1. In your text read pp. 123-124 on the Missouri Compromise and pp. 180-183.
2. In For The Record read pp. 290-293.
3. Comment on the following the Missouri Compromise was a good solution the slavery question in 1820.
The Missouri compromise was a good, and bad solution to the slavery question in 1820.
On one hand, you can look at it as a good way to combine the views of the North and South and resolve sectional conflicts regarding the addition of new states into the Union. Unity and compromise between the North and South was very important to the development of the country, and this deal pushed that concept. Southern states were pleased because they were not bullied by the Northern states, and the majority of the states admitted ended up being slave states by congress of popular soveirgnty.
On the other hand, this was another way that the USA put off conflicts, which in the long run hurt the country. Giving the South slave states further promoted slavery, and did not solve anything. It was Passed to ease conflicts temporarily and create a ceasefire but inthe long run, it hurt the country by further promoting sectionalism that would eventually divide the union.
The Missouri Compromise was not an effective solution to the slavery question. The compromise made Missouri a slave state and Maine a free state, and although this satisfied both what the North and South wanted, the country was still clearly divided on the issue. The North and South retained their original feelings on the use of slavery, and if another new state was added to the Union differencing opinions would surely arise, inevitably creating tension and problems. The problem of sectionalism was simply put on hold for a short period of time, until eventually it would become far worse than it had been before. All the Missouri Compromise did was temporarily mask the opposing ideas on slavery between the North and South.
The Missouri Compromise wasn't a good solution, but it was necessary at the time. As John Adams said he had an, “extremely unwillingness to put the Union at hazard.” and this sentiment was shared by many others. Just like at the Constitutional Convention, the North needed the South and didn't want to damage the new Union. Those who disliked slavery had to put aside their personal or regional feelings for the continued unification of the country. This Compromise settled the current sectionalism issues, and both the North and the South were somewhat pleased the benefits received. Although, it should be noted that this compromise was only passed with a vote of ninety to eighty-seven, so it was obviously not well received by almost half the representatives. Additionally, as Gabe mentioned this was another occurrence where the United States put off the problem with slavery. The problem of slavery had come up repeatedly and this compromise was only a temporary patch to the growing problem of the sectionalism between the North and the South. John Adams also admitted at the end that, “... perhaps it would have been a wiser as well as bolder course to have persisted in the restriction upon Missouri.”
Gabe, do you think that the compromise truly resolved the issue of sectionalism or simply covered it up? By giving both the North and South what they wanted, they both became temporarily satisfied, because they had received what they desired. However, the ideas and practices that defied their beliefs were still practiced in the country, because the other half of the Union also got their request. I think the compromise only solved sectionalism for a brief amount of time. Sectionalism was inevitably bound to return, setting the North and South against one another.
The compromise was seen as a necessity to many in both the north and the south. John Adams believed "the question could be settled no otherwise than by a compromise." (p. 291) The Missouri Compromise alone was favorable to both the north. It offered a "trade" of sorts, Maine for Missouri. What I think created and stressed the preexisting tension between North and South, was the amendment that was passed later, prohibiting slavery in the rest of the purchased land north of Missouri.
While stresses were avoided, I don't believe that the compromise was to conceal the issue of slavery and sectionalism, as much as a first assertion of its discontinuance. If one were to look at the map of the Louisiana Purchase and the line of the Compromise on page 123, only a small part of the purchase was allowed to bear slaves. The free states "won" more land and one of the first definitions of the end of slavery was inscribed.
While I agree that the North wanted the Union more than to win a battle over slavery, I also wonder if there were some underlying plans that were achieved by both regions. The south wanted to admit Missouri as a slave state, and in their desire they agreed to relinquish Maine as a free state, further defining a "North South Devision", geographically. Had Maine become a slave state, and Missouri a free one, what would be the outcome?
The Missouri compromise was not a compromise but a haphazard and tempporary solution to a long-growing problem. The compromise made sectionalism even greater between the north and south by allowing Maine to be a free state and Missouri to be a slave state. Furthermore, adding the yeild on slavery north of 36o'30 set a definitive border between the north and the south creating a sense of new territories. Not only was the compromise setting the north and south up to pit themselves against one another, it did not solve the underlying problem of whether slavery should be legal in the U.S., or be deemed unconstitutional and abolished.the U.S. senate passed the compromise to keep peace, not to form a stable government. With many territories still unclaimed or soon to be conquered by the U.S., there were still many territories that could be open for battle of free vs. slave state. The missouri compromise as said by Sean was only " simply put on hold for a short period of time".
I do agree with you, they did not solve sectionalism, and only covered it up. The resentment and inability to come to agreements following the Missouri compromise showed this. This is why I believe the compromise was not a good solution, because it was not a fix to the situation in the longterm, but a short term cover up of the conflicts at hand.
Nate, I find your point of Maine becoming a slave state and Missouri becoming free interesting because it begs the argument of whether the U.S. should be total slave or total free. I believe it would have made the imbalance of powers even more evident if there had been a difference in the laws all over the U.S. and not just between the north and south. If today congress were to pass a law allowing the drinking age to be legalized by age according to each state I think we would find a rainbow of differences from state to state. If it was 18 in Maine and 21 in New Hampshire, could someone traveling from Maine to Massachusetts who is pulled over with alcohol in New Hampshire be arrested? The decision would be controversial and so was the idea of slavery. It gave the same sense of unfairness and inequality as the right to drinking would. The Missouri compromise failed to solve this problem because they had yet to set a fair overlying la w and gave the south advantages over the north by not having to pay their workers, and created moral conflicts all over the U.S.
No, the missouri compromise was not a good solution to slavery. The missouri compromise seemed like a lame excuse to admitt slavery to another southern state that can actually use it. Maine probably would not want to or be able to use much slavery regardless of the new compromise. This solved nothing and didnt take slavery away from anything; it only added more. This also does not seem like it fixed the problem of sectionalism between the north and south. The compromise only satisfied some people for the meantime while the issue was once again postponed so that it could be fully delt with later.
Nate while I agree that the compromise seemed to award more land to the “free states” of the North the existing states, area wise at least, greatly favored the south. The Compromise seemed to equal up the disparity in the area with the North and the South. However, the political might of the states were evenly matched, or the North were bullies as the South claimed, so the Compromise would definitely give the North more political might to bring to bear. But, a certain population was required for admittance into statehood and becoming part of the Union and I am wondering if the South agreed to this agreement because of low population of the unorganized territory above the 36 30 line.
Briget, i agree with you that the compromise did not make much of anything better, but only made some people think that it balanced power. If anything it only made the issue of slavery and sectionalism an even bigger problem to deal with later.It was not a solution, but only a cover up which debateably expanded the Nations issues.
The Missouri Compromise was not a good solution to slavery in the 1820s. While it was an attempt in the direction of handling slavery by forbidding slavery in the Louisiana purchase, more territories, especially those ceded by Mexico, were added as territories open to slavery. The compromise was also was made not to solve the issue of slavery, but to solve the issue of equal representation in Congress, namely in the Senate. "Southerners feared for the future of what they regarded as a necessary battle of power between the sections," (Textbook, p.123). As such, it did not do much in solving the overall issue of slavery, but instead "put off" the issue, as Gabe had said.
While the concept of reversing the roles of Maine and Missouri in concern to their status as free or slave states is interesting because while it still solves the concerns of the south and north, it fails to address slavery more, because the anti slavery north would have a slave state at its northern edge, lowering the strength of their argument of how slaves are not needed or humane. At the same time, however, we can all agree that it would never have happened in practice because Missouri was in the deep south where cotton was the primary crop, and all of the cotton growers would have demanded to have slaves.
The Missouri Compromise was a temporary solution to slavery in the 1820's. On the surface, the compromise appeared to be fair enough-- admitting one slave state (Missouri), and admitting one free state (Maine). However, the process of passing the compromise showed the true division between the North and South. The controversy of slavery was a "fire bell in the night" as Thomas Jefferson said. Any future issues about slavery would be a catalyst for feuds between the North and South. There would not always be free territories like Maine that would be around to balance out a slave territory. If anything, the Missouri Compromise was a red flag to the United States that the issue of slavery was diving the country.
The Missouri Compromise was not good for the country. Sectional divides had been growing from the issue of slavery and the issue of state rights vs. federal rights. Congress had the power to prohibit slavery in all new states. Instead of prohibiting slavery like they wanted to, they chose to make Maine free and Missouri slavery. This was supposed to resolve conflicts between the North and South, but instead only furthered the divide. The government gave the south another slave state which give them more power in the future. Also, the federal government is showing weakness to state governments. While states have their own agendas, the federal government is supposed to act for the best of its country. Giving the south a slavery state only helps the south. It could also be argued that slavery did not even help the southern economy. The federal government was weak to give in to southern demands when it had every right to prohibit slavery in both states. Adams argued that it was important to keep the union intact, but it only delayed the inevitable. The civil war eventually happened, and the compromise only put fuel on the fire.
Boyd, I agree. I like how you said it furthured the divide. The Compromise could be compared to throwing clothes under your bed. Although your room looks clean, it is really a huge mess under your bed waiting to erupt. The issue of slavery was not being directly addressed-- it was being prolonged. Congress should have said, "No. No more slave states. We're done with slavery," or, "Okay. Slavery is accepted, so it's fine." Instead, each side was satisfied with a free state for the North and a slave state for the South. People can not be pleased forever-- eventually a decision needs to be made, and when people are satisfied for long enough they become acustomed to getting their way, and that is what happened with the North and South.
Gabe, I see what you are trying to say when you make an argument that it was good, but I disagree. Did it really promote unity or actually create a bigger divide. It seems like it only gave the south more firepower to go against the north.
The Missouri Compromise was neither good nor bad, and both good and bad. On one hand, it quelled the sectionalism in the Union, and kept slavery from seeping into the north. The thirty-six and a half degree latitude line ensured that slavery stayed contained. However, this line created a more exact sectionalism line drawn directly between the north and south, that would later result in the Mason-Dickson Line. Additionally, the compromise was merely another way of putting off actually having to deal with the issue of slavery, and whether it was determined by the states or federal government. As in the Constitution, the Missouri Compromise pushed the tough issue of slavery away to be dealt with at another time. There was also the possibility of separation of the Union. John Quincy Adams argued that possibly the termination of the Union was the best way to dissolve slavery and create a country free of slaves. He spoke of "a new Union of thirteen or fourteen States unpolluted with slavery" (For the Record p 293). Adams believed strongly against slavery, and felt universal abolition was the final solution to slavery everywhere, and to the slavery debate.
The Missouri Compromise was not a good solution to the question of slavery in 1820. Admitting Missouri as a slave state and receiving the admission of Maine as a free state only created more sectionalism and further promoted slavery. The controversy over the morality and fundamental rights of slavery threatened the peace of the Union. According to John Quincy Adams, it would have been wiser to restricted the usage of slaves in Missouri until the States amended the Constitution to prohibit slavery. This would have produced a new and glorious Union of states without slavery (For the Record, 293).
Bridget, I agree with both your post arguments. The only way there would ever really be peace in the Union was for the federal government to step in and map out how slavery was to be delt with, rather than simply dealing with it whenever it came up, just to supress the issue. The idea of what if the states were randomized is interesting, although, the fact that they were divided led to the Civil War becuase of the extreme geographical sectionalism. Personally, I feel the Union should have dealt with slavery much sooner, even as soon as when the Constitution was written, and the issue was first put off to save the Union. The country saw how allowing slavery for twenty years lead to the expansion, not dissolution of slavery, so it only makes sense for that the issue should not have been put off any longer.
The Missouri Compromise was not an effective solution to the problems the country was facing regarding slavery. The act tried to maintain a balance that had previously been experienced by those who were for slavery and those against. However, it simply added to the divide which had already existed. States were classified into one of two categories creating a sense of loyalty, to one cause or another, within the people. Also the geographic borders which the compromise outlined served to make the division more tangible. There was now a line which would determine which category a state would be placed in and by association its people. The compromise was a piece of legislation which unintentionally promoted divisions both mental and geographic within the nation.
You mentioned that it was a good thing that slavery stayed contained below the Mason-Dixon line. Do you think that sectionalism was more of a problem than slavery in the North would've been? Because so many Northers were against slavery, I think very few of them would own slaves. In this way there would've been more peace in the Union.
Emily, I agree with you when you say that the north needed to wait until it was constitutional to take away the states’ right to have slaves. The constitution was recognized as the supreme law of the nation which any individual stat could not defy. In order for the North to act on the subject of slavery they needed justification which the southern states would have to acknowledge. Without the constitution expressly mentioning the matter, the South was able to accuse the North of trying to take away a liberty which they had no right to touch. The South would have been able to spin the events so that the North was viewed as acting treasonously by trying to control other states in an unconstitutional way.
The Missouri compromise was a good, and bad solution to the slavery question in 1820.
ReplyDeleteOn one hand, you can look at it as a good way to combine the views of the North and South and resolve sectional conflicts regarding the addition of new states into the Union. Unity and compromise between the North and South was very important to the development of the country, and this deal pushed that concept. Southern states were pleased because they were not bullied by the Northern states, and the majority of the states admitted ended up being slave states by congress of popular soveirgnty.
On the other hand, this was another way that the USA put off conflicts, which in the long run hurt the country. Giving the South slave states further promoted slavery, and did not solve anything. It was Passed to ease conflicts temporarily and create a ceasefire but inthe long run, it hurt the country by further promoting sectionalism that would eventually divide the union.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSean Foster
ReplyDeleteThe Missouri Compromise was not an effective solution to the slavery question. The compromise made Missouri a slave state and Maine a free state, and although this satisfied both what the North and South wanted, the country was still clearly divided on the issue. The North and South retained their original feelings on the use of slavery, and if another new state was added to the Union differencing opinions would surely arise, inevitably creating tension and problems. The problem of sectionalism was simply put on hold for a short period of time, until eventually it would become far worse than it had been before. All the Missouri Compromise did was temporarily mask the opposing ideas on slavery between the North and South.
The Missouri Compromise wasn't a good solution, but it was necessary at the time. As John Adams said he had an, “extremely unwillingness to put the Union at hazard.” and this sentiment was shared by many others. Just like at the Constitutional Convention, the North needed the South and didn't want to damage the new Union. Those who disliked slavery had to put aside their personal or regional feelings for the continued unification of the country. This Compromise settled the current sectionalism issues, and both the North and the South were somewhat pleased the benefits received. Although, it should be noted that this compromise was only passed with a vote of ninety to eighty-seven, so it was obviously not well received by almost half the representatives.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, as Gabe mentioned this was another occurrence where the United States put off the problem with slavery. The problem of slavery had come up repeatedly and this compromise was only a temporary patch to the growing problem of the sectionalism between the North and the South. John Adams also admitted at the end that, “... perhaps it would have been a wiser as well as bolder course to have persisted in the restriction upon Missouri.”
Sean Foster
ReplyDeleteGabe, do you think that the compromise truly resolved the issue of sectionalism or simply covered it up? By giving both the North and South what they wanted, they both became temporarily satisfied, because they had received what they desired. However, the ideas and practices that defied their beliefs were still practiced in the country, because the other half of the Union also got their request. I think the compromise only solved sectionalism for a brief amount of time. Sectionalism was inevitably bound to return, setting the North and South against one another.
The compromise was seen as a necessity to many in both the north and the south. John Adams believed "the question could be settled no otherwise than by a compromise." (p. 291) The Missouri Compromise alone was favorable to both the north. It offered a "trade" of sorts, Maine for Missouri. What I think created and stressed the preexisting tension between North and South, was the amendment that was passed later, prohibiting slavery in the rest of the purchased land north of Missouri.
ReplyDeleteWhile stresses were avoided, I don't believe that the compromise was to conceal the issue of slavery and sectionalism, as much as a first assertion of its discontinuance. If one were to look at the map of the Louisiana Purchase and the line of the Compromise on page 123, only a small part of the purchase was allowed to bear slaves. The free states "won" more land and one of the first definitions of the end of slavery was inscribed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGeoffory,
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that the North wanted the Union more than to win a battle over slavery, I also wonder if there were some underlying plans that were achieved by both regions. The south wanted to admit Missouri as a slave state, and in their desire they agreed to relinquish Maine as a free state, further defining a "North South Devision", geographically. Had Maine become a slave state, and Missouri a free one, what would be the outcome?
The Missouri compromise was not a compromise but a haphazard and tempporary solution to a long-growing problem. The compromise made sectionalism even greater between the north and south by allowing Maine to be a free state and Missouri to be a slave state. Furthermore, adding the yeild on slavery north of 36o'30 set a definitive border between the north and the south creating a sense of new territories. Not only was the compromise setting the north and south up to pit themselves against one another, it did not solve the underlying problem of whether slavery should be legal in the U.S., or be deemed unconstitutional and abolished.the U.S. senate passed the compromise to keep peace, not to form a stable government. With many territories still unclaimed or soon to be conquered by the U.S., there were still many territories that could be open for battle of free vs. slave state. The missouri compromise as said by Sean was only " simply put on hold for a short period of time".
ReplyDeleteSean
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you, they did not solve sectionalism, and only covered it up. The resentment and inability to come to agreements following the Missouri compromise showed this. This is why I believe the compromise was not a good solution, because it was not a fix to the situation in the longterm, but a short term cover up of the conflicts at hand.
Nate, I find your point of Maine becoming a slave state and Missouri becoming free interesting because it begs the argument of whether the U.S. should be total slave or total free. I believe it would have made the imbalance of powers even more evident if there had been a difference in the laws all over the U.S. and not just between the north and south. If today congress were to pass a law allowing the drinking age to be legalized by age according to each state I think we would find a rainbow of differences from state to state. If it was 18 in Maine and 21 in New Hampshire, could someone traveling from Maine to Massachusetts who is pulled over with alcohol in New Hampshire be arrested? The decision would be controversial and so was the idea of slavery. It gave the same sense of unfairness and inequality as the right to drinking would. The Missouri compromise failed to solve this problem because they had yet to set a fair overlying la w and gave the south advantages over the north by not having to pay their workers, and created moral conflicts all over the U.S.
ReplyDeleteNo, the missouri compromise was not a good solution to slavery. The missouri compromise seemed like a lame excuse to admitt slavery to another southern state that can actually use it. Maine probably would not want to or be able to use much slavery regardless of the new compromise. This solved nothing and didnt take slavery away from anything; it only added more. This also does not seem like it fixed the problem of sectionalism between the north and south. The compromise only satisfied some people for the meantime while the issue was once again postponed so that it could be fully delt with later.
ReplyDeleteNate while I agree that the compromise seemed to award more land to the “free states” of the North the existing states, area wise at least, greatly favored the south. The Compromise seemed to equal up the disparity in the area with the North and the South. However, the political might of the states were evenly matched, or the North were bullies as the South claimed, so the Compromise would definitely give the North more political might to bring to bear. But, a certain population was required for admittance into statehood and becoming part of the Union and I am wondering if the South agreed to this agreement because of low population of the unorganized territory above the 36 30 line.
ReplyDeleteBriget, i agree with you that the compromise did not make much of anything better, but only made some people think that it balanced power. If anything it only made the issue of slavery and sectionalism an even bigger problem to deal with later.It was not a solution, but only a cover up which debateably expanded the Nations issues.
ReplyDeleteThe Missouri Compromise was not a good solution to slavery in the 1820s. While it was an attempt in the direction of handling slavery by forbidding slavery in the Louisiana purchase, more territories, especially those ceded by Mexico, were added as territories open to slavery. The compromise was also was made not to solve the issue of slavery, but to solve the issue of equal representation in Congress, namely in the Senate. "Southerners feared for the future of what they regarded as a necessary battle of power between the sections," (Textbook, p.123). As such, it did not do much in solving the overall issue of slavery, but instead "put off" the issue, as Gabe had said.
ReplyDeleteNate,
ReplyDeleteWhile the concept of reversing the roles of Maine and Missouri in concern to their status as free or slave states is interesting because while it still solves the concerns of the south and north, it fails to address slavery more, because the anti slavery north would have a slave state at its northern edge, lowering the strength of their argument of how slaves are not needed or humane. At the same time, however, we can all agree that it would never have happened in practice because Missouri was in the deep south where cotton was the primary crop, and all of the cotton growers would have demanded to have slaves.
Conor Helfrich
ReplyDeleteThe Missouri Compromise was a temporary solution to slavery in the 1820's. On the surface, the compromise appeared to be fair enough-- admitting one slave state (Missouri), and admitting one free state (Maine). However, the process of passing the compromise showed the true division between the North and South. The controversy of slavery was a "fire bell in the night" as Thomas Jefferson said. Any future issues about slavery would be a catalyst for feuds between the North and South. There would not always be free territories like Maine that would be around to balance out a slave territory. If anything, the Missouri Compromise was a red flag to the United States that the issue of slavery was diving the country.
Boyd Green
ReplyDeleteThe Missouri Compromise was not good for the country. Sectional divides had been growing from the issue of slavery and the issue of state rights vs. federal rights. Congress had the power to prohibit slavery in all new states. Instead of prohibiting slavery like they wanted to, they chose to make Maine free and Missouri slavery. This was supposed to resolve conflicts between the North and South, but instead only furthered the divide. The government gave the south another slave state which give them more power in the future. Also, the federal government is showing weakness to state governments. While states have their own agendas, the federal government is supposed to act for the best of its country. Giving the south a slavery state only helps the south. It could also be argued that slavery did not even help the southern economy. The federal government was weak to give in to southern demands when it had every right to prohibit slavery in both states. Adams argued that it was important to keep the union intact, but it only delayed the inevitable. The civil war eventually happened, and the compromise only put fuel on the fire.
Boyd, I agree. I like how you said it furthured the divide. The Compromise could be compared to throwing clothes under your bed. Although your room looks clean, it is really a huge mess under your bed waiting to erupt. The issue of slavery was not being directly addressed-- it was being prolonged. Congress should have said, "No. No more slave states. We're done with slavery," or, "Okay. Slavery is accepted, so it's fine." Instead, each side was satisfied with a free state for the North and a slave state for the South. People can not be pleased forever-- eventually a decision needs to be made, and when people are satisfied for long enough they become acustomed to getting their way, and that is what happened with the North and South.
ReplyDeleteGabe, I see what you are trying to say when you make an argument that it was good, but I disagree. Did it really promote unity or actually create a bigger divide. It seems like it only gave the south more firepower to go against the north.
ReplyDeleteThe Missouri Compromise was neither good nor bad, and both good and bad. On one hand, it quelled the sectionalism in the Union, and kept slavery from seeping into the north. The thirty-six and a half degree latitude line ensured that slavery stayed contained.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this line created a more exact sectionalism line drawn directly between the north and south, that would later result in the Mason-Dickson Line. Additionally, the compromise was merely another way of putting off actually having to deal with the issue of slavery, and whether it was determined by the states or federal government. As in the Constitution, the Missouri Compromise pushed the tough issue of slavery away to be dealt with at another time.
There was also the possibility of separation of the Union. John Quincy Adams argued that possibly the termination of the Union was the best way to dissolve slavery and create a country free of slaves. He spoke of "a new Union of thirteen or fourteen States unpolluted with slavery" (For the Record p 293). Adams believed strongly against slavery, and felt universal abolition was the final solution to slavery everywhere, and to the slavery debate.
The Missouri Compromise was not a good solution to the question of slavery in 1820. Admitting Missouri as a slave state and receiving the admission of Maine as a free state only created more sectionalism and further promoted slavery. The controversy over the morality and fundamental rights of slavery threatened the peace of the Union. According to John Quincy Adams, it would have been wiser to restricted the usage of slaves in Missouri until the States amended the Constitution to prohibit slavery. This would have produced a new and glorious Union of states without slavery (For the Record, 293).
ReplyDeleteBridget,
ReplyDeleteI agree with both your post arguments. The only way there would ever really be peace in the Union was for the federal government to step in and map out how slavery was to be delt with, rather than simply dealing with it whenever it came up, just to supress the issue. The idea of what if the states were randomized is interesting, although, the fact that they were divided led to the Civil War becuase of the extreme geographical sectionalism.
Personally, I feel the Union should have dealt with slavery much sooner, even as soon as when the Constitution was written, and the issue was first put off to save the Union. The country saw how allowing slavery for twenty years lead to the expansion, not dissolution of slavery, so it only makes sense for that the issue should not have been put off any longer.
The Missouri Compromise was not an effective solution to the problems the country was facing regarding slavery. The act tried to maintain a balance that had previously been experienced by those who were for slavery and those against. However, it simply added to the divide which had already existed. States were classified into one of two categories creating a sense of loyalty, to one cause or another, within the people. Also the geographic borders which the compromise outlined served to make the division more tangible. There was now a line which would determine which category a state would be placed in and by association its people. The compromise was a piece of legislation which unintentionally promoted divisions both mental and geographic within the nation.
ReplyDeleteJenny,
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned that it was a good thing that slavery stayed contained below the Mason-Dixon line. Do you think that sectionalism was more of a problem than slavery in the North would've been? Because so many Northers were against slavery, I think very few of them would own slaves. In this way there would've been more peace in the Union.
Emily, I agree with you when you say that the north needed to wait until it was constitutional to take away the states’ right to have slaves. The constitution was recognized as the supreme law of the nation which any individual stat could not defy. In order for the North to act on the subject of slavery they needed justification which the southern states would have to acknowledge. Without the constitution expressly mentioning the matter, the South was able to accuse the North of trying to take away a liberty which they had no right to touch. The South would have been able to spin the events so that the North was viewed as acting treasonously by trying to control other states in an unconstitutional way.
ReplyDelete