Missouri Compromise 1820, about the new territories brought in by the Louisiana Purchase - drawing a line in the sand, North of which slavery would be illegal.
Compromise of 1850, about the new territories brought in by the victory over Mexico - a scrambled deal, mostly favouring the North and making new slave-states harder to create, so they passed the Fugitive Slave Act to appease the South by cracking down on runaways.
There was also a last-minute compromise (Crittenden), early in 1861, to try and avert war. But Lincoln rejected it because it could have allowed new slave-states.
There were two Missouri Compromises. They were created in 1820 and 1850. Both of them were reached in order to maintain a balance between States that had abolished slavery and those States were slavery still existed. The compromises served and had a noble purpose. They were not made to in effect to justify slavery. The purpose of both of them was to avoid a serious conflict among the States. When seen in that light, the compromises delayed a civil war in the United States.
peace and compromises
I am a child myself and I would say that if you want us to stay healthy, you'd have to make compromises. Say things like if you have two bits of fruit you can have a treat. Make it that we have vegetables with tea and then pudding sometimes. Just make compromises.
Because the two sides were so far apart, and wanting different things from Congress. But both were still hoping to avert war.
They had always known there was a risk of civil war, because the two sides were so bitterly opposed. (That was the reason for all the Compromises.) But each side suspected the other of bluffing, and believed that if war did come, it would be a brief and bloodless victory for themselves.
The two critical elements in the civil war were your mom and your dad. They made you you know!(did that answer your question? Hope it at least helped!)
The overall results of the two compromises typically reflect a balance between differing interests, leading to a solution that may satisfy some stakeholders while leaving others partially dissatisfied. These compromises often result in a temporary resolution, fostering cooperation and dialogue among conflicting parties. However, they can also highlight underlying tensions that may resurface in the future, indicating that while progress has been made, a complete consensus has not been achieved. Ultimately, the effectiveness of these compromises depends on their ability to address core issues and promote long-term stability.
compromises: Compromise of 1850, and the Missouri Compromise Act: the Kansas Nebraska act :)
Not only the Democrats, but all parties to the Missouri Compromises were in favor of the two compromises. Of course there is always a group of people who opposed them. The two compromises were in 1820 and 1850. The purposes of the compromises was to keep the number of free states and slave states equal. The 1820 Missouri Compromise was the work of Henry Clay was the Senator that helped make the Compromise a reality. This compromise worked. Later in 1850, when national figure, Democrat Stephen A. Douglas, put through the second Missouri Compromise. He was a prominent national Democrat.
Arkansas had two capitals during the Civil War. The capital was Little Rock, but during the Civil War, the Confederate government made Hot Springs the capital also.
Clara Barton
There were two Missouri Compromises. One in 1820 and the second one in 1850. What it mainly revealed was that compromises were and still are the framework in which legislation is passed between opposing points of view.