The Missouri Compromise (March 3, 1820)

Sometimes in life, compromise is good. Whether it’s at the office, in a marriage, or among friends (or even enemies), compromise can help people recognize common ground, mend wounds, and give all sides a feeling of satisfaction and accomplishment.

But sometimes, compromise is merely a means to procrastinate or sidestep very difficult issues. And although both sides might feel temporary satisfaction or success, the underlying problems do not go away. Often, they are left to fester, and ultimately lead to an even worse situation further on down the road.

Take the United States in 1820 as an example. In most respects, things looked very bright for our young nation. First, we had recently emerged from a war with the greatest power in the world, England (the War of 1812), and we had not lost. This was a huge boost to our national confidence and morale. Second, there was a burgeoning, palpable national energy afoot. Citizens were settling the frontier at a rapid pace, and inventions like the cotton gin and steamboat were allowing for exponential growth in production and trade. And third, this was a time known as the “Era of Good Feelings,” a decade-long period where there was a cessation of sorts from the partisan political wrangling that had characterized the pre-War of 1812 scene. Politicians were actually getting along.

In addition to all of this, the potential for national expansion seemed almost limitless as a result of the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. In one stroke of a pen and a $15 million payment, the United States had acquired a vast amount of land west of the Mississippi River (830,000 square miles). Lewis and Clark led an expedition to survey this territory, and by the mid-1810s, had published the story of their journey. This further fired the American imagination and soon settlers streamed across the Mississippi.

The story still sounds good, doesn’t it? Well, by 1820, enough settlers had made their way across the great river and it was time for Missouri to apply for statehood. The original thirteen colonies/states had grown to twenty-two by this point. By now, though, lawmakers had begun to see a problem. You see, of the twenty-two states, eleven were “free,” and eleven were “slave.” A delicate balance had developed, and northerners and southerners feared the consequences of upsetting this balance. Southern congressmen thought that if a majority of free states existed, then the North would impose its will to abolish the institution of slavery. Southerners could not let that happen. Northern congressmen, growing increasingly anti-slavery in sentiment, felt just the opposite.

Beginning in 1819, Congress debated the issue of what to do with Missouri for several months. Sectional strife reared its ugly head, as it had at the Constitutional Convention back in 1787, and during the first Congress in 1790. Congress seemed deadlocked.

Then a deal was struck. It just so happened that Maine was preparing to apply for statehood around this time. So Congress made a compromise: Maine would enter the Union as a free state, and Missouri as a slave state. The balance would be preserved—twelve free states and twelve slave states. Everybody could breath easy. What’s more, a “Missouri Compromise Line” was established, extending west from Missouri. In the future, slavery would be prohibited north of that line, and allowed to the south of it. Congress passed the Missouri Compromise on March 3, 1820 . . . 190 years ago today.

So a compromise was struck. Crisis was averted. America continued its “Era of Good Feelings” after this bump in the road. Settlers continued to move to the frontier, canals were constructed, turnpikes were built, steamboats roared down the Mississippi, small mills and factories began to pop up. America was alive.

But of course, this was the type of compromise that ultimately sidestepped the real issue at hand. That issue was whether or not slavery was really compatible with the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, and the Constitution. The Missouri Compromise mollified all sides for a time, but eventually sectional differences would continue to flare. Eventually the north and the south found it increasingly difficult to compromise. And eventually they went to war (the Civil War) and over 600,000 Americans died. Why? Because two sections of the country could not agree on a myriad of issues, primarily the issue of slavery.

So what do I make of all this? Well, the Missouri Compromise teaches me that compromise is a very tricky thing. Sometimes compromise is appropriate and the right thing to do. At other times, it may seem like the right thing, but it is only a means of punting problems into the future, sometimes even to future generations. For American lawmakers in the first half of the 1800s, discerning this was extremely difficult, because the issue really did boil down to either ending slavery or ending the Union. It was that divisive.

As a history teacher, I firmly believe that the study of history is more than just learning a bunch of facts and figures, and it’s more than just going out to visit your favorite national historic sites. The importance of history is that we can and should learn from it. Studying the way people thought and acted in previous generations should help inform the way we think and act about things.

Because of this, believe it or not, I often pray that God would give me the wisdom to know when to compromise and when not to compromise in day-to-day situations. Heaven knows that I make mistakes. But when I reflect on the Missouri Compromise, I am reminded that there are times to compromise, and times not to compromise, even if I know that negative consequences will ensue.