1. In your text read pp. 123-124 on the Missouri Compromise and pp. 180-183.
2. In For The Record read pp. 290-293.
3. Comment on the following the Missouri Compromise was a good solution the slavery question in 1820.
I think that the Missouri Compromise was a good solution to the question of the expansion of slavery, at the time. This made free and slave states equal, by adding a free state, Maine, and a slave state, Missouri. In doing this the government made both the North and South happy, because there was a balance between free and slave. The idea of 36 30 allowed the country to be evenly split up, so half of the states would most likely be free and the other half slave. The point of a compromise, is to make different groups agree to one thing, by making all groups happy. The Missouri Compromise did this, by giving a fair shot, for the United States to be made up of equal parts free and slave states. There was not a problem with it until the acquisition of the southwestern lands, such as California. The government though did not know this would happen, so the Missouri Compromise was a good solution for the time.
I do think that the Missouri Compromise was a good solution to the question of the expansion of slavery at the time. The compromise pleased both the North and the South states because it added Maine as a free state and Missouri as a slave state. It also set a fair precedent for future territories turning into states by essentially splitting the US in half, lengthwise. Above this split would have no slaves and below the split would allow for slaves. This made everyone pleased, for the moment. However, the compromise did allow for future seperation between the northern and southern states.
I believe that the Missouri Compromise was not an effective solution to the slavery question of 1820. Although the compromised of adding Maine as a free state and Missouri as a slave state pleased both the Southern and Northern governments it encouraged a divide between the two cultures. The 36 30 rule further encouraged the separation of the South and North. Differences in morality and fundamental rights already had caused tension between the two regions of the Union. The Missouri Compromise was legislation that acknowledged and accepted the differences between the two regions. This was bad because the nation was now pinned against each other, striving to achieve two different sets of ideals. A strong nation would accept different view points, but they would still strive for the same ideals. The Missouri Compromise encouraged the separation of Southern and Northern ideals and allowed the fundamental divided between nations to grow.
Eliza- Even though the 36 30 rule made both the Southern and Northern governments happy does not mean that it was effective. A compromise that was truly effective would unite the two regions of the Union and please the both governments at the same time. The 36 30 act only encouraged a greater separation of government, ideals, fundamental rights, and morality between the two regions.
Melanie- Although the creation of Maine and Maryland pleased their respective governments, I do not think it was a successful resolution to the slavery problem. The creation of Maine and Maryland just furthered the divide between the Southern and Northern regions of the Union. A successful compromise would have brought them together.
melanie- I agree that the compromise caused more separation between the North and the South. This would be one of the reasons for the Civil War. micaele- That's a good point, that the compromise further separated the two sections, but it did please them both for the time being.
The Missouri Compromise was an overall successful solution to the slavery question in the United States in 1820. By Making Maine a free state and Missouri a slave state, the balance between free states and slave states was even. Although this encouraged social divide between the states, the amendment making the majority of the Louisiana Purchase (over the 36 latitude line) free territory cancelled out social divide. The Missouri Compromise kept peace among the states by giving them what they wanted for the time being. However, the effects of the compromise would not remain effective forever.
Eliza- I agree that the compromise was successful in the fact that it made all groups happy, just as every compromise should. By pleasing all groups, the United States were able to live peacefully for a while.
Melanie- I agree that the compromise set a fair precedent for future states and territories of the United States. By laying out the guidelines and laws for future lands, there would be no cause for debate when future territories apply for statehood.
I think that at the time, the Missouri Compromise was a good temporary solution to the question of slavery. I agree with Eliza when she says the compromise made both the North and South happy by adding both a free state and a slave state, which kept the balance equal. However, I think that in the long run it was more harmful than a solution. I agree with Micaela when she says that it further encouraged the separation of the North and South. If they had just decided to reject Missouri's application as a slave state and hold a meeting to try and change the Constitution, then they could have just confronted the matter and gotten it over with. Instead, the compromise continued to divide the North and South.
The Missouri Compromise was an effective solution to the slavery question because it put a quick end to the debate. By adding two states, Missouri and Maine, it kept both sides happy by providing an equal number of slaves and free states. Also, the separation of slave and free states by the southern border of Missouri helped solve future problems. If new states entered the Union, they would not be able to argue whether or not to be slave or free because it would be determined by their geographical location. The Missouri Compromise was an effective solution because it decreased the probability of future disputes.
Micaela- I like your point that this divided the states and would cause future conflict, but I think for the time being it was a good temporary solution to solve the problem at hand.
Eliza- I agree with you that the government could not predict the future, so the fact that there was flaws after acquiring the southwest lands was not their fault.
I believe that the missouri compromise was a good solution for the United States at the time. It allowed the slaves states and the non slave states to have an equal say in the government. If missouri had become a state without another non slave state coming in then the slaves states would always win majority votes. This is not fair because the government should make decisions depending on what is best for the country and not for what is just best for slaves owners. Also making Maine a separate state from Massachusetts was a smart idea because Massachusetts was too big to begin with and should have been separated. I agree with Eliza that this compromise was also good for all the states because the South and North agreed on it. It met the needs of all states, therefore conflict was prevented and the states were able to spread. I also am aware that there were some downsides to the Missouri Compromise and that is what Inez said. She believes that the Compromise encourages social divide. This would later cause more problems in the future for the country. But overall the Missouri Compromise was a good choice for the United States to make.
I think that the Missouri Compromise was an effective solution because it ended the strong debate between the north and south my giving them equal numbers of free and enslaved states. Although the compromise did not directly address the issue of slavery, it settled the feud within the country. If the compromise was not put in place, the north and south could have been further separated, resulting in schisms in our country's unity.
I agree with melanie that the compromise did suffice for the time beings, but it did, however, encourage further separation between the north and south.
I also agree with inez when she said that the effects of the compromise could not be permanent. Eventually they would have to face the issue of slavery, and they cannot keep fighting the North vs. the South.
I think that at the time, the Missouri Compromise was a good solution to the question of slavery in 1820. The North and South both felt threatened by each other and feared that the other would become more powerful in the government. The Missouri compromise gave both sections of the U.S. what they wanted at the time by allowing slavery to remain in the South and admitting Missouri into the U.S. as a slave state, which made the Southerners feel less threatened by the Northern wishes to eliminate slavery. The Compromise also pacified the North through the addition of Maine as a free state and through the prohibition of slavery above latitude 36 30, which prevented the expansion of slavery. However, I think that the Missouri Compromise tricked the sections into thinking they had won, which only intensified the division of the North and the South that led to the Civil War. The Missouri Compromise allowed each section to think that they were right, dividing them even further during the Civil War. However, overall I believe that the Missouri Compromise was a good solution to the question of slavery at the time because it appeased both the North and the South.
Micaela – I agree that the Missouri Compromise encouraged the differences between the North and the South, but I think that for the time when this problem occurred the Missouri Compromise was the best solution for the U.S.
Melanie – I agree with you that the Missouri Compromise split the States in half and separated the slave states and free states. However, I think this eventually hurt the U.S., because it created a clear division and separated South and the North physically in addition to the problems they already had with each other.
I do not think that the Missouri Compromise was a good solution to the slavery question in 1820 because once again America was neglecting to find a resolution between the North and South, and further extending the debate for a later date. Missouri was the first territory to apply for statehood, which concerned Southerners because if slavery was abolished in this new state, it could influence the decisions of future states applying for statehood. The Missouri Compromise voted the admission of Missouri as a slave state with the admission of Maine as a free state. Even though at the time the North and South were content since there was an even balance of slave and anti-slave states, it would cause turmoil for the future because they were now further divided amongst the issue. Sectional conflicts regarding slavery were soon to arise as America began to acquire new territories.
George- I agree with your point about how the Missouri compromise kept the states of the North and South happy, since it provided an equal number of slaves and free states, but I don’t believe it ended the debate of slavery.
Allie- I agree with your point about how the issue of slavery should’ve been addressed while the Constitution was being written. The Missouri Compromise continued to cause division between the North and South.
The Missouri Compromise was created in order to avoid conflict between the North and the South. It stated that Missouri could enter the Union as a slave state as long as Maine was permitted to separate from Massachusetts and become its own state, which was a free state. The Missouri Compromise also stated that all land North of 36 30 would become free states when they entered the Union, and all land South of 36 30 would become a slave state when they entered the Union. Ultimately, I think that the Missouri Compromise was not a good solution to the issue of slavery in the United States in 1820. Similar to what happened with the writing of the Constitution, it seems like the Missouri Compromise was created in order to procrastinate the United States making a true stance on slavery. Although the Missouri Compromise seemed like a good idea at time because it prevented immediate conflict and problems between the North and the South, it failed to address the building tension and hidden agression caused by disagreement between the two regions. By continuing to put off addressing the constantly-growing issue that was slavery, the United States erupted into a Civil War, which may have been avoided if the differing opinions on slavery were addressed in the first place.
Micaela - I agree with you how the Missouri Compromise seemed to highlight the differences between the North and South, further separating the regions until the point where their ideals are almost exactly opposite. The Missouri Compromise also not only furthered the divide between the North and the South politically, but also geographically.
Eliza - Even though the Missouri Compromise allowed for an equal balance in government between the slave states and the free states, the Missouri Compromise was helpful for solely the time being, and was not effective in the long run. The Missouri Compromise did not directly reach a verdict on whether slavery should be allowed in the United States or not, as it was only a temporary solution to make the states happy.
The Missouri Compromise was a good temporary solution to the slavery issue, but not a useful permanent solution. It did provide an immediate compromise to appease people for the time being. Also, the split of 30 36 allowed the slave and free states to be equally matched, and gave both the North and South something they wanted. Slavery still remained in the South, yet the North was temporarily calmed because it was not vastly expanding as it was before. In the long run, however, this solution did not hold up, considering it made America accentuate the split between the North and South. The sections became even further apart, and now, after the Missouri Compromise, the gaps widened even more because America basically admitted that there were two opposing sides that were fighting one another. In addition, the compromise did not deal with the issues of how to solve this problem that it contributed to.
Micaela- We had similar ideas about how the compromise was legislation accepting the gap between the North and South, with added to the problem. In this way, the temporary appeasement of the Missouri Compromise was not at all worth the widening of the gap.
Lilly- You had an interesting point about MA needing to be split up because of its size, anyway. Would this split have been an offhanded advantage to the North, since Maine was part of Massachusetts, and since it is being counted as two now, it is like getting two votes for the price of one? Most people (including myself) are thinking about slave states versus free states, whereas the size of the states themselves (well, mostly their ability to be split for the benefit of that side) should also be considered.
I believe that the Missouri Compromise did not provide as a good solution to the slavery question in 1820. While it did appease both the Northern and Southern representatives of Congress with the admission of a free state (Maine) and a slave state (Missouri), and attempted to solve future problems with the enforcement of 36 30 parallel law, the Compromise both intensified Northern and Southern division and fueled further debate of the slavery question. Maine was located directly in the North, and Missouri was located directly in the South; although each section was “happy” with their addition, the new states geographically further separated the sections. Why wasn’t Maine admitted as the slave state while Missouri was admitted as the free state? As Katie stated earlier, each state’s physical location in their admission made both the North and South believe they were the correct side in answering the slavery question, leading to future argument. These states’ admissions also did not provide a solid way to determine how other states would be admitted into the US. What if a territory was split between the 36 30 parallel… would the state be half free and half slave? This Compromise prolonged the attempt to find an answer to the slavery question, just as it had been prolonged in 1808. Like Allie, I feel that a better solution would have been to hold a convention to amend the Constitution; it would have been more beneficial to the survival of the Union to answer the slavery question as soon as possible than to drag it out with small, quick-fixes, like the Missouri Compromise, to the point of a Civil War.
The Missouri Compromise was not a good solution to the slavery in question in 1820 because it further expanded the divisions between the North and South and neglected to make any further decisions toward the institution of slavery in America. The Missouri Compromise may have dealt justly between the North and South by establishing Missouri as a slave state, Maine as a free state and creating the latitude of 36 30 which prohibited slavery in the rest of the Louisiana Purchase north of the Southern border of Missouri, but it ignored the greater problem at hand which dealt with the divisions growing rapidly in America due to slavery itself. Adding more land to the sections only grew to separate the North and South into two sectional parties by the mid 1850’s. Eventually, the ever rising tensions between these two parties lead to Civil War.
McKayla- I agree with your statement that, “America was neglecting to find a resolution between the North and South, and further extending the debate for a later date.” The neglect that you mention I believe only put off the main issue at hand of slavery and became an eventual cause of sectionalism and the Civil War.
Holly- I also agree with your statement that “Maine was located directly in the North, and Missouri was located directly in the South; although each section was “happy” with their addition, the new states geographically further separated the sections.” Allowing new lands to be added to the North and South may have created a brief peace in America, but this peace was short lived and fueled further divisions between the two sections in the future.
The Missouri Compromise was not an effective solution for ending the slavery issue in the South. While it was a good temporary fix, the compromise was not helpful. By allowing Maine to become a free state and letting Missouri become a slave state, both the Northern and Southern states were somewhat satisfied. However, the compromise was not pushing towards change in either direction. The compromise was exactly what it sounds like, a compromise. It did not push towards abolishing slavery, nor did it support the right to own slaves. This was a problem because states would still have issues in the future over this topic. After the compromise was passed, another amendment was passed stating that slavery was prohibited in the Louisiana Purchase in certain areas. While this was helpful, it was not part of the actual compromise. It might have fixed one issue, but what was to happen when the US obtained new land outside of the Louisiana Purchase area? Neither the compromise nor the amendment that was passed later solved the solution or answered the question about the future. The constitution was already unclear about the future of slavery, and because neither of these laws addressed that issue, they were not beneficial.
Philip- I thought your point about procrastination was interesting. I hadn't thought about it from that perspective before.
Micaela and Allie- I agree with what you both said about the North and the South. I think that the compromise, as well as the ammendment, encouraged further separation from the North and the South and divided them up even more.
Scott- I do think that the Missouri compromise was a god solution to the slavery question in 1820. The slavery question had been in dispute and pushed off since the formation of the country and they needed a solution because both the north and the south were getting very angry at each other. The Missouri compromise settled the disputes at the time by adding two new states and laying a clear boundary of where slavery would and would not be permitted. This was very important to help resolve the bitterness between the north and the south that had was just getting worse because no one was agreeing on a clear solution. I think as time went on they would need to find a better solution to the slavery problem because the Missouri compromise divides the country too much. The compromise keeps the north and the south with opposing views and ways of life as they had before. But, in 1829 when a solution was very much in need, the Missouri compromise was effective because both sides could agree on it, which was a step forward from continually pushing back a solution to the problem of slavery.
Micaela- I do agree that the Missouri compromise divided the country and kept the north and the south apart. But, they needed a solution at the time to make just a little progress and then eventually a better solution could have been made.]
Inez- I agree that the Missouri compromise was successful at the time by keeping peace between the north and south. The Louisiana purchase being mostly free does cancel out social divide and it helped the country at the time.
I think that the Missouri Compromise was a good solution to the question of the expansion of slavery, at the time. This made free and slave states equal, by adding a free state, Maine, and a slave state, Missouri. In doing this the government made both the North and South happy, because there was a balance between free and slave. The idea of 36 30 allowed the country to be evenly split up, so half of the states would most likely be free and the other half slave. The point of a compromise, is to make different groups agree to one thing, by making all groups happy. The Missouri Compromise did this, by giving a fair shot, for the United States to be made up of equal parts free and slave states. There was not a problem with it until the acquisition of the southwestern lands, such as California. The government though did not know this would happen, so the Missouri Compromise was a good solution for the time.
ReplyDeleteI do think that the Missouri Compromise was a good solution to the question of the expansion of slavery at the time. The compromise pleased both the North and the South states because it added Maine as a free state and Missouri as a slave state. It also set a fair precedent for future territories turning into states by essentially splitting the US in half, lengthwise. Above this split would have no slaves and below the split would allow for slaves. This made everyone pleased, for the moment. However, the compromise did allow for future seperation between the northern and southern states.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Missouri Compromise was not an effective solution to the slavery question of 1820. Although the compromised of adding Maine as a free state and Missouri as a slave state pleased both the Southern and Northern governments it encouraged a divide between the two cultures. The 36 30 rule further encouraged the separation of the South and North. Differences in morality and fundamental rights already had caused tension between the two regions of the Union. The Missouri Compromise was legislation that acknowledged and accepted the differences between the two regions. This was bad because the nation was now pinned against each other, striving to achieve two different sets of ideals. A strong nation would accept different view points, but they would still strive for the same ideals. The Missouri Compromise encouraged the separation of Southern and Northern ideals and allowed the fundamental divided between nations to grow.
ReplyDeleteEliza- Even though the 36 30 rule made both the Southern and Northern governments happy does not mean that it was effective. A compromise that was truly effective would unite the two regions of the Union and please the both governments at the same time. The 36 30 act only encouraged a greater separation of government, ideals, fundamental rights, and morality between the two regions.
Melanie- Although the creation of Maine and Maryland pleased their respective governments, I do not think it was a successful resolution to the slavery problem. The creation of Maine and Maryland just furthered the divide between the Southern and Northern regions of the Union. A successful compromise would have brought them together.
melanie- I agree that the compromise caused more separation between the North and the South. This would be one of the reasons for the Civil War.
ReplyDeletemicaele- That's a good point, that the compromise further separated the two sections, but it did please them both for the time being.
The Missouri Compromise was an overall successful solution to the slavery question in the United States in 1820. By Making Maine a free state and Missouri a slave state, the balance between free states and slave states was even. Although this encouraged social divide between the states, the amendment making the majority of the Louisiana Purchase (over the 36 latitude line) free territory cancelled out social divide. The Missouri Compromise kept peace among the states by giving them what they wanted for the time being. However, the effects of the compromise would not remain effective forever.
ReplyDeleteEliza- I agree that the compromise was successful in the fact that it made all groups happy, just as every compromise should. By pleasing all groups, the United States were able to live peacefully for a while.
Melanie- I agree that the compromise set a fair precedent for future states and territories of the United States. By laying out the guidelines and laws for future lands, there would be no cause for debate when future territories apply for statehood.
I think that at the time, the Missouri Compromise was a good temporary solution to the question of slavery. I agree with Eliza when she says the compromise made both the North and South happy by adding both a free state and a slave state, which kept the balance equal. However, I think that in the long run it was more harmful than a solution. I agree with Micaela when she says that it further encouraged the separation of the North and South. If they had just decided to reject Missouri's application as a slave state and hold a meeting to try and change the Constitution, then they could have just confronted the matter and gotten it over with. Instead, the compromise continued to divide the North and South.
ReplyDeleteThe Missouri Compromise was an effective solution to the slavery question because it put a quick end to the debate. By adding two states, Missouri and Maine, it kept both sides happy by providing an equal number of slaves and free states. Also, the separation of slave and free states by the southern border of Missouri helped solve future problems. If new states entered the Union, they would not be able to argue whether or not to be slave or free because it would be determined by their geographical location. The Missouri Compromise was an effective solution because it decreased the probability of future disputes.
ReplyDeleteMicaela- I like your point that this divided the states and would cause future conflict, but I think for the time being it was a good temporary solution to solve the problem at hand.
Eliza- I agree with you that the government could not predict the future, so the fact that there was flaws after acquiring the southwest lands was not their fault.
I believe that the missouri compromise was a good solution for the United States at the time. It allowed the slaves states and the non slave states to have an equal say in the government. If missouri had become a state without another non slave state coming in then the slaves states would always win majority votes. This is not fair because the government should make decisions depending on what is best for the country and not for what is just best for slaves owners. Also making Maine a separate state from Massachusetts was a smart idea because Massachusetts was too big to begin with and should have been separated. I agree with Eliza that this compromise was also good for all the states because the South and North agreed on it. It met the needs of all states, therefore conflict was prevented and the states were able to spread. I also am aware that there were some downsides to the Missouri Compromise and that is what Inez said. She believes that the Compromise encourages social divide. This would later cause more problems in the future for the country. But overall the Missouri Compromise was a good choice for the United States to make.
ReplyDeleteLily
I think that the Missouri Compromise was an effective solution because it ended the strong debate between the north and south my giving them equal numbers of free and enslaved states. Although the compromise did not directly address the issue of slavery, it settled the feud within the country. If the compromise was not put in place, the north and south could have been further separated, resulting in schisms in our country's unity.
ReplyDeleteI agree with melanie that the compromise did suffice for the time beings, but it did, however, encourage further separation between the north and south.
I also agree with inez when she said that the effects of the compromise could not be permanent. Eventually they would have to face the issue of slavery, and they cannot keep fighting the North vs. the South.
Katie
ReplyDeleteI think that at the time, the Missouri Compromise was a good solution to the question of slavery in 1820. The North and South both felt threatened by each other and feared that the other would become more powerful in the government. The Missouri compromise gave both sections of the U.S. what they wanted at the time by allowing slavery to remain in the South and admitting Missouri into the U.S. as a slave state, which made the Southerners feel less threatened by the Northern wishes to eliminate slavery. The Compromise also pacified the North through the addition of Maine as a free state and through the prohibition of slavery above latitude 36 30, which prevented the expansion of slavery. However, I think that the Missouri Compromise tricked the sections into thinking they had won, which only intensified the division of the North and the South that led to the Civil War. The Missouri Compromise allowed each section to think that they were right, dividing them even further during the Civil War. However, overall I believe that the Missouri Compromise was a good solution to the question of slavery at the time because it appeased both the North and the South.
Micaela – I agree that the Missouri Compromise encouraged the differences between the North and the South, but I think that for the time when this problem occurred the Missouri Compromise was the best solution for the U.S.
Melanie – I agree with you that the Missouri Compromise split the States in half and separated the slave states and free states. However, I think this eventually hurt the U.S., because it created a clear division and separated South and the North physically in addition to the problems they already had with each other.
I do not think that the Missouri Compromise was a good solution to the slavery question in 1820 because once again America was neglecting to find a resolution between the North and South, and further extending the debate for a later date. Missouri was the first territory to apply for statehood, which concerned Southerners because if slavery was abolished in this new state, it could influence the decisions of future states applying for statehood. The Missouri Compromise voted the admission of Missouri as a slave state with the admission of Maine as a free state. Even though at the time the North and South were content since there was an even balance of slave and anti-slave states, it would cause turmoil for the future because they were now further divided amongst the issue. Sectional conflicts regarding slavery were soon to arise as America began to acquire new territories.
ReplyDeleteGeorge- I agree with your point about how the Missouri compromise kept the states of the North and South happy, since it provided an equal number of slaves and free states, but I don’t believe it ended the debate of slavery.
Allie- I agree with your point about how the issue of slavery should’ve been addressed while the Constitution was being written. The Missouri Compromise continued to cause division between the North and South.
The Missouri Compromise was created in order to avoid conflict between the North and the South. It stated that Missouri could enter the Union as a slave state as long as Maine was permitted to separate from Massachusetts and become its own state, which was a free state. The Missouri Compromise also stated that all land North of 36 30 would become free states when they entered the Union, and all land South of 36 30 would become a slave state when they entered the Union. Ultimately, I think that the Missouri Compromise was not a good solution to the issue of slavery in the United States in 1820. Similar to what happened with the writing of the Constitution, it seems like the Missouri Compromise was created in order to procrastinate the United States making a true stance on slavery. Although the Missouri Compromise seemed like a good idea at time because it prevented immediate conflict and problems between the North and the South, it failed to address the building tension and hidden agression caused by disagreement between the two regions. By continuing to put off addressing the constantly-growing issue that was slavery, the United States erupted into a Civil War, which may have been avoided if the differing opinions on slavery were addressed in the first place.
ReplyDeleteMicaela - I agree with you how the Missouri Compromise seemed to highlight the differences between the North and South, further separating the regions until the point where their ideals are almost exactly opposite. The Missouri Compromise also not only furthered the divide between the North and the South politically, but also geographically.
Eliza - Even though the Missouri Compromise allowed for an equal balance in government between the slave states and the free states, the Missouri Compromise was helpful for solely the time being, and was not effective in the long run. The Missouri Compromise did not directly reach a verdict on whether slavery should be allowed in the United States or not, as it was only a temporary solution to make the states happy.
Sarah
ReplyDeleteThe Missouri Compromise was a good temporary solution to the slavery issue, but not a useful permanent solution. It did provide an immediate compromise to appease people for the time being. Also, the split of 30 36 allowed the slave and free states to be equally matched, and gave both the North and South something they wanted. Slavery still remained in the South, yet the North was temporarily calmed because it was not vastly expanding as it was before. In the long run, however, this solution did not hold up, considering it made America accentuate the split between the North and South. The sections became even further apart, and now, after the Missouri Compromise, the gaps widened even more because America basically admitted that there were two opposing sides that were fighting one another. In addition, the compromise did not deal with the issues of how to solve this problem that it contributed to.
Micaela- We had similar ideas about how the compromise was legislation accepting the gap between the North and South, with added to the problem. In this way, the temporary appeasement of the Missouri Compromise was not at all worth the widening of the gap.
Lilly- You had an interesting point about MA needing to be split up because of its size, anyway. Would this split have been an offhanded advantage to the North, since Maine was part of Massachusetts, and since it is being counted as two now, it is like getting two votes for the price of one? Most people (including myself) are thinking about slave states versus free states, whereas the size of the states themselves (well, mostly their ability to be split for the benefit of that side) should also be considered.
--Holly
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Missouri Compromise did not provide as a good solution to the slavery question in 1820. While it did appease both the Northern and Southern representatives of Congress with the admission of a free state (Maine) and a slave state (Missouri), and attempted to solve future problems with the enforcement of 36 30 parallel law, the Compromise both intensified Northern and Southern division and fueled further debate of the slavery question. Maine was located directly in the North, and Missouri was located directly in the South; although each section was “happy” with their addition, the new states geographically further separated the sections. Why wasn’t Maine admitted as the slave state while Missouri was admitted as the free state? As Katie stated earlier, each state’s physical location in their admission made both the North and South believe they were the correct side in answering the slavery question, leading to future argument. These states’ admissions also did not provide a solid way to determine how other states would be admitted into the US. What if a territory was split between the 36 30 parallel… would the state be half free and half slave? This Compromise prolonged the attempt to find an answer to the slavery question, just as it had been prolonged in 1808. Like Allie, I feel that a better solution would have been to hold a convention to amend the Constitution; it would have been more beneficial to the survival of the Union to answer the slavery question as soon as possible than to drag it out with small, quick-fixes, like the Missouri Compromise, to the point of a Civil War.
The Missouri Compromise was not a good solution to the slavery in question in 1820 because it further expanded the divisions between the North and South and neglected to make any further decisions toward the institution of slavery in America. The Missouri Compromise may have dealt justly between the North and South by establishing Missouri as a slave state, Maine as a free state and creating the latitude of 36 30 which prohibited slavery in the rest of the Louisiana Purchase north of the Southern border of Missouri, but it ignored the greater problem at hand which dealt with the divisions growing rapidly in America due to slavery itself. Adding more land to the sections only grew to separate the North and South into two sectional parties by the mid 1850’s. Eventually, the ever rising tensions between these two parties lead to Civil War.
ReplyDeleteMcKayla- I agree with your statement that, “America was neglecting to find a resolution between the North and South, and further extending the debate for a later date.” The neglect that you mention I believe only put off the main issue at hand of slavery and became an eventual cause of sectionalism and the Civil War.
Holly- I also agree with your statement that “Maine was located directly in the North, and Missouri was located directly in the South; although each section was “happy” with their addition, the new states geographically further separated the sections.” Allowing new lands to be added to the North and South may have created a brief peace in America, but this peace was short lived and fueled further divisions between the two sections in the future.
The Missouri Compromise was not an effective solution for ending the slavery issue in the South. While it was a good temporary fix, the compromise was not helpful. By allowing Maine to become a free state and letting Missouri become a slave state, both the Northern and Southern states were somewhat satisfied. However, the compromise was not pushing towards change in either direction. The compromise was exactly what it sounds like, a compromise. It did not push towards abolishing slavery, nor did it support the right to own slaves. This was a problem because states would still have issues in the future over this topic. After the compromise was passed, another amendment was passed stating that slavery was prohibited in the Louisiana Purchase in certain areas. While this was helpful, it was not part of the actual compromise. It might have fixed one issue, but what was to happen when the US obtained new land outside of the Louisiana Purchase area? Neither the compromise nor the amendment that was passed later solved the solution or answered the question about the future. The constitution was already unclear about the future of slavery, and because neither of these laws addressed that issue, they were not beneficial.
ReplyDeletePhilip- I thought your point about procrastination was interesting. I hadn't thought about it from that perspective before.
Micaela and Allie- I agree with what you both said about the North and the South. I think that the compromise, as well as the ammendment, encouraged further separation from the North and the South and divided them up even more.
Scott-
ReplyDeleteI do think that the Missouri compromise was a god solution to the slavery question in 1820. The slavery question had been in dispute and pushed off since the formation of the country and they needed a solution because both the north and the south were getting very angry at each other. The Missouri compromise settled the disputes at the time by adding two new states and laying a clear boundary of where slavery would and would not be permitted. This was very important to help resolve the bitterness between the north and the south that had was just getting worse because no one was agreeing on a clear solution. I think as time went on they would need to find a better solution to the slavery problem because the Missouri compromise divides the country too much. The compromise keeps the north and the south with opposing views and ways of life as they had before. But, in 1829 when a solution was very much in need, the Missouri compromise was effective because both sides could agree on it, which was a step forward from continually pushing back a solution to the problem of slavery.
Micaela- I do agree that the Missouri compromise divided the country and kept the north and the south apart. But, they needed a solution at the time to make just a little progress and then eventually a better solution could have been made.]
Inez- I agree that the Missouri compromise was successful at the time by keeping peace between the north and south. The Louisiana purchase being mostly free does cancel out social divide and it helped the country at the time.