Missouri Compromise 1860 Analysis

1173 Words5 Pages
Missouri Compromise (1820)
Introduction
This paper will explain and analyze the Missouri Compromise (1820). As the U.S. added territories, the issue of slavery resulted in political tension between the north and south. The southerners believed that slaves were needed to continue farming in the new lands and they attempted to introduce slave states in the west. On the other hand, the northerners argued that it was appropriate to prohibit and prevent the slavery institution from spreading westward. The north and south representatives in the House were also divided about the issue of abolition but were interested in the Union. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt by the Congress to address the political rivalries caused by Missouri’s petition
…show more content…
The Missouri Compromise allowed for the admission of Missouri territory as a slave state in the Union. Based on the Missouri Compromise, the inhabitants of Missouri territory were authorized to form a constitution and a state government (Ourdocuments.gov n. p.). The newly formed state of Missouri would be equal to the original states. This document also established an imaginary boundary between Missouri territory and the territory of Louisiana, which was a separation of the free and slave regions. The document notes that the territory under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of 36 degrees and 33 minutes north latitude, is prohibited from slavery (Ourdocuments.gov n.…show more content…
The north got Maine while the south got Missouri (Norton 224). However, this compromise did not address the issue of slavery expansion permanently, and it was only a temporary solution to ease political tensions. The document failed to outline how future states would be administered, which threatened to cause an imbalance between the slave and free states. The Missouri Compromise fails to address how the Union will be maintained. These issues were not addressed by the document since the southern representatives wanted to continue holding slaves. Conversely, the northern representatives wanted to retain the Union and abolish slavery. For instance, Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe supported the American Colonization Society that was formed by abolitionists (Norton 211). Jefferson and Monroe also supported the unity of the Union.
Conclusion
The Missouri Compromise only led to a balance between slave-holding and slave-free states but failed to address the issue of slavery permanently. As evident in this paper, the Missouri Compromise was only meant to draw an agreement between the south and north instead of a solution. The failure of the north and south representatives to agree on gradual progressive emancipation in Missouri shows that a long-last solution could not be reached. Despite its, inadequacies, the Missouri Compromise marked a political change in the
Open Document