In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

31 two v Missouri Divides The฀new฀state฀of฀missouri proved to be aroaringsuccess.Settlersfarmed the fertile lands along the rivers, hunted furs, mined lead, and generally found prosperity in the 1820s and 1830s. Barges, flatboats, and steamboats navigating the Missouri and Mississippi rivers carried tobacco, hemp, and furs to the rest of the nation and to ships that crossed the Atlantic. The river trade and hundreds of miles of new railroads brought goods, travelers, and news through the state. During those years, Missouri’s popular senator Thomas Hart Benton continued to voice the old-fashioned Democratic doctrine of hard money and readily available land for westward migration. The state’s economic growth and prosperity came with a cost, however. Missouri ’s population doubled and then doubled again in the 1830s and 1840s. In 1830, more than 140,000 people lived in the state; by 1860, the population had reached more than a million.1 Immigration from Europe, especially Germany, played a significant role in this growth, especially in St. Louis. In 1840, St. Louis had a population of about 20,000; by 1850, that number had increased to 75,000 and, within another decade to about 160,000.2 Two-thirds of St. Louisans were foreign born. German immigrants’ ideas, beliefs, and customs differed sharply from those of the more established Missourians, especially those who hailed from the slave states. These new Germans changed the political climate of cities like St. Louis and the state capital, Jefferson City. Many of them were political refugees who had been driven from their homeland because of their radical democratic and anticlerical views, and they never hesitated to express their opinions. This new population had a profound influence on St. Louis as it began to lose its French colonial character and as public opinion began to reflect the views and customs of the newer German citizens. The Democratic Party, which had long ruled the state, was not always able to keep pace with the changes. As Missouri grew and changed, it remained at the crossroads of regions, labor systems, and politics. Missourians struggled mightily over national issues and conflicts—especially over the expansion of slavery into the western territories. While Missouri did not have a strong antislavery contingent, some opponentsof slaverywerebeginningtoreachthelimitsof theirtolerance. When new western territories clamored to join the Union after the war with Mexico, Senator 32 missouri’s฀war Benton feared that agitation over slavery would endanger the Union and warned that slaves should be kept out of the new territories. His position earned him a great deal of enmity with the powerful Boon’s Lick party leaders and brought about the end of his twenty-year Senate career. Benton was a nationalist committed to keeping slavery out of the territories, and by 1850, Missouri’s Democrats were bitterly divided: some agreed with Benton, while others denied that Congress possessed the power to legislate on slavery in the territories. Whigs capitalized on this division, particularly in St. Louis and Jefferson City, and made gains throughout the decade, even as old Whigs from Virginia supported both slavery and some of the more modern improvements, such as railroads, educational reform, and banks.3 After the passage of the Compromise of 1850, many Missourians hailed what they considered to be its most beneficial provision: the Fugitive Slave Act. Because the state bordered free territories, slave owners lived with the constant risk that their slaves might escape into freedom. The compromise quelled sectional tensions for a time, until Iowa senator Augustus C. Dodge introduced a bill organizing the Nebraska and Kansas territories in 1853. Illinois senator Stephen A. Douglas, who chaired the Committee on Territories, took over the bill and proposed that the slavery question be decided by the settlers themselves or, as he called it, by “popular sovereignty.” Because both territories were located north of the 36º 30' line, the bill effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Congress passed the law and President Franklin Pierce signed it in 1854. The Kansas-Nebraska Act caused a firestorm of protest among Northerners but was applauded in the South. In Missouri, it exacerbated an already volatile situation. Missourians, along with settlers from the Upper South, had already been crossing into the Kansas Territory for some time—illegally, because the territory had not yet been opened for settlement . Passage of the act galvanized Missourians to defend their interests. For Missourians , the addition of new western states was cause for concern. A slaveholding Kansas would intensify antislavery sentiment...

Share