# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
The Missouri Compromise admitted Missouri as a free state and Maine as a slave state in order to, maintain the balance between free states and slave states.

# data[].attributes.body
However, this could not have been a long lasting solution to the debate over slave states and free states because eventually they would argue with eachother since they didn't agree with eachothers ways and it would lead to conflict either way.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Table of Contents

1. Pro- and Anti-Slavery Factions in Congress

2. Maine and Missouri: A Two-Part Compromise

3. Shortcomings of the Missouri Compromise

The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was a law that tried to address growing sectional tensions over the issue of slavery. By passing the law, which President James Monroe signed, the U.S. Congress admitted Missouri to the Union as a state that allowed slavery, and Maine as a free state. It also banned slavery from the remaining Louisiana Purchase lands located north of the 36º 30' parallel (the southern border of Missouri). The Missouri Compromise would remain in force for just over 30 years before it was repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. In 1857, the Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott decision that the compromise was unconstitutional, setting the stage for the Civil War.

Pro- and Anti-Slavery Factions in Congress

When the Missouri Territory first applied for statehood in 1818, it was clear that many in the territory wanted to allow slavery in the new state. Part of the more than 800,000 square miles bought from France in the Louisiana Purchase of 1803, Missouri was known as the Louisiana Territory until 1812, when it was renamed to avoid confusion with the newly admitted state of Louisiana.

Missouri's bid to become the first state west of the Mississippi River, and to allow slavery within its borders, set off a bitter debate in a Congress that was-like the nation itself-already divided into pro- and anti-slavery factions.

In the North, where abolitionist sentiment was growing, many people opposed the extension of the institution of slavery into new territory, and worried that adding Missouri as a slave state would upset the balance that currently existed between slave and free states in the Union. Pro-slavery Southerners, meanwhile, argued that new states, like the original 13, should be given the freedom to choose whether to permit slavery or not.

During the debate, Rep. James Tallmadge of New York proposed an amendment to the statehood bill that would have eventually ended slavery in Missouri and set free the existing enslaved workers living there. The amended bill passed narrowly in the House of Representatives, where Northerners held a slight edge. But in the Senate, where free and slave states had exactly the same number of senators, the pro-slavery faction managed to strike out Tallmadge's amendment, and the House refused to pass the bill without it.

Maine and Missouri: A Two-Part Compromise

After this stalemate, Missouri renewed its application for statehood in late 1819. This time, Speaker of the House Henry Clay proposed that Congress admit Missouri to the Union as a state that allowed slavery, but at the same time admit Maine (which at the time was part of Massachusetts) as a free state.

In February 1820, the Senate added a second part to the joint statehood bill: With the exception of Missouri, slavery would be banned in all of the former Louisiana Purchase lands north of the 36º 30' latitude, which ran along Missouri's southern border.

On March 3, 1820, the House passed the Senate version of the bill, and President James Monroe signed it into law four days later. The following month, the former President Thomas Jefferson wrote to a friend that the "Missouri question...like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. It is hushed indeed for the moment. But this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence."

Shortcomings of the Missouri Compromise

Though the Missouri Compromise managed to keep the peace-for the moment-it failed to resolve the pressing question of slavery and its place in the nation's future. Southerners who opposed the Missouri Compromise did so because it set a precedent for Congress to make laws concerning slavery, while Northerners disliked the law because it meant slavery was expanding into new territory.

In the decades after 1820, as westward expansion continued, and more of the Louisiana Purchase lands were organized as territories, the question of slavery's extension continued to divide the nation. The Compromise of 1850, which admitted California to the Union as a free state, required California to send one pro-slavery senator to maintain the balance of power in the Senate.

In 1854, during the organization of Kansas and Nebraska Territories, Senator Stephen Douglas of Illinois spearheaded the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which mandated that the settlers of each territory should decide the issue of slavery for themselves, a principle known as popular sovereignty.

The controversial law effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise by allowing slavery north of the 36º 30' parallel. Passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act sparked violence between pro- and anti-slavery settlers in " Bleeding Kansas," delaying Kansas' admission to the Union. Opposition to the act led to the formation of the Republican Party, and the emergence to national prominence of Douglas's Illinois rival, a formerly obscure lawyer named Abraham Lincoln.

Bitter controversy also surrounded the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which ruled that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. According to Chief Justice Roger B. Taney and six other justices, Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territories, as the Fifth Amendment guaranteed owners of the enslaved could not be deprived of their property without due process of law. The 14th Amendment, passed in 1865 after the conclusion of the Civil War, would later overturn major parts of the Dred Scott decision.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Missouri Compromise: Date, Definition & 1820 - HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Missouri Compromise, an 1820 law passed amid debate over slavery, admitted Missouri to the Union as a state that allowed slavery, and Maine as a free state.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Wilmot Proviso said that the U.S should ban slavery in the area won as a result of the Mexican war

# data[].attributes.body
The southeners proested against him because they supported slavery and feared that if slaves were treated like normal people they would take away their jobs from them

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Note Cards

On August 8, when the war was barely three months old, an obscure first-term Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania named David Wilmot offered an amendment to an appropriations bill: "that, as an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico...neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory." The principle embodied in this amendment - the Wilmot Proviso, as it came to be known - remained the lodestone of sectional conflict for the next fifteen years...Northern Whigs voted unanimously for Wilmot's proviso; so did all but four Northern Democrats, while every Southern Democrat and all but two Southern Whigs voted against it. Having passed the House, the proviso failed to come to a vote in the Senate at this session. At the next session, in February 1847, the House repassed the proviso; but the Senate with five Northern Democrats joining the Southerners, passed the appropriations bill without the antislavery amendment. Under heavy administration pressure, twenty-three Northern House Democrats then receded from the proviso and cast the necessary votes to pass the bill unamended.

James M. McPherson, Ordeal by Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction, 3rd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001), 65-66.

Congressman David Wilmot of Pennsylvania introduced the Wilmot Proviso in the House of Representatives. The proviso called for prohibiting slavery "in any territory [taken] from the Republic of Mexico."

John A. Garraty, The Story of America (Austin: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1994), 438.

Bibliography

On August 8, when the war was barely three months old, an obscure first-term Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania named David Wilmot offered an amendment to an appropriations bill: "that, as an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico...neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory." The principle embodied in this amendment - the Wilmot Proviso, as it came to be known - remained the lodestone of sectional conflict for the next fifteen years...Northern Whigs voted unanimously for Wilmot's proviso; so did all but four Northern Democrats, while every Southern Democrat and all but two Southern Whigs voted against it. Having passed the House, the proviso failed to come to a vote in the Senate at this session. At the next session, in February 1847, the House repassed the proviso; but the Senate with five Northern Democrats joining the Southerners, passed the appropriations bill without the antislavery amendment. Under heavy administration pressure, twenty-three Northern House Democrats then receded from the proviso and cast the necessary votes to pass the bill unamended.

James M. McPherson, Ordeal by Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction, 3rd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001), 65-66.

Congressman David Wilmot of Pennsylvania introduced the Wilmot Proviso in the House of Representatives. The proviso called for prohibiting slavery "in any territory [taken] from the Republic of Mexico."

John A. Garraty, The Story of America (Austin: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1994), 438.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Note Cards On August 8, when the war was barely three months old, an obscure first-term Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania named David Wilmot offered an amendment to an appropriations bill: "that, as an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico...neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory."

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
The Free soil Party was a short-lived political party that opposed expanding slavery into the west and supported free grants of land to settlers.

# data[].attributes.body
Although the two cantidates didn't win the election they made political progress by weakening the Democratic canidate and played a role in the election of the Wig cantidate Gen.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This article was most recently revised and updated by

Free-Soil Party, (1848-54), minor but influential political party in the pre- Civil War period of American history that opposed the extension of slavery into the western territories. Fearful of expanding slave power within the national government, Rep. David Wilmot of Pennsylvania in 1846 introduced into Congress his famous Wilmot Proviso, calling for the prohibition of slavery in the vast southwestern lands that had been newly acquired from Mexico. The Wilmot concept, which failed in Congress, was a direct ideological antecedent to the Free-Soil Party. Disappointed by the ambivalent position of the Whig Party toward slavery, "Conscience" Whigs held a convention in August 1848 at Buffalo, New York. There they were joined by delegates from 17 states drawn from the Liberty Party and the antislavery faction of the New York Democrats, known as "Barnburners." The Free-Soilers' historic slogan calling for "free soil, free speech, free labor, and free men" attracted small farmers, debtors, village merchants, and household and mill workers, who resented the prospect of black-labour competition-whether slave or free-in the territories.

In 1848 the Free-Soil Party nominated the former U.S. president Martin Van Buren to head its ticket. Though the party polled only 10 percent of the popular vote in the presidential election that year, it weakened the regular Democratic candidate in New York and contributed to the election of the Whig candidate Gen. Zachary Taylor as president. The Free-Soil vote was reduced to 5 percent in 1852, when John P. Hale was the presidential nominee. Nevertheless, a dozen Free-Soil congressmen later held the balance of power in the House of Representatives, thus wielding considerable influence. In addition, the party was well represented in several state legislatures. In 1854 the disorganized remnants of the party were absorbed into the newly formed Republican Party, which carried the Free-Soil idea of opposing the expansion of slavery one step further by condemning slavery as a moral evil as well.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica Adam Zeidan.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Free-Soil Party | Definition, History, & Beliefs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Free-Soil Party (1848-54), minor political party in the pre-Civil War period of American history that opposed the extension of slavery into the western territories. In 1852 it wielded some influence, including the balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives. It was absorbed into the Republican Party in 1854.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
The compromise of 1850 made California a free state and banned slave trade in Washington D.C

# data[].attributes.body
One of the hurdles faced because of the Compromise of 1850 is that it ruined the balance between free states and slave states.
https://www.history.com/topics/abolitionist-movement/compromise-of-1850

# data[].attributes.body
The Fugitive Slave Act authorized people to caputure and return any escaping slaves back to their owners. If they helped these slaves flee then they would get punished.

Henry Daivd Thoreau worked to fight against the slave act by protests against the government for slavery and writing in his books, such as the "cape cod and Miscellanies" about how the Fugitive Slave act is unjust

link: https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/fugitive-slave-actslink:

# data[].attributes.body
The Kansas-Nebraska made Kansas and Nebraska territories and allowed them to vote if slavery would be legal or not in areas that the Missouri compromise already declared illegal. Dougles wanted to repeal the Missouri compromise and replace it with the KS/NE act in hopes that it would settle the feud between the north and south.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
The Bleeding Kansas was a period of time when there were violent outbreaks between antai-slavery and slavery following the creation of Kansas as a new territory

# data[].attributes.body
If the Missouri compromise hadn't been replaced there would still be a lot of violence between the north and the south because they had a lot of disagreements about slavery and the anger would bottle up causing a fight.

link: https://www.history.com/topics/abolitionist-movement/missouri-compromise

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Dred Scott v. J.A Stanford was when the court decided that African-Americans wern't allowed to be citzens of the U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
After this happened it can be seen that you should not always trust the supreme court because they have violated basic human rights and did not allow people to live freely as the constitution states.

link: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/60us393

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
The Lincoln-Douglas Debtes was a series of debates between Republican Lincoln and Democrat Douglas regarding the expantion of slavery.

# data[].attributes.body
The Freeport dotorine stated that slavery could be excluded from territories in the U.S by the government. This hurt his chances to win the election because it went against what he was saying, but since he used this to answer Lincoln's questions about slavery it helped him keep his followers.

link: https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/freeport-doctrine

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
John Brown’s Raid on Harper’s Ferry was a abolitionist attemting to throw a slave revolt in Southern states by taking over Harper's Ferry in Virginia.

# data[].attributes.body
This action was justified in his plan because he didn't have any intentions to harm anyone or ruin property, but he was fighting for his beliefs and no one would listen to him if he didn't make a scene.

link: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/john-browns-raid-on-harpers-ferry

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
The 1806 presidential election was an election between Abraham Lincoln, John Breckenridge, John Bell and Stephen Douglas.

# data[].attributes.body
The divided political parties caused Lincoln's election because they each had very different views on slavery so they were all split into different parties and since most people support Lincoln he won.

link:https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/election-of-1860

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Secession was when eleven southern states withdrew from the Union in 1860, causing the Civil War.

# data[].attributes.body
Secession could not have been a long term solution because the southern states that left the union would have to form a new government, elect leaders for them and it would be a complicated process.

link: https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/secession

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
 During the battle of Fort Sumter the United States military garrison got attacked by the forces from Confederate States in U.S at Fort Sumter, South Carolina

# data[].attributes.body
Lincoln provoked the civil war and he didn't take any actions to prevent violence as he was one of the reasons the civil war started.

link: https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/fort-sumter