Yes, it allowed for a couple of new slave-states.
In 1820, the Missouri Compromise allowed for the admission of Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state, maintaining the balance between free and slave states. Additionally, the compromise established a boundary (36°30′ parallel) for future territories, permitting slavery in areas south of this line and prohibiting it north of it, except for Missouri. While no specific territories were officially added in 1820, this legislation had significant implications for the future admission and governance of territories in the expanding United States.
The goal of the Missouri Compromise, enacted in 1820, was to maintain a balance between slave and free states in the United States as new territories were being added. It allowed Missouri to enter as a slave state while Maine entered as a free state, preserving the Senate's balance. Additionally, the compromise established a line (the 36°30′ parallel) north of which slavery was prohibited in the Louisiana Territory, aiming to reduce sectional tensions between the North and South.
This is a way to get started. Long ago, after the Revolutionary War, there was still slavery. When the United States bought the Louisiana purchase, yes it doubled in size, but also it doubled in problems. Problems about borders, and slavery.
The Compromise of 1850 make America terrible. It opened our eyes to slavery. If America didn't have slaves we wouldn't even be half as far along as we are now. Im not saying slavery was right, but Im not saying it was bad for America.
Missouri. It was allowed to join the USA as a slave state, on condition that there would be no more slavery North of a line fixed by Missouri's Southern border. This compromise lasted well enough, until the admission of California made it impractical.
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.
In 1820, Maine was added as a non-slave state (23rd), and Missouri was added as a "slave state" (slavery allowed). This plan kept the number of Northern, pro-abolition states equal to the number of Southern, anti-abolition states, 12 each. But after the Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) established a state's right to choose its status on slavery, the Missouri Compromise was no longer in force.
Western expansion in the United States led to an imbalance in Congress as new territories and states were added, often as slave or free states, which affected the delicate balance of power between pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the Compromise of 1850 were attempts to address this imbalance by regulating the admission of states, but they ultimately highlighted the growing sectional tensions. As more western states were admitted, the struggle for representation intensified, contributing to the polarization that would culminate in the Civil War.
The delegates were right to compromise over slavery because, despite the anti-slavery sentiments of many of the delegates, the southern representatives were not about to compromise the cornerstone of their economy. Demanding the immediate end of slavery would have caused them to walk out, jeopardizing the new nation. Therefore, the delegates kept slavery but left provisions for the elimination of slavery at a later date. Also, they added the three-fifths clause, which essentially hamstrung the southern states' ability to use slaves to inflate their population and therefore their representation in the House of Representatives.
This is a way to get started. Long ago, after the Revolutionary War, there was still slavery. When the United States bought the Louisiana purchase, yes it doubled in size, but also it doubled in problems. Problems about borders, and slavery.
The Compromise of 1850 make America terrible. It opened our eyes to slavery. If America didn't have slaves we wouldn't even be half as far along as we are now. Im not saying slavery was right, but Im not saying it was bad for America.
Scott didn't win his freedom and the decision reinforced the idea that slaves were property. The Missouri Compromise was a blow to the southern states to gain more slave states. I don't think the Scott decision added anything to the compromise, but it did entrench slavery in the states where it existed.
Missouri. It was allowed to join the USA as a slave state, on condition that there would be no more slavery North of a line fixed by Missouri's Southern border. This compromise lasted well enough, until the admission of California made it impractical.
Maine. Missouri would enter as a slave state, and rest of the Louisiana Territory latitude 36o30' slavery was prohibited.
The compromise gave added clout to politicians in the south and increased resentment in the north. Both sides were upset by the compromise.
its either - the senate passed a fugitive law banning slavery in states where it was currently leagal OR - The lagality of slavery had to be decided in lands added from the Mexican Cession. OR - Northern congressmen wanted California to entehr the Union as a Free State.... SO SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME FIND THE ANSWER... IT HAS TO BE ONE OF THESE...
territories