On the threat of civil war in 1820 and why it didn't come about then, here's an old post of mine:
***
There was some pretty emotional language on both sides. Consider what
James Tallmadge said (and of course the words of the Southerners to whom he
replied, like Thomas W. Cobb of Georgia):
"Sir, the honourable gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Scott), who has just
resumed his seat, has told us of the Ides of March, and has told us to
'Beware of the fate of Caesar and of Rome.' Another gentleman (Mr. Cobb),
from Georgia, in addition to other expressions of great warmth, has said,
'that if we persist the Union will be dissolved;' and, with a look fixed on
me, has told us, 'we had kindled a fire which all the waters of the ocean
cannot put out, which seas of blood can only extinguish.'
"Sir, language of this sort has no effect on me; my purpose is fixed, it is
interwoven with my existence, its durability is limited with my life, it is
a great and glorious cause, setting bounds to a slavery the most cruel and
debasing the world ever witnessed; it is the freedom of man; it is the
cause of unredeemed and unregenerated human beings.
"Sir, if a dissolution of the Union must take place, let it be so! If civil
war, which gentlemen so much threaten, must come, I can only say, let it
come! My hold on life is probably as frail as that of any man who now hears
me; but, while that hold lasts, it shall be devoted to the service of my
country--to the freedom of man. If blood is necessary to extinguish any
fire which I have assisted to kindle, I can assure gentlemen, while I
regret the necessity, I shall not forbear to contribute my mite. [Tallmadge
was a veteran of the War of 1812.--DT] Sir, the violence to which gentlemen
have resorted on this subject will not move my purpose, nor drive me from
my place. I have the fortune and the honour to stand here as the
representative of freemen, who possess intelligence to know their rights,
who have the spirit to maintain them. Whatever might be my own private
sentiments on this subject, standing here as the representative of others,
no choice is left to me. I know the will of my constituents, and,
regardless of consequences, I will avow it; as their representative, I will
proclaim their hatred to slavery in every shape; as their representative
here will I hold my stand, until this floor, with the constitution of my
country which supports it, shall sink beneath me. If I am doomed to fall, I
shall at least have the painful consolation to believe that I fall, as a
fragment, in the ruins of my country. ....."
http://books.google.com/books?id=fZc-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA19
Other Northerners were just as firm, if less violent: "'The free people I
have the honor to represent,' declared Clifton Clagett of New Hampshire,
'have, by their constitution, excluded slavery, and believe it malum in se
[an evil in itself], and my own sentiments sincerely accord with theirs.'
Pennsylvanian William Darlington was one of many echoing these thoughts.
'The existence of slavery,' he remarked, 'seems to be universally
considered a great moral and political evil.' Northerners argued that the
nation would prosper only if freemen populated the West. 'If slavery shall
be tolerated, the country will be settled by rich planters, with their
slaves,' he noted. 'If it shall be rejected, the emigrants will chiefly
consist of the poorer and more laborious classes of society.' The choice
for Taylor, as for most Northerners, was self-evident; free labor must rule
the new territories. Northern lawmakers pointedly compared the wealth of
the free states with the backwardness of the South.
"Southern congressmen counterattacked, arguing that slavery was sanctioned
by the Constitution, by the treaty governing the Louisiana Purchase, by the
Bible, as well as by the practices of past civilizations. Foreshadowing
arguments that would be common at midcentury, several politicians also
contended slavery benefited African Americans..."
Marc Egnal, *Clash of Extremes: The Economic Origins of the Civil War*
http://books.google.com/books?id=gdpUHYdNxxoC&pg=PT75
So almost all the arguments of 1860 were there, the major difference being
that in 1820 many Southerners did concede that slavery was an evil; but
even they were quite firm that, evil or not, it was something the North had
no right to interfere with when it came to a territory's application for
statehood.
With these now-familiar arguments stoking emotions of both sections, why
was civil war avoided? Perhaps what was most important was that in those
days Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio were largely settled by southerners who
somewhat sympathized with the southern position, even if they did not want
slavery in their own states (and in Illinois, many actually *did* want
it). After all, their states had close commercial ties with the South
through the Mississippi Valley. Northwesterners pushed hard for
compromise: note that both of Illinois' senators--Jesse B. Thomas and
Ninian Edwards--played important roles in the compromise, and both were
southern-born. (Another southern-born Old Northwest politician who favored
compromise was William Henry Harrison of Ohio, a future president.)
In short, it is not that slavery was not an emotional issue, but that the
Old Northwest was less "northern" than it would be in 1860, and more eager
to compromise. (Not that there wasn't plenty of compromise sentiment in
the Old Northwest even in 1860, especially in the southern counties--but
these no longer dominated their states.)
Also,
"Ties of trade and investment encouraged a second Northern group,
Massachusetts politicians, to back compromise in 1819-21. Although few in
the Bay State had any love for slavery, the puritan commonwealth had strong
commercial links with the South. Manufacturers depended on the cotton
planters for raw materials, while wealthy merchanats agreed with
Southerners on the need for low tariffs. Massachusetts senator Harrison
Gray Otis, who was connected to both the shippers and the manufacturers,
initially opposed the Tallmadge amendments, which called for an end to
slavery in Missouri. He changed his mind, but still cautioned his
colleagues against 'intemperate expressions.' Four Bay State congressmen--
including Jonathan Mason who represented Boston--voted with the South in
key divisions. Mason blandly observed that 'not a Man in New England cares
one farthing' about slavery in Missouri. He was wrong; many oppsed the
extension of bondage. But significantly, the state legislature was slow to
endorse freedom in the new territory, leading one politician to complain
that 'Massachusetts cowers under the arrogant Pretentions of Virginia.'"
Marc Egnal, *Clash of Extremes: The Economic Origins of the Civil War*
http://books.google.com/books?id=gdpUHYdNxxoC&pg=PT77
(Egnal's book is an interesting neo-Beardian economic interpretation of the
origins of the ACW; he overstates his case, but he is useful on how
economic ties of some northern states with the South helped to preserve the
Union in 1820.)
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/5Biwd1Pqbkc/s4Ce50wDIF0J