Missouri Compromise, 1820 | North & South sectionalism | Free states & slave states, Maine
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 вер 2024
- The Missouri Compromise was the product of a growing sectional conflict between northern free states and southern slave states. In 1819, there were eleven free states and 11 southern states, making a senatorial deadlock between the two.
Missouri was important to both sides, as it was strategic. The Ohio River, Mississippi River, and Missouri River all junction in Missouri. Missouri also has the soil and landscape to be a southern cash crop economy or a northern corn and wheat economy.
St. Louis was also a major hub, the new gateway to the west. Representative James Tallmadge of New York proposed an amendment to end slavery in the Missouri territory. However, the Senate could block the entrance of Maine, the free state, if Missouri so entered also as a free state.
Jesse Thomas of Illinois proposed that Missouri enter as a slave state. However, the state's southern border, the latitude of 36 degrees 30 minutes, would then serve as the new limit of slavery within the Louisiana Purchase.
Henry Clay was the Speaker of the House. The compromise passed. Maine entered as a free state, Missouri entered as a slave state, and Missouri's southern boundary was the new limit of slavery.
A film by Jeffrey Meyer, historian and librarian, Iowa
When you “learned” all this in primary school you’re not intellectually ready to care, so it just goes in one ear and out the other. Now 50 years later, it’s fascinating.
Exactly
Right?! I'm watching this a second time lol it's so good. It's very interesting now that I'm in my 30s and can more clearly see how wild this is. Plus, this is a very detailed video with visual aids and it's easy to keep up with because it's such a great presentation.
I feel sorry for you that you had to wait 50 years to find this interesting.
So agree
@@patavinity1262 you're better than everyone.
I always look forward to your new videos. Well filmed/edited/presented without unnecessary noise or drama. Just perfect. Thank you so much for these, can't wait for the next drop!
Thank you so much! That means alot to me.
Super! This is an excellent summary and the focus on the importance of both geography and the order of admission of states is made very clear.
I have to say it for every video you post: great job! Incredibly interesting! Thank you!
Thank you! I appreciate it!
You are doing such an excellent job of presenting. Thank you.
Thank you!
Your history documentaries are truly fantastic. Liked and subbed
Thank you!
Idk what it is about your videos but they’re not like other channels. I have really thoroughly enjoyed every video of yours I’ve seen so far. Great work on another cool video.
Thank you so much! I really appreciate that.
Thank you for making this. School had two paragraphs on it in the text book..
I hope it was helpful! Thank you!
Excellent, very informative.
I love US history. It is a somewhat similar history of expanding frontiers, as the one we have in Australia. The difference being that the split in our states, was along sporting codes.... Rugby or Australian football.
I enjoy your presentations, and am subscribed. I am at best an amateur historian, so permit me to enhance this at bit beginning @06:16. The immediate Saint Louis region is actually the confluence of three local important water routes, inasmuch as the mouth of the Illinois River meets the Mississippi River almost across from the Missouri/Mississippi confluence. The ante-bellum Illinois and Michigan Canal joined the Great Lakes to the Mississippi watershed earlier in the 19th century. When you then consider the Ohio/Mississippi confluence to the south in Cairo, IL you then have four major waterways influencing the transportation importance of the region. Also, @06:25 you mention that the soil in Missouri is "very fertile". Had to chuckle at this because while that is true of the region north of the Missouri River, the physiographic region known as the Salem Plateau of the Ozark hills which northeastenmost point is roughly Six Flags over Mid-America in southwest Saint Louis County is timberland, hills, hollows, streams, rivers, and springs, spawning sawmills and grainmills. It is only marginally arable land. There are farms throughout, but the locals would tell that for their ancestors it was hardscrabble existence. And now you have the inspriration for the name of the farm of the only United States President who ever built his own log cabin to house his family; Ulysses S. Grant.
Actually, slavery did not start in Missouri when it was a territory, it was earlier than that... There was slavery during French and Spanish rule... There wasn't a lot of it then, but the treaty with the French that formalized the Louisiana purchase required the U.S. to let the established residents of this new Louisiana territory retain all their 'property', which was understood to include their slaves.
Yes it’s true but the Spanish Empire displayed an early abolitionist stance of Indigenous Native Americans. In 1542 Emperor Charles V restricted and outright forbade the enslavement of Native Americans on the early years of the Spanish Empire, to that end the Emperor abolished the enslavement of natives by decree. In 1811 Spain abolishes slavery, including all of its colonies in America and Asia.
@@alpaz7634 Your comment is mostly true, however, in practice, the Spanish and Portuguese enslaved all Native Americans that they came into contact with, beginning with Columbus and continuing until after 1900. The Spanish decimated the native populations with diseases they brought with them such as Smallpox, Typhus, Measles, Gonorrhea, Syphilis, and Chlamydia. This, and the observation that the Portuguese were growing wealthy off of African slavery, caused the Spanish to embrace African slavery on a large scale. But it did not end Native American slavery.
@@theheartoftexas Yes, let's not pretend the Spanish were leading the abolitionist charge. 🫣
The Spanish and Portuguese were some of the worst when it came to slavery (both African and native/indigenous) Wherever they went, all of South America and into North America, they robbed, pillaged and enslaved the natives.
Why is it that South America speaks Spanish or Portuguese, for the most part?!?!
In South America, Brazil, for example, there was a much, much higher African slave trade than into the American Colonies.
It seems ignorant to somehow claim Spain was doing a good thing.. perhaps as far back as 1811... By wanting to get away from slavery. They had been leaders of slavery for hundreds of years. They are more to 'blame' than any other country, for slavery spreading into the Americas. (If you ignore the slavery that already existed between native tribes from North America down through Central America and Northern South America.)
Anyways, this video clarifies things very nicely. You can understand how and why politicians were making deals... Even though they were dealing with human lives. No matter what side of the line they were on, it was an abhorrent matter.
Missouri would begin to show how complicated the Slave/Agricultural verses Free/Industrial Politics - North verses South - would begin to develop toward our eventual Civil War. Graphics on the Maps with basic Info - then Focus Discussion is Great. Like your short Presentations. Thanks.
Thank you!
It's been a long time since history class. Very good video. Thanks.
Succinct summary. Would be interesting to simultaneously see how the numbers in the House of Representatives were affected by the addition of new states. A chance to explore the 3/5 compromise.
You have no idea how useful it is to get these facts about the shaping of future conflict.
Thank you!
Concise. Complete. Superb!
Thank you!
Excellent video
Thank you!
Missouri is a great state. I love it. Lee's Summit is a great town of about 70000 folks. 😘
Very informative... Thank you!!!
Thank you for watching!
Like your Civil War map graphics..You have done Shiloh,Gettysburg,Sharpsburg,Fort Donelson and Fredericksburg..are you going to do more on all the battles..just curious
More battles to come in the future. Thanks for watching!
"I always thought" that the 'Missouri Compromise' was that while Maine got to be a Free State, it still had to (predominantly) listen to Country Music. Ok, but to be fair, it was the mid-1970s when I came up with this.
I don't know if anyone else has already said this but the compromise probably was thought of as solving the problem until it was realized that there was little to no agriculture land the further west that you got in the US south of the line in the US.
Except Kansas and California
great job! thank you
Thanks!
Man, your videos are the best. I’m a history guy and really like your civil war docs.
Thank you! I am hoping to have the next Civil War battle out soon.
Another gem!
Thank you!
good explanation
As someone who lives in Northern Oklahoma (north of the 36"30 line--directly west of Missouri), and as a self-described "Geography nerd", it has never been explained to me to my satisfaction how that law was (or did not) affect those living in the Cherokee Outlet. Cherokees did own slaves--yes. But was anyone aware of exactly where they were living in the Cherokee nation as it pertains to the area NORTH of that line? Unfortunately, there is not a perfect four corners, as Kansas decided to end their southern boundary at the 37th parallel, which leaves a good 34 miles of Oklahoma between the 37th parallel and 36"30, including the entire Oklahoma panhandle
In 1790, there were more slave states than just the six you mention.
Love the videos Mr. Jeffrey.
Could you perhaps do one (maybe you already have?) about what specific political disagreements there were between the slave and free states? Why does it matter if the slave states have a majority in congress and vis versa? Was it simply that the north thought slavery to be immoral, or was there something more? Thanks.
That would be a good video, and something to explore. But yes, folks in the North, and some in the South, believed that slavery was morally wrong and wanted the practice abolished.
You can see a little of the 'wheeling dealing" between the two sides with the Missouri Compromise. I'm guessing the addition of the Fugitive Slave Law was included because the Slave States couldn't get it passed any other way.
Thank you
Thank you for watching!
excellent
Thanks!
EXCELLENT
Thank you!
The old saying "The Good Old Days".....there wasn't much good about them.
Henry Clay… boy oh boy… read up on him.
It didn't work did it?
Interesting. Political divisiveness is nothing new. Was any consideration given to making the Missouri River as the northern border of Missouri? Then slavery would have been kept further south, hopefully appeasing northern concerns. North of the river would then become Iowa or possibly North Missouri, which would be a free state.
Iowa border counties with low slaves were a thin stripe and the Ozark region which unionist sympatists area in turn crossed over to North West part of Arkansas with a lot of unionists from Arkansas. Missouri was cutting of two parts (except for the St Louis area) with Missouri river area the Little Dixie.
The original lyrics of the "Missouri Waltz" proves that it was indeed a slave state.
How were the boundaries of a new state determined?
I can accept the natural boundaries (rivers, mountain ranges etc), but the latitudinal boundaries appear arbitrary (though this free vs slave state provides an example of one context). and the longitudinal boundaries appear even more so.
I think a big factor is land that was "secured" from the natives. Missouri opened up before Iowa and Minnesota, as it wasn't until Chief Blackhawk was defeated that those latter states could open up. So, I imagine a combination of rivers, latitude, and areas "secured" from the natives were all factors into boundaries.
Funny interesting things about Missouri's next future untill the end of the Civil War to show Missouri was true border state:
1. The main slavery populated counties were around the Missouri river so during the Civil War this area was the Little Dixie. Little Dixie gave many volunters to the Confederacy against the slow slavery populated areas as St Louis neighbouring area, the Ozark region or the Iowa border area. Hannibal Mark Twain's native city was in the North East part of the Little Dixie, where Mark Twain was member of the Confederate sentiment militia in the begining of 1861. Mark Twain became unionist in 1863 in Neveda, but he was not strong Confederacy sympatizer in 1861, if he went to Nevada with his older brother the federal official Orion.
2. Elija P. Lovejoy began his abolitionist activity in thre newspaper "St Louis Observer" in St Louis from 1833 and the pro slevery mob chased away to Illinois in 1836, where the pro slavery Illionois mob killed him in Alton in 1837. (Lincoln said his first political speech about Eliya P. Lovejoy's honor and John Brown woved he would fight against the slavery system for his death!)
3. Future general Grant's father in Law was the member of the St Louis pro slavery political association so Grant got a slave from his father in law. Grant worked together with his slave and he did not sell him but he emancipeted his slave when he moved to Illinois.
4. Fremont the 1856 president candidate from the Republicans got his wife from a Missouri politician family and later he was the US Western area leader in 1861 untill Halleck was appointed by Lincoln instead of Fremont.
5. Two counties were the only counties in the slave holder states where Lincoln got majority in the 1860 presidential election. The two counties were Gasconade county with 0.9% slaves and St Louis county (with the big city) with 2.3% slaves. The all Missouri voted Abraham Lincoln in more than 10 % in 1860! Only Kentucky, Maryland and (west) Virginia were where Lincoln got between 2000-4000 votes but no any majority in counties! It is understandable St Lous became a 168 000 populated city in 1860 from a 77 000 populated city in 1850, so Grant's father law pro slavery association effect became minimal effect in 1860. The city got huge European emmigrants, many Northern born relocated. I think nobody had not chased away Elijah P. Lovejoy from St Louis in 1860! However Gasconade county is very interesting why the people voted to Lincoln, but the low % slaves an important cause!
6. About 110 000 soldiers fought for the Union and about 40 000 soldiers for the Confederacy in Missouri.
7. The slave population % was 9.7% in Missouri. The the highest % slaves were at shore of the Missouri river in the little Dixie, Howard county with 37.1% and Saline county with 33.7%. Only the fourth was New Madrid county with 31.5% at the Mississipi on the border of Kentucky and Tennessee. Douglass county in the Ozark region had 0% slaves, Harrison couty had 0.2% and Mercer couty had 0.3% slave population at the Iowa border.
The Maryland had 12,7% slave population, Kentucky had 19.5% slaves, Delaware had 1.6% slaves and the future West Virginia had 4.7% slaves, so the Missouri's 9,7% shows well why these states remained in the Union at last!
The less slave populated state was Tennessee in the Confederacy with 24.8% slaves and in Tennessee there were the biggest % pro unionist sentiment before North Carolina or Arkansas.
Up north we call it the Maine / Missouri compromise.
I remember going over this in 8th grade. Now here I am in my mid 30s, decided to go back to college, and I’m having to relearn all of this. Weird that college education is also middle school curriculum. Seems like something is wrong here.
The lettering reminds me of a pipboy
After Texas, there would be no slave states anyway because it turns into plains and desert. I guess you could have them farm corn or wheat but that isn’t a cash crop like cotton and tobacco. And I have no idea what a slave holder would do in Arizona, New Mexico or Nevada - have them pick sand?
I can see why someone would think that. But actually there are river valleys and high desert in the southwest that are conducive to agriculture. And the real game changer for both sides would be California--and southern california is below Missouri. Many in the north were against the Mexican War in the 1840s, because they believed the Polk administration was taking land from Mexico to create future slave states to match the northern states that would come out of the Louisiana Purchase and Oregon territory.
Each of the 13 former colonies became 13 independent states... England signed 13 separate peace treaties. The new republics had fought together to win independence, and for mutual security created an alliance to perform collective duties the states could not accomplish individually. Hence the name... the "United" States. The Federal government had the smallest job since it was limited power and could perform only assigned tasks. The powers of the states were unlimited, and persons were citizens of their states... not the federation. And, slavery existed in ALL the colonies except Vermont, which was then part of New York.
The institution of slavery was not the reason in balancing free v. slave states; rather it determined Congressional representation. The North was bent on keeping slave cotton dedicated to its vast factory industry, and with a Northern majority in Congress could and did pass punitive, South-only tariffs on exported cotton. American cotton was the only quality cotton in the world in those pre-synthetic fiber days, and European hunger for the product was intense. Egypt and India produced cotton, but only a short fiber, vastly inferior product.
The "compromise" worked only when balance between the states was maintained ... it wasn't. Losing Congressional majority mean that the South could not overturn these tariffs... hence a literal "war between the states" as the Southern states revoked their voluntary entry into the federal alliance. The North was not against slavery, it just wanted the proceeds of slavery in its own pockets. Washington DC was a slave territory, but we are told that Lincoln, the "Great Emancipator" cared nothing for the welfare of slaves visible from his own office window, but was keenly interested in banning slavery 1,000 miles away? Don't think so. The entire country was dependent on slave labor, even in Lincoln's U.S. capital where slave labor completed the Capitol Dome in 1864 (go read the monument plaque erected there in dedication to the slaves that did the job).
I despise fake history, especially since the truth is readily available. Lincoln never freed a single slave.. go read his proclamation which freed slaves that couldn't be freed, but left those in bondage who couldn't be freed... certainly those he could see through his office windows. "Juneteenth" is total fiction since those slaves were never freed by anyone. Slavery finally ended by constitutional amendment after the War.
Thankkkkk you, dear. < 3
Spoken like a true Lost Causer. What rubbish. In fact, slavery is the central issue that will provoke secession and Civil War. The truth is indeed readily available. Try reading an actual history book by an actual historian. I recommend James MacPherson's epic _Battle Cry of Freedom_ just to start. Until then you might try keeping your "edgy" neo-Confederate bullshit out of the chat.
This history probably can't be taught in Desantis' Florida.
2:55
MAINE UBER ALLES
🤣🤣🤣 Your definition: Free and slaves. This the greatest fake of civil war. Ok, yes are slavist, but is a excuse for American capitalist interest. Hello from Spain! 👋
Missouri is a confederate state period
I know there is confusion about border states. Missouri, like other border states, remained loyal to the United States, and St. Louis was a headquarters for the Union Army's western theater.
Imagine how much better race relations would have been today if slavery had been abolished at the founding of the country. I know it was highly improbable given the economic framework of the country at the time, but you could’ve always said it was a British-imposed system and there would’ve been a lot less internal blame for the persistence of the racial divide we live with today, and we would’ve had an 80 year headstart on improving the lives of so many millions today.
Seems like we’re heading for trouble again…
It's a shame too seeing how most of the issues aren't even real. Everybody's caught up in their feelings too much, and I mean damn near everybody.
The reality is that today it is a City/Non-City divide. There won't be a Civil War, because the Cities can't support themselves.
@@shorewall I could see blue states sanctioning red states and vice verse. There’s also mass migration from blue states to red. It’s hard to predict with all the current volatility. I just know we’re on the wrong road. And this road leads to violence and poverty.
Just found you and as a history buff I subscribed. Then I found all your American history is east of the Mississippi, and about England an a little France. You leave out the rest of the country. What about Spain! San Diego, Low Angeles, San Francisco etc.. Unless your a WASP, this is not a good history of early north America. And remember Mexico is in Nooth America.
I just haven't gotten to the west yet. I plan on doing Lewis & Clark, railroads, the ancient southwest, and others in the future. I'm just getting started.
From Atlanta to Savanagh to the sea. They cut a scar through gods country, 150 miles wide. They destroyed everything. Every field every cotton ginney.
not civil war. it is the war of northern aggression!