Slavery and Politics in the Early American Republic (review)

Mason's study provides a straightforward description and analysis of the slavery issue in national politics from the formation of the federal Constitution through the Missouri admission crisis of 1819 to 1821. Drawing heavily on pamphlet polemics, newspaper reports, and Congressional debates, Mason concentrates on the impact of slavery for shaping partisan and sectional alignments between the end of the "first" abolition movement, the 1808 prohibition against further importation of slaves, and the Missouri crisis, which saw the full elaboration and polarization of arguments over slavery. Mason's wide and careful reading of printed sources from all regions enables him to differentiate changing opinions in New England, the Middle Atlantic States, Virginia and the Upper South, the Deep South, and the Old Northwest. Since African-American voices seldom found their way into print before the late 1820s, they do not figure substantially in his discussion, except in the form of slave conspiracies and revolts.

At the outset of the federal union, few Southerners defended slavery in principle. Many believed, as James Monroe wrote to Thomas Jefferson, that abolition would be desirable if it could be achieved "without expense or inconvenience to ourselves (19)." Such a fantasy, Mason explains, like others whereby slavery and African Americans would painlessly vanish, either "naturally" or through complicated gradual emancipation and colonization schemes, continued to enjoy favor for a generation. But in the contention over whether Missouri would be free or slave, and whether that state would forbid settlement by free people of color, Northerners and Southerners sharpened their arguments. Antislavery advocates exposed the contradictions that had long enabled politicians from all regions to temporize. In response, Southerners developed the argument that, so far as Africans, African Americans, and the United States were concerned, slavery was a positive good. The polarization of viewpoints that would eventually divide the United States was clear.

Mason's particular contribution is to argue, persuasively, that during the decade or so preceding the Missouri crisis, politicians and clergymen from every region developed and refined their views of slavery and public policy—laying the foundation for the incandescent conflicts of 1820 and 1821 and foreshadowing the full-blown sectional polemics of the 1840s and 1850s. Though much of Mason's account is familiar, grounded in the body of existing scholarship, his analysis of the pervasiveness and complexities of slavery debates is fresh and reveals the nuances of partisan manipulation and belief. Mason's approach to sources and methods, however, falls within conventional historical boundaries. Neither cultural nor literary analysis shapes this work any more than theories from anthropology or political science. As a result, the impact and audience for Slavery and Politics in the Early Republic will be confined to historians of the subject and period. They will find that this study enriches their understanding of the role of slavery in public discourse and division. But it will not challenge them to approach the vexed subject of race and labor in early America in fresh ways.