Position on Slaver During the 1820’s Missouri Compromise Slavery began as early as 1619 in colonial America, and lasted until 1865 when the 13th amendment to the Constitution was adopted. Back in 1819 when Missouri was asking to become a slave state, it brought up a debate over the balance of slave and free states. Before the Missouri Compromise was proposed, the Northern states began to protest against Congress having the power to prevent slavery in a new state. They believed that the people of that state should be able to decide on their own whether there would be slavery or not. In 1820, the Missouri Compromise was signed to maintain that delicate balance. In the end, Missouri became a slave state but to keep everyone happy they also …show more content…
The northerners on the other hand disapproved of it because it encouraged the growth of slavery across the US. Even though both did not agree with this decision, the act was efficiently keeping the US in order for many years. In 1857, the Supreme Court decided the Missouri Compromise was not constitutional for the reason that 5th amendment to the Constitution kept Congress from denying a person possession of property without going through the due process of law beforehand. Pro-Slavery Arguments In the 1820s, slavery was a tremendous part of the Souths economy. The south depended on slaves to work cotton gins (invented at the time, increasing demand in slaves), farm, and lots of other laborious tasks. In 1820, South Carolina passed a law saying that anything anti-slavery would be prohibited. The South saw slavery as something necessary in their economy and way of life. They believed it would benefit the US in numerous ways, so they tried to prevent the abolition of slavery as much as possible. They were very dedicated to keeping their way of life the way it was back then. Anti-Slavery
Most people, whether for or against the decision, viewed it as a political decision and not a legal one. For the first timne since Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 (and only the second time ever) the Supreme Court declared an act of Congress [the Missouri Compromise] null and void.
There are two mind paths to choose when considering the statement that the compromises of the 1800s were not really compromises, but sectional sellouts by the North, that continually gave in to the South's wishes. The first is that the compromises really were compromises, and the second is that the compromises were modes of the North selling out. Really, there is only one correct mind path of these two, and that is that the North sold out during these compromises and gave the South what it wanted for minimal returns. The three main compromises of the 19th century, the compromises of 1820 (Missouri) and 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 each were ways for the south to gain more power so that eventually, it could secede.
The loose interpretation of the Constitution by Chief Justice Marshall had greatly infuriated and scared the Southerners because if the government could regulate interstate commerce, then it could one day regulate slavery; it's technically commerce. Therefore, states such as South Carolina passed the Negro Seamen Act, which was later struck down unconstitutional, greatly hit the issue of slavery. South Carolinians had great bases for their beliefs because of the recent Denmark Vesey uprising.
The Southerners viewed slavery as a luxury and a necessity. Financial gain was one of the reasons slavery was tremendously popular. Slaves were required to work in various places for little or no money. Therefore, this helped the slave owners achieve their goal of increasing their profits because they did not have to pay for labor costs. With lower labor costs, the Southerners had more disposable income. This extra money allowed them to pay their taxes, to buy more land, and to even possibly purchase more slaves.
The southern economy was largely dependent on slaves, who worked on the numerous plantations of the South. Moreover, the main purpose of slavery in the South was for the cultivation of these cotton plantations. (Doc 4) For this reason, southerners believed
The Kansas-Nebraska Act was a great victory for the south. The greatest benefit to the south was the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, which established the sacred 36-30 line. If the Missouri Compromise had stayed in place, there would have been no more possibility for the expansion of slavery, since there was no land left south of the 36-30 line; under the Missouri Compromise southern expansion was hampered by the existence of the Gulf of Mexico. As a result of the line being repealed, it was possible for slavery to exist in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska because of popular sovereignty.
Of all the areas with which the southerners contended, the socio-political arena was probably their strongest. It is in this area that they have history and law to support their assertions. With the recent exception of the British, the slave trade had been an integral part of the economies of many nations and the slaves were the labor by which many nations and empires attained greatness. Southerners envisioned an American empire that required slave labor.... ... middle of paper ...
In 1820 Missouri wanted to join the Union as a slave state. As this would ruin the balance between Slave states and Free states in the Senate, Henry Clay proposed the Missouri compromise. This arranged it that while Missouri was admitted as a Slave state, Maine was also admitted as a free state. It also created an imaginary line along the 36o latitude, where slavery was allowed below it but prevented above it. However they limited themselves by only applying the Compromise to lands gained in the Louisiana purchase. This led to conflict after the Mexican war in which America gained new territories in the West. This doomed the Missouri Compromise, which was probably the most promising of the three. Had the Compromise been applied to all American lands then perhaps it could have succeeded. Instead the Missouri Compromise failed and only led to further conflict between north and south in the future.
The Missouri Compromise went into motion when Missouri had a very well set population and applied for Statehood. When this began it started a battle in congress on the topic of slavery and its legality. The resolution of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was that it established clear slave states, free states, states that are closed to slavery and also states open to slavery. It brought about restrictions on slavery by limiting future slave states to below the 36°30’ line. Missouri also established the Missouri act of 1820 having no restrictions on slavery and escaped slaves are allowed to be hunted in every state and northern free states. AS to describing it as the final answer to slaver for the US it was not. It was a minor stepping stone
After gaining a vast amount of land from the Louisiana Purchase, the question of slavery became geographical and political. This provided a period of national debate between pro-slavery and anti-slavery states who craved for political and economic advantages. Because of this dispute, between the North and the South, the Missouri Compromise was written, and passed in 1820. (http://www.understandingrace.org/history/gov/expan_slavery.html)
During the mid nineteenth century the United States started to part, yet at the center of the century individuals perspectives began to wind up more concrete thus detachment in the Union turned out to be more extreme. From 1850 to 1861 it was evident that the union was isolating into the North and the South. The Constitution assumed a noteworthy part in the division that was happening. Through sectional preference of bits and pieces of the Constitution and through thoughts that were let well enough alone, the Constitution prompted sectional dissension and nearly failure to the union. Therefore several issues created the identity for the Civil War such as, Missouri Compromise, Abraham Lincoln, Harriet Tubman, Abolishment Movement, and the Dred
There became a big controversy over the spread of slavery in the West during the 1850s. The progress in the 1840s was massive and because the United States had acquired California, Texas, Oregon, Washington and New Mexico. Although the northerners were not hard-core abolitionists, they did protest the spread of slavery in the west. As for the Southerners was a necessary evil and they considered slavery as being a positive good (Schultz, 2010). The Democrats and the Whigs did not want to push the South aside by appearing to be totally against slavery and not being supportive of the South.
Colonist started to import slaves from South America in hopes that they would live longer and be more manageable to control. The slaves that were imported were trained past their first year of slavery, so that they would not die as fast. The first imported slaves came to America in the early 17th century. When they received the slaves they found out some of them were baptized, and were under the Christian religion. So they could not be treat as slaves under the religion so they were turned into indentured servants. There were very few vague laws on slavery, but it was always a permanent servitude. At first slaves had limited right, and were aloud to own land, after their period of slavery was over. They were allowed to marry and have children. The slaves kids that were born while they were enslaved were not consider to be slaves, but to be free under the law.
...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.
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, ...