So, as we look forward to the close of the school year we begin our study of the Civil War. Over the past few blogs you've discussed slavery in the south, wage-slavery in the north, utopians, Manifest Destiny and various other topics. This week we will look at the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and its impact on the growing division of America in the early 19th century.
To begin, visit here and here for a brief overview of this legislation.
Now examine the map below. Consider the following questions before writing your comment this week. -What was the overall rationale/reasoning for this compromise?
-Was this "geographical solution" the only solution to admitting new states as either slave or free? If not, what suggestions do you have?
-What is strange about Missouri in relation to this compromise and its location on the map?
Comments: After giving a brief description of the Missouri Compromise, discuss whether or not you think the MC was an effective solution to America's problem of adding new states. What would have done differently? Did the MC lead to the Civil War or hold the country together until the Civil War erupted? In other words, was the Civil War going to happen no matter what, or did the MC help cause the Civil War?
Both of these cites were very interesting. I Think a compromise had to be established, but I'm not sure that these exact terms were the right ones. If you look on the big map, red part (slave states) obviously had more land than the green land(free states). After the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the northern free states were clearly larger than the slave states now. I can see where the south was angry from this compromise. They went from having the majority of the land in the United States to having less. I think that the Civil War was going to happen no matter what, but the MC pushed it along faster than it should have happened. It should have dealt with in a different manner with different terms. (140)
ReplyDeleteThe Missouri Compromise was basically made to stall the threat of a civil war. Missouri would be created as a slave state, and Maine(formally part of Massachusetts) would be a free state. Also, all states(except Missouri) 30 degrees 30' N would be free territories. I think that this solution wasn't very good. What should have been done was have the people in that state vote if they wanted it or not AND were the only ones who voted on it. NOT LIKE the Kansas-Nebraska Act where people who weren't even from the states came and voted on the matter. I think that the MC held the country together until the South got greedy and wanted more slave states. Then the MC was proved unconstitutional and the results were like releasing a death sentence criminal into the normal world. The MC helped stall the war, but with its removal, the civil war edged closer and closer till it finally arrived; it wasn't pretty.(162)
ReplyDeleteYou know, I think that the Missouri compromise as a good and bad solution. The only thing it was really good for was for delaying the conflict between the north and south. Although it wasn't a good solution to stopping the spread of slavery, and it caused even more conflict later when states were big enough to cross the 36o30'N latitiude such as California. It was not really the best was because all it truly did was divid the north and south even more, except now there was an actual line that divied it!The civil war to me was inevitable because now matter what kind of compromise you came up with, one side will not be satisfied. To me, first comes Diplomancy, next comes Democracy, then comes war.(128)
ReplyDeleteThe Missouri Compromise was a way to keep the Senate even. If the slave states had more that would not be fair to the free states because all the laws passed would be slave state beneficial, vise versa with the free states. The Civil war was going to happen no matter what laws were passed to delay it. The Civil war is like a train. You cant really stop it, unless you stop it on the inside. But you can slow it down by adding more cargo. That is what I think the Missouri Compromise was, cargo. When they took it off, the train lurched forward and was now coming full speed and ready to CRASH.(117)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Missouri Compromise of 1820 was established after Missouri wanted to become a state in 1819. 2,000 slaves were living there, and Missouri wanted to enter the Union as a slave state. This would mess up the balance of the equal number of slave and free states, which meant there would not be equal representation in the Senate. The problem was fixed when Maine wanted to become a state in 1820. Missouri entered as a slave state and Maine entered as a free state. The Missouri Compromise said that all future states north of Missouri's southern border would be free. I think that the Missouri Compromise was okay for a little while, but it only postponed the Civil War happening. I don't really have an idea for what they could have done instead. I think the Civil War would have happened no matter what because the South and North had such different sides to the issue of slavery, even though everyone benefited from it. (164)
ReplyDeleteWhenever there is a compromise, it's about getting what you want, but not in the exact way you wanted it. It's about greed. I think that's what the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was all about. When Maine and Missouri applied for statehood the big question was if it was going to be a free or slave state. Since there were an equal number of free and slave states, they didn't want to break the balance in the Senate. So Henry Clay came up with the idea to have Maine as a free state and Missouri a slave state, hoping to keep the Union together. I think the compromise did what it needed to do only for about 30 years but obviously wasn't permanently effective. With all the division and tension between free and slave states, it appeared that there was no way getting around a civil war.
ReplyDelete147 words
DeleteThe MO Compromise of 1820 was very necessary. Without it, I don't see any other we could have reached a conclusion that would have helped nearly as much as this compromise helped. It kept peace for a while until it was repealed. We needed this Compromise because it was a fair way to keep the free and slave states even as they were before when there was 11 free and 11 slave. I think this was probably the best choice geographically. What is weird is well yes, there are equal slave and free states, but the land is not even close to equal. I would have thought that would be a problem to some people. Overall, the MO Compromise was a great temporary compromise for the United States. (128)
ReplyDeleteThe Missouri Compromise was a bill that was passed that would allow any state entering the Union above the 36° 30’ to be free states and any states below the line were free states. What is odd is that Missouri is a slave state above the compromise line. I think the Missouri compromise was created to prevent the Civil War. Congress wanted to keep peace between the slave and free states. Not many people wanted the War to happen, but many knew that it was inevitable. Ever since Americans brought slaves over from Africa it would be expected that a war would break out over the issue of slavery. (109)
ReplyDeleteIn 1819 there were 11 free states and 11 slave states, a perfect balance. But that isn’t where the story ends. The conflict began when Missouri applied to become a state. It wanted to be a slave state, but this would disrupt the perfect balance. The solution to this problem came when Henry Clay proposed the Missouri Compromise. This compromise allowed Missouri to enter the Union as a slave state and Maine to enter as a free state. Also, land acquired from the Louisiana Purchase north of the 36° 30’ N line would be free. All the land south would allow slavery. This was rather weird because Missouri was north of the line, but it was a slave state. I think that this was a pretty good way of solving the problem, but there was a lot more free land than slave. Maybe this was okay because the land was mountainous and would not even have soil to cultivate. I think war was inevitable, but the MC helped hold the country together a little bit longer. I think the Dred Scott Case if anything sped the war up. {188}
ReplyDelete~Mo~
The Missouri Compromise was a compromise that meant that any state that comes into the America above the compromise line which is 36° 30' could be a free state. It was a compromise but it only prevented the civil war. The compromise later got repealed and the civil war started. The civil war was going to happen anyway because the north was mad at the south and it was bound to go down. The Missouri Compromise did hold off the civil war and made temporary peace. If it was not repealed I do think the civil war would still have happened. It would have just held for maybe a little while longer. (112)
ReplyDeleteThe Missouri Compromise set the latitude of 36 degrees 30 minutes north as a line that helped determine whether new states would become a slave or free state. The Missouri Compromise was an effective way of stalling the Civil War from happening sooner. Based on the map, I think that the compromise favored the north more than the south. If it was my decision I would have raised the line a little more up so that the line would be fairer. I think that the Missouri Compromise just helped stall the Civil War from happening. The Civil War was going to happen anyway because of the huge amount of tension happening between the north and the south. (117)
ReplyDeleteThe Missouri Compromise of 1820 was made to prevent a Civil War from happening, but really all it did was keep the peace for thirty years.Even in those thirty years it wasn’t even really peaceful. The north and south continued to argue and fight with each other over many things they disagreed on. One of those issues happened to be slavery,and whether or not a state would be a slave state or a free state. For example Missouri wanted to join the union as a slave state in 1819, but it would mess up the balance between slave and free states. They even debated over Missouri becoming a slave state from March 1819 to December 1820. To me thats to long to be debating over something like that, and they finally ended up making Maine a free state to even out the balance again. The Missouri Compromise only prevented the war from happening a little longer, but it never fixed the problems between the north and the south.(170)
ReplyDeleteThere were 11 free states and 11 slave states in 1819, until Missouri wanted to become a slave state. This would mess up the equal balance of free states and slave states. The solution to this was made by Henry Clay. It was called the Missouri Compromise. This compromise allowed Missouri to enter the Union as a slave state and Maine to enter as a free state. The land north did not allow slavery and the land south did. I think that this was a good idea. I do not think that the war was totally caused by this. I think some of it was started because there was more free land than slave land. I think that the Dred Scott Case was one of the reasons why the war started, but anyway the Civil War was still going to happen no matter what because of the tension in the north and south. (155)
ReplyDeleteThe Missouri Compromise of 1820 has its good sides and its bad sides. It ultimately stalled the country from going to Civil War at that time. In 1819, Missouri applied for statehood, they wanted to come in as a slave state but that would make the state/free states unbalanced considering at the time it was 11-11. When Maine applied to join the Union, the problem was solved because Maine could be a free state and Missouri could be a slave state making it once again balanced. But in hi-sight it just kept the conflict between the North and South delayed until it was repealed by the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska. The Missouri Compromise seemed like an extremely logical solution to this specific conflict. I can’t really think of anything better they could have done. There was no way to stop the Civil War from coming. Like we said in class, it was inevitable. It was bound to happen sometime. The Missouri Compromise seemed like the best idea to lull the country for some time, which it did, but after many series of events, like the Dred Scott case, the war was coming and there was no stopping it. (196)
ReplyDeleteI think the name "Missouri" Compromise is wrong. The Missouri Compromise was made so that any state found north of the 36º 30' N would be a free state and south would be a slave state. Missouri became a free state even though it was north of the line. The name contradicts itself. It defiantly didn’t help the country hold together. It almost worked as the line to separate the confederacy and union. It was a poor decision even though something had to happen soon. The Civil War was caused mainly because the issue of slavery. The Missouri Compromise was a big controversy at that time until after the Civil War. People didn’t like it and it made the south angry.(121)
ReplyDeleteI think that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was helpful. Well, sort of. I guess if you look at it one way, no, it didn’t really do anything for the topic of slavery. But, it did help about the issue of war. War, at that point, was inevitable. Everyone knew that. Slavery had gotten way out of hand. The South was desperate for slaves to be involved in their economy (they pretty much made up their entire economy), and the North was literally willing to kill to get the issue of slavery done with. Though was wasn’t preventable, the Missouri Compromise did all it could to stall war. It gave everyone a chance to catch up and say “Yep, you better get ready fast,” instead of it just springing into action. I do think it’s funny though, that Missouri is pretty much surrounded by free states. Personally, I would have chosen a further location. (155)
ReplyDeleteThe Missouri compromise was essentially meaning less. The act said anything north above the line was a free state and anything bellow a slave state. This was another pathetic attempt by congress to make everybody happy. Which was stupid cause you can not make everyone happy all the time. What congress should have done is be perceptive and see that civil war was coming and start strengthening our army to defend themselves. This way when the inevitable civil war happened we would be ready. Instead our government decided to try to make everyone happy which is why there was a civil war cause our government was not Strong when we needed to be.
ReplyDeleteThe Missouri Compromise was an attempt to appease both the North and the South. Since both the North and the South were evenly represented in the House and the Senate, everyone went crazy over whether Missouri would be emitted as a slave state or free state as it would tip the scales in favor of the other. Luckily Henry Clay, Speaker of the House, stepped in and proposed a compromise: The Missouri Compromise. They finally all agreed that Missouri would be emitted as a slave state IF Maine, who was also petitioning for statehood, entered as a free state, which kept the scale balanced. They also established the latitude line 36°30’N, meaning that all land above the line was free (except for Missouri) and all land below allowed slaves. This sounded like a good compromise except that, as is observable by the map, the free states had WAY more land than the South which understandably angered them. In my opinion, the Civil War was inevitable. The economies and moral views of the North and South were too incompatible for a United Nation. They disagreed on too many things to ever resolve it peacefully. The Missouri Compromise didn’t lead to the Civil War nor did it stop it, it only postponed it. Honestly, at this point of our History I don’t think anything could have held our crumbling country together.
ReplyDelete[229]
The Missouri compromise was an idea to help solve the problem of giving equal representation of pro slavery and abolition. This plan was the main reason that the country was not in war at the time. The civil war was going to happen one way or another. The population was becoming overrun by slaves and after a while there was going to be a revolt of organized slaves. Had I had a choice in what to do about the problem at the time I would have tried bring the idea that all people are created equal and because of this that slavery is ok, as long as you do not just use specific people, but instead those who do not give to society as much as you do. This statement would hopefully have shown that slavery is essentially a form of abuse that should not be allowed in this country. Had that not worked there could have been a system where people had to prove that they needed help in the fields and the courts would decide wether the case was fair or not. (156)
ReplyDelete