It was a reasonable compromise. The line was drawn between where in the Louisiana Territory slavery would be permitted and where it would not be permitted. The practice of admitting a free state and slave state sort of in tandem, though the admission dates were never exactly the same, kept a balance in the Congress on matters important to both sections of the country.
It followed a pattern of prohibiting slavery north of the Ohio River, established in the Ordinance of 1787, by extending an imaginary line west to the Rocky Mountains from the junction of the Ohio with the Mississippi.
Lincoln considered it important enough that it was because of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise (by the Kansas Nebraska Act) that he came back into politics to challenge Stephen Douglas for the Illinois Senate seat in 1858.
The Compromise, however, did not mollify the growing abolitionist movement. Its abrogation by anti-slavery laws ultimately led to Southern secession, and to the US Civil War.
Texas did enter the Union as a slave state. This is why it took so long between the time the Union told Texas they could become a state and the time Texas actually became a state. The debate went on about this in Congress for four years.
The arguments were the standards ones about the morals of slavery. These did not change much. It was the agreement they came to - the Missouri Compromise - that was notably successful because it was simple, a straightforward line in the sand, North of which slavery would be illegal. It kept the pece for thirty years.
stephen douglas
Henry Clay helped to pass the Compromise Tariff of 1833 as a resolution to the Nullification Crisis. The compromise gradually reduced taxed on imports for the southerners. This compromise kept South Carolina from seceding from the Union.
The Supreme Court verdict on Dred Scott infuriated the Abolitionists by interpreting the Constitution in a way that made slavery legal in every state of the Union. This raised the temperature of the debate, and encouraged extreme actions by the fanatical John Brown.
yes
NO,because it splits the nation in half. "later starts the civil war."
yes
The Missouri Compromise temporarily settled the debate over slavery by allowing Missouri enter the Union as a slave state. Maine was allowed to enter the Union as a free state.
The Missouri Compromise temporarily settled the debate over slavery by allowing Missouri enter the Union as a slave state. Maine was allowed to enter the Union as a free state.
The Missouri Compromise temporarily settled the debate over slavery by allowing Missouri enter the Union as a slave state. Maine was allowed to enter the Union as a free state.
There was no Civil War while the Missouri Compromise was in force. It kept the peace for thirty years. It was the debate over the admission of California, following the Mexican War, that made the Missouri Compromise inoperable (because the new state extended so far on either side of the line) and a new Compromise had to be worked out. This one did not last.
There was not a major decision that led to it but there were many that led to it such as the dred Scott decision and the Missouri compromise and the compromise of 1850 and the Lincoln- Douglas debate
The Compromise of 1850 undid much of the work of the Missouri Compromise made a few years prior. Unfortunately, the Compromise of 1850 did not alleviate the tensions of the slave debate, and the Civil War broke out just ten years later.
Not battle, but a debate. The Missouri Compromise of 1820.
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.
It was all about how to avoid having an argument each time a new state needed to be admitted to the Union. In both cases, a compromise was worked-out. The Missouri Compromise lasted thirty years. The Compromise of 1850 soon collapsed.