The Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850

637 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Evolution of slavery in colonial america

Ever since the formation of the colonies, differences stood in the way of a fundamental relationship between the north and the south. Despite these differences they were not the cause of the problems. In the 1820’s, the growth between territories and regions were increasing. This expansion went too far causing it to become a worldwide crisis. More chaos arouse since the north and the south did not agree on anything. The north strongly disagreed with the expansion of slavery, while south agreed to expand slavery throughout new territories and regions. The north's decision was based on factors such as political and economical threat instead of a moral threat, as it was depicted in the Missouri Compromise. However, the Compromise of 1850 , showed a more argument towards the morality threat, making it more united than ever.
The Missouri Compromise had an interesting political action, It depicted the norths disagreement towards slavery was more of a political issue rather than a moral argument. In the early 19th century , the north was populated with abolitionists and radicals, those who believes in abolition. Their main aim was not to stop slavery because it was inhumane, but the fact that white people were becoming unemployed and the south were becoming more powerful.
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was a debatable decision for the north and the south. A decision towards whether or not Missouri should come in as a slave state. In congress, those on the side of the north, found out that Missouri was going to be placed as a slave state and were dramatically upset. They were upset due to the fact that it would cause an unbalance. During the 1800’s there were an equivalent of eleven slave states and eleven free states. Naturally, ...

... middle of paper ...

...as created to get slaves who run to the north back to the south, without trial of jury. The reason was that the Judge was paid to show unfairness, to side with the south rather than the suffering individual. This angered the north and their belief towards slavery, so they created another law which replaced the Fugitive Slave Law, it was called the “personal liberty” laws.
The Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 were two acts that tried to solve the problems between the note and the south. However, the political action that the north took caused the creation of the “personal liberty” laws, which oddly changed north’s perspective towards slavery. The disagreement on the extension of slavery was not only the eyes of the north anymore. Although, the Compromise of 1850, put a more humane side to the solution, the problem towards slavery is yet to be solved..

Show More
Related

  • Summary And Slavery: The Causes Of The Missouri Compromise

    672 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...le from the northern half of the country believed the exact opposite. The northern half of the country did agree with what the Missouri Compromise changed, and they thought that the Congress does have the right to choose which states had slavery and which states didn’t have slavery. The thought of Congress having the power to change various laws on slavery did not bother the north near as much as the south.

    Read More

  • Sectionalism Versus Nationalism and the Era of Good Feelings

    627 Words  | 2 Pages

    The United States began to dissatisfy some of its citizens and so the concerns of sectionalism, or the split of the country began to arise. There was a continuous riff between the south and the north over a few issues, a major one being slavery. The south argued that the slaves were necessary to support the southern economy. According to document A, the south were angry that the north was creating taxes that hurt the southern economy, thus increasing the need for slavery since they had to make up for the expense of the taxes. The south felt that the north was able...

    Read More

  • Sectional Compromises In The 19th Century

    1433 Words  | 3 Pages

    First, the Missouri Compromise of 1820 established the slavery line that allowed slavery below it and forbid slavery above it. It also gave the South another slave state in Missouri and the north a free state in Maine. Although each region gained a state in the Senate, the south benefited most from the acquisition because Missouri was in such a pivotal position in the country, right on the border. Later on with the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854, Missouri had a big role in getting Kansas to vote south because many proslavery Missourians crossed the border into Kansas to vote slavery. The Missouri Compromise also helped slavery because the line that was formed to limit slavery had more land below the line than above it. Therefore, slavery was given more land to be slave and therefore more power in the Senate, when the territories became state. In effect, the north got the short end of the stick and the south was given the first hint of being able to push around the north. The interesting thing is, the north agreed to all these provisions that would clearly benefit the south.

    Read More

  • DBQ: The Era Of Good Feelings

    803 Words  | 2 Pages

    Missouri was a slave state, while Maine was a free state. This shows sectionalism as this thought on slavery distinctly separates the nation into Southern beliefs and Northern beliefs. This compromise shows the gap between the north and south. It has led to many devastating losses throughout history, yet on the other side it has “resolved” conflict when the conflict was too troublesome to talk through.

    Read More

  • Differences Between the North and South that Led to the Civil War

    1460 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Southern and Northern states varied on many issues, which eventually led them to the Civil War. There were deep economic, social, and political differences between the North and the South. These differences stemmed from the interpretation of the United States Constitution on both sides. In the end, all of these disagreements about the rights of states led to the Civil War. There were reasons other than slavery for the South?s secession. The manifestations of division in America were many: utopian communities, conflicts over public space, backlash against immigrants, urban riots, black protest, and Indian resistance (Norton 234). America was a divided land in need reform with the South in the most need. The South relied heavily on agriculture, as opposed to the North, which was highly populated and an industrialized society. The South grew cotton, which was its main cash crop and many Southerners knew that heavy reliance on slave labor would hurt the South eventually, but their warnings were not heeded. The South was based on a totalitarian system.

    Read More

  • The Compromise of 1850

    385 Words  | 1 Pages

    One item in the Compromise of 1850 was the provision for a stronger Fugitive Slave Law. This new law made it a federal crime to not return a runaway slave to the south. The law also established that any suspected runaway slave was to be tried by a single judge, not by a jury. Also, these judges were compensated by a system that provided them with more money for deciding that the slave was guilty than innocent. This law obviously encouraged people not to harbor runaway slaves, and when they were caught, it provided the judge an incentive to have them returned to the south.

    Read More

  • The American Civil War: The Inevitable Confrontation

    1753 Words  | 4 Pages

    Since the beginning of the Market Revolution, the institution of slavery became the leading factor that intensified the relations between the North and the South. Regarding the geographic differences between the North and South, the South was primarily agrarian and the North was mainly urban. Therefore, the North rapidly industrialized while the South remained relatively rural and cotton-slave based. As a result, the Market Revolution economically separated the North and the South and created a second party system. Thus, the issues of pro-slavery and anti-slavery arose between the Southern Democrats and Northern Republicans in the 1850s. The North desired to halt the expansion of slavery into western territories while the South strongly opposed. These two opposing parties led to radical abolitionism in the North, William Henry Seward and John Brown, and extreme secessionism in the South, James Henry Hammond, and South Carolina Ordinance of Secession. Due to their strict ideologies regarding slavery, both parties could not compromise on the issue of the expansion of slavery. Therefore, according to Americans in the years prior to the Civil War, conflict was inevitable.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of The Irrepressible Conflict Between The North And South

    1061 Words  | 3 Pages

    The new territories and the discussion of whether they would be admitted to the Union free or slave-holding stirred up animosity. The Compromise of 1850 which offered stricter fugitive slave laws, admitted California as a free state, allowed slavery in Washington D.C., and allowed new territories to choose whether they wanted to be slave-holding or free was supposed to help ease tension between the North and South. Yet Southern states wanted more new territories to be slave-holders so the institution of it would continue to grow. They believed slavery was a way of life and as Larrabee said in his senate speech, “You cannot break apart this organization and this system that has intertwined itself into every social and political fiber of that great people who inhabit one-half of the Union.” (“There is a Conflict of Races”).

    Read More

  • Explain The Compromises Of The Missouri Compromise

    621 Words  | 2 Pages

    The first of the compromises, which attempted to be the solution to slavery, which I would like to cover, is The Missouri Compromise, which was passed in 1820. Basically the Missouri Compromise was the agreement between the North and the South passed by congress in 1820, which allowed Missouri to become the 24th state. Basically in 1819 this was proposed but it was not agreed upon because at the time there was 22 states in the United States evenly split between slave and free state and since Missouri was going to be admitted as a slave state the North opposed because then there wou...

    Read More

  • The Secession Crisis

    903 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the years of 1830 through 1860, a breach in the unity between the North and the South of the United States occurred. They faced an

    Read More

  • Events Leading To The Civil War

    866 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Fugitive Slave Act was part of the Compromise of 1850. This act required that authorities in the North had to assist southern slave catchers to retrieve and return slaves to their owners. Southerners favored this act because they saw no slavery in the territories to the west, by the passing of the Fugitive Slave Act it would help preserve slavery in the south. This act allowed southern slave owners to get their slaves back when they escaped to the North that is why this act was important and critical to southern survival. The view of this act by the North was the opposite, especially from those who were black, they feared this act. The blacks in the North were terrified that this act would make it so they could be ushered back to the south even if they were innocent. This led to the creation of resistance groups in the North.

    Read More

  • Antebellum Period Essay

    1021 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Missouri Compromise was made by Congress to defuse the sectional and political rivalries caused by the request of Missouri to be admitted as a slave state in 1819. At the time, the United States consisted of twenty-two states, evenly divided between slave and free. Missouri entering as a slave state would upset that balance. From the Missouri Compromise of 1820 came the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed by the U.S. Congress on May thirtieth, 1854. It allowed people in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska to decide for themselves whether or not to allow slavery within their borders. The Act repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820. The Kansas-Nebraska Act angered many in the North who considered the Missouri Compromise to be a long-standing binding agreement, however in the South it was strongly supported. Document J shows a map of the United States split into different territories. Nebraska and Kansas territory are opened to slavery on the map which is what caused a division between the North and South, leading to the Civil

    Read More

  • Wilmot's Expansion Of Slavery In The United States

    1808 Words  | 4 Pages

    Beginning with the Louisiana Purchase, westward expansion raised questions on the fate of slavery in the United States. The question was not to abolish slavery’s existence altogether, but instead, whether or not to allow it to expand into new territories; while the South wanted to continue slavery’s expansion into these lands, the North wanted it to stop. The Missouri Compromise

    Read More

  • Louisiana Purchase Conflicts

    674 Words  | 2 Pages

    In 1819, Missouri desired to be a slave state, however, the Northern Senate overruled and wanted Missouri to be a free state. Since the balance of states would be unequal due to the number of states. In 1820, Maine, which was once part of Massachusetts, became a free state and Missouri became a slave state. Also, the compromise included that north of Missouri would be free states and south of Missouri allowed slavery (36'30). The Missouri Compromise helped push back the conflict of slavery a bit, and kept the balance of the North and South interim. Moreover, economically, the government tries to even out the issues of profit without trying to overwhelm the

    Read More

  • Civil War Territorial Expansion

    901 Words  | 2 Pages

    Another one of the reasons the Civil War happened is slavery, which led to secession. This is ultimately what put the states against each other. The South wanted to establish independence while the North and West wanted to preserve the Union. In 1820, the Senate was full of representatives equally from both the free and slave states. Missouri was going to enter as a Slave state and abrupt this balance, which led to the Missouri Compromise. The Missouri Compromise was the fact that Missouri could enter as a Slave state and in turn, Maine would enter as a Free state to preserve this balance. The compromise also issued that slavery would be prohibited in the Louisiana Territory north of the latitude 36°30′. The Missouri Compromise was not a permanent fix as it was designed to appease southern and northern politicians. Some states did not agree with the government, such as Kansas and Nebraska. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed in 1854, which meant that the type of state it was, whether it be free or not,

    Read More

More about The Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850

Open Document