The Missouri Compromise and Monroe Doctrine in early American history

¶ … Compromise of 1820

There are several events which marked the history of the U.S. And the development of the country. One of it is the Civil war through which the American colonies fought off its rivalries and established the "perfect union" Abraham Lincoln had envisaged.

The Compromise of 1820 represented from this point-of-view one of the starting political reactions to the relations between the North and the South and especially from the point-of-view of the slave issue and the slave institution.

The Compromise of 1820 or the Missouri Compromise was in fact a political reaction to the events that had marked the history of the States up to that point. The North had been on the verge of a new economic boom as businesses began to strive through the increase in industrial affairs. Traditionally, the North had been the industrial center of the country and the technological breakthroughs made in steel manufacturing improved the efficiency and productivity of the industry. On the other hand, most businessmen found new opportunities in the South and tried to benefit from the political and economic vacuum. This orientation however, created new tensions between the Northerners and the Southerners, the latter feeling an increased aversion especially towards the economic initiatives of the former. Even so, the Northern part of the country was considered to be more prosperous and to represent the future of a modern nation. The act enabled however states to maintain the balance between free and slave states and certain equilibrium in the Congress was established.

The Monroe Doctrine

The Monroe doctrine was one of the first acts related to the United States foreign policy. It represented an act of 1823 which enabled the colonies to pursue an independent foreign policy from the European states. More precisely, the Doctrine was established by President Monroe and presented in front of the Congress on December 2nd 1823 (the Monroe Doctrine, 2010).

The international context for this approach determined a widespread concern for the United States colonies because in fact it marked the European struggles between Spain and Portugal. In this sense, President Monroe argued that "the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers" (the Monroe Doctrine, 2010). In fact the Monroe Doctrine represents the first foreign policy act by the United States. It not only sets the boundaries for the prevention of European interference in the colonies' internal affairs but it also provides a limit in terms of the rest of the American continents, which at this moment is also Latin America.

It has been argued that the Monroe Doctrine is the first piece of the Roosevelt Corollary which pointed out, in the 20th century, a similar boundary in terms of foreign policy and defense (Renehan, 2007). This was an important step in the history of the United States because, indirectly, it also marked the start of the U.S. domination in the region. From this point-of-view, Henry Kissinger, State Secretary for President Nixon argued that "no single utterance of an American President, no statement of policy and strategic political philosophy has had more influence on the history of the world and the history of a region than President James Monroe's fundamental and seminal statement of 1823." (Renehan, 2007)

The Compromise of 1850

The Compromise of 1850 practically annulled the 1820 Compromise and diffused for a time the issue of slavery between the North and the South colonies. It came as a result of the annexation of Texas and the petition of California to enter the Union as a free state. The Compromise tried to further balance the spread of slavery leaving the decision of accepting slavery or not in the states to the population. Up to that point, the Missouri Compromise had established a line at the Mississippi which differentiated free from slave states. With the acquiring of new territory, the debate was weather these territories would be slave states or free states. The new territories forced the government to come up with a compromise solution that would establish slave and anti-slave states by nominalization, as it occurred with Washington DC, or by the free consent of the population, in states such as New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah (Africans in America, 2007).

The major provisions of the Compromise established the free will of the states to properly determine their status as slave or anti-slave states. This was an important determination because it allowed freedom in terms of choice inside the Union. Moreover, the Californian state was accepted as a free state in the Union, as requested (Jenkins, 1997).

The Kansas Nebraska Act followed the 1850 Compromise and went further, allowing people from the states of Kansas and Nebraska to choose for their own whether they should be slave states or not.

The Freeport Doctrine

The Freeport doctrine is part of a series of debates between Senator Douglas and Abraham Lincoln in the run up for the Illinois senatorial race in 1858. The major subject for debate during this debate was slavery and the right of the states to choose their own preference in terms of being a slave state or not.

Previous debates had set the tone for the one in Freeport where the major issue had been a Supreme Court decision in the Dred Scott case supported by Douglas. By comparison, Lincoln supported the idea of popular rule and that states have the right to decide for themselves.

At Freeport, Lincoln restated that the voting down of the amendment was a measure taken in preparation for the Supreme Court decision "But I have said that with men who did look forward to such a decision, or who had it in contemplation, that such a decision of the Supreme Court would or might be made, the voting down of that amendment would be perfectly rational and intelligible. It would keep Congress from coming in collision with the decision when it was made. Any body can conceive that if there was an intention or expectation that such a decision was to follow, it would not be a very desirable party attitude to get into for the Supreme Court -- all or nearly all its members belonging to the same party -- to decide one way, when the party in Congress had decided the other way. Hence it would be very rational for men expecting such a decision, to keep the niche in that law clear for it" (Fehrenbacher, 1989). Abraham Lincoln through the Freeport Doctrine tried to give ensure that the wishes of the states are met and that there is no collision between them and the Congress, as the Congress was able to decide on an entire package of laws without the approval of the states. This eventually happened and led to Civil War.

The American civil war

There are several aspects to be taken into account when discussing the issue of the civil war and its role in the American history. The main causes of the war relied in the issue of slavery as well as the right of the states to be part of a federal entity with equal rights and voices. The implications for this war were enormous as it provided a different future for the colonies and for the U.S. As a whole.

The main cause of the war was, as stated, the issue of slavery. In this sense, the Mexican war played an important role. It pointed out the importance of the slavery issue even in an apparently international situation. The Wilmot Proviso is essential in this way. Thus, it represented an additional act to a bill that enabled the U.S. To satisfy the financial needs of Mexico. The act in itself however was not passed because it pointed out the fact that none of the territories acquired during the Mexican war should be opened to slavery; while for the north it would have been a success, for the south it would have been a defeat. In the end the act was not passed but it represented a new reason for quarrel between the two sides. The Free Soil Party was created particularly as a result of these tensions, taking into account the fact that they supported the Wilmot Proviso (Jenkins, 1997).

The Lincoln- Douglas debates, the Freeport Doctrine, the Kansas nebraska act, these were all elements which led to the civil war. They underlined the stand of the South and their desire for control of the issue of slavery in the Congress as well as in the territory. The Civil War also gave birth to a series of issues that came to question the unity of the nation because there was the matter of each state being able to decide for itself in the matter of slavery. Nonetheless, while states in the north questioned the morality and necessity of slave workers, the south considered it to be the cornerstone of their economic prosperity.

The military campaign in the West is considered to be one of the most important theater operations of the Civil War because it represented the point in which the Confederation had to defend from the massive attacks of the Unionists. In this sense, they were forced to use all their natural conditions including the Mississippi River (Jenkins, 1997). In this context the military strategy included Ulysses Grant's attempt to take control of the West. However, General Hallack was also an important element of the strategy. In this sense, "the campaign was an integral part of Halleck's overall strategy for Union success in the West. He rightly believed that establishing Federal control of St. Louis and as much of Missouri as possible was essential before beginning large-scale offensive operations in Tennessee and the Mississippi Valley" (Shea and Hess, 1992, 307)

Thus, in the campaign that started in February 1862 to June the same year, the strategy consisted in the use of the river transportation system to move up the Tennessee. He made use of the limited possibilities of the Confederacy to build defense points in Kentucky, near fort Henry. Thus, it made the movement of the troops easier. On the other side, the armies of the Confederation were split, which made the defeat feasible for the North. However, the misunderstandings and the lack of agreement on the course of action inside the Union's camp made them vulnerable to the incursions of the South. One of the most important battles in this sense was the Battle of Shiloh which proved the need for the North's forces to keep their unity and agreement. Although he did meet impressive challenges from the South, Grant eventually took control of the Mississippi River, despite the fact that he had suffered great human casualties.

The capture of New Orleans in May 1862 represented an important victory for the North because the city was an important strategic point in the war. The next step was the so called Assault of Corinth led by Halleck who failed to advance at a high speed towards Corinth. Nonetheless, the armies of the North joined in the effort and the city was eventually besieged.

General Robert E. Lee is an important figure of the Civil War in America, as part of the eldership of the South armies in Virginia in particular. Despite his later success, in the beginning of the war, he was often faced with unworthy treatment and bickering (Sifakis, 2006). One of the most important actions of Lee's career was the battle for Richmond in which he stopped George B. McClellan from capturing the city. In addition there were several other battles that are considered to be of importance for Lee's career taking into account the fact that at the beginning of his presence in the army he was viewed with doubtful eyes, by the end of his career in the military the general opinion was much improved. Therefore, the battle of Second Manassas, the battle of Antietam, as well as the battle at Fredericksburg in December of 1862 proved his qualities of an important military character.

His confrontations included adversaries such as George B. McClellan, Pope, and Burnside in 1862. However, the following year he encountered General Grant to whom he surrendered.

Also, George B. McClellan is another important general from the Northern armies. He was one of the direct adversaries of Lee at Richmond, where his military capabilities failed him and he succumbed at the hands of Lee. The constant lack of success in the fight against the Southern general made McClellan's supporters to argue against his capabilities as a general and a leader. Therefore, "it was decided in Washington to abandon the campaign (against Richmond) and transfer most of McClellan's men to John Pope's army in northern Virginia. There were charges that McClellan-now called by the press "Mac the Unready" and "The Little Corporal of Unsought Fields "was especially slow in cooperating." (Sifakis, 2006) Despite the fact that he eventually regained his command and prestige, during the fall of 1862, his results were clearly negative.

The war eventually ended with the clear win of the North and the consequences of win were seen throughout the country. After the end of the war, Lincoln underlined the actual reason for going to war in the first place "we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth" (the White House, n.d.).

Abraham Lincoln saw the Civil War to be a necessary evil destined to give back the unity of the American nation. At the same time, the Civil War was a war fought for the equality among men. During the Gettysburg Address, he pointed out that "Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure." Therefore, it can be said that the main reason for the Civil War according to Lincoln was to keep united the country. The same idea was expressed in the "House Divided" speech part of the Lincoln- Douglas debate in which he pointed out the fact that the issue of slavery would lead to the destruction of the unity of the nation.

The Reconstruction period represented the consequence of the Civil War. There were legislative consequences of the war such as the 1866 Civil Rights Act. This underlined that "all persons born in the United States (...) are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding" (the Civil Rights Act of 1866).

The amendment of the U.S. Constitution in 1864 to include the 13th Amendment was crucial for the U.S. And probably the most important consequence of the war. It implied the abolition of slavery, and pointed out as it stated that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, (...) shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction / Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" (Cornell University Law School, 2010). This amendment aimed to solve the issue of slavery as well as that of the power of the Congress to legislate over the states in this matter. Hence, the two most important cause sfor the war had been settled.

Overall, it can be said that the Civil War marked the end of an era and the beginning of the modern history of the United States. Slavery as a practice was abolished, the conflict between the North and the South, at least theoretically, had been ended. The generals that fought the war, the president that presided over it and over the Reconstruction period, all played crucial roles in the establishment of new historical guidelines for the United States.