With the addition of the land that was added to the United States, allowed for the new territories to become part of the Union. But, because of the differences between the North and South, the opinions of the policies of the new states differed. The north was strongly against slavery, while the south was for it.
The Northern part of the United States was against letting a new slave state into the Union. When Missouri applied to become one, they we blocked out by the House of Representatives. The south fought back with an argument that Congress could not dictate a policy that didn’t apply to other states before them. They also believe that slavery was under state law, and not the Federal government. The north and south came to an agreement thanks to Henry Clay in 1820. He proposed the Missouri compromise which allowed Missouri to enter the union as a slave state. The compromise comes into play with Maine entering to, as a non-slave state and the rest of the Louisiana Purchase, north of a certain line of latitude, prohibited from slavery. With the emancipation of slavery in other states, was it alright to let another slave state into the union at that time?
6 comments:
It wasn't a very good idea to let Missouri enter to the union as a slave state, when the North was trying to pass laws to lead to the end of slavery in the US. A bad consequence of this is Bloody Kansas. This is a period of deadly turmoil in Kansas history between slavery advocates and abolitionists. Many pro-slavery Missourans and slavery supporters and abolitionists from other states came into Kansas and voted in our elections and killed people from the opposing side. I think this can be partially attributed to the Missouri Compromise.
At the time slavery was a very important issue becasue representation in congress was very important. To allow more slave than non slave states could have been disaterous. Although it allowed another slave state, it also added a new non slave state and prohibited the rest of the LA purchase from being slave land.
Making sure representation was equal in Congress, but I feel that they could have made things work. They knew slavery was wrong and, like they eventually did, could have made the United States function without one more slave state.
The missouri compromise solved the issue of slavery for awhile dealing with representation in the house and senate. in order to keep the balance between north and south equal the missouri compromise was important. without this the issue of slavery may have resulted in an earlier war, this just postponed it.
If they hadn't added Missouri as a slave state, then there probably would have be more complaints and trouble about adding the LA purchase as non-slave land.
The north certainly did not want a war at this time and neither did the south. There was still a nationalistic pride between both regions and the will to compormise was relatively strong. It did, however, surface the growing disagreement between the regions on the issue of slavery. The south was beginning to resemble the colonies prior to the revolution. While support for a secession from the union was not at full affect, it was constantly growing. And the Missouri crisis was another straw on the proverbial camel's back.
Post a Comment