Missouri Compromise: Political History America/Georgia

When it comes to the things that make up our society we often come to think of how we have evolved. Change is something that is inevitable. Our daily people within society have ways of doing things to improve the way we operate with social change. To come across agreements or compromises people have to be on board with it and have a specific goal in mind. Economic change is also something that is very vital to the society we live in today. The goal is always to get more economically smart and expand the country to bigger and better things. Often times the expanding the country is one point that allows in friction and consequences. Thinking outside the box over the years has caused major problems and broken promises. To start the basis of shaping the country economically to discuss the Missouri compromise is needed. The Missouri Compromise was a document that had many individuals upset about the westward expansion of slavery. In the 1820's slavery was already and issue in the south heavily. The north felt the need to expand because of the economic growth it could bring, while the south felt the north had too much control over what happens in the slavery expansion. In contrast to, the Missouri Compromise also prohibited slavery within its 36/30 line. Altogether, this document was one that shaped the nation in which way slavery would go and what the west would evolve into. Figuring out the westward expansion was something that shook the country within the 1800s. To imagine the intensity of this situation the following requires an enormous thought process.

This issue shape history because it involved how slavery and evolving the west would turn out. Western expansion had to deal with getting others along to decide whether or not [1]Slavery would continue toward the west. Prime bases of this particular issued caused many dismay because some individuals wanted slavery to be over and done with. As previously stated earlier, within this huge sectional division a decision had to be made about maintaining slavery in certain states. In popular opinion the state[2] Missouri resolved to have a specific boundary line which had shown slavery had not been allowed without questions asked. Within expanding the west, the concept as a whole was bound to cause a corruption. Expanding towards the west meant more land available to create economic growth. Around the time of expansion, it was mainly about wealth and riches. Slaves in the 1800s were part of that economic growth. The more slaves there were to daily job the more money being made. Compromising would indeed settle the huge dispute between slave states and free states. United States was still a freshly new country so with that being said a new compromise had to be brought up. [3]Adding Missouri would upset that balance. Come to think about it the effectiveness of this compromise was bound to fail. Due to the fact of trying to expand only further proved to the point of find a better way to expand. Within the compromise it eventually failed. Since the South and the North could not seem to agree about this ordeal. Soon leading to a point of deciding when appropriate to continue the expansion of slavery. See in the south slavery was legal and people could do it. Slave sin the north could be free but the north thought the idea of expanding the west was spectacular. To put it another way, people in the south wanted something where they could have their say so. [4]Many felt the compromise was unconstitutional. Moreover, it is fair to say for the North to oppose slavery expansion toward the west was blasphemous. Not to mention the compromise allow lots of expansion and wealth to be conquered.

Despite this significant issue eventually lead up pone important person by the name of Dred Scott. Now before we discuss Dred Scott let us be reminded the Missouri Compromise is till one topic that will remain animus within today. Jefferson has described the division was like A fire bell in the night. To get a clear ideal of exactly what this compromise was like this one quote can be taken as dangerous or heavily stressful and gritty. These feelings have caused the union to now be cautious of the next necessary steps to be taken. The 36'30' line would allow slavery to be not allowed on that line. Simply this point is where Dred Scott comes in. Dred Scott made the Missouri compromise come to an end. The proposed argument there being that how could the Missouri compromise continuously be constitutional. Pointing the point out that two states by the name of[5] Kansas and Nebraska were north of the compromising line. So the decision came to the point of the Supreme Court feeling as though the [6]Missouri Compromise is unconstitutional. Soon enough the compromise was prohibited and outlawed by the Fifth Amendment. Come to think about it appears that the compromise is really based upon seeing as that it wants to make slavery a mandatory step to try to get more economic growth needed.

Next tissue being is that compromise needed to happen in order to have the division between free and slave states. Equally free and slave states were 22. The whole point is valid to be considered as a compromise that needed to be well set. Boundaries on the compromise was pretty much at face value. Slave states had already set the tone on that we are going to have slaves and that is that. Missouri was the only state that had craved to have their own independence. The 36'30' line existed at the southern half of Missouri. If any lines had been crossed there would be a consequence. Compromising with this is something that stood out. Expansion towards the west meant that if the people expanded towards the west more money coming in. Arguments between the Free states and slave states went on far and a long time. Decisions being made with this compromise had to be well thought out and completely effective. Within creating that balance as well no one would be better than the other. Understanding the issue of the division we must understand had to come about because of making sure that everything would be balanced out evenly. Another major important fact was the Wilmot Proviso. [7]This document had also taken the decision had the Missouri Compromise would turn. The document had presented itself by making sure the division was evenly balanced. It caused people in the North and the South to be on different sides of this argument. Other since the south was more on the side of apprehension towards the expansion. Slavery was heavily applied in the south so the need to expand it was fairly disappointing. To add to the previous statement expanding also meant that families would be broken up and split apart.

With being in the South people had a strong dislike towards the compromise because they had felt that the north had already too much privileges as it is. In the north things were of higher power. In the north things were higher power. If an individual was form the south their point of view towards the north would be thinking of freedom and that they could do whatever that they chose to do. Within the Wilmot Proviso a man by the name of Van Buren wanted this because he wanted Revenge against the south for jettisoning him in 1844. All these emotions playing into the Provision simply was anger and distain. Revenge was just exactly happened with Van Buren because the north decision to not expand slavery happened. The votes of this decision had roughly about [8]300,00 votes, 14 percent of the north total.

When looking back on this decision and it really irrational. It is almost as if the North had dominance over everything. The South had finally come to see something needed to be done about this. There was so much land that had been purchased within the Louisiana Purchase so many felt as though that hey let us expand slavery. In addition, with the Louisiana Purchase it was so enormous that the land could be built up with many things. Southerners also had felt as though it was unfair that the north could be able to be in control as such. That explains why soon enough the Free Soil Party was created to see if Slavery should be left to settlers in the new territories.

This ideal thinking seemed as though it would have a huge impact but indeed, it simply did the opposite. Those results went exactly to the northerners. [9]The whole plan of the Free Soil Party was to find better economic opportunities. As many felt that going westward presented better economic growth for themselves. Another issue to go into with the Missouri compromise is that the Missouri is very vague. To get the full understanding of exactly what the Missouri Compromise was about it has to be understood that the compromise was intended to expand but caused major issues. Let us take to back to the very beginning where previously stated the huge hostility within the hostility with this compromise. In addition, the south had a feeling of why must slavery keep continuing. Many African Americans were outraged because slavery had been going on for hundreds of years and now there is a possibility it may continue. With so many slaves already in the south the numbers began to only continue and grow up to [10]30% and the slave population 1,538,038'. Also the idea of some believing that having to admit states across [11]The Mississippi river demolishes the idea of slavery ending. Adding more states is really adding fuel to the fire. The slave trade plays a part in the Missouri compromise because the compromise was about expanding slavery and the slave trade traded slaves everywhere and anywhere. The simple fact that the thought of expanding slavery was brought up created chaos. Many issues with the compromise whether or not to expand makes the issue one to take serious consideration too. When members of congress get involved the process becomes one to really be re-evaluated closely and seriously.

During this time period of the 1820s one man by the name of James Tallmadge had felt that his amendment called the Tallmadge Amendment was to block the admission Illinois as slave state and Shame the provisions against slavery in the state constitution. This amendment had caused an uproar of emotions when dealing with the requirements in the amendment. The upper south representatives immediately had a strong dislike toward the Tallmadge amendment some felt the violence was outrageous. James made northerners feel his point and had respectfully earned their approval. With his courage to step out and speak out about what the expansion actually was he led people to curiosity as well.

The expansion was known but people still many people would feel as though the expansion was needed. James Tallmadge had caused one other man by the name of Henry Clay felt that he could no longer stand to see the proposal made by James Tallmadge request. There came a time when it had been felt that African Americans could no longer take this. The concern of how the future would turn out for the African Americans was unsure. At some point in time there should have been the point of enough is enough. Enduring pain of slavery for hundreds of years was already enough having to be separated from your family for such long periods of time and then soon have to find out that it is only going to be even worse was horrific. To a certain extent the Missouri compromise was a document which had created a standoff between the North and the South. Yes, the plan was to expand western but in the same sense any little land had been established. The fight that some individuals put up was greatly. In instances there was some people who already had to put with the fact that they are slaves and to have come up with that they may be considered a slave or not a slave out west was a huge concern. The whole concept of expanding out west had to be taken with serious pre-cautious because how would you exactly distinguish a free slave as if they headed traveled the west. There were so many questions and concerns as to how slavery would be dealt with. Along sometimes you had certain northerners being 50/50 about the Missouri compromise.

Certain instances you would have northerners worried about growing economically and others worried about abolishing slavery completely. To abolish slavery to some northerners only thought of money and gaining great wealth. Yet, with growing economically that meant land had to be attended to and treated properly. In a way to some northerners they thought the more northerners they thought the more slaves the less work they would have to do.

In regards to shaping history it certainly did that. The society we live in today now states now are able to make decisions on their own. Even though coming down from the President states can decide whether or not they will carry out that certain law or leave it. Citizens of the state also now can be able to do as they please as well. The Missouri Compromise was one that showed the people that there will be disagreements, but we all have to find common denominator and deal with the issue at hand. It may be a struggle to get a law or document passed but everyone should make sure that what we are doing always aligns with the constitution. The Constitution serves as the main document for what is right and what is wrong to do to an individual or anyone individuals rights.

Bibliography

Foner, Eric. Give me Liberty! An. American History'. New York: Eric Foner, 2017

A&E Television Networks, 2009 www.history.com/topics/missouri-compromise

Finkelman, Paul, and Kennon, Donald R. eds. 2008. Congress and the emergence of sectionalism: From the Missouri compromise to the Age of Jackson. Athens: Ohio University press. Accessed April 13 2018. ProQuest EBook central

1. Foner, Eric, Give me Liberty! An American History. (New York,2017), 288

2. Foner., 288

[3] ""What Was the Purpose of the Missouri Compromise?"" History, May 31, 2017, accessed April 18, 2018, https://www.historyonthenet.com/what-was-the-purpose-of-the-missouri-compromise/.

""What Was the Purpose of the Missouri Compromise?"" History, May 31, 2017, accessed April 18, 2018, https://www.historyonthenet.com/what-was-the-purpose-of-the-missouri-compromise/.

[4]

[5] ""What Was the Purpose of the Missouri Compromise?"" History, May 31, 2017, , accessed April 18, 2018, https://www.historyonthenet.com/what-was-the-purpose-of-the-missouri-compromise/.

[6] ""What Was the Purpose of the Missouri Compromise?"" History, May 31, 2017, accessed April 18, 2018, https://www.historyonthenet.com/what-was-the-purpose-of-the-missouri-compromise/.

[7] Foner, Eric Give me Liberty! An American History. (New York, 2017), 377

[8] Foner, 377

[9] Foner, 378

[10] Donald R, Finkelman, Kennon, and Paul eds. 2008. Congress and the emergence of sectionalism: From the Missouri compromise to the Age of Jackson. Athens: Ohio University press. Accessed April 13 2018. ProQuest EBook Central, 82

[11] Donald R, Finkelman, Kennon, and Paul eds. 2008. Congress and the emergence of sectionalism: From the Missouri compromise to the Age of Jackson. Athens: Ohio University press. Accessed April 13 2018. ProQuest EBook Central, 83

Cite this page