Slavery, Freedom and Expansion in the Early American West (review)

Abstract

Slavery, Freedom and Expansion in Early American West. By John Craig Hammond. (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2007. Pp. 245. Cloth, $39.50.)Reviewed by Gwynne Langley RiversIn John Craig Hammond's Slavery, Freedom and Expansion in Early American West, debate over politics of slavery is moved out of Washington and into territories of Louisiana Purchase and Northwest Territory. Hammond traces debates over slavery in Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois from passage of Northwest Ordinance in 1790 until Missouri Crisis in 1820. As these states were admitted into Union, each contended with question of whether to allow slavery within their borders. Hammond argues that decisions made in local political arenas were far more important in securing nation as a slaveholder's republic than any laws passed in Congress. Because federal was rather weak and overextended in early republic, ample room was left for legislators and advocates in territories to lobby for proslavery legislation that would take effect when territories were admitted as states. Further, proslavery legislation was seen as critical to process of western expansion long before Missouri Controversy brought it to national attention. In spite of antislavery Article VI of Northwest Ordinance, Congress did not pass similar restrictions in Southwest Territories due in part to the weaknesses of federal . . . that greatly amplified influence that westerners could exercise over federal government (11). Because of this imbalance, proslavery settlers in Southwest Territories were able to advance their cause. The federal was more concerned with expanding settlement in West, and in many cases saw proslavery legislation as price they had to pay to continue course of expansion.Hammond therefore argues for a recentering of our about slavery debate. Instead of focusing on limited debates in Washington, important conversations happened in territories among westerners. The Washington-centric historiography produces a distorted understanding (5) of reasons why slavery was federally sanctioned and its expansion was not checked. By refocusing attention on territories themselves, Hammond demonstrates that securing nation as a slaveholder's republic was not done through a process of neglect, but instead was due to westerners' advocacy for proslavery laws. Hammond claims that this process of allowing each territory to decide question independently led directly to Missouri Controversy and ability of southern politicians to argue that slavery was both necessary and permanent by 1820.Hammond further claims that while Washington politicians could do little about deciding question of slavery, they were not indifferent to issue, and northerners did not leave debates to southern representatives. Instead of dismissing petitions from Indiana to repeal Article VI of Northwest Ordinance, Congress referred them to committees, where they were discussed but later tabled. This action, Hammond contends, goes against traditional view that House was in control of southerners, and instead he argues that northern politicians chose their battles carefully and were intent on preserving slavery in areas where it was possible, as in Indiana and Illinois (109). …