answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

Yes, it did. The Missouri Compromise was all about sectionalism. James Tallmadge from the state of New York in Legislature wanted to stop transportation of slavery into the Missouri Territory and would then end slavery in Missouri. The amendment passed the House in February 1819, but failed in the Senate. Sectionalism was said to be so easily seen, that you could tell in the debates between North and South. Ten months later, Maine had a bill past to make it a state. By pairing Missouri with Maine, the balance in the Senate remained even between North and South. The two bills, (that of Maine and Missouri for statehood) were combined and both entered the Union at the same time. Also, the compromise was that it stopped slavery in the rest of the Louisiana Purchase North of the southern boundary of Missouri (36°30'N lat). The house this time, rejected this bill, however, after a committee it was decided the two states should be treated as two bills and entered together in March 1920. Missouri was still aloud to have no barriers on slavery. Although, the state stopped the Immigration of free blacks to Missouri was challenged by Northern Congressmen. The need was felt for another compromise, but until the Missouri legislature stated that there wasn't anything in its constitution that could be interpreted to abridge the rights of citizens of the United States. Then the charter was approved and Missouri finally was admitted to the Union in August 1821. Through all of these Conflicts and Compromises, sectionalism played a heavy part in it.-CCB

YOU ARE A LAIR! I put that it was True on a test online and it was WRONG. The answer is FALSE!

User Avatar

Wiki User

13y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar
More answers
User Avatar

Wiki User

7y ago

The Missouri Compromise essentially created a system in which one state would enter the Union as a slave state and the next would be a free state. It only worked for a few years and served to be a stopgap measure.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

13y ago

By establishing a single line of latitude, and making that the divide between the two societies. Anywhere North of that line, slavery was illegal.

This Compromise held for thirty years until the vast new territories acquired from the Mexican War made it inoperable.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

13y ago

It did not strictly settle the debate. But it did keep the peace for thirty years by drawing a clear 'line in the sand', North of which slavery would be illegal.

Both sides disliked it equally - ironically, this was its strength. It kept the situation in balance.

Only the admission of California (too big to fit the terms of the Compromise) rendered it unworkable.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

8y ago

It prohibited slavery in most of the former Louisiana Territory except for Missouri.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

12y ago

It was a simple line in the sand, and both sides were equally prepared to accept it.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

8y ago

They Attempted to settle the issue of slavery in this new territory by trying to give each side pro slavery & anti slavery, Something they could support.

This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: How did the Missouri Compromise deal with the issue of slavery?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Continue Learning about General History

What compromises did the government make leading up to the US Civil War?

There were a number of compromises made in the US leading up to the US Civil War. The list is as follows:1. In order to have the new US Constitution ratified, slavery was not slated for abolishment, but the importation of slaves would be illegal after 10 years. ( this was a hollow deal as slaves continued to be imported under cover) 2. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 to keep the balance of slave and free states equal; 3. The Missouri Compromise of 1850, this also to keep the slave-free state balance, but added the Fugitive Slave Law; and 4. The Kansas-Nebraska Act allowing citizens to vote on the slave issue when a territory had yet to apply for statehood.


Compare and contrast the Compromise of 1850 and the Missouri Compromise of 1820?

The Compromise of 1850 can be compared to the Compromise of 1820 (Missouri Compromise), mainly by comparing how the two compromises were different and alike in how they were able to successfully appease both the North and the South on the issue of slavery. The Compromise of 1850 was designed to prevent the South from seceding, and delaying the Civil War. It was created mostly to deal with the problem on how to annex California into the Union, because the North and the South disputed over whether or not to split California into two different states, the Northern section being slave-free, and the Southern section allowing slavery. The Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery above the line of 30o60' North, except in Missouri, therefore solving the problem of how to divide the land acquired by the Union in the Mexican War.


The Civil War and the Compromise of 1850?

During the civil war, legislators passed some regulations to deal with the slavery issue, and this triggered civil unrest. The compromise helped in resolving the confrontation between the Free states and the Slave states.


How did the Missouri Compromise make North and South disagree?

North and South disagreed anyway about extending slavery into the West. The Missouri Compromise (1820)drew a line in the sand - anywhere North of that line, slavery would be illegal. It kept the peace for thirty years.


What issue did the Missouri compromise deal with in the new territories seeking statehood?

The main purposes of both Missouri Compromises, 1820 & 1850 was to keep in balance free States & slave States. This would be handled before they became States. Or if necessary after Statehood.

Related questions

What did the Missouri compromise deal with?

it dealt with slavery


How did California affect the issue of slavery between the north and the south?

Calfornia extended so far either side of the Missouri line (North of which slavery was illegal) that it rendered the Missouri Compromise unworkable, so a new one had to be worked out. It was a patched-up deal, and it did not last.


What was part of territorial expansion was an issue and why?

During the 19th century, the main issue of territorial expansion was slavery. Northerners didn't want slavery to extend into the western regions, while the south did. It was basically the issue of Missouri (Missouri Compromise) all over again, but with soooooo much more territory to deal with. This growing sectionalism between the north and the south would later tear the nation apart, in what is known as the Civil War.


What is true about the Missouri Compromise of 1850?

The Missouri Compromise was reached between pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions of the government. It restricted slavery in territories north of 36 degrees 30′ except in the state of Missouri.


What did the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 do?

both the Missouri compromise of 1820 and the compromise of 1850 settled conflicts between the north and the south over


Did the Compromise of 1850 essentially restore the Missouri Compromise?

No. It replaced it with a deal - California to be admitted as a free state, with certain concessions to appease the South, including tightening-up the Fugitive Slave Act. It was the last-minute Crittenden Compromise that was meant to restore the Missouri Line, but Lincoln rejected this compromise, because it would have allowed some extension of slavery.


What compromises did the government make leading up to the US Civil War?

There were a number of compromises made in the US leading up to the US Civil War. The list is as follows:1. In order to have the new US Constitution ratified, slavery was not slated for abolishment, but the importation of slaves would be illegal after 10 years. ( this was a hollow deal as slaves continued to be imported under cover) 2. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 to keep the balance of slave and free states equal; 3. The Missouri Compromise of 1850, this also to keep the slave-free state balance, but added the Fugitive Slave Law; and 4. The Kansas-Nebraska Act allowing citizens to vote on the slave issue when a territory had yet to apply for statehood.


Compare and contrast the Compromise of 1850 and the Missouri Compromise of 1820?

The Compromise of 1850 can be compared to the Compromise of 1820 (Missouri Compromise), mainly by comparing how the two compromises were different and alike in how they were able to successfully appease both the North and the South on the issue of slavery. The Compromise of 1850 was designed to prevent the South from seceding, and delaying the Civil War. It was created mostly to deal with the problem on how to annex California into the Union, because the North and the South disputed over whether or not to split California into two different states, the Northern section being slave-free, and the Southern section allowing slavery. The Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery above the line of 30o60' North, except in Missouri, therefore solving the problem of how to divide the land acquired by the Union in the Mexican War.


The Civil War and the Compromise of 1850?

During the civil war, legislators passed some regulations to deal with the slavery issue, and this triggered civil unrest. The compromise helped in resolving the confrontation between the Free states and the Slave states.


How did the farmers deal with the issue of slavery?

slaves were farmers.


How did the Missouri Compromise make North and South disagree?

North and South disagreed anyway about extending slavery into the West. The Missouri Compromise (1820)drew a line in the sand - anywhere North of that line, slavery would be illegal. It kept the peace for thirty years.


What did the 1850 compromise do?

Deal with slavery. They could not agree on how to change or end it, so they did nothing.