Lesson 1: An Early Threat of Secession: The Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the Nullification Crisis

Missouri Compromise

There had always been differences between northern and southern states, the former more commercial and the latter more agrarian in outlook and livelihood. But no difference was so potentially divisive as the South's insistence on the right to hold slaves and the North's growing aversion to it. The newly acquired territory to the West, resulting from the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, brought the issue of the extension of slavery to a slow boil in 1819. Both sides, North and South, were concerned about the balance of power in the Senate being disrupted by the admission of new states carved out of the Louisiana Territory. The legislative and rhetorical interventions of Kentucky Representative Henry Clay, a slaveowner who worked for gradual emancipation and colonization, were crucial to averting a sectional division of the American union.

When Maine requested admission as a free state in 1820, Congress agreed to a compromise where Missouri was permitted to come into the union with a constitution of its own choosing, which meant no restriction regarding slavery. In addition to Maine's admission in 1820 as a free state and Missouri's eventual admission as a slave state (in 1821), Illinois Senator Jesse B. Thomas suggested that in the balance of the Louisiana Territory north of the 36º30' parallel (which ran along Missouri's southern border) slavery would be prohibited forever. The Missouri Compromise thereby maintained an equal number of free and slaveholding states in the American union. But it proved only a temporary settlement of the slavery controversy. Another territorial dispute, involving Texas and Mexico, would later stoke the fires of sectional conflict over the spread of slavery into the western territories.

But slavery in the territories was not the only issue dividing North and South. The question of tariffs (or taxes) on foreign imports proved so volatile that one state tried to nullify an act of Congress and threatened to secede from the Union. South Carolina saw tariffs imposed by the national government on foreign imports not for general revenue purposes, but to help domestic, manufacturing industries located mainly in the North. With depressed cotton prices and reduced foreign demand for raw goods from the South, the 1828 and 1832 tariffs eventually provoked South Carolina to desperate measures.

Flags were flown at half-mast in Charleston, South Carolina, and throughout the South there was talk of boycotting northern goods. By 1832, when Congress passed a new tariff bill that did not lower tariff rates enough to please the southern states, talk turned openly to nullification. South Carolina went so far as to call a state convention that declared the Tariff Acts of 1828 and 1832 "null, void, and no law, nor binding upon" the state. Whereupon President Andrew Jackson rebuked South Carolina and threatened to invade the state. When Congress passed his 1833 “Force Bill,” which empowered the military to collect the tariffs, the now Senator Henry Clay fashioned yet another compromise that revised the tariff to South Carolina's satisfaction. This kept the tariff on the books and South Carolina in the Union.

The Missouri Compromise was the product of a struggle in Congress for regional control of the national, legislative process. Southern states had lost majority influence in the House of Representatives because of their slower growing population as compared with the northern states. This led to an effort by slaveholding states to maintain equal representation in the Senate with free states as the nation added territories and hence new states to the Union. When Missouri asked to enter the Union as a slave state 1819, New York Congressman James Tallmadge, Jr. added a proviso that would ban the importation of slaves into the state and would free slaves born after Missouri's admission at the age of 25. Southerners in the Senate blocked Tallmadge's amendment, with Georgia Representative Howell Cobb predicting that if Tallmadge insisted on his amendment, "the Union will be dissolved!" To which Tallmadge replied, “If civil war, which gentlemen so much threaten, must come, I can only say, let it come!”

The impasse was finally resolved the following year when Maine requested entry as a free state. Illinois Senator Jesse B. Thomas offered an amendment that produced the Missouri Compromise. In addition to Maine's admission in 1820 as a free state and Missouri's eventual admission as a slave state (in 1821), Thomas suggested that in the balance of the Louisiana Territory north of the 36º30' parallel (which ran along Missouri's southern border) slavery would be “forever prohibited.” While Henry Clay became known as “the Great Compromiser” for his work on the Missouri Compromise, he was more instrumental in the 1821 compromise that actually brought Missouri into the Union as a slave state than in the 1820 Compromise, where Senator Thomas laid out the famous Mason-Dixon Line separating free states (and slave state Missouri) from slave states.

Federal Tariffs and Nullification

The attempt by South Carolina officials to nullify federal tariffs they deemed unconstitutional was not the first time a state considered rejecting specific federal laws. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, which countered the federal Alien and Sedition Acts, maintained that the federal government was a compact of sovereign states and could only act according to powers specifically delegated by the states. Any broad interpretation and exercise of federal authority beyond the express grant of authority could therefore be considered null and void by individual states. In late 1814, five New England states also showed they could find enough reasons to complain of federal actions that appeared to favor one section of the Union over another. The Hartford Convention, called in response to the War of 1812 and its associated economic measures, debated (but rejected) secession from the United States and recommended amendments to reduce what they saw as a disproportionate southern influence in the Congress.

The video above (2:00) brings together clips from two feature films about Andrew Jackson: Old Hickory (1939) and The Jackson Years: Toward Civil War (1970). This dramatization offers an opening to the class discussions and sets the stage for analyzing the different perspectives regarding tariffs in the U.S. at the time. 

The Tariff of 1828 was somewhat more complicated than a simple disregard of the South by the North. This “Tariff of Abominations,” as southerners took to calling it, originated as a result of a plot on the part of congressional Democrats to do political damage to President John Quincy Adams. Adams had narrowly won the election of 1824, and Democrats wanted Andrew Jackson to win the presidency in 1828. Democrats, therefore, including southerners such as John C. Calhoun, devised a scheme to discredit the Adams administration by raising the tariff rates so high that not even New England congressmen would support it. The plan backfired, however, as Congress passed the tariff bill with just a few amendments. However conceived, the Tariff of Abominations was widely protested in the South.

These early threats of secession show that Americans had long disputed the meaning of the American union and its connection to securing individual liberty. Did it rest on a compact theory of the federal union, with the Unites States acting more like a league of sovereign states than a nation of individuals? Or was the country based more fundamentally on the action of the American people as a whole, making the U.S. Constitution truly "the supreme law of the land" in its delegated spheres of governance? Tragically, for a nation founded upon ideals and not mere tradition or blood, this important question would eventually be answered by war instead of words.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.R.8 Delineate and evaluate the argument and specific claims in a text, including the validity of the reasoning as well as the relevance and sufficiency of the evidence.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RH.6-8.1 Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources.

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RH.6-8.2 Determine the central ideas or information of a primary or secondary source; provide an accurate summary of the source distinct from prior knowledge or opinions.

NCSS.D1.4.9-12. Explain how supporting questions contribute to an inquiry and how, through engaging source work, new compelling and supporting questions emerge.

NCSS.D2.His.1.9-12. Evaluate how historical events and developments were shaped by unique circumstances of time and place as well as broader historical contexts.

NCSS.D2.His.2.9-12. Analyze change and continuity in historical eras.

NCSS.D2.His.3.9-12. Use questions generated about individuals and groups to assess how the significance of their actions changes over time and is shaped by the historical context.

NCSS.D2.His.4.9-12. Analyze complex and interacting factors that influenced the perspectives of people during different historical eras.

NCSS.D4.1.9-12. Construct arguments using precise and knowledgeable claims, with evidence from multiple sources, while acknowledging counterclaims and evidentiary weaknesses.

NCSS.D4.3.9-12. Present adaptations of arguments and explanations that feature evocative ideas and perspectives on issues and topics to reach a range of audiences and venues outside the classroom using print and oral technologies (e.g., posters, essays, letters, debates, speeches, reports, and maps) and digital technologies (e.g., Internet, social media, and digital documentary).

To teach this lesson about the seeds of American sectionalism, four activities are provided below: two on the Missouri Compromise and two on the Nullification Crisis. Review the activities, then locate and bookmark websites and primary documents that you will use.

• An interactive map of the Missouri Compromise, designed for use with this lesson
• The text of the Missouri Compromise, located at EDSITEment-reviewed National Archives
• Two websites for students to research the major economic differences between the North and South, found at EDSITEment-reviewed sites American Memory, Digital History, and Mapping History
• Two primary documents for researching the opposing sides in the Nullification Crisis, found at the EDSITEment-reviewed site "Avalon Project" at the Yale Law School: and President Jackson's Proclamation Regarding Nullification

If your students lack experience in dealing with primary sources, you might use one or more preliminary exercises to help them develop these skills. The Learning Page at the American Memory Project of the Library of Congress includes a set of such activities. Another useful resource is the Digital Classroom of the National Archives, which features a set of Document Analysis Worksheets. Finally, History Matters offers a page on "Making Sense of Maps" which gives helpful advice to teachers in getting their students to use such sources effectively.

Activity 1. The Missouri Compromise: Mapping the Slavery Controversy in 1820

Access the interactive map of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and become familiar with the location of the free states, the slave states, the regions identified as U.S. territories, the regions identified as not belonging to the U.S., and the 36º30' line. By clicking on each state, students can bring up statistical information about each state in the year 1820, compiled by reference to the U.S. Bureau of the Census from the Department of Commerce. Students will find particularly interesting the statistics of their own state, if it existed by 1820. They will do a comparative study of regions and states by using the pop-up information.

Two worksheets with question and answer charts are provided for student use with the interactive map:

• Worksheet I (Pages 1-2 of the PDF): A comparative study of regions and states using the pop-up information
• Worksheet II (Pages 3-4 of the PDF): An analytical study of changes brought about by the Missouri Compromise

Activity 2. The Missouri Compromise: A Textual Analysis

Have students read the text of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 located at the EDSITEment reviewed website National Archives and then answer the questions that appear on page 5 of the PDF.

Activity 3. Nullification Crisis: The Widening Rift between the North and the South

If time permits, both the economic and philosophic activities should be completed. Otherwise, choose one to show the growing sectionalism of American.

The Economic Divide between North and South

This section will help students to deepen their understanding of the basic commercial differences between the industrial North and the agricultural South. The South, especially South Carolina, was sorely aggravated by the imposition of the tariffs of 1828 and 1832, causing them to resort to the threat of nullification and secession. In this activity, students will use internet resources from the EDSITEment-reviewed websites of American Memory and Digital History to read primary sources and analyze graphs and a map.

The video below provides a look at the issue of slavery and secession between the Revolutionary War and the American Civil War as a supplement to the primary source materials produced on competing sides of the slave and free state debate. The first fourteen minutes are recommended to provide background and context for the debates that transpired after 1830.

Have the students visit the following sites, and answer the corresponding questions on pages 6-7 of the PDF

• The tariffs of 1828 and 1832.
• Map of Slave Crops in the American South
• Chart showing Occupational Distribution, 1820-1860 (page 3 of the PDF)
• Table showing Occupational Distribution, 1820-1860

When students return with the information gained from this activity, begin a discussion about the basic differences in the commercial economies of North and South, and about how the tariffs embittered the relationship between the two regions. If students do not bring this up, point out that while the diversified manufactures of the North were occupying a greater part of the overall U.S. economy, the southern agricultural economy was growing increasingly dependent on one crop—cotton.

The Philosophic Divide Separating South Carolina from the Federal Government

When Congress enacted the Tariff of 1832, which lowered the tariff but not substantially, the legislature of South Carolina responded by calling a special convention. They issued what was called the "South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification." President Jackson responded three weeks later with a "Proclamation Regarding Nullification."

Print out and distribute to students pages 8-11 of the PDF. Have students read the text of the South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification and excerpts from Jackson's Proclamation Regarding Nullification. Then ask the students to answer the questions that correspond to each document. In the third column of the worksheet—the one labeled "Citation"—students should indicate where in the document they found the evidence that allowed them to answer each question.

Place students in groups of 3-4 with two students taking on the role of people on opposing sides at the time of the Missouri Compromise and Nullification Crisis and the remaining students participating as neutral citizens who need to be persuaded. Students can use primary source materials and their interpretation of secondary sources from the time to participate in small group discussions around the following questions:

• Why was the Missouri Compromise called a "compromise"?
• What did each section of the country, North and South, gain and what did each give up?
• What is the role of compromise in a self-governing society, considering that many convictions are deeply held but not shared by everyone in the community? Further, is some level of compromise necessary to the survival of a democratic republic?

• What are South Carolina's basic arguments supporting a state's right to nullify an act of Congress and even secede from the federal union?
• What arguments did President Andrew Jackson give to refute South Carolina's claim to nullify federal laws it deemed unconstitutional?

• Was South Carolina's attempt to nullify a federal tariff inevitable, given the geographic, political, and economic context of the Missouri Compromise?

Students who participate as neutral citizens during the activity are required to record evidence provided by their classmates as justification for why they have taken a given position on the issues. Neutral citizens are encouraged to ask questions of their fellow group members when they are unsure of or unconvinced by the arguments presented. 

Alternatively, have students use the matrix provided on Comparing North and South Worksheet (Page 12 of the PDF) to summarize the major differences between the North and South on the key issues brought up in this lesson, such as the respective view of the North and South on slavery in the south, slavery in the western territories, and tariffs, as well as major differences in their regional economies.

The Tallmadge Amendment (1819)

The debate in Congress over the admittance of Missouri to statehood was complicated by New York Congressman James Tallmadge's amendment. Have students read the amendment in the EDSITEment-reviewed American Memory collection.

Ask students to answer the following questions:

• What is the main point of this amendment?
• Why did this amendment trigger a passionate debate about Missouri's application for statehood?

Thomas Jefferson's Letter to John Holmes (1820)

Have students read and interpret a famous letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote about the effect of the Missouri Compromise on the slavery controversy in America. Have students go online to the Jefferson Exhibit at the EDSITEment-reviewed American Memory website. Instruct them to jot down answers to the following questions:

• What two metaphors does Jefferson use to describe America's slavery controversy?
• Taken together, what impression do these metaphors convey about the intensity with which Jefferson viewed the slavery question?
• What did Jefferson imply that he would be willing to do if he thought it would help?
• What did he mention as a possible two-pronged solution to the slavery problem?
• On what personal note does he end his letter?

Nullification Proclamation (1832): Additional Primary Source Documents and Contemporary Accounts

For additional primary source documents and contemporary accounts dealing with Andrew Jackson and the nullification crisis, see Nullification Proclamation at the EDSITEment-reviewed website Library of Congress: Primary Documents in American History.

Recommended Websites

• Avalon Project at Yale Law School
  • Federalist Papers
    • No. 15
    • No. 39
  • Jackson's Proclamation Regarding Nullification
  • South Carolina's Ordinance of Nullification
• Digital History
  • History Reference Room—Maps
    • Slavery: Slave Crops in the American South (map)
• American Memory Project, Library of Congress
  • A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation
    • Congressional Globe
    • James Tallmadge, "Admission of Missouri: Amendment" (1819)
      • Exhibitions
        • Thomas Jefferson
          • The West
          • Thomas Jefferson to John Holmes
        • Especially for Researchers—Bibliographies
          • Primary Documents in American History
            • National Expansion and Reform, 1815-1860
            • Nullification Proclamation (1832)

• National Archives and Records Administration
  • Our Documents
    • Missouri Compromise of 1820
  • The National Archives Experience
    • The Charters of Freedom: 'A New World is at Hand'
      • Declaration of Independence