It depends on how you look at it. The Missouri compromise was a bad solution, because it did not solve the slave problem but it was a good compromise because it lasted for several years and temporarily solved the conflict for a period of time.
Yes it was. The first Compromise kept the peace for thirty years, until the acquisition of vast new territories from Mexico. If California had been admitted to the Union as two separate states, one slave and one free, the Civil War might have been avoided.
The two Missouri Compromises, the one in 1820 and the one in 1850, turned out to be bad decisions by the US congress, but there seemed at each time, there was no better a solution. The problems of slave states being balanced with free states became worse as the US expanded. Southern slave holders saw their power on the wain if westward expansion resulted in marginalizing Southern political power. It was easier for Great Britain, as example to abolish slavery and compensate their slave owners in that the slave plantations were thousands of miles away from the shores of Great Britain. The mistakes they made about slavery in the 13 colonies and the new nation's mistakes about the same issue would not have a good ending. It's clear, that anyone who could foresee the future, would see that slavery as an economic system would have to fade away. But few had that foresight.
There were two Missouri Compromises. The one in 1820 was a straight forward move to admit Missouri as a slave state and create the free state of Maine from territory ceded by Massachusetts.The Missouri Compromise of 1850 was much more complex. More so in that the US had obtained new territories from Mexico as a result of the Mexican War.
To make this latter compromise "work", the North made huge concessions to the slave states.
As an aside, this compromise is why abolitionist Harriet Beecher Stowe placed the slavery question quite fairly on the backs of the entire nation, not just blaming the South for slavery. In fact, in 1850 and until 1862, slavery was legal in Washington DC.
No. It was a patch-job, and it included the Fugitive Slave Act, which caused so much anger that Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' as a protest against it.
yes
the Missouri compromise
Missouri Compromise
The Missouri Compromise helped prevent the civil war by equalling the power in between free states(NORTH)and slave states(SOUTH)
no
The Missouri Compromise was passed in 1820 and was a set of agreements between those who were against slavery and those who were for it. It forbade slavery north of the 36th parallel, except where designated in Missouri.
yes
yes
the Missouri compromise
Missouri Compromise
What sates were admitted to the Union between the time of the Missouri Compromise and the compromise of 1850Type your answer here... Maine,missouri,and a couple others....ARKANSAS WOO PIG SOOIIIEEE!!!
The Missouri Compromise maintained the balance between slave and free states.
The Missouri Compromise splits the early America into the South (where slavery is upheld) and the North ( Where slavery is banned)
NO,because it splits the nation in half. "later starts the civil war."
The Missouri Compromise helped resolve the voting balance between the south and the north.So Missouri was admitted as a slave and Maine was admitted as a free state.
No. The Missouri Compromise allowed Missouri to enter the Union as a slave-state, on condition that there would be no more slave-states North of the parallel that marked Missouri's Southern border.
Under the Missouri Compromise of 1820 Missouri was admitted as a slave state and Maine as a free state.
The Missouri Compromise helped prevent the civil war by equalling the power in between free states(NORTH)and slave states(SOUTH)