What do you think?
Rate this book
The Missouri Compromise and Its Aftermath: Slavery & the Meaning of America
Robert Pierce Forbes goes behind the scenes of the crucial Missouri Compromise, the most important sectional crisis before the Civil War, to reveal the high-level deal-making, diplomacy, and deception that defused the crisis, including the central, unexpected role of President James Monroe. Although Missouri was allowed to join the union with slavery, the compromise in fact closed off nearly all remaining federal territories to slavery.
When Congressman James Tallmadge of New York proposed barring slavery from the new state of Missouri, he sparked the most candid discussion of slavery ever held in Congress. The southern response quenched the surge of nationalism and confidence following the War of 1812 and inaugurated a new politics of racism and reaction. The South's rigidity on slavery made it an alluring electoral target for master political strategist Martin Van Buren, who emerged as the key architect of a new Democratic Party explicitly designed to mobilize southern unity and neutralize antislavery sentiment. Forbes's analysis reveals a surprising national consensus against slavery a generation before the Civil War, which was fractured by the controversy over Missouri.
<!--copy for pb
Robert Pierce Forbes goes behind the scenes of the crucial Missouri Compromise, the most important sectional crisis before the Civil War, to reveal the high-level deal-making, diplomacy, and deception that defused the crisis, including the central, unexpected role of President James Monroe. Although Missouri was allowed to join the union as a slave state, Forbes observes, the compromise in fact closed off nearly all remaining federal territory to slavery. Forbes's analysis reveals a surprising national consensus against slavery a generation before the Civil War, which was fractured by the controversy over Missouri.
-->
When Congressman James Tallmadge of New York proposed barring slavery from the new state of Missouri, he sparked the most candid discussion of slavery ever held in Congress. The southern response quenched the surge of nationalism and confidence following the War of 1812 and inaugurated a new politics of racism and reaction. The South's rigidity on slavery made it an alluring electoral target for master political strategist Martin Van Buren, who emerged as the key architect of a new Democratic Party explicitly designed to mobilize southern unity and neutralize antislavery sentiment. Forbes's analysis reveals a surprising national consensus against slavery a generation before the Civil War, which was fractured by the controversy over Missouri.
<!--copy for pb
Robert Pierce Forbes goes behind the scenes of the crucial Missouri Compromise, the most important sectional crisis before the Civil War, to reveal the high-level deal-making, diplomacy, and deception that defused the crisis, including the central, unexpected role of President James Monroe. Although Missouri was allowed to join the union as a slave state, Forbes observes, the compromise in fact closed off nearly all remaining federal territory to slavery. Forbes's analysis reveals a surprising national consensus against slavery a generation before the Civil War, which was fractured by the controversy over Missouri.
-->
369 pages, Hardcover
First published May 14, 2007
13 people are currently reading
150 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
April 26, 2016
There’s a story behind why I read this book. So settle in with some popcorn and your favorite adult beverage.
Some time back, I read a hefty biography on General Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson, a renowned corps commander for the late Confederate States of America. As I’m wont to do, I wrote a review. I gave the biography itself, by James I. Roberston, effusive praise. It was scholarly, comprehensive, and readable. Three values that do not often come together between two covers.
Of the man himself, Stonewall Jackson, I had less kind things to say. At the time, I did not think this was an unusually brave or controversial stance to take. Stonewall fought extremely hard – indeed gave his life – so that his rebellious “nation” could continue to keep their fellow human beings in chains. If you fight for slavery, you’re a prick. I didn’t stop to think this was a debatable position.
Oh internet! How you always prove me wrong!
There are people in this world who take greater-than-called-for offense at any disreputable remarks made against the Old South and her infallible heroes: Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and of course, Stonewall Jackson. Two of these peoplecame out from beneath their bridge found my review and voiced their displeasure. One commenter found it “frightening” that I didn't respect Stonewall Jackson (Things I find frightening: Cancer. Car accidents. Ebola. Things I don’t find frightening: disrespecting the ghost of Stonewall Jackson). The other commenter stated that I (referred to as “the reviewer”) didn't understand the “cultural, socio-political, or philosophical context of the era.”
The obvious thing to do would have been to delete the comments and move on with my life. These two had clearly chosen Stonewall as their hero, at the expense of millions of heroic individuals who never fought for slavery, and nothing I did would change that.
Moreover, it is a universal truth in historical discussions that when someone brings up the “cultural, socio-political, or philosophical context” of any era, they’re just regurgitating something they once heard in a freshman-level history course. (Think of the “How ‘bout them apples” guy from Good Will Hunting). The words sound good. They sound smart. They sound like the end of an argument. They’re not. They’re just air without meaning. A smoke screen for ignorance.
As you can see by now, I didn't simply move on with my life. I’ve been insulted before. But this was the Civil War we were talking about. The Civil War. And they’re accusing me of ignorance. I’ve read about, wrote about, and manipulated ideas about the Civil War for as long as I can remember. I’ve been to Antietam, Manassas, Chancellorsville, Fredericksburg, the Wilderness, Spotsylvania (it helps that a lot of these are in the same place), Vicksburg, and Shiloh. I’ve never been to Vienna, and only once to Venice, but I’ve been to Gettysburg three times. (This will likely be noted in my divorce proceedings). I once talked John Brown with famed historian Ed Bearss, whom I met at the Washita Battlefield on a stifling August day in Oklahoma.
The Civil War is my jam. And yet, someone thought I didn't know the cultural, socio-political, or philosophical context.
Thus was born my reading project (hat tip to my buddy Joe, who implanted the idea of reading projects in my mind): the History of Slavery in America.* I didn't start this project because the Stonewall trolls might be right, and I might be wrong. Not at all. The “cultural, socio-political, or philosophical context” is slavery. It was the necessary and sufficient condition of the Civil War. But as I meditated on the subject, I realized that I had fallen into the same trap of many Civil War buffs.
I knew all the battles, but nothing about the war.
The History of Slavery in America reading project is going to take a systematic, chronological look at how deeply the issue is ingrained in our history.
The first book on my list, by dint of arriving first in the mail, is Robert Pierce Forbes’s The Missouri Compromise and its Aftermath. This is a serious title for a serious – though not overly lengthy – book.
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was a bill that allowed the admission of Missouri into the Union as a slave state, while also prohibiting slavery from the balance of the former Louisiana Territory above the 36’30” boundary line. Forbes takes a detailed look at the sectional crisis brought about by the Compromise, including the central, behind-the-scenes role played by President James Monroe.
Forbes and I got off to a good start almost immediately, when he provided the Mission Statement for my History of Slavery in America reading project:
Forbes calls his book a study, and it is written as such. In his forward, he takes pains to provide a roadmap for his arguments, laying out the general contents of each chapter. This should give you some clue as to what you’re going to find within. This is not a breezy popular history, filled with sweeping judgments and obvious hooks. This is a closely reasoned, closely argued look at a complex historical moment.
Forbes attempts, with some success, though not conclusively, to demonstrate the centrality of President Monroe’s efforts in bringing the Compromise to fruition and defusing a potential sectional conflict. The book begins with an overview of Madison’s nationalistic goals – goals that were impeded, to an extent, by slavery. Forbes then moves into a detailed discussion of the Missouri Compromise. The inciting event of the Compromise was a bill allowing the people of Missouri to draft a constitution. Representative James Tallmadge attached an amendment to the bill forbidding further introduction of slaves into Missouri. This, of course, set off a firestorm. As Forbes observes, there was a fairly strong national consensus against slavery at the time, though the proposed solutions to slavery were varied and not without controversy (Monroe was in favor of colonization, which is why the capital of Liberia – Monrovia – bears his name).
Southern congressman fought back by trying to link the admission of Maine to slavery’s acceptance in Missouri. This tactic actually strengthened the resolve of anti-slavers, so much so that national abolition even gained currency.
One of the most interesting aspects of the Missouri debates is the Southern defense of slavery. Though some pro-slavers attempted to rationalize the treatment of humans as chattel, most stayed as far away from the moral argument as possible. Instead, they sought refuge in the Constitution, and in legalistic smoke screens that obscured the central moral and ethical question at the heart of the matter. Whips and chains have undeniable emotional force. Southerners drained that emotion by focusing on perhaps the most soporific topic in the world: statutory interpretation.
By utilizing a strict constructionist stance and claiming that the Constitution forbid certain federal actions, such as a national bank, the building of roads and bridges, the levying of tariffs – pro-slavers were actually attempting to protect slavery without mentioning slavery. That is, if they could deny the Federal Government the Constitutional right to build a canal, they also kept the Federal Government from outlawing their peculiar institution of enslavement. If this all seems a familiar argument (states’ rights!) it’s because these propositions were so successful that neo-Confederates still use them (on the internet!) 200 years later.
Eventually, and as Forbes argues, with Monroe’s help, a compromise was forged that permitted the expansion of slavery in principle, but prohibited it in practice. At the time, the Compromise was deemed a Southern, pro-slavery victory. In truth, though, it was a victory for anti-slavers; the best evidence of this is the lengths to which Southerners went to finally repeal it.
The best parts of this book are these early sections on the context and negotiation of the Missouri Compromise. Things drag a bit when Forbes gets to the “Aftermath” that he promises in the title. He devotes a great deal of time to Martin Van Buren and the rise of a sectional – versus national – political order. Van Buren, a man of few principles other than his own advancement, used the South’s fear of abolition to create a political engine designed to get him elected. Forbes also details the struggle between Van Buren’s sectionalism and what Forbes terms the “progressive nationalism” of John Quincy Adams. There are also several chapters covering Andrew Jackson, who managed to prove that a white supremacist could nevertheless defend the Union. A lot of this (especially the Van Buren material) is archaic, inside baseball politics from the early 19th century, and not nearly as gripping a topic as the drama of the Compromise itself.
Forbes’s book has a text-book feel to it. I felt like someone had assigned me to read it, when in reality, I’d assigned it myself, in a patented overreaction to being trolled on the internet. Yet it was a worthwhile read because it is an important topic. The Missouri Compromise is sometimes forgotten in lieu of the far more visceral and violent reactions to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which repealed the Compromise of 1820 and ushered in the era of Bleeding Kansas, John Brown, and finally, the Civil War. The effect of the Compromise’s repeal, however, is the best evidence of its vast importance.
* Below is the tentative list I have constructed for the History of Slavery in America reading project. I will probably add to the list at some point, but right now, my wife is giving me the “a box is arriving from Amazon every day look” that I have come to know so well. It’s not a look that bodes well for me. Possible additions: Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass; The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture by David Brion Davis; and perhaps Uncle Tom’s Cabin, by Harriet Beecher Stowe.
1. Dark Bargain: Slavery, Profits, and the Struggle for a Constitution, by Lawrence Goldstone
2. The Missouri Compromise and its Aftermath, by Robert Pierce Forbes
3. Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, 1816-1836, by William Freehling
4. The Impending Crisis: 1848-1861, by David M. Potter
5. The Road to Disunion Volume 1: Secessionists at Bay, by William Freehling
5. The Road to Disunion Volume 2: Secessionists Triumphant, by William Freehling
6. America’s Great Debate: Henry Clay, Stephen Douglas, and the Compromise that Preserved the Union, by Fergus M. Bordewich
7. River of Dark Dreams: Slavery and Empire in the Cotton Kingdom, by Walter Johnson
8. The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism, by Edward Baptist
9. Freedom National: The Destruction of Slavery in the United States, 1861-1865, by James Oakes
10. The Fall of the House of Dixie: The Civil War and the Social Revolution that Transformed the South, by Bruce Levine
11. Reconstruction, by Eric Foner
Some time back, I read a hefty biography on General Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson, a renowned corps commander for the late Confederate States of America. As I’m wont to do, I wrote a review. I gave the biography itself, by James I. Roberston, effusive praise. It was scholarly, comprehensive, and readable. Three values that do not often come together between two covers.
Of the man himself, Stonewall Jackson, I had less kind things to say. At the time, I did not think this was an unusually brave or controversial stance to take. Stonewall fought extremely hard – indeed gave his life – so that his rebellious “nation” could continue to keep their fellow human beings in chains. If you fight for slavery, you’re a prick. I didn’t stop to think this was a debatable position.
Oh internet! How you always prove me wrong!
There are people in this world who take greater-than-called-for offense at any disreputable remarks made against the Old South and her infallible heroes: Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and of course, Stonewall Jackson. Two of these people
The obvious thing to do would have been to delete the comments and move on with my life. These two had clearly chosen Stonewall as their hero, at the expense of millions of heroic individuals who never fought for slavery, and nothing I did would change that.
Moreover, it is a universal truth in historical discussions that when someone brings up the “cultural, socio-political, or philosophical context” of any era, they’re just regurgitating something they once heard in a freshman-level history course. (Think of the “How ‘bout them apples” guy from Good Will Hunting). The words sound good. They sound smart. They sound like the end of an argument. They’re not. They’re just air without meaning. A smoke screen for ignorance.
As you can see by now, I didn't simply move on with my life. I’ve been insulted before. But this was the Civil War we were talking about. The Civil War. And they’re accusing me of ignorance. I’ve read about, wrote about, and manipulated ideas about the Civil War for as long as I can remember. I’ve been to Antietam, Manassas, Chancellorsville, Fredericksburg, the Wilderness, Spotsylvania (it helps that a lot of these are in the same place), Vicksburg, and Shiloh. I’ve never been to Vienna, and only once to Venice, but I’ve been to Gettysburg three times. (This will likely be noted in my divorce proceedings). I once talked John Brown with famed historian Ed Bearss, whom I met at the Washita Battlefield on a stifling August day in Oklahoma.
The Civil War is my jam. And yet, someone thought I didn't know the cultural, socio-political, or philosophical context.
Thus was born my reading project (hat tip to my buddy Joe, who implanted the idea of reading projects in my mind): the History of Slavery in America.* I didn't start this project because the Stonewall trolls might be right, and I might be wrong. Not at all. The “cultural, socio-political, or philosophical context” is slavery. It was the necessary and sufficient condition of the Civil War. But as I meditated on the subject, I realized that I had fallen into the same trap of many Civil War buffs.
I knew all the battles, but nothing about the war.
The History of Slavery in America reading project is going to take a systematic, chronological look at how deeply the issue is ingrained in our history.
The first book on my list, by dint of arriving first in the mail, is Robert Pierce Forbes’s The Missouri Compromise and its Aftermath. This is a serious title for a serious – though not overly lengthy – book.
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was a bill that allowed the admission of Missouri into the Union as a slave state, while also prohibiting slavery from the balance of the former Louisiana Territory above the 36’30” boundary line. Forbes takes a detailed look at the sectional crisis brought about by the Compromise, including the central, behind-the-scenes role played by President James Monroe.
Forbes and I got off to a good start almost immediately, when he provided the Mission Statement for my History of Slavery in America reading project:
For generations, the impact of slavery has been written out of American history – indeed, with a few fleeting exceptions, such has been the rule throughout the nation’s existence. Because the institution of slavery had such towering economic and social effects, and constituted, throughout the antebellum era, far and away the nation’s largest store of capital beside land, this act of negation was no mean feat. That it succeeded as long as it did is potent testimony to the power of narratives to shape understanding and even perception.
Forbes calls his book a study, and it is written as such. In his forward, he takes pains to provide a roadmap for his arguments, laying out the general contents of each chapter. This should give you some clue as to what you’re going to find within. This is not a breezy popular history, filled with sweeping judgments and obvious hooks. This is a closely reasoned, closely argued look at a complex historical moment.
Forbes attempts, with some success, though not conclusively, to demonstrate the centrality of President Monroe’s efforts in bringing the Compromise to fruition and defusing a potential sectional conflict. The book begins with an overview of Madison’s nationalistic goals – goals that were impeded, to an extent, by slavery. Forbes then moves into a detailed discussion of the Missouri Compromise. The inciting event of the Compromise was a bill allowing the people of Missouri to draft a constitution. Representative James Tallmadge attached an amendment to the bill forbidding further introduction of slaves into Missouri. This, of course, set off a firestorm. As Forbes observes, there was a fairly strong national consensus against slavery at the time, though the proposed solutions to slavery were varied and not without controversy (Monroe was in favor of colonization, which is why the capital of Liberia – Monrovia – bears his name).
Southern congressman fought back by trying to link the admission of Maine to slavery’s acceptance in Missouri. This tactic actually strengthened the resolve of anti-slavers, so much so that national abolition even gained currency.
One of the most interesting aspects of the Missouri debates is the Southern defense of slavery. Though some pro-slavers attempted to rationalize the treatment of humans as chattel, most stayed as far away from the moral argument as possible. Instead, they sought refuge in the Constitution, and in legalistic smoke screens that obscured the central moral and ethical question at the heart of the matter. Whips and chains have undeniable emotional force. Southerners drained that emotion by focusing on perhaps the most soporific topic in the world: statutory interpretation.
By utilizing a strict constructionist stance and claiming that the Constitution forbid certain federal actions, such as a national bank, the building of roads and bridges, the levying of tariffs – pro-slavers were actually attempting to protect slavery without mentioning slavery. That is, if they could deny the Federal Government the Constitutional right to build a canal, they also kept the Federal Government from outlawing their peculiar institution of enslavement. If this all seems a familiar argument (states’ rights!) it’s because these propositions were so successful that neo-Confederates still use them (on the internet!) 200 years later.
Eventually, and as Forbes argues, with Monroe’s help, a compromise was forged that permitted the expansion of slavery in principle, but prohibited it in practice. At the time, the Compromise was deemed a Southern, pro-slavery victory. In truth, though, it was a victory for anti-slavers; the best evidence of this is the lengths to which Southerners went to finally repeal it.
The best parts of this book are these early sections on the context and negotiation of the Missouri Compromise. Things drag a bit when Forbes gets to the “Aftermath” that he promises in the title. He devotes a great deal of time to Martin Van Buren and the rise of a sectional – versus national – political order. Van Buren, a man of few principles other than his own advancement, used the South’s fear of abolition to create a political engine designed to get him elected. Forbes also details the struggle between Van Buren’s sectionalism and what Forbes terms the “progressive nationalism” of John Quincy Adams. There are also several chapters covering Andrew Jackson, who managed to prove that a white supremacist could nevertheless defend the Union. A lot of this (especially the Van Buren material) is archaic, inside baseball politics from the early 19th century, and not nearly as gripping a topic as the drama of the Compromise itself.
Forbes’s book has a text-book feel to it. I felt like someone had assigned me to read it, when in reality, I’d assigned it myself, in a patented overreaction to being trolled on the internet. Yet it was a worthwhile read because it is an important topic. The Missouri Compromise is sometimes forgotten in lieu of the far more visceral and violent reactions to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which repealed the Compromise of 1820 and ushered in the era of Bleeding Kansas, John Brown, and finally, the Civil War. The effect of the Compromise’s repeal, however, is the best evidence of its vast importance.
* Below is the tentative list I have constructed for the History of Slavery in America reading project. I will probably add to the list at some point, but right now, my wife is giving me the “a box is arriving from Amazon every day look” that I have come to know so well. It’s not a look that bodes well for me. Possible additions: Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass; The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture by David Brion Davis; and perhaps Uncle Tom’s Cabin, by Harriet Beecher Stowe.
1. Dark Bargain: Slavery, Profits, and the Struggle for a Constitution, by Lawrence Goldstone
3. Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, 1816-1836, by William Freehling
4. The Impending Crisis: 1848-1861, by David M. Potter
5. The Road to Disunion Volume 1: Secessionists at Bay, by William Freehling
5. The Road to Disunion Volume 2: Secessionists Triumphant, by William Freehling
6. America’s Great Debate: Henry Clay, Stephen Douglas, and the Compromise that Preserved the Union, by Fergus M. Bordewich
7. River of Dark Dreams: Slavery and Empire in the Cotton Kingdom, by Walter Johnson
8. The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism, by Edward Baptist
9. Freedom National: The Destruction of Slavery in the United States, 1861-1865, by James Oakes
10. The Fall of the House of Dixie: The Civil War and the Social Revolution that Transformed the South, by Bruce Levine
11. Reconstruction, by Eric Foner
January 13, 2021
an important topic, but the writing is a bit stilted and there isn't as clear of a narrative. Nonetheless the historical impact is extremely important, it does leave open the question of Monroe's accountability for the Compromise.
August 27, 2024
This is a scholarly look at American politics from roughly 1818 to 1832.
Maybe a bit too scholarly for me. Many parts of the book are very finely argued, and I tended to lose track of what the argument was. It is obvious in places that he also arguing for a different interpretation on events than has been common, but I'm not at all familiar with what he's arguing against.
Even with my limitations, it was a very interesting read. One of Forbes' main contentions is that President Monroe had more control of events than he is credited with. Apparently the usual look at the era was that he was nearly sidelined while events like the Missouri Compromise were going on. Here, the contention is that Monroe was aware that if he stepped into the debate, it would polarize the sides to the point where compromise was impossible, so he worked entirely behind the scenes to maneuver events to a stand down on all sides.
Forbes presents early American politics as a tension between ideological conflicts (generally, the role of the Federal government), and sectional ones (largely slavery). This is an unstable situation, as in the long run most political conflicts are going to want to turn regional, but the goal of several canny politicians of the era was to keep non-regional issues in play and force the parties into national, instead of regional, systems. This breaks down later, with the demise of the Missouri Compromise, and the rise of the Republican Party, which is strongly regional.
There is also a lot of look into the thoughts behind what is going on and being said, particularly, of course, various defenses of slavery. South Carolina comes in the for extra-special snowflake award as the bigger planters there generally felt that any change to their society would bring about utter collapse. This leads South Carolina to being in the lead of defenses of slavery, and more importantly (to them), the lead in making sure the federal government does as little as possible. It was felt that letting the government go around building roads, improving waterways, and just, you know, making commerce better for everyone would inevitably cause the kind of changes that they were desperate to avoid.
So, while it often looks like the subject of slavery had disappeared from politics in the 1820s, the argument over "internal improvements" and tariffs that lead to the Nullification Crisis are powered by a fear of change in the state with the highest proportion of black slaves to free whites in the country.
This book was a bit much for me as it juggled more things than I could entirely keep track of, but it is decidedly a well done scholarly look at the subject, and worth reading (along with other works) by anyone who wants a better understanding how the initial Founding Fathers' idea that slavery would go away on its own failed.
Maybe a bit too scholarly for me. Many parts of the book are very finely argued, and I tended to lose track of what the argument was. It is obvious in places that he also arguing for a different interpretation on events than has been common, but I'm not at all familiar with what he's arguing against.
Even with my limitations, it was a very interesting read. One of Forbes' main contentions is that President Monroe had more control of events than he is credited with. Apparently the usual look at the era was that he was nearly sidelined while events like the Missouri Compromise were going on. Here, the contention is that Monroe was aware that if he stepped into the debate, it would polarize the sides to the point where compromise was impossible, so he worked entirely behind the scenes to maneuver events to a stand down on all sides.
Forbes presents early American politics as a tension between ideological conflicts (generally, the role of the Federal government), and sectional ones (largely slavery). This is an unstable situation, as in the long run most political conflicts are going to want to turn regional, but the goal of several canny politicians of the era was to keep non-regional issues in play and force the parties into national, instead of regional, systems. This breaks down later, with the demise of the Missouri Compromise, and the rise of the Republican Party, which is strongly regional.
There is also a lot of look into the thoughts behind what is going on and being said, particularly, of course, various defenses of slavery. South Carolina comes in the for extra-special snowflake award as the bigger planters there generally felt that any change to their society would bring about utter collapse. This leads South Carolina to being in the lead of defenses of slavery, and more importantly (to them), the lead in making sure the federal government does as little as possible. It was felt that letting the government go around building roads, improving waterways, and just, you know, making commerce better for everyone would inevitably cause the kind of changes that they were desperate to avoid.
So, while it often looks like the subject of slavery had disappeared from politics in the 1820s, the argument over "internal improvements" and tariffs that lead to the Nullification Crisis are powered by a fear of change in the state with the highest proportion of black slaves to free whites in the country.
This book was a bit much for me as it juggled more things than I could entirely keep track of, but it is decidedly a well done scholarly look at the subject, and worth reading (along with other works) by anyone who wants a better understanding how the initial Founding Fathers' idea that slavery would go away on its own failed.
February 3, 2025
Generously
I generously have this book a 3 star rating. I really wanted to read a book and understand the Missouri Compromise. I could not get into this book at all. The first three or four chapters talked about the Compromise but after that the author seemed to go all over the place, mostly focusing on the different aspects of slavery instead of the Missouri Compromise. Maybe it's me, I don't know, but this book did not interest me at all.
I generously have this book a 3 star rating. I really wanted to read a book and understand the Missouri Compromise. I could not get into this book at all. The first three or four chapters talked about the Compromise but after that the author seemed to go all over the place, mostly focusing on the different aspects of slavery instead of the Missouri Compromise. Maybe it's me, I don't know, but this book did not interest me at all.
Read
May 13, 2024A very detailed account of the views and actions underlying the Compromise. Much of the writing was a joy to read, and I learned a great deal. The aftermath portion, going up to Dred Scott, was perhaps the most interesting.
Read
July 27, 2011I like that Forbes provides a long-range view of the MO Compromise, but I would have liked more on the Compromise itself. I also thought he could have done more to show the connection between Van Buren and Jackson and the protection of southern interests, i.e., slavery.
Additionally, he doesn't cite John Marszalek's book on the Petticoat affair or Eric Burin's book on the American Colonization Society, which is odd given their prominence in the period and importance to his argument.
Finally, he cites an 1839 letter that AJ wrote to New Hampshire newspaper editor and politician Isaac Hill as proof that AJ was pushing James K. Polk over Van Buren for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1840. The context of this letter is AJ pushing Polk as Van Buren's running mate, not as the presidential nominee.
Still, this book is an important one if only for the argument that slavery didn't disappear after the MO Compromise but remained an influential issue throughout the 1820s and beyond.
Additionally, he doesn't cite John Marszalek's book on the Petticoat affair or Eric Burin's book on the American Colonization Society, which is odd given their prominence in the period and importance to his argument.
Finally, he cites an 1839 letter that AJ wrote to New Hampshire newspaper editor and politician Isaac Hill as proof that AJ was pushing James K. Polk over Van Buren for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1840. The context of this letter is AJ pushing Polk as Van Buren's running mate, not as the presidential nominee.
Still, this book is an important one if only for the argument that slavery didn't disappear after the MO Compromise but remained an influential issue throughout the 1820s and beyond.
April 29, 2013
This book shows how the Missouri Compromises, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Dred Scot Case and the Lincoln-Douglas debates shaped the evolution of our nations view of slavery. What school history books treated with a paragraph, this book gives you great details about the politics involved.
You might raise the question, are we at a similar juncture today in our federal government? Is the debate about whether the government is a contract between the people of the country, or is it for increasing the profits of the corporations. The sides are drawn just a distinctly.
You might raise the question, are we at a similar juncture today in our federal government? Is the debate about whether the government is a contract between the people of the country, or is it for increasing the profits of the corporations. The sides are drawn just a distinctly.
February 1, 2016
A definitive political history of not just the Missouri Compromise, but also of the entire "Era of Good Feelings." An insightful look into the Monroe and Adams presidencies that put slavery at the center of the nation's development during the antebellum period.
August 26, 2010
OK, interesting thesis, well-supported, definitely food for thought, but...a great sleep aid.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews