, 183; and Environmental Education Act, 186 neoclassical economic theory: postwar neoclassical synthesis, 120, 124, 175; turnof-the-century, 46, 47, 48.

Hiding in Plain Sight: The Invention of Donald Trump and the Erosion of America
by Sarah Kendzior
Published 6 Apr 2020

I like that their twisted beauty exists in the dark, indifferent to whether it is appreciated. I like that their depth blocks out the internet along with the sun. I like that Missouri has the home-court advantage in knockout fallout shelters. * * * Missouri was born in sin, the centerpiece of America’s bad bargain with itself. Its entry into statehood in 1821—the notorious “Missouri Compromise”—was predicated on a national agreement to keep black Missourians enslaved so that Maine could call itself free. At the time, black Americans in slaveholding states were labeled three-fifths of a person. The chroniclers of this time unironically referred to it as “the Era of Good Feelings.” Six years after Missouri became a state, a journalist named Elijah Lovejoy moved from Maine to St.

…

See Italian mafia; organized crime; Russian mafia “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) Manafort, Paul access to classified intelligence announcement of cooperation with special counsel bail deal on battleground states Chalupas’ suspicions of and Cohn, Roy and Deripaska, Oleg first meeting with Trump hired by Trump and June 2016 Trump Tower meeting media inattention and denial Mueller’s indictment of and Party of Regions (Ukraine) as political operative and RNC platform 666 Fifth Avenue polling data meeting with Gates and Kilimnik and Stone, Roger “torturers’ lobby” run with Stone trial and conviction of Trump Tower residence of Maples, Marla Marcos family (Philippines) Marcus, David Martin, Trayvon Masri, Bassem Maxwell, Ghislaine Maxwell, Robert Mayer, Jane McCabe, Andrew McCarthy, Joseph McCaskill, Claire McConnell, Mitch McCulloch, Bob McGaughey, Tyler memory under authoritarianism of Ferguson uprising and inoculation against authoritarianism national memory of 9/11 Orwell, George, on Merkel, Angela #MeToo movement Midwest distance in as home of “real Americans” media coverage of narrative hijacking of and popular culture “Rust Belt” military-industrial complex Milosevic, Slobodan misogyny Missouri abortion law “Cave State” and Citizens United v. FEC Clean Missouri initiative and corruption and dark money divisions within and economic crash of 2008 Greitens, Eric (former governor) gun issues and laws history of voting for presidential winners influence of GOP donors Kansas City Lovejoy, Elijah, murder of Missouri Compromise New Madrid earthquake of 1811 A New Missouri “Show Me State” “stand your ground” gun law state park system and Tea Party movement as “the bellwether state” 2008 presidential election 2012 presidential election 2018 midterm elections See also Ferguson uprising; St. Louis, Missouri Mnuchin, Steve Mobutu Sese Seko Mogilevich, Semion and al-Qaeda and Cohen, Michael and Maxwell, Robert Mueller, Robert, on and Putin, Vladimir removed from Ten Most Wanted List and Sessions, Jeff money-laundering and adult children of authoritarian leaders and campaign contributions Clinton, Bill, 1995 speech to UN on and Deutsche Bank and Ivankov, Vyacheslav and Maxwell-Mogilevich partnership and Prevezon (Russian real estate firm) and Trump properties Moore, Roy Morozov, Evgeny Mubarak, Hosni Mueller, Robert career of “The Evolving Organized Crime Threat” (“Iron Triangles” speech) as FBI director and Manafort plea deal Special Counsel investigation Mueller Report Muhammad bin Salman (MBS) Murdoch, Rupert Myers, VonDerrit Nader, George Nance, Malcolm National Enquirer national parks and monuments National Rifle Association (NRA) and foreign money and Hawley, Josh and Loesch, Dana and Russian oligarchs and transnational criminal network Nazism Arendt, Hannah, on “Big Lie” (Third Reich technique) neo-Nazism nepotism and American exceptionalism and autocracy and journalism and national security and power and Trump administration Netanyahu, Benjamin Netherlands New York Daily News Newbold, Tricia 9/11.

Flight of the WASP
by Michael Gross

For the next three years, his behavior would swerve erratically from normal to threatening, even as he rejoined Congress in 1819 and returned to battle in 1820, fighting a proposal prohibiting slavery in the Missouri territory.108 “The Yankees have almost reconciled me to negro slavery,” he wrote in a letter that February.109 He opposed Henry Clay’s Missouri Compromise, too, which proposed to admit Missouri to the Union as a slave state, balanced by a new free state in Maine. Randolph argued that the deal gave the central government an unacceptable power to impose conditions on the South. In the heated debates that followed, Clay worried that Randolph and the other southerners in opposition were “shaking the Union.”110 Only when he decoupled his proposals, separating the compromise into three bills, was Clay able to move it through the House.

…

See also specific persons Marsh, Othneil Charles, 296–300 Marshall, John, 108, 109, 123 Martin, Frederick Townsend, 257, 260–261 Marx, Harpo, 377 Maryland, 35, 36, 232 Mason-Dixon line, 141 Massachusetts, 34, 35, 241 Massachusetts Bay Colony, 33–34, 35, 36, 38, 39 Massasoit, 28–29, 31 Mayflower, 17, 18, 26, 29 Mayflower Compact, 17–18, 27 McAllister, Ward, 252–255, 257, 258–261, 277 McClellan, George, 19, 293 McKinley, William, 261, 262 Meadowbrook Polo Club, 340 Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (Madison), 149 Men of the Old Stone Age (Osborn), 308 Mercer, Lucy, 272–275 Methodists, 4–5, 149, 249 Mexico, 193–194 Michigan, 158–159, 162, 195–196, 197 Milbank, Thomas, 355 Milton Academy, 241 Minuit, Peter, 32, 58 Mississippi, 161–162 Missouri Compromise, 133 Mohican tribe, 38 Monkey Trial, 320–321 Monroe, James, 93, 119, 134, 154, 165, 168–169 Monroe Doctrine, 208 Montagu, Ashley, 312 Morgan, Jack, 235 Morgan, John Taylor, 224 Morgan, Joseph, 244 Morgan, J. Pierpont, 3, 12, 198, 244–246, 247–248, 250–251, 278, 305 Morgan, Juliet Pierpont, 244 Morgan, Junius Spencer, 233–234, 235, 244, 250 Morgan, Miles, 244 Morison, Samuel Eliot, 19 Morris, Euphemia, 128, 129 Morris, Gouverneur activism of, 69, 70 affairs of, 84, 85, 86, 95 Alexander Hamilton and, 122 as American minister to France, 89–93 in Austria, 94–95 background of, 50–51 birth of, 66 characteristics of, 68 on congressional committee, 73 Constitution contribution of, 50, 81–82, 167 criticism of, 75 economic viewpoint of, 167 education of, 66 election of, 69 Erie Canal and, 124 escape of, 71–72 family of, 66, 125 financial challenges of, 86 financial role of, 77 as Founding Father, 50 in France, 83–93, 96–98 George Washington and, 73, 87–88 in Germany, 94, 95 illness of, 127–128 impeachment viewpoint of, 80–81 injuries of, 66–67, 75–76 as lawyer, 67 in London, 94 Louisiana Purchase viewpoint of, 122 Manhattan street-grid plan and, 266 marriage of, 123–124, 126–127 at Philadelphia Convention, 79–80 possessions of, 93 property of, 51, 96, 97, 122–123, 128 as public speaker, 71 quote of, 65, 67, 70, 73–74, 75, 82, 88–89, 90, 91, 93, 95, 98, 122, 123 as Senator, 121 slavery viewpoint of, 72, 124–125 slaves of, 66 in Switzerland, 94 Thomas Jefferson and, 84–85 travels of, 82–83, 94 voting viewpoint of, 72, 80, 81 work ethic of, 73 writings of, 73–74 Morris, Gouverneur, II, 125, 128 Morris, Lewis, 50, 51, 52–58, 61–63, 265 Morris, Lewis, II, 62–66 Morris, Lewis, II (descendant of Richard Morris), 65–66 Morris, Lewis, III, 65, 66, 69, 71, 79 Morris, Lewis Richard, 121–122 Morris, Mary, 62–63 Morris, Richard, 51, 52, 57, 61, 79 Morris, Robert, 76–78, 82–83, 96, 97–98 Morris, Sabina, 266 Morris, Sarah, 79 Morris, Staats, 69, 71, 78–79 Morrisania, 51, 52, 63, 71, 78–79, 98–99, 123–124, 128–129 Morris’s Folly, 98 Morton, Levi, 272, 321 Murphy, Gerald, 376 Murphy, Sara, 376 Napoleonic Wars, 164 Narragansett tribe, 29, 31, 38, 43 national bank, 130, 167, 183.

Among Schoolchildren
by Tracy Kidder
Published 14 Jun 1989

The next day Chris elaborated on how slavery hurts everyone, including auctioneers. Now in social studies, in Room 205, civil war loomed. On the bulletin board near the door, paper letters announced DARK CLOUDS OVER OUR NATION. Beneath the sign Chris had stapled paper clouds, which read: "John Brown," "Missouri Compromise," "States' Rights." Chris had offered rewards for children who wrote explanations to attach to those clouds. Every day after lunch Chris read to them from To Be a Slave, by Julius Lester. Chris sat on her spindly-legged front table, smoothed her skirt over her shins, and read aloud this line: " 'No other country destroyed African culture as thoroughly as slavery did here.' " The casements were opened wide.

Postcapitalism: A Guide to Our Future
by Paul Mason
Published 29 Jul 2015

Industrial capitalism has gone through four long cycles, leading to a fifth whose takeoff has stalled: 1790–1848: The first long cycle is discernible in the English, French and US data. The factory system, steam-powered machinery and canals are the basis of the new paradigm. The turning point is the depression of the late 1820s. The 1848–51 revolutionary crisis in Europe, mirrored by the Mexican War and Missouri compromise in the USA, forms a clear punctuation point. 1848–mid-1890s: The second long cycle is tangible across the developed world and, by the end of it, the global economy. Railways, the telegraph, ocean-going steamers, stable currencies and machine-produced machinery set the paradigm. The wave peaks in the mid-1870s, with financial crisis in the USA and Europe leading to the Long Depression (1873–96).

We Were Eight Years in Power: An American Tragedy
by Ta-Nehisi Coates
Published 2 Oct 2017

Burns also takes as his narrator Shelby Foote, who once called Lieutenant General Nathan Bedford Forrest, a slave-trader and Klansman, “one of the most attractive men who ever walked through the pages of history,” and who presents the Civil War as a kind of big, tragic misunderstanding. “It was because we failed to do the thing we really have a genius for, which is compromise,” said Foote, neglecting to mention the Missouri Compromise, the Fugitive Slave Act, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the fact that any further such compromise would have meant the continued enslavement of black people. For that particular community, for my community, the message has long been clear: The Civil War is a story for white people—acted out by white people, on white people’s terms—in which blacks feature strictly as stock characters and props.

1946: The Making of the Modern World
by Victor Sebestyen
Published 30 Sep 2014

The two met just twice in the eighty-two days between the inauguration and the President’s death, and in the last of those meetings – on the eve of his departure for the Yalta Conference – Roosevelt with his usual insouciance told his deputy ‘not to bother me unless it is extremely urgent.’ Many on the President’s staff mocked the new Vice-President, whom they labelled ‘The Second Missouri Compromise’.* Truman had never even set foot inside the ‘map room’ in the White House – the equivalent of today’s ‘situation room’ – where the President, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and their intelligence advisors met each afternoon to review the progress of the war. He had not been told about the development of the atomic bomb, nor any significant military secrets.

The First Tycoon
by T.J. Stiles
Published 14 Aug 2009

Stranger still were the identities of the friend who wrote this letter and the man who received it: John P. Hale, former senator from New Hampshire, and Charles Sumner, senator from Massachusetts, both leading opponents of slavery. At the moment, Hale and Sumner were embroiled in a struggle against the Kansas-Nebraska bill, which threatened to overturn the Missouri Compromise's ban on slavery in the lands north and west of Missouri. It was a titanic battle, yet Hale found time to intervene for the “son of the celebrated Mr. Vanderbilt.” He told Sumner, “If you can show him any attention, you will confer a favor on yours [truly].” Corneil, who once had limited himself to drawing drafts on his unsuspecting father or skipping out on his bill at the haberdashery, had discovered a new method of acquiring gambling money: he charmed and flattered powerful men, playing on his father's fame to elicit loans.

…

“He considers that the large sums now paid by the American and British governments for carrying the mail blights individual enterprise, and defies individual competition,” Scientific American reported.19 And so commenced the great congressional struggle over the Atlantic mail subsidy. It would be forgotten in later years, overshadowed by more ominous events. In 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act had passed, repealing the Missouri Compromise and throwing open the question of slavery to the settlers of those newly opened territories. An organized land rush was under way, as free-soil migrants from the North moved into Kansas, where they confronted heavily armed, pro-slavery “border ruffians” from neighboring Missouri. The collapse of the old sectional compromises undermined the Whig Party; out of its ashes were arising the nationalist, anti-immigrant Know-Nothings (formally the American Party) and the free-soil Republicans.

A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, Eighth Edition: Chicago Style for Students and Researchers
by Kate L. Turabian
Published 14 Apr 2007

If the items are phrases, capitalize them sentence style (see 22.3.1) and do not use terminal punctuation. If they are complete sentences, capitalize and punctuate them as you would any other sentence (see 6.2.1 for an example). I. Wars of the nineteenth century A. United States 1. Civil War, 1861–65 a) Cause (1) Slavery (a) Compromise i) Missouri Compromise ii) Compromise of 1850 . . . b) Result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. Wars of the twentieth century A. United States 1. First World War . . . 23.4.3 Paper Structure The structure of your paper itself requires the use of numbers in many contexts, including pagination and part and chapter titles.

Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty
by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson
Published 20 Mar 2012

The compromise was that in apportioning seats to the House of Representatives, a slave would count as three-fifths of a free person. The conflicts between the North and South of the United States were repressed during the constitutional process as the three-fifths rule and other compromises were worked out. New fixes were added over time—for example, the Missouri Compromise, an arrangement where one proslavery and one antislavery state were always added to the union together, to keep the balance in the Senate between those for and those against slavery. These fudges kept the political institutions of the United States working peacefully until the Civil War finally resolved the conflicts in favor of the North.

A Splendid Exchange: How Trade Shaped the World
by William J. Bernstein
Published 5 May 2009

On a single day in 1798, one observer counted no fewer than 117 vessels in Charleston harbor, either bearing goods from places like Liverpool, Glasgow, London, Bordeaux, Cadiz, Bremen, and Madeira, or outbound with cotton, tobacco, rice, and indigo, none of which needed even a whiff of tariff protection.8 Before 1820, the South had relatively little quarrel with the North; Dixie largely supported the American System. But that year the Missouri Compromise made the South aware of the ability of the growing Northem majority to restrict slavery. This in turn focused southerners' attention on other disagreements with the North, prime among which was the tariff issue. Both issues ended the "Era of Good Feelings." Southern exports of cotton, indigo, and rice continued to flourish, but as the new nation's North and West grew, European goods increasingly came to New York City.

White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America
by Nancy Isenberg
Published 20 Jun 2016

This was a report on a “very novel and whimsical trial [that] came on in our Circuit court on Thursday last, Nancy Swann a lady of color whose might powers of witchcraft have made de black niggers, and the poor white trash tremble”; see Bangor [ME] Register, August 1, 1822. In the earliest printed reference, the writer remarked that he had never heard “white trash” used in this way; see “From the Chronicle Anecdotes,” [Shawnee] Illinois Gazette, June 23, 1821. The argument that poor whites were more miserable than slaves emerged in debates over the Missouri Compromise; see “Slavery in the New States,” Hallowell [ME] Gazette, December 8, 1819. And for poor white laboring classes as “rude and uncultivated than slaves themselves,” also see “Maryland,” Niles Weekly Register, December 15, 1821. For a satirical piece in which a black man is horrified to hear that white trash are marrying into free black circles, see Baltimore Patriot and Mercantile Advertiser, April 12, 1831.

Moon Oregon Trail Road Trip: Historic Sites, Small Towns, and Scenic Landscapes Along the Legendary Westward Route
by Katrina Emery and Moon Travel Guides
Published 27 Jul 2020

European Americans Most settlers were European Americans from the Midwest or South. Many were farmers from the East who sold their farms to purchase supplies and move west. Some people migrated specifically to escape the volatile situation in the East, including the intense Bloody Kansas and Missouri Compromise confrontations leading up to the Civil War. Women and Children Women and children were a huge percentage of the traffic along the trail. The presence of families made the migration unique—previously those headed west had been fur trappers or missionaries, or on army expeditions. Women’s vital roles on the trail included cooking, cleaning, managing children, nursing the sick, and helping bury the dead.

Cuba: An American History
by Ada Ferrer
Published 6 Sep 2021

The leaked document starkly revealed that the US government would be willing to go to war to preserve slavery in Cuba.19 Jefferson’s empire for liberty, it seems, was really an empire for slavery. News of the Ostend Manifesto arrived in Washington at the same time as the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The act made the fate of slavery in the new American territories contingent on (white male) popular sovereignty and thus effectively revoked the Missouri Compromise, which for decades had limited the extension of slavery across the continent. Pierce and the Democrats had just expended all their political capital in support of expanding slavery in North America. Most northern congressmen were now immovable: they were not going to allow the president to take the country to war to acquire yet more territory for slavery.

America in the World: A History of U.S. Diplomacy and Foreign Policy
by Robert B. Zoellick
Published 3 Aug 2020

To place them in context, however, Monroe’s introductory and closing paragraphs are worth recalling. Monroe opened by stating, “There never was a period since the Establishment of our Revolution when… there was a greater necessity for patriotism and union.” The country had only recently crafted the “Missouri Compromise” of 1820, maintaining a balance between free and slave states as the nation expanded. Monroe was emphasizing that internal strife posed the greatest threat to national security. Monroe’s final paragraph celebrated the twin tenets—Union and expansion—of U.S. foreign policy in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries: In Monroe’s words, the “expansion of population and accession of new States to our Union” will “[augment] our resources and [add] to our strength and responsibility as a power.”

Andrew Carnegie
by David Nasaw
Published 15 Nov 2007

Within the year, Abraham Lincoln would be elected president and South Carolina would begin the exodus of southern states from the Union. The South’s secession set Carnegie “all aflame for the flag.” He had always been “a strong anti-slavery partisan.” When his cousin Dod in Dunfermline criticized the Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854 for repealing the Missouri Compromise and laying the way open for the organization of Kansas as a slave state, Carnegie responded that no one could “hate the measure more than I do.” He predicted that the northerners who had voted for the measure would be consigned to “infamy” by the “just indignation of an insulted and betrayed people.”6 The founding of the Republican Party offered him a way to transmute his antipathy for slavery into support for the politicians who had pledged to oppose its spread.

USA Travel Guide
by Lonely, Planet

History Claimed by France as part of the Louisiana Territory in 1682, Missouri had only a few small river towns by the start of the 19th century when the land passed to American hands and Lewis and Clark pushed up the Missouri River. Missouri was admitted to the Union as a slave state in 1821, per the Missouri Compromise (which permitted slavery in Missouri but prohibited it in any other part of the Louisiana Territory above the 36°30´ parallel), but abolitionists never compromised their ideals, and bitter feelings were stoked along the Missouri–Kansas border by Civil War time. The state’s ‘Show-Me’ nickname is attributed to Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver, who said in an 1899 speech, ‘I come from a state that raises corn and cotton and cockleburs and Democrats, and frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me.