Rep. James Barbour, Slavery in Missouri, Speech, 1820

The Missouri Compromise of 1820 represented an uneasy agreement that temporarily preserved the peace between leaders in pro-slavery and in free states. Although it resolved the controversy over Missouri’s entrance to the United States, it signaled that the issue of enslavement would continue to dominate national politics until the Civil War finally erupted in 1861.

The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 prompted thousands of settlers to move west to seek their fortune. In 1818, residents of the Territory of Missouri applied for formal statehood. Some whites there were enslavers; others were not. Controversy over Missouri’s admission erupted in 1819 when New York Representative James Tallmadge introduced two amendments  to the statehood bill, one banning the further importation of enslaved people into the state and one providing for the gradual emancipation for enslaved people already there. Many northern representatives supported the amendment, due in large part to their fear over the growth of enslavers’ political power in the federal government. Southern Congressmen, including all of Virginia’s, vehemently opposed the amendment. Some argued that it was unconstitutional for Congress to dictate whether slavery was legal or not in a territory that had applied for statehood. Others took the opportunity to defend slavery as a viable, and in fact lucrative, economic institution. They argued that Black people were inferior and needed to be governed, and that prohibiting enslavement in the territories would cause a crisis in the east as the Black population grew larger in proportion to the white one.

Congress deadlocked over the question of Missouri’s admission during a period of economic downturn. The 1819 bill failed, but Maine's application for statehood in December 1819 raised the opportunity for compromise when Missouri also reapplied for statehood. In 1820, President James Monroe, Speaker of the House Henry Clay, and several allies worked behind the scenes to craft a bill that represented a compromise. In what became known as the Missouri Compromise, Missouri was admitted as a slave state, Maine was admitted as a free state, and the remaining western territory was divided between slave and free along the 36th parallel.

Although this temporarily halted controversy, it merely put off what was clearly a looming crisis. Thomas Jefferson described the compromise as an “alarm bell in the night,” and many others were concerned about the uneasy peace. In fact, the Missouri Compromise is often cited as the first of a series of crises that ultimately marked the road to secession and Civil War.

This pamphlet recorded the remarks made by James Barbour, one of Virginia's U.S. Senators, in January 1820. An enslaver, planter, and lawyer, Barbour hailed from Orange County and was politically connected to many wealthy families in Virginia. In his long speech, of which several excerpts are presented here, Barbour argued against placing a restriction on slavery in order for Missouri to be admitted to the union. He asserted that such restrictions violated the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution because it was unconstitutional to dictate to states the laws that would govern them. He also argued that Congress could not regulate the trafficking of enslaved people as interstate commerce because for a planter, enslaved people were “part of his family” rather than a commodity to be sold. 

Citation: Excerpts from the Speech of Mr. J. Barbour, of Virginia, on the Restriction of Slavery in Missouri, Washington, D.C.: 1820, Special Collections, Library of Virginia.


Learn more about James Barbour in his Dictionary of Virginia Biography entry online at Encyclopedia Virginia.

Preview Activity

Scan It: Scan the pages of this document. What words stand out to you, and why? What do these words have to do with the Constitution, and why?

Post-Activities:

Analyze: Read the excerpts from James Barbour's speech. What are the arguments Barbour used to support admitting Missouri as a slave state? What do you think about these arguments?  Do you think his position as an enslaver and plantation owner influenced his opinion on this issue? Why or why not?

Up for Debate: Imagine you are a supporter of Tallmadge and his amendment to the bill to admit Missouri. What arguments would you make in favor of prohibiting enslavement in Missouri? How would you refute Barbour’s claims?