1. In your text read pp. 229-231 on the Missouri Compromise.
2. Read John Quincy Adams' "Reflections on the Missouri Question." The link is below
Joh Quincy Adams "Reflections on the Missouri Question"
3. Comment on the following the Missouri Compromise was a good solution the slavery question in 1820.
John Quincy Adams described the situation best when he said; “the question could be solved no otherwise then by a compromise.” At the time, the only way for the United States to remain as a Union was for them to agree to the Missouri compromise. It did not solve the debate; in fact it intensified it further. This compromise was simply a band-aid, to cover up the bigger issues between North and South, while trying to keep the mutual respect for each other. It allowed them to attempt to remain a Union and try to settle this debate peacefully, while still in good standings with each other. It certainly went against the morals of many people at the time, but the congress’s main goal was to keep peace throughout the nation, and this was the only way they could do it.
ReplyDeleteI like your analogy about the band-aid; I agree it was simply a temporary solution because the Congress had no better way to keep all of the states in union because just allowing Missouri to become a state without restriction would enrage the North and vice versa if it wasn't allowed at all.
DeleteI agree with your idea that this solution was merely a cover-up for greater problems in society. The Missouri Compromise dealt with the issue at hand, however was not a solid enough policy to last for very long. As you stated, although it went against morality, the Missouri Compromise did “keep the mutual respect for each other. It allowed them to attempt to remain a Union and try to settle this debate peacefully.” This would hold true until the South wanted more in society and potentially broke away from the Union.
DeleteI think that the Missouri Compromise was more of a permanent solution than a temporary solution. I know that it appears that Congress was just trying to make temporary peace but the fact that slavery was abolished everywhere above the 36,30' longitude means that a lot of states would start to form where slavery was abolished. This would lead to an anti-slavery majority in the Senate and Congress and eventually the abolishment of slavery.
DeleteThe Missouri Compromise may not have been the way to fix the problem of slaver, but for the present time, the compromise was a way for the U.S. government to begin to fix the problem. As John Quincy Adams stated, "I have favored this Missouri compromise, believing it to be all that could be effected under the present Constitution, and from extreme unwillingness to put the Union at hazard." The Missouri Compromise was really all the government could do to try to prevent the spread of slavery throughout the country while still under the present constitution. Although the Compromise may not have fixed the problem, it did prevent even more states from allowing slaves which was a step in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteI really like the point that you make by calling the Missouri Compromise the beginning of the fix to the problem of slavery. While over time it can be seen that this action was not overall effective in solving the issue, it was one step in the right direction towards ending slavery for good.
DeleteI dissagree i think the government could have done more. They could have tried form an ammendment to slavery. This would have caused the south to leave the union sooner. In the end the north had the industry so the south had no one to sell there cotton too, while the north could manufacture other things. So the south would have had to rejoin and everything would have been done sooner.
DeleteThe Missouri Compromise was a good but temporary solution to the slavery question in 1820. During the debate about this question, Congress mostly worried about the north or south states gaining too much control. The decision to the slave problem would completely change the senate because, “If northerners could block the admission of slave states like Missouri while allowing the admission of free states, the balance of power in the Senate would tip in the North’s favor”(Hewitt, 230). If the north states had power over the south then they would be able to completely control slavery and other issues. This would cause a lot of internal struggle and possibly destroy the union of the states. By creating this compromise, the states stayed united and avoided possible conflicts. However, the Missouri Compromise did not change slavery at all. By adding both a free and a slave state to the union, nothing made a difference to the actual problem. Most of the congressmen still knew that slavery violated people’s rights. John Quincy Adams wrote, “It establishes false estimates of virtue and vice: for what can be more false and heartless than this doctrine which makes the first and holiest rights of humanity to depend upon the color of the skin?”(Adams). Many congressmen knew that the problem of slavery was still unsolved. But, the issue did not get any worse so there was still a chance to stop slavery in the future. Although morally the Missouri Compromise did not solve the slave problem, it got the country on track to fix the issue at a later time.
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point about not letting either the north or south states get too much control. If either was allowed to tip the scale of power, slavery could either become extremely prevalent or would stop expanding which would infuriate half of the states in either situation.
DeleteI agree with you, I think you have a great point when you say how the compromise did not change slavery, intact it avoided it. The Missouri Compromise delayed the decision on slavery, and only provided immediate relief. It did not solve the problem, or work towards solving it, it just delayed the decision.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that it was unrealistic to abolish slavery at the time because of the disagreements between the North and the South. This truly shows how fragile the union was at the time and why it was important that the compromise was made in order to keep the country together.
DeleteI strongly agree with the point that you made, stating that the Missouri Compromise was the best option they had at the time to deal with the issue of slavery. Neither side was really eager to create greater tensions that there already were surrounding this problem, so they knew they had to compromise in some way in order to keep the peace.
DeleteI think you make a strong point stating how fragile the union of the North and South was. Also, that it was this reason that the compromise was derived. It prolonged the overall decision about slavery, but it was able to satisfy both sides at the time.
DeleteI do not think that the Missouri Compromise was a good solution to the slavery question in 1820, but I think I was the best option they had. I believe that ideally, the North should have pressed harder to abolish slavery then, but realistically that was not an option. The issue of slavery was extremely controversial, and neither side was able to persuade the other, so if either side pushed too hard to get their way, it would hurt the unity of the country, which was one of their main sources of power. John Quincy Adams even said “A dissolution, at least temporary, of the Union, as now constituted, would be certainly necessary.” Given that situation, the Missouri Compromise was their best option because it gave them a temporary means to satisfy both the North and the South, while allowing them to figure out a more permanent solution to the problem. Like Emily said, they had to make a compromise that would keep the Union together and on good terms.
Delete^(New version with evidence)
I agree that it would be ideal for the North to push to to abolish slavery but it would have separated the country. The south were willing to fight in order for slavery to continue because the economy of the South relied on free labor.
DeletePhillippe you are right on the money! I agree that the compromise kept the Country together, but do you think the country could have abolished slavery then and avoided Civil War?
DeleteI think Jack might be on to something here. Pushing aside the issue for later deliberation allowed time for tensions to build up. It kept the unity of the states in terms of legally being joined, but they still had contrasting ideas and laws which would eventualy need to be reconciled.
DeleteThe Missouri Compromise was a good solution to the slavery question in 1820 because it because it allowed both sides to have some satisfaction while preserving the unity of the United States. The compromise continued the previous line of no slavery at the border of Louisiana, while allowing slavery in the state of Missouri. While the morally correct position to abolish slavery was not fulfilled, in 1820 the hugely opposing viewpoints on slavery between the North and the South made it only possible to continue unity by compromising to appease both sides. As stated in Reflections on the Missouri Question, “Clay started, however, immediately to the Missouri question, yet in debate before both Houses of Congress, and, alluding to a strange scene at Richmond… said it was a shocking thing to think of, but he had not a doubt that within five years from this time the Union would be divided into three distinct confederacies” (John Quincy Adams). The half of the states in the union could be all required to abolish slavery at a later time, but refusing to allow slavery in a new border state would cause unwanted dispute at a time when slavery was viewed as necessary manual labor by half of the states. If the government could not compromise and instead just took one hard viewpoint on the situation, then half of the country would not agree. Therefore, the inability to come to a common consensus, however temporary, would not allow unity to continue in the United States. The compromise was a good temporary solution because it continued the unity of all of the states under one government.
ReplyDeleteYou make a great point by saying that it was necessary to make this compromise in order to keep the states unified under one government. I agree that it was important for America to use this compromise to keep the union even though it did not fulfill the moral position.
DeleteI think your point about this compromise not being morally right, but necessary for the country is very interesting. For a group of people who fought an entire revolution based off of what they thought was morally right, this is a very big turn around. They are beginning to realize what a country needs to do in order to stay unified, and the country is becoming one run by politics not morals.
DeleteI like how you mention that this was a good solution at this point in time because the country was separated into halves. This showed how conflict over slavery was unavoidable and more problems would occur in the future because there were such a separation between the state. The compromise was beneficial in the present time but given the split in the states, something would happen eventually.
DeleteI strongly agree with your point that the country was split in half by the slavery issue. In addition to the lack of unity that you mentioned, I think this would also have a strong effect on the functioning of the government itself. Since the sides were split so equally, either side could prevent the other from getting a majority vote, so the only way the government would be able to get anything done would be by satisfying both sides, which left no other option but a compromise.
DeleteThe Missouri Compromise was not a good solution to the slavery question because conflict ended only momentarily. The Compromise made the South continue to rely on slavery even though slaves and others were willing to fight against it. “For Southern planters, the decision on Missouri defined the future of slavery…Two rebellions had occurred…in 1811 some four hundred slaves in Louisiana had killed two whites and burned several plantations” (pg. 230). By legalizing slavery in Missouri, the South became more reliant on slavery in order to support the citizens economically instead of finding other solutions. The Compromise only ended problems momentarily because slaves and others continued to rebel. There fight against this dehumanizing would still remain and slavery had to end eventually or else violence would continue in the states. The more the United States waited the conflict would continue to get bigger because the South continued relying on forced labor and the slaves and whites would continue to fight for the freedom of slaves.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the point you make about allowing slavery in the South gave them a further hindrance in the long run. The longer the South relied on slaves then the larger the problem would become. If slavery had been abolished then it would have lessened the damage later to come.
DeleteI agree with your point that the temporary solution allowed the conflict to grow and become a much bigger problem. At the same time though, I think that waiting to abolish slavery was a better solution for the stability of the nation. I don't think that at that time the country was strong enough to deal with the conflict and still remain united.
DeleteI agree with you that it only solved the problem temporarily. The south was going to continue to rely economically on slavery and the north on its cotton. However, the North also would be protesting slavery. This stalemate allowed violence to happen like you said. They should have ended slavery before tensions rose higher.
DeleteWhile the Missouri Compromise was an effective solution to the slavery issue at the time, it only delayed the decision on the constitutionality of this problem. By enacting the Missouri Compromise, the government was only trying to ease the tensions between the North and the South for a while, giving the North non-slave territory, and giving the South two slave states. In response to this, John Quincy Adams stated, "..perhaps it would have been a wiser as well as a bolder course to have persisted in the restriction upon Missouri, till it should have terminated in a convention of the States to revise and amend the Constitution." If this had been done, the United States could have finally come to a firm decision about the issue of slavery, and decided whether or not it would be allowed. However, since the Missouri Compromise did not truly resolve the problem, it kept popping up over time until Americans turned on each other and declared war. Due to this, the Missouri Compromise can only be seen as a good solution to the problem of slavery at that specific moment in time.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Missouri Compromise was a good solution at the time. The Compromise was passed with the intention of delaying providing a long-term solution to slavery and easing as much north south tension as possible. And in doing this, the Compromise was successful. In terms of facing slavery head on, the Missouri Compromise did very little, only creating a border which could not cross. Although this tiny action could also be seen as slight progress as allowed Congress to test the water and see what would be accepted by the south.
DeleteThe Missouri Compromise was not a good solution to the slavery question in 1820, but, as Phillipe stated above, it seems that it was the best option they had. Slavery was wrong and unconstitutional, and it should have been abolished by the United States earlier. John Quincy Adams stated, "it was unanimously agreed that Congress have the power to prohibit slavery in the Territories" (John Quincy Adams.) If Congress had such powers, why did they not use them? Citizens saw that slavery was wrong, but they could not abolish slavery due to it's economical significance. The Missouri Compromise may have been beneficial for both parties, but they could not find a way to abolish slavery. What if they enforced minimum wage for all slaves, or freed the slaves and used convicts and criminals as a substitute? It seems that there may have been better options, but economically speaking the United States did as well as they could.
ReplyDeleteI am intrigued by the point that the government had the power to change things, but they did not. I think that this is another example of the states limiting the power of the central government. This is one situation were the vague manner of the constitution hurt the government. No one knew who had the power to change things, the states or the central governments. The central government could not use the power they had, as they were afraid of the state governments. This is more evidence of the power of the states to change the proceedings of government.
DeleteI think that you have a really good idea here that the government had so many other possible options that they did not consider. You also agreed with Philippe's statement that the Missouri Compromise was the best option they had. After reflecting upon your ideas, I'm not sure I would completely agree with that. I agree that it provided stability and satisfaction to all, but I think that Philippe may have overlooked the possibility of all these other options, which may or may not have been better than the compromise.
DeleteThe Missouri Compromise was not a complete solution to the slavery question in 1820. The fragility of the union between the states forced the government to settle. This is also a good example of the way that the states continued to limit the central government. The compromise kept the balance of power between the North and the South. However, this did not advance the solution to slavery by much. All this did was push the problem aside to deal with at a later time. All this would do was create a larger situation for the future. The compromise helped keep the stability of the government but did not provide a good solution for the problem of slavery.
ReplyDeleteThe Missouri compromise was not a good solution for the union, because it only delayed the inevitable and allowed tensions to rise. As John Quincy Adams says, "If the Union must be dissolved, slavery is precisely the question upon which it ought to break." The union is being torn apart by this issue of slavery. With the Missouri compromise it gave neither the north or the south the advantage. Tensions are rising between the north and south. One of the congressman even said that he thought in five years the union would break apart into three confederacies. If the tension is so visible the problem of slavery should come to a definitive solution. This when a solution is made the reaction will not be as bad if they wait. Since slavery is morally wrong then they should have banned slavery altogether because in the long run it would be easier. the union was inevitably going to reach a point where they needed to decide between slavery or not so it would have been better to decide it then.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point that the Missouri Compromise did cause many tensions within the government and between the North and South. However, I believe that the solution they had to give for the time, was one that needed to happen in order to go in the right direction. Even though banning slavery altogether might have been the easier solution in the long run, that was not really an option because the South was still pro-slavery and were half of the states in the country, therefore an amendment would most likely not get majority rule to abolish slavery.
DeleteThe Missouri Compromise was a solution that avoided conflict, but was ineffective in answering the actual question. The fact of the matter was that at some point the states would have to come to a conclusion about slavery. By not reaching this conclusion with the Missouri Compromise, the Union remained devided. This allowed more time for the problem to simmer and for tensions to rise between the north and south. It was made clear though by the amount of deliberation that went into developing the Missouri compromise that this problem was not going to be solved diplomatically. John Quincy Adams stated that, "if the dissolution of the Union should result from the slave question, it is as obvious as anything that can be foreseen of futurity, that it must shortly afterwards be followed by the universal emancipation of the slaves." Adams beleives that a separation is required in order for the question to be answered for good. The Missouri Compromise was a document that simply stalled this separation. The Missouri Compromise was not an effective solution to the slavery problem.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the Missouri Compromise might have provided immediate relief, but was not effective in solving the issue in the long run, or even for the next few years. The delay of the slavery decision might have been justified by not wanting the south to withdraw from the states, but it was not helpful to the country. Sometimes it is best to 'rip off the band-aid' and get it over with to prevent future pain. I think the slave situation is similar, the delay may have prevented immediate crises, but it caused more problems than it solved.
DeleteI think that the Missouri Compromise was helpful to alleviate current tensions in 1820, but caused more tension between Americans in the long run. Short term, the compromise ended the crisis and rebellions. It did maintain balance between the North and South's representation in the Senate, which was of high importance to both the north and south. However, it also divided the states further, between the free and the slave states. It also imposed a boundary between the free states and the slave states, which put a definite physical separation between the north and south. At this young time in a country's life, it is crucial that there is unity within it, and that there is not two opposing powers at each other's throats. The hostile environment between the North and South negatively effected them, and the separation made it difficult for America to grow and prosper. Therefor, I believe that the Missouri Compromise was not a good solution to the crisis in 1820.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI never considered your point about there being a physical separation between the North and South. I never thought about the repercussions of having such a separation but I think that you have a good point. Even though the line could help with the anti-slavery battle in Congress I never thought that it may have led to civil war. I think that you have a really good point.
DeleteI believe that the Missouri Compromise was a good solution at the time because the union was too fragile to directly abolish slavery. Had an emancipation been signed then, there was the real possibility that the southern states would honor their word and seek Britain's help, deepening the schism between the north and the south. By passing the Missouri Compromise, Congress was able to put a limit on the expansion of slavery, which provided a start to the abolishment of slavery. While the southern states believed they had a victory by maintaining the right to own slaves in Missouri and maintain balance in Senate, Congress was able to set up their fight against slavery in a slower manner. By making a boundary for slavery, Congress had a jumping off point to begin abolishing state by state, moving the already created boundary as they went.
ReplyDeleteI see you point about how the Missouri Compromise was merely a way of again tabling the issue of slavery and to give the government more time to work out a solution. But I don’t think that was such a bad thing. If Congress had gone forward with a half-baked or rash plan at that moment, the nation may have severed for good. By passing the Missouri Compromise, Congress allowed themselves time to develop a polished and effective plan to manage slavery in a tactful way that would maintain the union.
ReplyDeleteThe Missouri Compromise was not a good solution to the slavery question in the 1820s because it only addressed one of the many issues. The overarching set of question at the time examined the power of a slaveholder, and the respective rights of the people, states, and Congress. An example of the Missouri Compromise clearly answering one of the concerns, is described by John Quincy Adams, “As to the first question, it was unanimously agreed that Congress have the power to prohibit slavery in the Territories.” Other significant questions about people’s rights were explained as well, however there was no concern for the morality of the subject, moving closer towards abolishing slavery. Adams stated, “The discussion of this Missouri question has betrayed the secret of their souls. In the abstract they admit that slavery is evil, they disclaim all participation in the introduction of it.” The compromise neutralized slavery-related conflict in the Union, however moving forward there would have to be many other restrictions. This hasty resolution did not help in the process of further advancement, which included abolishing slavery at some point.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Missouri Compromise was a good solution to the slavery question in 1820 for two reasons. First is that it kept the United States together. The John Adams quote that Margaret used summarizes the situtation well "I have favored this Missouri compromise, believing it to be all that could be effected under the present Constitution, and from extreme unwillingness to put the Union at hazard."
ReplyDeleteThese few lines show that if there was not a compromise, then the United States may have been facing a civil war. The second reason I think that it was a good solution is that it set the stage for slavery to be abolished. After the compromise, there were twelve states for slavery and twelve states against slavery. This makes it seem like the stalemate in the Senate would have continued but the compromise abolished slavery is so much land that once states started to form there, anti-slavery states would begin to dominate the Senate and Congress. This would lead to a peaceful abolishment of slavery. These are my reasons for believing that the Missouri Compromise was a good solution to the slavery question in 1820.