Reasons for the Missouri Compromise

The Missouri crisis showed that the South had become far more committed to slavery than it ever had been before.  The rapid growth of the slave-cultivated cotton industry meant that a good field hand had increased in value from “around $500 in 1814 to about $1100 dollars by early 1819”.  Slavery was important not only economically in the Deep South where cotton cultivation was concentrated, but also in areas like Virginia where selling on slaves to the plantations had become increasingly important as tobacco became less profitable.  Restricting the expansion of slavery into new territories in the west would therefore have been a serious blow to the southern economy. Likewise, many in the south believed that the emancipation of slaves would spark racial conflict across the south and that was something they were desperate to avoid. For instance, Jefferson himself believed that by expanding slavery to the west it would dilute the numbers of slaves in each state, thereby ensuring that the local white populations could remain in control and could keep their economy functioning.

Ultimately, the Missouri compromise was only possible because most Northerners were not actually very concerned about the actual conditions of the slaves or any moral issues, and it was only extremely anti-slavery groups in the Northeast that led moral attacks to try and restrict slavery in Missouri. Instead northern politicians worried more about the undue influence that the South already seemed to have in Washington, and that if there were more slave states there would be more southern congressmen and electoral votes in their favour. It was this political calculation rather than the moral outrage against slavery that played the key role in dividing north from south.

The majority of the Northern’s were more concerned on the political outcome that the Missouri compromise would entail. Many of the Northerners were increasingly concerned at the disproportionate political influence of the southern slave-owning elite.  The population of the north was by now far larger than that of the south, but under the constitution the south’s representation in congress was larger than it might have been because 3/5ths of the slave population counted for the purposes of representation. Due to this many northerner’s claimed they were fighting against slavery for “moral” reasons, whilst in reality it was purely to limit the south from becoming too powerful politically, plus the southern economy was based on the existence of slavery – if slavery was abolished the southern states would not be able to compete industrially with the north as they would not have the funds, thereby giving the north a significant advantage. Therefore it made sense for the Northern’s to claim they opposed Missouri having slaves due to “moral issues” on slavery, whilst in reality it was more because of economic and political reasons.