From its earliest days as a French and Spanish possession, the city
of St. Louis played an important sectional role that persisted and intensified
after Missouri became part of the United States. St. Louis, situated south
of the junction of the Mississippi, Missouri, and Illinois rivers, seemed
to more than meet the necessary criteria for success in an age when commercial
potential was the primary concern for city planners and rivers were the
lifeblood of the American economy. The city became a shipping hub and served
as the last outpost of ìcivilizationî for those moving further
West while it marked the edge of the frontier to those in the East.
Many politicians in St. Louis, both Whigs and Democrats, believed that national politicians were neglecting the West in their policy-making decisions. The drive to obtain land for the United States west of the Mississippi that culminated in the Mexican War seemed to be an opportunity to change the countryís focus. With the expansion of the United States to the Pacific, St. Louis would become ìthe heart of the union,î poised almost exactly in the middle between North and South, East and West, ready to become the pre-eminent social, political, and economic center of the country. To many in St. Louis, it seemed unreasonable to govern such a vast country from one of its coasts, and some speculated that St. Louis would one day become the national capital.
St. Louis and the state of Missouri were enthusiastic supporters of the Mexican War in the 1840s, partially because of the benefits the addition of new territory could bring to the country and state. However, St. Louisís position at the center of the union did not bring about the hoped-for results, nor did the addition of new territory. The acquisition of the far western territories intensified rather than lessened the existing sectional disputes. St. Louis, which had spent the years before the Mexican War being pulled between eastern and western interests, found itself torn between north and south as well. The urban economic center had strong political and social ties with the North and East, while the rest of the state remained predominantly rural and agrarian, and was therefore more closely allied with the South. As sectional issues became more divisive, St. Louis became more isolated from the rest of Missouri.
Faced with such sectional problems, St. Louis and Missouri chose their traditional stance, neutrality. After all, the state owed its very existence to sectional compromise. The issue of the extension of slavery complicated many existing conflicts in the Missouri Democratic party. St. Louis remained the stronghold of support for Senator Thomas Hart Benton, who emphasized the stateís westernness in an attempt to neutralize sectional disputes, while the rest of Missouriís Democrats, led by Claiborne Fox Jackson and David Rice Atchison, allied themselves with the southern extremist views espoused by John C. Calhoun.
St. Louis politics between 1846 and 1850 reflected many national concerns
and foreshadowed many of the decisions that the city, state, and country
would face in 1860 and 1861. St. Louis had political, social, and economic
ties to the North, South, East, and West. The agitation of the sectional
conflict meant that it would have to decide which section to support. Neutrality
proved to not be an option. The Mexican War and the acquisition of new
territory in the West forced the city and later the country into a contest
of sections. St. Louis politicians tried to avoid being forced into a sectional
conflict by focusing on the advantages of expanding the United States.
However, expansion, which had seemed to many to be a possible solution
to the sectional dilemma about slavery, only exacerbated the problem.