1. In your text read pp. 123-124 on the Missouri Compromise and pp. 180-183.
2. In For The Record read pp.read pp. 290-293.
3. Comment on the following the Missouri Compromise was a good solution the slavery question in 1820.
2. In For The Record read pp.read pp. 290-293.
3. Comment on the following the Missouri Compromise was a good solution the slavery question in 1820.
The Missouri Compromise was a good solution to the slavery question in 1820 in the sense that it put both the North and the South to rest for the moment. It clearly stated which states were allowed to be slave states and which states were free; this calmed the Southerner's fears that the "necessary balance of power" would be thrown off, a big issue for them. It also assured the Northerners that the Southern states would not have a greater control over the Presidency due to the three-fifths rule. The Missouri Compromise limited the number of states that could allow slavery, which kept the number of votes that those states had over free states in control; if the Missouri Compromise had not been implemented, the Southern states would have taken control over the Presidency from their population count alone. In the year 1820, the implementation of the Missouri Compromise was a very wise and effective solution to not only the slavery question that was at hand, but the fears that both Northerners and Southerners had at the time.
ReplyDeleteThe Missouri Compromise only solved the short term problem. It avoided the more pressing underlying problem, though. I agree with Sara that it did solve the question in 1820, but the compromise did nothing to help things in the future. Instead the South continued to be paranoid about their states' power. It also created a pattern of simply ignoring the slavery problem in both the North and South. I think the US did not need a compromise, they needed a permanent change. But looking simply at the year 1820, the Missouri Compromise was effective enough.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Sara in that the Missouri Compromise was a good solution to the slavery question presented in 1820. As we have read about and seen before, slavery was one of the hottest and most controversial issues of the time. The North didn't want slavery, and the South did. With territories being added and new states being introduced into the Union, the question about slaves states and free states came about. As the sections realized, the amount of each type of state would have an immediate effect on the balance of the country. Along with this issue, the Senate and the House of Representatives were largely sectional, with the Senate weighed towards the South and the House of Representatives being more supportive of the North. That being said, the new Lousiana Territory presented a tricky issue. The introduction of another slave state (Missouri was assumed to be introduced as a slave state) would have offset the balance in the country and created large controversy. For this reason, the decision to allow Missouri to be a slave state and also introduce Maine as a free state to allow balance to be maintained was the best option. It appeased both sections of the country and avoided an outright conflict, atleast for the time being.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Olivia, the Missouri Compromise was not a good solution to the slavery questions in 1820. Although it gave temporary relief to many issues that separated the Northern and the Southern states, the Missouri Compromise only prolonged the inevitable. The Missouri Compromise stated that Missouri counted a slave state while Maine counted as a free state, and also set a border for slave states and free states. This was not a good resolution to the problems in 1820 because it did not provide a satisfying solution; it further delayed dealing with the sectional issues. The longer that these issues were not dealt with correctly, the harder of a task it became, which is why the Missouri Compromise was not a good solution. In addition, by officially making a border between the slave states and free states, the government deepened the separation between the Northern and the Southern states.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Olivia on the idea that the Missouri Compromise solved the issue of whether to make Missouri a slave or free state however it did not solve the overall problem of what future states would be declared as. If any new territories were claimed by the United States, it would take Congress to decide the position of the state due to the lack of compromise between the Northern and Southern states which would once again bring about the sectional issues because Congress would have to declare a side. The question whether slavery should be illegal because of morals or legal because of economic success was also still an unsolved question. These issues were put off so they could be dealt with at a later date which was detrimental to the states. The Missouri Compromise only buried the sectional issues and did not solve them.
ReplyDeleteThe Missouri Compromise was an effective solution to the slavery problem, if a short term one. In the early 1800s, tensions between the North and South were starting to boil over. Each side saw every action as an attack, and they seemed unable to make any compromises. By making Missouri a slave state and Maine a free state, the government managed to make both seemingly irreconcilable regions agree. By drawing in the compromise line, the government made sure that there would be a concrete definition of where slavery would be allowed and where free states would be permitted. The Missouri Compromise was by no means a permanent solution, however. For example, it did not make any rules for the land west of the compromise line. When the U.S. won land from the Mexican Cession, the problem of what to do with the new states became evident. Despite its long term failings, the Missouri compromise was the best option that was available to the government at the time.
ReplyDeleteFirstly I must comment on Sara's ability to always be first to the post.
ReplyDeleteSecond I must disagree with her that Missouri Comprimise was effective. The MC limited the rights of territories that had not already been affirmed into the Union. Had they wished to become slave states, they would not have been able to because of the MC. Also, the bill was clearly North oriented and only helped to further drive a wedge between North and South. Although it is hard to tell if the Civil War/War of Northern Aggresion could have been avoided, it is without a doubt that the restriction of states rights' is always bad. Not only that, but John also mentioned that the land sesceded by Mexico would only have to find more regulation to fight on in Washington.
In Short, the Missouri Comprimise was bad.
I agree with Sara that the Missouri Compromise was effective in answering the slavery question, which asked if slavery would exist within the recently added lands of the Louisiana Purchase, as a stopgap measure. During the 1820s, The House was ruled by a majority of Northern states and the Senate with a Southern state majority. Therefore, there was a balance of powers of North and South states in the United States’ Congress. The Missouri Compromise avoided shifting this balance since it added one slave-state (Missouri) and one free state (Maine). The Missouri Compromise effectively addressed the slavery question for the year 1820, since it avoided an immediate brawl between the two branches of Congress.
ReplyDeleteI believe that, along with some of my classmates, the Missouri Compromise was an effective way to please both the North and the South. I don't know, however, if it was a good "answer" to the slavery question in the United States. I think that up until 1820, the South was still not quite ready to let go of slavery at all and the North's aggressive pushes at abolition weren't getting anywhere, as we saw with the multiple vetoes in the Senate over amendments proposed by Northerners, such as James Tallmadge's amendment to end slave states in Missouri. But the Missouri Compromise did not end slavery. And that's the real question. I think the result of the compromise helped to advance America into further non-slave states, but it still did not solve the problem, which was that there was still going to be slavery in the South and in states in the Louisiana Purchase south of Missouri.
ReplyDeleteLike Clare, I believe that the Missouri Compromise was effective in pleasing both sides, but was not a good solution to the slavery issue because it did not solve the problem completely. In 1820, the compromise did not rid the states of the slavery issue at hand, but only pacified it. Both sides were happy for a little while before the issue resurfaced with the acquirement of more land in which slavery status was to be determined by Congress. With renewed strife, it would become apparent that the compromise did not solve the issue, but only managed to hide it for a while.
ReplyDeleteAs we have seen before, the members of the United States Congress in the late 1700's and early 1800's had a penchance for pushing problems off to be dealt with in the future. We see this same tactic utilized again here with the Missouri Compromise. The compromise, however, was the first real step taken towards the abolition of slavery, and I believe it was an effective solution to the slavery problem for the time being. With two very different opinions on slavery that divided the people of the country, Congress was not in a position to immediately abolish slavery nor to fully support it. These compromises were especially important, because it forced the two sides to work together and to see the opposing side of the issue. As these debates over slavery kept on going, we notice that some of the reasons behind the people's anger becoming irrational (i.e. The South's belief that the North is out to get them). When tensions were running as high as they were, Congress had no choice but to make these compromises in order to hold the country together. While the compromise did not solve things for the long term, it was the first time that Congress had abolished slavery in a certain territory, and it was a significant first step in the realization of the moral issues with the slavery system.
ReplyDeleteThe Missouri Compromise was a practical short term solution but was ultimately doomed to fail in the long term. It did allow the nation to try and continue keeping the states half slavery and half free but as we already have learned this was just putting of the inevitable decision that was going to have to be made about slavery. In all honesty this compromise only put of the decision further and allowed for the tension to increase even more. It all so did not take into account to if the USA acquired more land. If the USA was to expand even more the arguments were going to start all over again. Even after the Missouri Compromise was put into effect the north and the south were still tense and were at odds with each other. Though the Missouri Compromise was a nice idea to put of tensions from bubbling over it was inevitable that the north and south would clash about slavery sometime.
ReplyDeleteThe Missouri Compromise was a good solution to the slavery question presented in 1820. Between the North and the South their opinions of slavery were complete opposite. It seemed as though they were always going against one another, which lead them to never agree upon anything. The North was completely against slavery and did not want it. The South was in favor of slavery and thought it would be best to have it. With these different theories there was no way to come to a common ground or to agree with each other. It made the members of the country split apart, rather than coming together. The Missouri Compromise was effective because it gave stabilization, by having Missouri as a slave state, and Maine as a free state. This steadiness was exactly what was needed.Between the North and the South there was now a balance. Without the compromise it would of caused an outburst between the North and the South. If the Missouri Compromise had not been followed then the exceptional moment of the Congress ending slavery in a territory would have never taken place. Although the compromise was effective for the short term it failed to solve the larger problems that were at hand, which were the long term problems.
ReplyDeleteFrom some point of view, Missouri Compromise was a fair solution on slavery for both the Northern and Southern states. However, it limited the freedom of the new states to choose whether or not they wanted to become a slave state. By creating a Missouri Compromise line, all the states North of it had to become non-slave states. Moreover, if the US expanded their territory, the slavery problem would have to be solved once again, creating a more complicated situation. The Missouri Compromise had a great idea on keeping the balance between the slave and free states by coupling Missouri (slave state) with Maine (free state). Also, it decided the statuses of the undecided states by creating a Missouri Compromise line, but it was only a part-time solution and it did not provide the necessary solution that had to be offered by 1808. The problem was that the division between the Northern and Southern states could split the nation apart through the Civil War. North and South had completely different, even opposite, lifestyles, North having manufacturing businesses and large factories and South having agricultural economy with slavery, which was dangerous for the unity of the country. Therefore, the government had to come up with the solution that would deal with the unity of the nation (the slavery problem) before it was too late.
ReplyDeleteThe Missouri compromise was a good solution to the slave question in 1820 because it was able to make the southern and northern states feel that their ideals on slavery were being recognized. At this point in time, the sectional tension between the south and north was at an all time high. The north felt apposed to the three fifths clause and felt that slavery was not the correct way for the south to improve their economy. However, the south felt that slavery was essential in order to balance power in the highly debated sections. In order to deal with this tension, the United States always did the best they could in order to maintain a balance between free and slave states. The Missouri compromise was effective because it used this same strategy, while also displaying no significant government bias towards the north or south. Also, the Missouri compromise avoided an enormous disagreement between the north and south. The compromise allowed the United States to continue to relegate disagreement in the same way and put off war.
ReplyDelete