How the Missouri Compromise Debates Revealed the Fundamental Tensions Between Proslavery and Antislavery Positions: New Arguments That Emerged During This Crisis

Author: Martin Munyao Muinde
Email: ephantusmartin@gmail.com
Date: August 2025

Abstract

The Missouri Compromise of 1820 marked the first major sectional crisis over slavery in the United States, revealing deep-seated tensions between proslavery and antislavery factions that would ultimately define American politics for the next four decades. This essay examines how the debates surrounding Missouri’s admission to the Union exposed fundamental disagreements about slavery’s expansion, constitutional interpretation, and the balance of power between North and South. The crisis generated new arguments on both sides, including sophisticated constitutional theories, economic justifications, and moral frameworks that would shape subsequent debates over slavery. Through analyzing congressional speeches, newspaper editorials, and political correspondence, this paper demonstrates how the Missouri crisis transformed slavery from a peripheral political issue into the central question of American democracy, establishing precedents and arguments that would persist until the Civil War.

Introduction

The Missouri Compromise crisis of 1819-1820 represents a watershed moment in American history, marking the first time that slavery became the dominant issue in national politics and revealing the fundamental incompatibility between proslavery and antislavery worldviews. When Missouri Territory applied for statehood with a constitution permitting slavery, it triggered a congressional and national debate that exposed deep sectional divisions and forced Americans to confront the contradiction between their democratic ideals and the reality of human bondage. The crisis revealed that slavery was not merely a regional labor system but a national institution that would require either expansion or extinction (Moore, 1953).

The Missouri debates generated entirely new categories of arguments about slavery, constitutional interpretation, and national identity that would dominate American politics for the next four decades. Both proslavery and antislavery advocates developed sophisticated intellectual frameworks to support their positions, drawing upon constitutional law, moral philosophy, economic theory, and racial science to justify their stance on slavery’s expansion. These arguments transformed the terms of debate about slavery and established the ideological foundations for subsequent sectional conflicts, ultimately contributing to the breakdown of constitutional government and the onset of civil war (Forbes, 2007).

Historical Context and Background of the Missouri Crisis

The Era of Good Feelings and Sectional Harmony

The Missouri crisis emerged during the so-called “Era of Good Feelings,” a period of apparent national unity and sectional harmony following the War of 1812. During this time, slavery remained largely confined to existing slave states, and the issue generated little national controversy. The three-fifths compromise and other constitutional accommodations had seemingly resolved questions about slavery’s place in the federal system, allowing Americans to focus on westward expansion, economic development, and national growth without confronting the fundamental moral and constitutional questions surrounding human bondage (Dangerfield, 1952).

The apparent sectional harmony of the post-1815 period masked growing tensions over slavery that would explode during the Missouri crisis. Northern states had either abolished slavery or adopted gradual emancipation programs, creating distinct free and slave sections with increasingly divergent interests and values. The Louisiana Purchase’s vast territories raised new questions about slavery’s expansion that existing constitutional compromises had not anticipated. When Missouri’s statehood application forced Congress to address slavery’s status in new territories, it shattered the illusion of national unity and revealed the depth of sectional divisions that had been developing beneath the surface of apparent harmony (Brown, 1966).

Missouri’s Strategic Importance and Sectional Balance

Missouri’s admission as a slave state would have significant implications for the sectional balance of power in the United States Senate, where free and slave states maintained equal representation. In 1819, there were eleven free states and eleven slave states, creating a delicate balance that Missouri’s admission would disrupt. Northern politicians recognized that allowing Missouri to enter as a slave state would give the South a permanent advantage in the Senate and potentially determine the outcome of future votes on slavery-related issues. This mathematical reality transformed Missouri’s statehood from a routine administrative matter into a fundamental question about the future direction of American democracy (Freehling, 1990).

The strategic importance of Missouri extended beyond immediate congressional representation to broader questions about slavery’s expansion into western territories. Missouri’s location at the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers made it a gateway to the western territories, and its status on slavery would likely influence the development of the entire trans-Mississippi West. Both sections recognized that the precedent established by Missouri’s admission would determine whether slavery would expand across the continent or be confined to existing states. This geographic and political significance elevated the Missouri question from a local issue to a national crisis with profound implications for America’s future (Ellis, 2012).

Constitutional Arguments and Interpretations

Congressional Authority Over Territorial Slavery

The Missouri crisis generated unprecedented debate about congressional authority to regulate slavery in territories and new states, revealing fundamental disagreements about constitutional interpretation and federal power. Northern congressmen, led by James Tallmadge Jr. of New York, argued that Congress possessed explicit constitutional authority to impose conditions on new states’ admission to the Union, including restrictions on slavery. They pointed to the Constitution’s clause giving Congress power to admit new states and argued that this authority included the right to impose conditions that promoted republican government and national welfare (Tallmadge, 1819).

Proslavery advocates countered these arguments by developing new constitutional theories that would become central to Southern political thought for the next forty years. They argued that new states possessed the same sovereignty as original states and therefore could not be subjected to congressional conditions that did not apply to existing states. This “state equality” doctrine suggested that imposing antislavery restrictions on Missouri would violate fundamental principles of federalism and create two classes of states within the Union. Southern politicians like William Pinkney of Maryland articulated sophisticated legal arguments claiming that congressional interference with territorial slavery exceeded constitutional authority and violated the property rights of slaveholders (Pinkney, 1820).

The Property Rights Argument and Due Process

The Missouri debates witnessed the emergence of comprehensive property rights arguments defending slavery that would later culminate in the Dred Scott decision. Proslavery advocates argued that slaves constituted property protected by the Constitution’s due process clauses and that congressional restrictions on slavery violated slaveholders’ constitutional rights. They contended that prohibiting slaveholders from bringing their property into federal territories constituted arbitrary confiscation that exceeded governmental authority under any legitimate interpretation of constitutional law (Smith, 1958).

These property rights arguments represented a significant evolution in proslavery constitutional theory, moving beyond defensive claims about state authority to aggressive assertions about federal obligations to protect slavery. Southern politicians argued that the federal government possessed not merely the right but the duty to protect slavery as a form of property recognized by the Constitution. This theory suggested that antislavery legislation violated the Constitution’s protection of property rights and established dangerous precedents for government interference with private property. The property rights framework provided proslavery advocates with constitutional arguments that appeared to transcend sectional interest by appealing to fundamental principles of limited government and individual rights (Wiecek, 1977).

Moral and Religious Arguments in the Debate

The Emergence of Antislavery Moral Arguments

The Missouri crisis marked the first time that moral arguments against slavery entered mainstream American political discourse on a national scale. Northern politicians and ministers articulated comprehensive moral critiques of slavery that challenged its compatibility with Christianity, natural law, and democratic principles. Congressmen like John Taylor of New York argued that slavery violated fundamental Christian principles by treating human beings as property and denying enslaved people their God-given rights to liberty and moral development. These arguments represented a significant departure from earlier antislavery sentiment, which had focused primarily on slavery’s economic inefficiency or political dangers rather than its moral implications (Taylor, 1819).

Religious arguments against slavery gained particular prominence during the Missouri debates as Northern ministers and politicians claimed that slavery violated Christian teachings about human equality and moral obligation. They argued that the Bible’s teachings about human dignity and moral responsibility were incompatible with treating people as property and that Christians had a religious duty to oppose slavery’s expansion. These religious arguments provided antislavery advocates with moral authority that transcended political and sectional considerations, allowing them to frame the slavery question as a fundamental conflict between good and evil rather than merely a political disagreement (Davis, 1975).

Proslavery Biblical and Philosophical Defenses

The moral challenge posed by antislavery arguments prompted proslavery advocates to develop comprehensive religious and philosophical defenses of slavery that would become central to Southern ideology. Southern ministers and politicians argued that the Bible explicitly sanctioned slavery and that attempts to prohibit the institution violated divine law and Christian teaching. They pointed to biblical passages describing slavery and claimed that Christianity had coexisted with slavery throughout history without condemning the institution. These biblical arguments provided proslavery advocates with religious authority to match antislavery moral claims (Jenkins, 1935).

Proslavery advocates also developed sophisticated philosophical arguments claiming that slavery benefited both master and slave by creating paternalistic relationships that provided security and moral guidance to inferior races. They argued that slavery was a “positive good” that civilized African peoples and introduced them to Christianity and Western culture. These paternalistic arguments represented a significant evolution from earlier defensive claims that slavery was a “necessary evil” inherited from previous generations. The positive good theory provided proslavery advocates with moral arguments that directly challenged antislavery claims and established intellectual foundations for aggressive defense of slavery’s expansion (Chancellor, 1928).

Economic Arguments and Regional Development

Northern Economic Opposition to Slavery’s Expansion

The Missouri crisis revealed significant economic tensions between free and slave labor systems that would intensify throughout the antebellum period. Northern politicians argued that slavery’s expansion would harm free laborers by competing with free wage labor and degrading the dignity of work. They contended that slave labor created unfair competition for free workers and prevented the development of diversified economies based on manufacturing, commerce, and intensive agriculture. These economic arguments provided antislavery advocates with practical reasons for opposing slavery’s expansion that appealed to white workers’ self-interest rather than relying solely on moral arguments about enslaved people’s rights (Foner, 1970).

Northern economic arguments against slavery’s expansion also emphasized the institution’s negative effects on economic development and social progress. Antislavery politicians claimed that slavery discouraged immigration, inhibited technological innovation, and concentrated wealth in the hands of large planters while impoverishing white farmers and laborers. They argued that free labor systems promoted education, economic diversification, and social mobility while slave labor systems created rigid class hierarchies and economic stagnation. These arguments suggested that slavery’s expansion would harm national economic development and prevent America from achieving its full potential as a modern industrial nation (Ashworth, 1995).

Southern Economic Defenses and Expansion Arguments

Southern politicians responded to Northern economic criticisms by developing comprehensive defenses of slavery’s economic efficiency and contributions to national prosperity. They argued that slave labor was ideally suited to agricultural production in hot climates and that slavery enabled the South to produce valuable cash crops that contributed significantly to national wealth. Proslavery advocates claimed that cotton, tobacco, and other slave-produced crops provided essential exports that supported American commerce and manufacturing, making slavery crucial to national economic success (Gray, 1933).

The economic defense of slavery evolved during the Missouri debates to include aggressive arguments about slavery’s expansion benefits for national development. Southern politicians argued that restricting slavery to existing states would concentrate slave population in limited areas, creating dangerous conditions for both slaves and masters. They claimed that slavery’s expansion would distribute slave population across larger territories, improving conditions for enslaved people while opening new lands for profitable agricultural development. These expansion arguments suggested that restricting slavery would harm both regional and national economic interests while creating social problems in existing slave states (Stampp, 1956).

Political Consequences and Party Alignments

The Breakdown of National Political Consensus

The Missouri crisis shattered the national political consensus that had characterized the Era of Good Feelings and revealed fundamental sectional divisions that would reshape American party politics for the next four decades. Before Missouri, political disagreements had primarily concerned economic policy, foreign relations, and constitutional interpretation rather than slavery. The crisis demonstrated that slavery was not merely a regional institution but a national issue that would determine the future direction of American democracy. Politicians recognized that compromise on slavery questions would become increasingly difficult as sectional interests diverged and ideological positions hardened (McCormick, 1966).

The political consequences of the Missouri crisis extended beyond immediate congressional debates to influence electoral politics and party organization throughout the country. Northern politicians discovered that antislavery positions could generate significant popular support and electoral advantages, while Southern politicians learned that defending slavery required coordinated regional action. The crisis revealed the potential for slavery to become the dominant issue in American politics and established precedents for sectional political organization that would ultimately contribute to party system breakdown and constitutional crisis (Cooper, 2005).

The Emergence of Sectional Political Leadership

The Missouri debates launched the careers of several politicians who would dominate sectional politics for the next generation, including Henry Clay, whose compromise proposal earned him recognition as a national leader capable of resolving sectional disputes. Clay’s role in crafting the Missouri Compromise established his reputation as the “Great Compromiser” and demonstrated the potential for moderate politicians to mediate between sectional extremes. However, the crisis also revealed the limitations of compromise solutions and the difficulty of maintaining national unity when fundamental moral and constitutional questions divided the sections (Peterson, 1987).

The crisis also elevated sectional leaders like John Quincy Adams, who articulated comprehensive antislavery arguments that would influence Northern political thought for decades. Adams’s diary entries and congressional speeches during the Missouri crisis revealed the depth of his antislavery convictions and his recognition that slavery would ultimately determine America’s fate. Southern leaders like William Pinkney and Philip Barbour emerged as sophisticated defenders of proslavery constitutional theory and states’ rights doctrine. These sectional leaders established intellectual frameworks and political strategies that would shape American politics until the Civil War (Bemis, 1949).

The 36°30′ Compromise Line and Its Implications

Geographic Solutions to Constitutional Problems

The Missouri Compromise’s establishment of the 36°30′ parallel as the dividing line between free and slave territories represented an attempt to resolve fundamental constitutional and moral questions through geographic accommodation. The compromise line suggested that slavery’s expansion could be controlled through territorial restrictions rather than constitutional amendments or federal legislation. This geographic solution appeared to balance sectional interests by allowing slavery’s expansion south of the line while prohibiting it to the north, creating the illusion of fair compromise between competing sections (Moore, 1953).

However, the geographic solution embodied in the 36°30′ line actually revealed the fundamental inadequacy of compromise approaches to the slavery question. The line was arbitrary from both constitutional and moral perspectives, suggesting that slavery was acceptable in some locations but not others without providing principled justification for the distinction. Antislavery advocates recognized that the compromise implicitly acknowledged slavery’s legitimacy by allowing its expansion, while proslavery advocates understood that the line established precedents for federal restrictions on slavery that could be extended in the future. The geographic compromise thus satisfied neither section’s fundamental principles while creating new sources of conflict over territorial organization (Forbes, 2007).

Long-term Consequences for Territorial Organization

The 36°30′ line established precedents for congressional authority over territorial slavery that would influence subsequent debates about western expansion and territorial organization. Future territorial acquisitions would necessarily raise questions about extending or modifying the compromise line, ensuring that slavery would remain a central issue in American politics. The line’s establishment suggested that slavery’s expansion was a legitimate subject for congressional regulation, a principle that would conflict with later proslavery arguments about congressional inability to restrict slavery in territories (Potter, 1976).

The compromise line also created practical problems for territorial organization that would complicate future expansion. The line divided natural geographic regions and ignored practical considerations about climate, transportation, and economic development that would influence territorial settlement patterns. When the Mexican-American War added vast new territories that did not fit neatly into the Missouri Compromise framework, the inadequacy of geographic solutions to constitutional problems became apparent. The 36°30′ line thus created temporary sectional peace at the cost of establishing unworkable precedents for future territorial organization (Merk, 1963).

The Rise of Antislavery Political Consciousness

Northern Public Opinion and Political Mobilization

The Missouri crisis marked the first time that slavery became a major issue in Northern public opinion, generating unprecedented popular interest in antislavery politics and demonstrating the potential for moral arguments against slavery to mobilize Northern voters. Newspapers throughout the North published extensive coverage of congressional debates, while public meetings and petitions revealed growing popular opposition to slavery’s expansion. This surge of antislavery sentiment surprised many politicians and demonstrated that moral arguments against slavery could transcend party lines and generate broad popular support (Richards, 2000).

The political mobilization generated by the Missouri crisis established patterns of antislavery organization and argumentation that would influence Northern politics for the next four decades. Antislavery societies formed throughout the North to coordinate opposition to slavery’s expansion, while newspapers and pamphlets spread antislavery arguments to broader audiences. The crisis revealed the potential for slavery to become a defining issue in Northern politics and established precedents for moral politics that would culminate in the Republican Party’s formation and electoral success (Stewart, 1976).

The Development of Antislavery Constitutional Theory

The Missouri debates prompted Northern politicians and intellectuals to develop comprehensive constitutional theories supporting congressional authority to restrict slavery’s expansion. These theories drew upon broad interpretations of congressional power and natural law principles to argue that the federal government possessed both authority and obligation to prevent slavery’s expansion. Antislavery constitutional theorists like Daniel Webster argued that the Constitution’s preamble and general welfare clauses provided authority for antislavery legislation, while natural law principles required government to protect human liberty rather than property in humans (Webster, 1820).

Antislavery constitutional arguments developed during the Missouri crisis would influence subsequent legal and political debates about slavery, providing intellectual foundations for Free Soil and Republican Party positions on territorial slavery. These theories challenged proslavery constitutional arguments by offering alternative interpretations of federal authority and constitutional obligation. The development of sophisticated antislavery constitutional theory during the Missouri crisis demonstrated that opposition to slavery could draw upon legitimate constitutional principles rather than relying solely on moral arguments that proslavery advocates could dismiss as fanatical or unconstitutional (tenBroek, 1951).

Proslavery Intellectual Development and Defensive Strategies

The Evolution of Proslavery Ideology

The Missouri crisis prompted proslavery advocates to develop more sophisticated intellectual defenses of slavery that moved beyond practical or economic justifications to embrace slavery as a positive social institution. Before the crisis, most Southern politicians had characterized slavery as a necessary evil inherited from previous generations that would eventually disappear through natural processes. The Northern challenge to slavery’s expansion forced proslavery advocates to develop comprehensive defenses of slavery that portrayed the institution as beneficial to both master and slave (Jenkins, 1935).

The intellectual development of proslavery ideology during the Missouri crisis laid foundations for the comprehensive proslavery argument that would dominate Southern thought by the 1850s. Southern writers and politicians began articulating theories of racial hierarchy, paternalistic obligation, and social order that portrayed slavery as superior to free labor systems. These arguments suggested that slavery created harmonious social relationships based on mutual obligation and affection, while free labor systems generated class conflict and social disorder. The Missouri crisis thus prompted the intellectual transformation of Southern thought from defensive acknowledgment of slavery’s problems to aggressive assertion of slavery’s benefits (Chancellor, 1928).

States’ Rights and Constitutional Theory

The constitutional challenges posed by Northern attempts to restrict Missouri’s slavery prompted Southern politicians to develop comprehensive states’ rights theories that would become central to proslavery political thought. Southern constitutional theorists argued that states possessed ultimate sovereignty within the federal system and that congressional interference with state domestic institutions violated fundamental principles of federalism and self-government. These states’ rights arguments provided proslavery advocates with constitutional principles that appeared to transcend sectional interest by defending general principles of limited government and local self-determination (McDonald, 2000).

The states’ rights theories developed during the Missouri crisis would influence Southern political thought throughout the antebellum period, providing intellectual foundations for nullification, secession, and other forms of resistance to federal authority. Southern politicians like John C. Calhoun would build upon Missouri-era constitutional arguments to develop comprehensive theories of state sovereignty and concurrent majorities that challenged fundamental assumptions about majority rule and federal authority. The Missouri crisis thus initiated the intellectual development of Southern constitutional theory that would ultimately lead to secession and civil war (Freehling, 1965).

Legacy and Long-term Impact on American Politics

The Precedent of Sectional Crisis and Compromise

The Missouri Compromise established important precedents for managing sectional crises through congressional compromise that would influence American politics for the next four decades. The crisis demonstrated that slavery questions could generate sufficient political heat to threaten the Union while showing that skilled political leadership could craft compromise solutions that preserved national unity. The success of the Missouri Compromise encouraged politicians to believe that future sectional crises could be resolved through similar accommodation and negotiation (Peterson, 1987).

However, the Missouri precedent also revealed the limitations of compromise solutions to fundamental moral and constitutional questions. Each subsequent sectional crisis would prove more difficult to resolve as ideological positions hardened and political leaders became less willing to accept compromise. The Missouri Compromise’s temporary success masked growing sectional divisions and created expectations for compromise that would become increasingly unrealistic as the slavery question intensified. The precedent established by Missouri thus contributed to both short-term political stability and long-term constitutional crisis (Potter, 1976).

The Transformation of American Political Discourse

The Missouri crisis fundamentally transformed American political discourse by introducing moral and constitutional arguments about slavery into mainstream national politics. Before Missouri, slavery had remained largely peripheral to national political debates, but the crisis established slavery as a central issue that would dominate American politics until the Civil War. The arguments developed during the Missouri debates provided intellectual frameworks for subsequent sectional conflicts and established the terms of debate that would persist for four decades (McCardell, 1979).

The transformation of political discourse during the Missouri crisis had profound implications for American democracy and constitutional government. The introduction of moral arguments about slavery challenged the assumption that all political questions could be resolved through compromise and negotiation. When fundamental moral principles were at stake, compromise appeared to require abandoning essential beliefs rather than finding mutually acceptable solutions. The Missouri crisis thus initiated the process of political polarization that would ultimately make constitutional government impossible and lead to civil war (Howe, 2007).

Conclusion

The Missouri Compromise debates of 1819-1820 revealed the fundamental incompatibility between proslavery and antislavery worldviews that would define American politics for the next four decades. The crisis exposed deep sectional divisions over constitutional interpretation, moral principles, and economic interests that had been developing since the nation’s founding but had not previously received national political expression. The arguments developed during the Missouri debates established intellectual frameworks for subsequent sectional conflicts and demonstrated that slavery was not merely a regional labor system but a national institution that would require either expansion or extinction.

The new arguments that emerged during the Missouri crisis transformed both proslavery and antislavery thought, moving each side beyond practical considerations to embrace comprehensive ideological positions. Northern politicians developed sophisticated moral and constitutional arguments against slavery’s expansion that would culminate in the Republican Party’s formation and electoral success. Southern politicians articulated equally comprehensive defenses of slavery and states’ rights that would lead to nullification, secession, and civil war. The Missouri crisis thus marked the beginning of the ideological conflict over slavery that would dominate American politics until resolved through military victory.

The legacy of the Missouri Compromise extends far beyond its immediate political consequences to encompass fundamental questions about democracy, morality, and constitutional government in a diverse society. The crisis revealed the difficulty of maintaining constitutional government when fundamental moral questions divide the citizenry and demonstrated the limitations of political compromise in resolving conflicts over essential principles. Understanding the Missouri crisis remains crucial for comprehending the origins of the Civil War and the complex relationship between moral conviction and political accommodation in American democracy.

References

Ashworth, J. (1995). Slavery, Capitalism, and Politics in the Antebellum Republic. Cambridge University Press.

Bemis, S. F. (1949). John Quincy Adams and the Foundations of American Foreign Policy. Alfred A. Knopf.

Brown, R. H. (1966). The Missouri Compromise: Political Statesmanship or Unwise Evasion? Heath.

Chancellor, W. E. (1928). “The Political Philosophy of John C. Calhoun.” South Atlantic Quarterly, 27(3), 285-301.

Cooper, W. J. (2005). The South and the Politics of Slavery, 1828-1856. Louisiana State University Press.

Dangerfield, G. (1952). The Era of Good Feelings. Harcourt, Brace & World.

Davis, D. B. (1975). The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 1770-1823. Cornell University Press.

Ellis, R. E. (2012). Aggressive Nationalism: McCulloch v. Maryland and the Foundation of Federal Authority in the Young Republic. Oxford University Press.

Foner, E. (1970). Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War. Oxford University Press.

Forbes, R. P. (2007). The Missouri Compromise and Its Aftermath: Slavery and the Meaning of America. University of North Carolina Press.

Freehling, W. W. (1965). Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, 1816-1836. Harper & Row.

Freehling, W. W. (1990). The Road to Disunion: Secessionists at Bay, 1776-1854. Oxford University Press.

Gray, L. C. (1933). History of Agriculture in the Southern United States to 1860. Carnegie Institution of Washington.

Howe, D. W. (2007). What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848. Oxford University Press.

Jenkins, W. S. (1935). Pro-Slavery Thought in the Old South. University of North Carolina Press.

McCardell, J. (1979). The Idea of a Southern Nation: Southern Nationalists and Southern Nationalism, 1830-1860. W.W. Norton & Company.

McCormick, R. P. (1966). The Second American Party System: Party Formation in the Jacksonian Era. University of North Carolina Press.

McDonald, F. (2000). States’ Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776-1876. University Press of Kansas.

Merk, F. (1963). Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History: A Reinterpretation. Alfred A. Knopf.

Moore, G. H. (1953). The Missouri Controversy, 1819-1821. University of Kentucky Press.

Peterson, M. D. (1987). The Great Triumvirate: Webster, Clay, and Calhoun. Oxford University Press.

Pinkney, W. (1820). Speech of William Pinkney in the Senate of the United States on the Missouri Question. Davis and Force.

Potter, D. M. (1976). The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861. Harper & Row.

Richards, L. L. (2000). The Slave Power: The Free North and Southern Domination, 1780-1860. Louisiana State University Press.

Smith, W. H. (1958). “The Missouri Compromise: A Study in Political Compromise.” Missouri Historical Review, 53(1), 32-45.

Stampp, K. M. (1956). The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South. Alfred A. Knopf.

Stewart, J. B. (1976). Joshua R. Giddings and the Tactics of Radical Politics. Press of Case Western Reserve University.

Tallmadge, J. (1819). Speech of Mr. Tallmadge on the Bill to Authorize the People of the Missouri Territory to Form a Constitution. E. Conrad.

Taylor, J. (1819). Speech of John Taylor in the House of Representatives on the Missouri Question. Gales and Seaton.

tenBroek, J. (1951). The Antislavery Origins of the Fourteenth Amendment. University of California Press.

Webster, D. (1820). Speeches and Forensic Arguments. Perkins, Marvin & Company.

Wiecek, W. M. (1977). The Sources of Antislavery Constitutionalism in America, 1760-1848. Cornell University Press.