Did Sanford v. Missouri allow slavery in all states?

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#21
I agree that this reading is the natural follow up to the Dred Scott decision, and is most likely what the Court would have ended up saying if it had ruled on the Lemmon case.

What would have been REALLY interesting in that event would be how Northern states with antislavery laws would have responded. My personal feeling is that it would have made the reaction to Dred Scott look tame by comparison.
That would have been an interesting sight.
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
7,764
Location
Denver, CO
#22
Dred Scott was one of three over reaches. Injecting slavery into Missouri was unnecessary, but it put the two westward migration streams in competition with each other. At the time it happened in 1820 it looked like cotton revenue could sustain that expansion. That turned out not to be the case.
The second over reach was to take Texas as an additional state without agreeing to make the rest of the Southwest paid labor territory.
Texas had the potential to be a country by itself. Joined to the rest of the south, it made the idea of a slave power viable.
Dred Scott answered comity clause questions about which state law would be supreme, in favor of coerced labor. It seemed like a solution but it caused the volcanic rise of the Republican party.
It may go to show that one cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Which is at least plausible as the cost of newspapers and magazines fell.
 

alan polk

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
2,372
#24
I’m no expert in this area, so I’d like y’all to give me the first grade version of why they did not just extend the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific after the Mexican War or during the 1850 Compromise stuff? I’m sure somebody tried.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#25
I’m no expert in this area, so I’d like y’all to give me the first grade version of why they did not just extend the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific after the Mexican War or during the 1850 Compromise stuff? I’m sure somebody tried.
The Southerners felt that the Missouri Compromise was an unconstitutional restraint on their right to take slaves everywhere.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#27
So was there ever an offer on the table to extend it to the Pacific at some point?
Various proposals
  • The Extension of the Missouri Compromise line was proposed by failed amendments to the Wilmot Proviso by William W. Wick and then Stephen Douglas to extend the Missouri Compromise line (36°30' parallel north) west to the Pacific (south of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California) to allow the possibility of slavery in most of present-day New Mexico and Arizona, and Southern California. That line was again proposed by the Nashville Convention of June 1850.
Nashville Convention

After heated debate, the Southerners who urged secession if slavery were restricted in any of the new territories were eventually overruled by the moderates. Speaking for the moderate position, the presiding officer, Judge William L. Sharkey of Mississippi, declared that the convention had not been "called to prevent but to perpetuate the Union." Thus, the Nashville delegates, while they denounced Henry Clay's omnibus bill and reaffirmed the constitutionality of slavery in a series of 28 resolutions passed on June 10, agreed to a "concession" whereby the geographic dividing line designated by the Missouri Compromise of 1820 would be extended to the Pacific Coast. The convention adjourned without taking any action against the Union, and the issue of secession was temporarily tabled.​
 

alan polk

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
2,372
#28
Various proposals
  • The Extension of the Missouri Compromise line was proposed by failed amendments to the Wilmot Proviso by William W. Wick and then Stephen Douglas to extend the Missouri Compromise line (36°30' parallel north) west to the Pacific (south of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California) to allow the possibility of slavery in most of present-day New Mexico and Arizona, and Southern California. That line was again proposed by the Nashville Convention of June 1850.
Nashville Convention

After heated debate, the Southerners who urged secession if slavery were restricted in any of the new territories were eventually overruled by the moderates. Speaking for the moderate position, the presiding officer, Judge William L. Sharkey of Mississippi, declared that the convention had not been "called to prevent but to perpetuate the Union." Thus, the Nashville delegates, while they denounced Henry Clay's omnibus bill and reaffirmed the constitutionality of slavery in a series of 28 resolutions passed on June 10, agreed to a "concession" whereby the geographic dividing line designated by the Missouri Compromise of 1820 would be extended to the Pacific Coast. The convention adjourned without taking any action against the Union, and the issue of secession was temporarily tabled.​
Okay, So were the proposed amendments cited above by Wick and Douglas voted down by anti-slavery politicians?

In my laborious thread regarding Newspaper comparisons, I have a speech by Jefferson Davis. In the below section of that speech by Davis in 1859, he seems to place blame on the Kansas-Nebraska uproar on someone but I can’t determine if he’s blaming it on anti-slavery factions or Southern politicians:

He states:

“On the bill for the reorganization of Kansas-Nebraska, the original draft was modified so as to declare that the constitution should have the same force and effect in those territories as elsewhere in the United States, and the obstructions to the enjoyment in that Territory of equal rights by the citizens of the Southern States, known as the Missouri Compromise, was swept from the statute book, which was the legitimate consequence of the refusal to extend that line to the Pacific through the Territories acquired from Mexico.”
491C2D2D-322C-42DF-9159-A5B245AD4493.jpeg
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,552
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
#29
Okay, So were the proposed amendments cited above by Wick and Douglas voted down by anti-slavery politicians?

In my laborious thread regarding Newspaper comparisons, I have a speech by Jefferson Davis. In the below section of that speech by Davis in 1859, he seems to place blame on the Kansas-Nebraska uproar on someone but I can’t determine if he’s blaming it on anti-slavery factions or Southern politicians:

He states:

“On the bill for the reorganization of Kansas-Nebraska, the original draft was modified so as to declare that the constitution should have the same force and effect in those territories as elsewhere in the United States, and the obstructions to the enjoyment in that Territory of equal rights by the citizens of the Southern States, known as the Missouri Compromise, was swept from the statute book, which was the legitimate consequence of the refusal to extend that line to the Pacific through the Territories acquired from Mexico.”
View attachment 295981
Both by proslavery.

The Missouri Compromise was replaced by popular sovereignty.

Popular Sovereignty


The concept was widely popularized by Stephen A. Douglas in 1854. Douglas, who coined the term, thought the settlers should vote on their status early in territorial development. Other supporters adopted a somewhat different stance, arguing that the status should be determined by a vote taken when the territory was fully prepared for statehood. Popular sovereignty was invoked in the Compromise of 1850 and later in the Kansas-Nebraska Act(1854). The tragic events in “Bleeding Kansas" exposed the doctrine's shortcomings, as pro- and anti-slavery forces battled each other to effect the outcome they wished.​
Popular sovereignty was first termed “squatter sovereignty" by John C. Calhoun and that designation was adopted by its critics, which included proslavery Southerners and many New Englanders.The hope by Douglas and other proponents of popular sovereignty that its application to new territories could preserve the union was soon dashed. It would only work if voters in a sufficient number of new territories could be persuaded to permit slavery, and it soon became apparent that apart from massive fraud, this end could not be achieved even in a border territory like Kansas.​
We see in this letter referred to by your newspaper clipping where Davis was very happy to see the Missouri Compromise was swept away. However, in the end, Davis wants slavery default in the territories even if by Federal coercion.​
Link to page
Jefferson Davis, Constitutionalist: His Letters, Papers, and Speeches, Volume 4
By Jefferson Davis
1552104390430.png
 

alan polk

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
2,372
#30
Ok, thanks for that. I thought he was saying something like, if they would have agreed to extend the Missouri line to the Pacific, we would not have had the Kansas problems at all.
 



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top