No.
The Compromise allowed the Missouri territory to join the USA as a slave-state.
The condition was that there should be no more new slave-states North of the parallel that marked Missouri's Southern border.
This represented a clear 'line in the sand' that kept the peace for thirty years, until the admission of California made the Compromise inoperable.
No. The Missouri Compromise kept the peace for thirty years.
It was the failure of the Compromise of 1850 that brought the slavery argument to the fore, and encouraged the South to try for independence.
During the US Civil War, some people in the Union favored the Southern cause for independence.Many of these people lived in the so-called "Border States". Slaveholders in Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland were often known for being sympathetic to the Confederacy.
Because the South wanted slavery but in the North didn't want slavery.
it helped the civil war by sparking the thoughts of war because of slaveryThe Civil War started when some of the Southern states seceded from the Union. So really the secession of the Southern states was the cause of the Civil War.
Many events contributed to several Southern states seceding from the Union in 1860. One important event was the election of Lincoln.
The most important cause of the American Civil War was slave-holding. While numerous regional issues separated northern and southern states in the Union, it was slavery that divided the nation at the deepest level, and it was slavery that finally led to the costly War between the States in 1861-1865.
== ==
The cause is the Compromise of 1850, and the effect is the Southern filibuster ventures.
Cause he farted
no
The Three Fifths Compromise is one of the most controversial parts and outcomes of the Constitutional Convention. For the allocation of seats in the US House of Representatives, a black person counts for three fifths of a white person.
Good Question but Missouri was not officially a slave state during the Civil War it is classified as a border state and as such was not committed to either side. Though the entire state was ravaged by the War it was evenly split down the middle the North of the State traditionally supported the Northern cause of freedom and the Southern part of the state traditionally supported the Southern way of life and as such was a supporter of slavery.
Missouri Compromis!(:
This caused a debate since at the time, America had a balanced amount of slave states and free states. If Missouri was admitted into a slave state, it would tip the balance. Thus, Henry Clay developed the Missouri Compromise, Allowing Maine as a free state+ Missouri as slave, keeeping the balance in check.
Because it would upset the balance between free-states and slave-states, and went through the 36° 30' line, from the Missouri Compromise of 1820, thus it could not be solved easily.
Yes. In all 11 Southern states officially seceded. Two others Kentucky and Missouri, were sypathetic toward the southern cause but did not ultimately secede from the Union. Even though these two states did not secede, they are both recognized on the Confederate battle flag.
The Missouri Compromise of 1850 was made a moot compromise with the introduction of the Kansas Nebraska Act of 1854. Neither pieces of legislation can be demonstrated as a cause of the US Civil War. And, both laws were deemed unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in the Dredd Scott case of 1857.
(cause they were confused or something)- .... _this was the privous responce to this question which gave me no help so i decide to help. In the Dred Scott v. Sandford case in 1857, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress did not have authority to prohibit slavery in territories, and that those provisions of the Missouri Compromise were unconstitutional. It found that under the admission act of Missouri, that blacks and mulattos did not qualify as citizens of the United States.