Missouri Compromise Analysis

During the time period of 1820 to 1854, major arguments and political actions maintained continuity by maintaining a political strategy of compromise in order to preserve peace and the union as seen in the Kansas Nebraska Act and the Missouri Compromise. But the political actions taken in these two compromises fostered a significant amount of change rather than continuity. Although the Missouri Compromise seemed to settle the big issue by the time of the Kansas Nebraska Act came along the conflict had escalated beyond what Missouri could handle. These arguments and actions eventually resulted in war where the problem of slavery was finally resolved.
Before the Missouri Compromise was up and running there was a very large dispute between the
north and the south over which states would be free states and which would be and slave states. The Northern states have already outlawed slavery before the question of Missouri was ever raised. Many people in the North believed that slavery was wrong based on Christian beliefs like the Golden Rule as well as the simply believing that they were living in a place where all men were created equal which led to believing that no man should be held because in God’s eyes were are all the same inside and out. Many of the beliefs that were shared were also supported by abolitionists such as the Anti-Slavery Society in which members such as William Lloyd Garrison urged for the emancipation of slaves because it went against the big moral principle.
These views maintained continuity from earlier abolitionists like the Society of Friends during the Revolutionary Era. While questioning slavery, the North also took political approach. Knowing that ending slavery altogether was highly unlikely, the northern states still wanted to make sure that southern states did not outnumber them inside Congress. As people migrated into new lands that were gained from the Louisiana Territory, tensions rose higher. They were pretty high when Missouri applied for statehood as a slave state. If Missouri was allowed to enter as a slave state, then the free states would be overpowered in Congress. Maintaining a political balance of power was very important to both the North and the South as neither wanted to be subdue to the views of the other. Political actions were taken during the Missouri Compromise to ensure that slavery did not exceed the 54’ 40” line. This line was put into place to ensure that slavery did not expand northward or westward. In addition, the state of Maine was brought into play the very next year which maintained an equal number of free and slave states. The
Missouri Compromise was unable to end slavery altogether but did help significantly stop the spread to other places. Although many anti-slavery politicians were very unwilling to see slavery spreading over into other regions, they had to compromise in order to prevent their beautiful nation from falling apart. Missouri was then entered as a slave state while Maine was then entered as a free state. Also, the 36' 30 North latitude ruled to dividing the line between slave state and free state. It shows that even the anti slavery activists were trying to find a balance of power between the slave and the free states, their worst fear being to tear their nation apart.
When the Kanas-Nebraska Act was passed, that basically ended the whole Missouri Compromise strategy of drawing a line right onto the map.
By this time, so many more Northerners had become opposed, morally, to slavery and had spoken out against. Many people were opposed to slavery because the white families had a very hard time competing against the inexpensive labor of the slaves and could not rise above to grasp what everyone wanted, the American dream. When the Kansas-Nebraska Act was put into place in the hopes that popular choice would make Kansas a slave state and Nebraska a free state which would maintain balance and would also organize even more territory coming in from the Louisiana Purchase in order to further the railroad construction. This conflict instigated dramatic change in addition to the change created by negating the Missouri Compromise Line. Because it repealed the Missouri Compromise in which slavery was not to expand north of the 36’30 line and also because many in Kansas were thoroughly against slavery, both morally, and for their financial well-being which led to the event known as Bleeding Kansas where bloodshed had become evident over the dispute, this change also involved the end of peaceful compromise. Those opposed to the spread of slavery like John Brown went to Kansas and killed pro-slavery Southerners. Those who thought the political strategy of popular sovereignty would maintain balance were proved wrong when the territory became chaotic.
Therefore, those against the spread of slavery did have a victory because popular sovereignty did not result in Kansas entering as a slave state. Unfortunately it did mean civil war