Dbq Missouri Compromise

The Compromise of 1850 was the last compromise between Northern and Southern political factions before the civil war. Although Steven Douglass, the man instrumental in getting the bill to pass Congress, designed it to ease sectional tensions, it led the way for a series of political events that would change America’s history. The acceptance of popular sovereignty which was a key component of the 1850 Compromise open the interpretation of former compromises, specify the Missouri Compromise of 1820 which stated that all states over the 36-30 line would be considered free. Northern Democratic senator Steven Douglass took the acceptance of the Compromise of 1850 as an acceptance of popular sovereignty and applied it to his Kansas- Nebraska

According to Henretta 2011 and U.S History, the Kansas-Nebraska act was a great political disaster for the political system of America, and was a strong, if not the leading, cause of the Civil War. Senator Stephen A. Douglas was behind said compromise. He wanted the territory known as Nebraska to decide whether or not it wanted to be a slave state, but, like mentioned before, the Missouri Act would be violated by such decision. Knowing this, Senator Douglas revised his bill and added that the Missouri Compromised should be repealed, and that popular sovereignty should decide the fate of the new territory, which would be formed as Nebraska and Kansas. When the Act was finally enacted, the disaster began. Northern Whigs and “anti-Nebraska” Democrats were enraged and opposed with passion to the act, denouncing it

The Kansas Nebraska Act was passed by Stephen Douglas in 1854. The Act allowed the states of Kansas and Nebraska to desighted for themself if the were going to allow slavery in their territories. It was made to replace the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Why Stephen made this Act was to make sure that the transcontinental railroad would go threw Illinois. To do this he wanted to introduce a bill organizing the territory of Nebraska under the control of the people. There were objections from the south that Nebraska was under the 36*30 degree line. Nebraska would a state of Popular sovereignty or in other words ruled by the people. The south was very happy with this act because they did not like that if Slaves passed

Four years after the 1850 compromise a new act was proposed. At 1854 Stephen Douglas establishes a transcontinental railroad to California, he instituted a bill to congress that would assemble the area of Nebraska but, his plan was rejected under the terms of the Missouri Compromise. Douglas then introduced a new bill that divided “ the area into two territories… If passed, it would repeal the Missouri Compromise”. Under the concept of Douglas’ plan the decision of whether the states would be free or slave states would be left to popular sovereignty, leaving the decision to the settlers. After the passing of this act settlers from both the north and south flooded the area of Kansas in order to influence the decision of popular sovereignty.

For instance, decisions made in debates that gradually shaped the compromise. The book also incorporated several primary sources that I could trace and use as insight on the opinions of important players involved in the Missouri Compromise, many of which were representatives of Northern and Southern states. I used the opinions of these representatives as quotations on my board to further convey the idea of conflict between free states and slave states as the Missouri Compromise continued. Not only did the Missouri Compromise clearly explicate the Missouri Compromise, the book also gave detail and primary sources concerning the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Because the Kansas-Nebraska Act unraveled the Missouri Compromise, it was crucial to the topic. I also used these debates as images on my exhibit to portray the decisions made during the compromise. For instance, the decision to allow Missouri admission into the Union and the decision to prohibit slavery south of

Following the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the country was dived between the agricultural, pro-slavery South and the industrial, anti-slavery North. This division along the 39°30’ parallel created an uneasy peace between the North and South for three decades until it was shattered in 1854 by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which would allow settlers to choose if their state would be a free or slave state. Many northern leaders such as Horace Greeley, Salmon Chase, and Charles Sumner opposed the extension of slavery into the newly forming territories, especially across the parallel, and advocated against a national bank, and immigration. Thus, a new party was needed; the Republican party was born.

The Missouri Compromise was passed in 1820 to deal with the conflict of pro-slavery and anti-slavery. Slavery had been a political, economic issue. Which was causing a division between the North and the South. At the time, the United States contained twenty-two states evenly divided between slave and free. Missouri becoming a slave state and Maine as a free state. The North wanted Congress to stop slavery in general and expansion, on the other hand the South wanted slavery across the states. The Southerners viewed slave labor to be essential to their economic. Additionally, a law was passed where Louisiana purchase territory North of the 36 degrees and 30 minutes’ latitude, where any future state North would not be allowed to own or

Stephen A. Douglas would soon find the terms of the Missouri Compromise very inconvenient. As an advocate for western expansion, he proposed to design a trans-continental railroad across the northern plains, with an eastern terminance in Chicago. In order for his proposal to succeed, Douglas felt that the territories through which the railroad passed would have to be formally organized which required the support of southern politicians. He was also a believer in popular sovereignty; arguing that the status of slavery in a territory should be decided by it’s residents rather than Congress. He would then design a bill to kill two birds with one stone, the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

Most white Americans of the 1800’s agreed that the US push western was hard and crucial to good health of this nation. But the big question was at what cost it should be. When President Thomas Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase from the French he was very happy with the thought of gaining the mighty Mississippi river and the port in New Orleans for America interest but if he could only see the can of worms it would open for the newly forming United States.

While the Missouri Compromise in 1820 was at least a step in the right direction, it became clear that slavery would still not be accepted by the North. Working with the abolitionists were many former slaves and those of mixed race, who may have not personally been slaves, but still noticed the strong sense of racial inequalities in the United States. A great number of abolitionists took to writing, fueled by the eruption of the printing press into popularity with the Industrial Revolution. Included from a list of many is Rochester reporter Frederick Douglass; the creator of the first Native American newspaper, Elias Boudinot; and William Apess, a mixed-race Pequot Methodist minister. Of these, Frederick Douglass is most well-known, but Apess was most effective of these in his time.

The issue was not slavery itself, but who, either the central government or the states, decided whether slavery was acceptable. Political divisions over governing the country between the North and the South was especially relevant with the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Stephen Douglas, a Democrat running against Lincoln, was the founder of the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act divided Nebraska and Kansas, with a government that “pushed the Plains Indians farther west, making way for farmers and railroads,” (Roark, 365). The act created new territories that would allow the state to use popular sovereignty to determine if they would be slave or free states. During the Illinois state elections, Lincoln and Douglas debated their beliefs of a more

Compromise by an amendment to exclude slavery in all of the rest of the Louisiana

Because Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed three years earlier in 1854 and repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820, this statement could be true. However, the spirit of the compromise had survived in the North and they argued no slavery above 36°30’ line. Now, the Court ruled that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 were unconstitutional anyway. Therefore, Congress had no power to ban slavery anywhere from the territories (The American Pageant, Pg.418). This decision supported the idea of popular sovereignty and highly recommended the principles of

The compromise regulated slavery in the western territories. Missouri compromise line to the Pacific: continue earlier method, divide nation in half (Lecture 9/29). At this point in history, the problem was politically stable. Thirty-four years later the movement was obliterated. The Missouri Compromise was passed by United States congress divisions opposed of slavery and in favor of slavery. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was rescinded by the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The Kansas-Nebraska Act was stated by democratic senator, Stephen A. Douglas, as territory that is to be either free or slave according to popular sovereignty. Citizens were faced with a decision, which was previously decided by politicians. They were allowed to vote on the slavery regulation of their

As a result of the tension and resentment created by the failed comprimies coupled with a weak government, the state became disunited. In 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska act established Nebraska and Kansas as territories and ultimately granted them the right to decide through popular sovereignty whether they would enter the Union as free or slaveholding states. Due to the fact that there was a balance of power between the free and the slave-holding states, the admittance of a new territory created a chance for each side to change the balance in their favor (Allard). Illinois Senator Stephen A. Douglas, a defender of the act, asserted that allowing each state to make the decision of slavery itself would ease tensions. He declared “The bill will triumph