It meant that the territories South of the line could no longer be admitted to the USA as slave-states.
Yes. That Compromise worked well for thirty years, until the new territories acquired from Mexico required a new Compromise.
The Missouri Compromise addressed slavery in the Arkansas and unorganized territory of the Great Plains. Slavery was prohibited in all of these areas, except within the boundaries of Missouri.
Missouri itself - and after that, any of the other territories acquired by the Louisiana Purchase that were South of Missouri's Southern border, that was 36, 30.
The Missouri Compromise set kind of a boundary between slave states and free states. The states South of the Missouri border were labeled as "slave" states and those north were labeled "free" states.
In 1820, the famous Missouri Compromise among American political leaders at the national level of government left most of the newly-acquired Louisiana Purchase territory free of slavery. In a bid to maintain balance among slave-holding and anti-slavery states, the Compromise allowed Missouri to enter the Union as a slave-holding state, with areas south of Missouri also granted slave-holding privileges. The vast remainder of the Louisiana Territory was designated as 'slavery-free.'
The Missouri Compromise only affected those territories acquired from France in the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. After the Mexican War, the vast new territories like California did not fall under the provisions of the Compromise.
Those that had been acquired from the French in the Louisiana Purchase.
The Missouri Compromise was a 'line in the sand', that would avoid arguments over which new states would be slave or free. It related to the large territory of Louisiana that had been acquired from the French.
Yes. That Compromise worked well for thirty years, until the new territories acquired from Mexico required a new Compromise.
No new slave-states North of the parallel that marked Missouri's Southern border. But this only applied to the territories acquired from France in the Louisiana Purchase. After the Mexican War, a new compromise had to be worked out.
There were two Missouri compromises. The one in 1820 determined the slave/free status of new states within the territory acquired from France in the Louisiana Purchase. The second one, the Compromise of 1850 did the same thing for the territories acquired from Mexico after the Mexican war.
There were two. The Missouri Compromise of 1820, dealing with the territories acquired in the Louisiana Purchase. And the Compromise of 1850, dealing with the territories acquired from Mexico. A third one (the Crittenden Compromise), cobbled together at the last moment when Lincoln was inaugurated in March 1861, was rejected by the new President because it would have allowed some extension of slavery.
The territories acquired from France in the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, which were awaiting admission to the USA. The Compromise put down down a line in the sand (parallel 36,30), North of which slavery would be illegal.
Missouri itself - and after that, any of the other territories acquired by the Louisiana Purchase that were South of Missouri's Southern border, that was 36, 30.
The Missouri Compromise addressed slavery in the Arkansas and unorganized territory of the Great Plains. Slavery was prohibited in all of these areas, except within the boundaries of Missouri.
The parallel that lined-up with Missouri's Southern border (36,30). This was the clear 'line in the sand' that kept the peace for thirty years. But it only applied to the territories acquired under the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. When Ameriica acquired vast new territories from Mexico, a new compromise had to be worked out. This one did not last.
The Missouri Compromise only related to the territories acquired from France under the Louisiana Purchase. California was acquired much later, from Mexico. A few years later, it was proposed that the line of the Missouri Compromise should extend all the way to the Pacific. But if California had to remain as a single state, it was simply too big to fit the system. (If it had been admitted as two states - North and South California - war might have been avoided.)