In 1820, the territory of Missouri applied for statehood. If accepted, Missouri would be the 21st state in the Union (11 slave vs. 10 free). The South was excited to have an representational advantage in Congress, but the North was balking at the prospect of being out-voted. A compromise was reached and Missouri was added as a slave state and Maine was added as a free state in order to maintain balance.
The compromise was geographical. Any new territory added to our map that was north of the 36 30' N line of latitude could not allow slavery. Obviously, then, any new state below the line could allow slavery. The images below illustrates this point. Examine the maps. In your comments discuss the following two points: Does anything strike you as odd in regards to the compromise and the location of Missouri? 2) What do you think of the Missouri Compromise? Was popular sovereignty a better idea?
I think that in some ways the Missouri Compromise was smart, mainly because it eased the conflict that was going on at the time, but it was not very well thought out. It divided the country in half, really. There had always been a distinction between the two areas, one southern and one northern, but now that they made it so the southern states could have slaves and not northern states, it not only divides the country in half, but it also adds rights to one side and takes away rights to the other side. I'm sure that the Missouri Compromise could take a lot of credit for the Civil War. People up north would raise their kids without slaves and things like that. So, if that kid grew up, and went to the South, to live or just visit, he would see something completely different than he had ever known. He'd see lazy white people forcing black people to do their work. He'd see pain and suffering, and racism, something that he probably wouldn't have known as much of before. And that causes him to think that the South is wrong in doing what they do because it's different than what he knows. Therefore, people become upset with each other because of their differences in how they live, and their views on certain things. The whole reason for the Civil War was because the North wanted to abolish slavery, and the South did not. So, in my opinion this was a bad idea. They shouldn't have divided the country.
ReplyDelete(260)
During this time period slavery was probably the biggest and most controversial issue in our country. Although I do not condone slavery I can see both sides of the argument. Northern people worked in factories and had more small farms. While Southern people had larger farms more like plantations and there was no way that they could have done that work all by themselves, but there were other solutions like hiring the people instead. The Missouri Compromise seemed to work, for a little while. As Jared said I as well think that it was probably one of the major things that contributed to the Civil War. To me, this territory issue does not sound that the North was concerned that much about the slave issue as much as they were concerned about being out voted in Congress. I do think it is odd that Missouri is surrounded more by the Northern states than Southern. I think that popular sovereignty was not that great of an idea. I mean, personally, I do not think that it would have stopped the Civil war, at all. In fact that idea probably would have made it come faster and the results would have probably been way different. The results would have most likely been more like we would not have the full country that we have today. I really do not think that there was any way to stop this Civil War from happening. Because if the government said no more slavery period then the Southern people would probably have rebelled against that and started that war. But, the compromise seemed to divide our country even now. (273)
ReplyDeleteThe Missouri Compromise is very odd to me, its almost like they were saying “okay, we’re too confused to decided which states to make slave, and which states to make free, so we’ll just divide the whole country in half!!!” (If I’ve read the maps right), then Missouri is above the 36’ 30 N line but it’s still a slave state! Its kind of weird how they just decided to divide the country in half. I can imagine the government thinking, ‘okay, if you’re an African American in the now free half, then good for you, but if your ‘master’ lives in the southern half of America, then you’ll have to keep living a terrible life as a slave.’ I don’t know why the people back then weren’t smart enough to realize that African Americans aren’t any different from whites! We both bleed red, we both have feelings, & we both were made by God; the only difference is the color of our skin.
ReplyDeleteIn a way, it’s good that they made the Missouri Compromise instead of using the popular sovereignty way. By the looks of the map, there were a few more slave states then free states, so America would still be unevenly divided. It seems that either way, the Civil War was unavoidable. If Missouri was allowed the ‘popular sovereignty’ choice then their decision could have changed the future. Now, we look back and think how silly (or good) the Missouri Compromise was, but we ended up with no slaves today, so it’s pretty good that history happened the way it did.
Words 264
Technically they did not have to choose they should have let all of the slaves be free. Since they did choose to keep the slaves I think it was smart to for the government to intervene and say these are free states and these are slave states. First of all if a state does not agree then that creates another problem. Second of all if they got to choose then the number of slave states vs. free states would most likely one uneven. Popular sovereignty is totally not the right way to go. The way they chose was much better. (100)
ReplyDeleteOne thing I noticed that I found odd was that it seems like the states that were allowed to have slaves were larger than the free states. This doesn't seem fair. Also the country seemed divided-the north was mostly free and the south was mostly slave. Also I found it odd that Missouri was in the top half with all the free states. In my opinion popular sovereignty could be risky. If you let each state decide on whether they would be a free or slave state, you might end up with way more slave states or way more free states. Then you run the risk of a divided country. (This happened later anyway) But if the government decides everything then that's not really freedom. Wasn't freedom what are country had been fighting for? So the government shouldn't risk popular sovereignty and take our freedom away. So to me, it seems we would need to find a solid middle ground. (160)
ReplyDeleteI really didn't understand how this worked out, because on the orange and blue map, the missouri territory runs all the way up to Canada, which doesn't make sense, because Missouri was a slave state, and it was quite a bit farther north than the 36 30 line. I guess it worked out because the north received maine so the country wouldn't be unbalanced. I think this was a good idea, because we could still have slavery today, because this would have given the south an extra territory and could have had an advantage later on, had Maine not been created. (101)
ReplyDeleteWhat struck me as odd in the orange and blue map was that states above the 36 and 30 line allowed slavery, even though the line was supposed to be where African Americans were supposed to be free, also, Missouri is above the line, but still allowed slavery. I think the Missouri Comprise was just a setback of what was to come (The Civil War). It prevented a huge fight and unbalance in Congress, but it only delayed the inevitable. I don't think popular sovereignty was a better idea. America was divided against each other, and if a nation is divided, it can't run well. America learned that during the civil war. If people do not work together in a nation and say, "We should do it this way here, and you can do it your way where you live." then it really isn't a nation. It is its own independent nation in a large territory. 159
ReplyDeleteI don’t get why Missouri wasn’t a free state. It was above the 36 30’ north line of latitude. Even if people wanted it to be slave, they should have had to follow the law that was created. Also, why would you give one half of the country I certain right that the other side doesn’t get to have. It just creates conflict and divides the country almost into two different countries since the issue of slavery was such a problem and a big concern. I think since the argument over Missouri started, we then had to create a compromise. So to solve the problem Missouri became a slave state and Maine became a free state. I think the compromise is good, but only because of the great argument over it.
ReplyDeleteAlso I really like Kim’s point about blacks and whites both bleeding red. (144)
What strikes me as odd is on the blue and orange map there are two slave states above the 36 30 N and that goes against the geographical Missouri compromise. I think that those two slave states on the map were Virginia and Kentucky. I also think that they were probably slave states before the compromise. I think the Missouri Compromise was foolish but then I think that slavery was also foolish. If everyone just did their own work and weren’t so lazy then they would not have had to come up with something to figure out if a state were a slave state or not. I think that popular sovereignty would have been better because each state would decide and have their own say in either to want slavery or not. (133)
ReplyDeleteWhat strikes me is that the one of the maps shows the red line is where the Missouri Comprise line was suppose to be. Then there was two states right above it that were slave states. That makes no since at all. Those two states were slave states before the compromise. I understand why they did the Missouri Compromise and made Missouri a state and Maine a state. But I mean really make the NEW country into two sections that is just stupid. I mean it was a good idea to keep both sides happy. I do not like the compromise.
ReplyDelete(103)
One if the things that I thought was really odd was that the Missouri territory was above the 36 30 N line. That goes against the geographical comprimise.so since the Missouri territory is above that line it should have been made a free state. Maine was above that line and that’s why it was made a slave state, but it’s odd that they made Missouri slave state when it’s above that line. Also I don’t think that there should have been a choice between being a free or slave state because slavery is wrong and they should have all been free states in the first place. If white people weren’t so lazy then the words slaves would have existed. i think popular sovereignty would have been better because if a state chose to be slave state, the free states couldn’t argue with it because it was their decision that they made.
ReplyDelete(151 words)
The one thing that surprised me was that the Missouri territory was above the 36 30 n line. Then there are two states that are above the line. It does not really make any sense. I am sure it probably took a long time to figure out what looks like Virginia and Kentucky to decide whether it should be free or slave state because they are in the middle of the line. But because they are in the middle I am surprised that they chose it to become a slave state because people are so lazy. I think that it was wrong to make Missouri a slave state because it was clearly above the line. I think it would have been better if each state would have picked what they wanted.(131)
ReplyDeleteAs everyone else has said, it is odd that Missouri became a slave state when it is located north of the 36 30' line. Slavery should have never been allowed. Neither states or the government should have been able to decide who was free or not. Since it was, I do not think the states should have had the right to make their own decision, but from what it looks like, the government didn't make good choices either. If there was a law stating which states would be free and which would not, they should have upheld it. I do not think the Missouri Compromise was a good idea. It did not bring our country together. (116)
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I immediately thought was odd was the fact that there was more land above the line than below. So for a compromise, it seemed a little one sided. The Missouri Compromise is an iffy thing. On one hand it helped stop the spread of slavery, but on the other hand it separated the North and the South even more and most likely brought about the Civil War sooner. The popular sovereignty idea probably would not have been a better idea. It probably would have delayed the Civil War but it might have caused the issue of slavery to stick around longer. (104)
ReplyDeleteI kind of feel like I'm just repeating what everybody else said, but they pretty much said everything I was thinking as I read this and looked at the pictures. I think it was really strange that Kentucky, Virginia, and especially Missouri were above the 30 36' N line, where there was supposed to be no slavery. I believe that the Missouri Compromise was a better choice than popular sovereignty, but it still seemed a little unorganized. This problem wouldn't have happened if there was no slavery. One thing I have to add to what everyone else said is that plantation owners didn't just have slaves because they were lazy. There was no way they could work all their land by themselves. They should have paid people to do their work instead. So while the Missouri Compromise wasn't perfect, it was better than just having a chaotic free-for-all. (148)
ReplyDeleteThe Missouri Compromise was supposed to stop all of the arguments about free states and slave states. It worked for little while but then it all went down hill. People started arguing if slavery was right or not. The country became divided over the disagreement. The north said it was wrong and the south said it was right. This division began with the Missouri Compromise when they divided the country is half. This division could have ended in America becoming two separated countries. Luckily America is whole to this day but if something like the Missouri Compromise where to happen again we would not have a chance. The mixture of slavery and no slavery doesn't work. Its like mixing two opposite drinks together. If you were to mix together coffee and sweet tea it just wouldn't taste good. There is no half and half in slavery thats why the Missouri compromise would never work. (154)
ReplyDelete