In what ways does the Missouri Compromise highlight sectional issues relating to slavery? What should Congress have done differenty at this time to avoid future issues? Explain your response and be sure to respond to a classmate!
Go to the following website and look at the map to answer the question below http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/neh/interactives/sectionalism/lesson1/
In what ways does the Missouri Compromise highlight sectional issues relating to slavery? What should Congress have done differenty at this time to avoid future issues? Explain your response and be sure to respond to a classmate!
34 Comments
Muma
11/10/2009 08:08:38 am
The Missouri Compromise brought slavery to the forefront of sectional issue in America. By making it obvious that the two sides were not going to back down, the compromise showed that there was at least a small glipse at hope that the two sides could co-exist. Although the best way would have had either side win out, there is no real way that Congress could have avoided the catastrophe that the slave trade created.
Reply
Craig
11/11/2009 11:18:11 am
The Missouri Compromise showed Americans that it was okay to be on two separate sides. Something that was illegeal in one state was perfectly okay in others. Today, state laws are more consistent and similiar. The Compromise split America into the North and South. This really started defining the sides for the Civil War that would come to surface in 40 years. To avoid future issues Congress could have only abolished slavery sooner. Though the South would have been infuriated, they wouldn't have had time to raise the Confederate army.
Reply
Craig
11/11/2009 11:21:20 am
I agree with Muma. I think the future issues that the Missouri Compromise created was inevitable. Slavery was an issue that many in the North or South were passionate about. Both sides were willing to go to great lengths to enforce their beliefs.
Reply
Muma
11/12/2009 01:17:18 am
I agree with Craig because he agrees with me. So essentially I agree with me. He states that the Missouri Compromise created a mentality that it was okay to disagree on fundamental issues. When two states dont agree on basic issues that creates in fighting which in this case, led to the Civil War.
Reply
Paige Luppo
11/12/2009 01:28:13 am
From the map, the Missouri Compromise highlights all of the slave states as being in the south and leaving Arkansas open to slavery. This compromise split our own country into two different sides with totally different laws that were legal on one side but illegal on the other. Today, you will rarely see this happen because most of our laws and rules are constant throughout the states.
Reply
Sarah Hopkins
11/12/2009 01:43:56 am
The Missouri Compromise highlighted the fact that slavery was prevalent in southern states and not in the north. The compromise was only made to protect the union, even though they would rather have abolished slavery in Missouri. Congress did the best job they could do in this situation; there was no other way around the problem they faced. Adding another free state helped balance it out again. Little did they know they were just delaying the conflict between the north and south, not eliminating it.
Reply
Molly Gorczyca
11/12/2009 05:03:53 am
The Missouri Compromise highlighted sectional issues by dealing with them temporarily, but they did not look at the effect it would have in the future. It kept balance between each section of the country, by gaining a slave state and gaining a free state. This caused problems in the future though. Neither North or South were truly pleased. This was the start to the conflicts causing the break up of the union in the future. To avoid these issues, Congress could have thought of a more thorough plan. It is almost impossible to make a decision and not have opposition. No matter what Congress would have done there would have been conflict.
Reply
Molly
11/12/2009 05:06:23 am
I agree with Sarah…
Reply
bryon 91
11/14/2009 01:07:14 am
the Missouri Compromise showed that slavery was dominate in southern states and non-existing in the north. the compromise was only created basically to protect the union. but it neither the north or the south were okay with it.
Reply
Ashley
11/14/2009 04:51:11 am
The missouri compromise highlights sectionalism by sectioning off territories that were allowed to enslave slaves and those not allowed to. This was a horrible fix to the problem creating more issues in fact for the future. We still practice sectionalism now a days too, for example, the ban on smoking in public places. Some states allow it and others do not. Congress should have outlawed slavery point blank to avoid future conflicts and issues.
Reply
Ashley
11/14/2009 04:53:11 am
I agree with Craig about this opening the door to the civil war and that congress should of solved the problem before the confederate had time to rise.
Reply
Taylor Dean
11/14/2009 07:04:10 am
The Missouri Compromise began dividing the United States by the opinion of slavery. It set us up for the Civil War. By admitting Missouri as a slavery state, and Maine as a free state this was a way for Congress to sweep this issue under the rug and not face it. By Congress never facing the issue, it caused a huge uproar and a war we could have avoided had they either made it legal or illegal for all states at one time. Not admitting states by slavery to keep things even. Each state would have been admitted and there could have already been a law about slavery.
Reply
Taylor Dean
11/14/2009 07:08:46 am
I agree with Paige. If Congress had taken one side or the other on slavery, would have been able to get rid of a horrible disagreement in our country's history. Besides everyone having the same laws as a way to maintain order and unity, I think this is also due to the issue of slavery. I think members of Congress looked upon the issue of slavery and learned that had they made one decision on slavery, we could have not had the Civil War.
Reply
Zain
11/15/2009 02:29:59 am
The Missouri compromise created sectional issues by legally highlighting the differences between the north and south, this makes it look like 2 separate countries before thecivil war even occurs. the government basically put it out there that there is a big difference and set themselves up for the later civil war. there really would have been no way to avoid conflict but to better the situation allowing states to decide whether or not they would have slavery would have been a better option. then putting an incentive to being slave free could push states into converting over time. its not a perfect idea but it could garner less bloodshed and bring the country to a common consensus.
Reply
ZAIN
11/15/2009 02:34:28 am
i agree with molly,
Reply
yenraV hgielrebmA/Amberleigh Varney
11/15/2009 09:46:42 am
The sectional issues between states occur because it's not a straight line dividing the north from the south, for example, Missouri is a slave state, but then Illinois is a free state, and they're right next to eachother, so slaves had to travel west to east if they were escaping missouri, instead of south to north.
Reply
Amberleigh Varney
11/15/2009 09:55:42 am
I agree with Molly that it was impossible for Congress to make a decision that would please everyone. But when the government makes decisions, they're supposed to make them for the betterment of everyone... including the minorites, but for that time it was understandable, though wrong, that slavery was still going on. Congress couldnt have done much else to please the people. Either way, there wouldnt be complete satisfaction with their decisions.
Reply
Bobby
11/15/2009 11:07:59 am
The Missouri Compromise highlights the sectional issues by clearly dividing the north and the south according to their opinions. A clear majority of anti-slavery came from the north while a large majority for slavery was in the south and made a clear line on the map dividing the north and south into their sectional opinions.
Reply
Gaston
11/15/2009 11:08:43 am
The Misouri Compromise split our country into two sides with different sets of laws. This was a badddddd idea. Our country was very valnerable in that it was just really gaining its independee and learning what to do with it. This also split the sides for future war (the civil war) anyone with a brain could see that coming. now days i do not think you see much of this kind of sepration between states. One example that i would use would be gay marraige, but it does not ammount to slavery seperation. DUH
Reply
Gaston
11/15/2009 11:10:55 am
I dissagree with Sarah. I do not think that congress did it's best. they had the authority to decide one way or the other and at this point in time trying to build a unity between the states the congress should not have split the country on this decision!
Reply
Bobby
11/15/2009 11:11:35 am
I disagree with Taylor. I believe that if the country had made all states slave or free states it would have caused a huge uproar. Both sides had a clear and opposite opinion and if the decision had been forced on a state already free or slave to immediately change the civil war would have happened much sooner in history than it did.
Reply
Zac Lantis
11/15/2009 12:31:26 pm
The Missouri Compromise provided a legal division between the states providing one side have slavery and the other not having it. This would cause a clash of ideals throughout the entire country. ex. the Civil War. I think that the Congress should have let the states decide whether or not they wanted slavery. It would have eased a little bit of the tension letting them decide for themselves.
Reply
Zac Lantis
11/15/2009 12:33:26 pm
I agree with Zain in the fact that Congress should have let the states decide for themselves. It might have stopped so much bloodshed in the long run.
Reply
I fell asleep and didn't do this until right before midnight Branchaud
11/15/2009 01:07:34 pm
The missouri compromise made it seem okay for Americans to take a side in a dispute that seemed unnecessary. It would have been better for congress to keep slavery limited to the southern plantations where the help was needed. They didn't need all the confusing lines.
Reply
Austin LeBranch
11/15/2009 01:08:00 pm
I agree with any student who agrees with me.
Reply
Ryan Howe
11/15/2009 09:22:07 pm
The Missouri Compromise keeps the free and slave states equal in number. This helps, because neither slave or free states can over power the other. The Congress should have had a vote on each state to decide whether it be free or not. By making Missouri the last slave state, eventually free states would highly outnumber slave states.
Reply
Ryan Howe
11/15/2009 09:24:56 pm
I agree with zain, if they would have let the states make the decisions, then there would have been less bloodshed.
Reply
Paige Luppo
11/15/2009 11:15:15 pm
Reply
Paige Luppo
11/15/2009 11:16:10 pm
I also agree with Sarah and Craig on the fact that a country can be divided into two separate regions and have the total opposite beliefs.
Reply
Natalie
11/16/2009 11:09:40 am
The Missouri Compromise highlighted sectional issues realating to slavery because it showed the separation of the north and south or from the free to slave states. but this compromise didnt even take care of the problem it just put it off only to a later date, and they would learn that- that later date would be the civil war and it would come back and bit em in the but. what they should have done was not split them into 2 sides because with 2 you cant be a unified country of one which they were so hopeful to get. they should have just knocked it out to begin with instead of creating a conflict that didnt need to surface to begin with. if people wanted something done so badly they should do it themselves.
Reply
Natalie
11/16/2009 11:10:49 am
i agree with paige this split our country by having 2 diffrent laws. you rarely find that now a days
Reply
Morgan
11/18/2009 09:45:51 am
The Missouri Compromise tried to settle the issue for Missouri and rather or not it should be a slave state. When it said that Missouri would be a slave state and anything above would be free. I think the government should have let the states decide if it wants to become a slave state or not.
Reply
Sharkey (only a week late)
11/21/2009 12:07:37 pm
The missouri compromise basically set up for a civil war. Seperating the north and south by such an intense subject was a terrible idea.
Reply
Sharkey (only a week late)
11/21/2009 12:09:54 pm
I agree with Paige, two completely different laws in the same country is bizzarre.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
April 2010
Categories |