Maintain a balance between free and slave states, so that neither group could control the Congress, especially the Senate. These acts could not forestall the conflicts between the slave states and the abolitionists in the North, which eventually resulted in the secession of Southern states (1861) and the US Civil War (1861-1865).
The question of whether or not slavery would continue in the US. The US Constitution did not outlaw slavery, and the South depended upon it for their economic survival. But maintaining a balance between "free states" and "slave states" could not prevent the North from becoming increasingly abolitionist. The long-delayed conflict finally erupted as the US Civil War (1861-1865).
both the Missouri compromise of 1820 and the compromise of 1850 settled conflicts between the north and the south over
The Missouri Compromise was a temporary band aid on the problem of slavery. Many in the South wanted slavery and many in the North did not. It made more people unhappy.
Because California was in both the north and south.
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.
Senator Stephen A. Douglas put forth the argument that if the Missouri Compromise of 1850 really was a compromise, it had to put forward a consistent principle. If it did not then it was not a compromise, but instead a modus vivendi arrangement. The main problem of this characterization is that Douglas was asking a rhetorical question. Douglas was the one to know inasmuch as he helped put it together.
The Missouri Compromise allowed Missouri to be admitted in the Union as a slave state.The Missouri Compromise allowed Missouri to be admitted into the Union as a slave state.
missori became slave state, and manie became free state and gave a solution to slavery
Basically the Missouri Compromise of 1850 was a fair compromise. One problem for Northern abolitionists was that the Compromise ushered in the Fugitive Slave Act. They were outraged that the new compromise included this law.
It violated the Missouri Compromise.
The Missouri Compromise was a temporary band aid on the problem of slavery. Many in the South wanted slavery and many in the North did not. It made more people unhappy.
California was in both the north and south.
im pretty sure LAW is #1 problem.
Wht two things did the missiori compromise solve
Because California was in both the north and south.
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.
Senator Stephen A. Douglas put forth the argument that if the Missouri Compromise of 1850 really was a compromise, it had to put forward a consistent principle. If it did not then it was not a compromise, but instead a modus vivendi arrangement. The main problem of this characterization is that Douglas was asking a rhetorical question. Douglas was the one to know inasmuch as he helped put it together.
The Missouri Compromise allowed Missouri to be admitted in the Union as a slave state.The Missouri Compromise allowed Missouri to be admitted into the Union as a slave state.
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 allowed Maine to be admitted to the Union as a slave state. This was to counter balance having Missouri enter the Union as a slave state. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 allowed Maine to enter the US as a free state and allow Missouri to enter as a slave state.