More handpicked essays just for you.
Compromise of missouri pro and cons
The impact of the Missouri Compromise of 1820
Positives and negatives of nullification crisis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Missouri Compromise and the Nullification Crisis were both very noteworthy events in American history. The significance of the two not only laid in the events themselves, but also the time period in which they occurred and what they foreshadowed. In short, the Missouri Compromise was an act of Congress passed in 1820 between the two faction of United States Congress, that is, the pro-slavery faction and the anti-slavery factions. The compromise primarily involved the regulation of slavery in the western territories of the United States. Although it prohibited slavery in the Louisiana Purchase Territory north of the 36 30 degree latitude, it carved out an exception for Missouri. The Nullification Crisis arose during the presidency of Andrew Jackson and was precipitated by South Carolina’s 1832 Ordinance of Nullification. In short, South Carolina in that ordinance challenged the power of the federal government to impose the federal Tariffs. It declared the federal Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 illegal and in South Carolina. Thus, the Nullification Crisis focused on the States’ rights, while the Missouri Compromise’ main focus was on slavery. Although the reasons for the Nullification Crisis and Louisiana Compromise differed, they both resulted from the growing tension in America during the early 1800s. At that time, the country was having trouble agreeing on very important issues and it showed in the occurrence of these events, as well as others. The Missouri Compromise was more significant than that of the Nullification Crisis because the issue of slavery was one that had presented itself many times and had led to many conflicts in the history of the United States. It also challenged the right of the Federal government to... ... middle of paper ... ...ri Compromise allowed different states to be a part of the Union while preserving their socio-economic base. These two divergent views were not sustainable within a union. Jefferson’s statement “[t]his momentous question, like a fire-bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror” was accurate, in that it foreshadowed the disunion of the states. Allowing Missouri to enter the Union as a slave state, and others to enter as free states were in fact catalysts for major conflict between Americans who believed in the abolition of slavery. The Missouri Compromise also signaled the occurrence of the nullification doctrine due to conflicts arising from various factions within the Union. The nullification doctrine which allowed states to determine which federal law to abide by defeated the purpose of having a union. Works Cited Henretta, History.com, yahoo answers
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.
To put it simply (as I recall and it's been years since I've had to read about this subject)a new territory was opened to settle in. It was decided that the settlers of these states would decide whether or not slavery would be permitted. This gave birth to the new Republican Party which opposed slavery. The Act was designed by Stephen A Douglas a Democratic senator from Illinois (the same who would later defeat a young Abraham Lincoln for the senate in 1858) and repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Thousands of settlers both pro and anti slavery rushed into Kansas particularly and bloody, murderous fights broke out among the groups hence the nickname "Bleeding Kansas". It was actually one territory but this Act divided it into two states.
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 served to repeal the Missouri Compromise of 1820 which prohibited slavery north of latitude 36°30´. Results of the Kansas-Nebraska Act were numerous and for the most part fatal to the country. The Act caused the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 to be virtually nullified, and caused compromising between the North and the South to be nearly impossible in the future.
South Carolina’s decision to invalidate the federal law and deem the tariff unconstitutional was the first blatant disregard for the centralized government. The United States, under Jackson’s presidency, did not unite and support one another in the face of the economic tariff and hardships. Instead, the states nullified (South Carolina in particular) and the individualistic ideals and motivations of the states were exposed. State opinions, such as that of South Carolina were focused solely on their own personal benefit and how they would survive the hardships of the tariff. During the Age of Jackson, there was no unification between the states. The ideals of Jacksonian America were flawed by the growing sectionalism and individualistic ideals. The total equality and unification that Jacksonian America attempted to create was no longer an option. Jacksonian America failed, and in result, did not promote the unified democracy in the United
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.
Politically, there were questions about the amount power given to the federal government vs the states; as question since the adoption of the Constitution. At times states felt the need to question the power federal government. For example in the Decision of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) confirmed that no state could tax federal property, enforcing the supremacy clause (Document D). While this reinforced a nationalist point of view that challenge was clearly sectionalist in nature. Efforts to diffuse political rivalries were also present. An example was the request for Missouri statehood in late 1819 who was also requesting that slavery be permitted. To diffuse the sectionalist debate the Missouri Compromise was placed by congress. At the time the U.S. contained 22 states, evenly divided between slave and free. (Page 155).... (QUOTE BY JEFFERSON) A sectionalism standpoint was also depicted in the presidential election of 1824 where each state differed in voting for the men running for the same position (Document
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.
This helped manufacturers from New England, and led to a crisis known as the nullification crisis. Vice President John C. Calhoun of South Carolina argued that states had a right to nullify this law. Many southerners were against tariff because they feared that if the federal government could do that, they could end slavery as well. They hoped to stop this by nullifying the tariff law because it would weaken the federal government. President Andrew Jackson defended the tariffs, and Congress listened to Jackson, and passed another tariff law. After that, South Carolina became fed up and threatened to secede. Eventually, the two sides came to peace and ended the
The Missouri Compromise acted as a balancing act among the anti-slave states and the slave states. Since states generally entered the union in pairs, it stat...
Crisis struck in 1820, when the North/South balance in the Senate was threatened by the application of Missouri to join the Union as a slave state. Southerners, aware of their numerical inferiority in the House of Representatives, were keen to maintain their political sway, in the Senate. The North feared that if Southerners were to take control of the Senate, political deadlock would ensue. Compromise was found in 1820 when Maine applied to join as a free state, maintaining the balance.
Later, these conflicting results between the North and the South had shortly begun the Civil War. These arising conflicts were similar to the Nullification Crisis during Andrew Jackson’s presidency in 1832. During this time period, South Carolina had nullified the Tariff of Abominations because they had believed it was unconstitutional. John C. Calhoun, vice president of the state, had argued that the national legislation had operated unequally and lacked fairness to every state. Calhoun had also argued for slavery and claimed that it played a part with states’ rights. The Nullification Crisis was just the beginning of the predicaments of the oncoming Civil War.
Political unrest within the advocating for Nullification virtually declares the United States Constitution nonexistent. To propel, and support secession is radical and creates separate entities trying to coexist amongst each other while avoiding the issue. In the matters of the government, constitutional propriety should be enforced and upheld with the upmost respect. However, when the driving force behind promoting constitutional propriety has a hidden agenda that is repugnant in nature then there is bound to be disputes. The Nullification Crisis was a result of the Tariff of 1828 and the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were the result of the Alien and Sedition Acts. The similarities between the Alien and Sedition Acts and the Tariff of 1828, is that both on the surface, seemingly were actions implemented by Congress because of war. These parallel actions also were induced by political parties seizing an opportunity to publically discredit, embarrass, and fluster the opposing party. Much like today, of one political party attempting to dominate Congress, the passing of the Alien and Sedition Acts by the Federalist controlled congress was an attempt to weaken the Jeffersonian Republicans. The passing of the Tariff of 1828 was to economically protect industries in the north, which weaken the southern states. This further aggravated the intensely growing animosity between the Northern and Southern States. Unilaterally, the Tariff of 1828 favored the northern industries and caused the southern states especially South Carolina to pay higher prices on goods that they were unable to produce.
Correspondly, the senate passed the Missouri Compromise in February 1820, which allowed Missouri to enter the Union as a slave state and Maine to enter as a free state, making the free and slave states balanced once again. Another amendment was passed to prohibit slavery in the rest of the Louisiana Purchase north of the southern border of Missouri. This event envisioned a possible threat to the relationship between the North and South. Moreover, the United States began to believe in a manifest destiny, a god-given right to expand its territory until it had absorbed all of North America, including Canada and Mexico.... ...
Having slavery be a significant part of many American lives, the Missouri Compromise was another sign that slavery was still a want in new states. The change of slavery states and free states still wasn’t where it needed to be in order to be accepted by today’s standards, but there were already people rallying to get it removed. Many people were involved in the Missouri Compromise as well as affected by it, but, thankfully, none of it is still in place today.
As the country began to grow and expand we continued to see disagreements between the North and South; the Missouri Territory applied for statehood; the South wanted them admitted as a slave state and the North as a free state. Henry Clay eventually came up with the Missouri Compromise, making Missouri a slave state and making Maine it’s own state, entering the union as a free state. After this compromise, any state admitted to the union south of the 36° 30’ latitude would be a slave state and a state north of it would be free. The country was very much sectionalized during this time. Thomas Jefferson felt this was a threat to the Union.