“The boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave.” - Thomas Jefferson
The retired Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to his friend Marquis de Lafayette in 1820 as an attempt to justify spreading human slavery across America. Lafayette had identified the hypocrisy of slavery in the United States since the American Revolution. Jefferson argues that spreading human slavery "thinly" across the West would "dilute" the institution's power and lead to the end of slavery in America.
This issue of course came up in 1820 when the territory of Missouri attempted to enter as a state. Many believed that its position on slavery would set a precedent for all new states in the West.
Looking at the Missouri Compromise that was created by Henry Clay, would you say that the pro-human slavery factions won or did the 36' 30' line set a precedent that gave the anti-slavery factions a victory.
If you feel that no one has won, share why.
As is our practice write your answer into the comments section, and reply to the the comments of at least two other classmates
I believe that this compromise set a precedent for the anti-slavery factions's victory. At the least, it managed to prevent slavery from developing in future states above the 36'30 line, which prevented so many more human rights injustices from happening. Additionally, the pro-slavery side only agreed to this because they believed the us would continue to expand south. This evidently didn't really happen to the extent they pictured, meaning that the deal was even better for the anti-slavery side than thought when it was written.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the side favoring abolition ended up getting much more out of this deal than originally intended.
DeleteI agree, I think the South overestimated just how much land they could take by going south.
DeleteI agree, it was an anti-slavery victory because the north got much more territory then the south in which there was no slavery.
DeleteYep, I agree the anti-slavery won.
DeleteI agree, the pro-slavery faction incorrectly predicted the chance of increase in slave states on their side of the parallel, so the compromise ultimately helped the anti0slavery side the most.
DeleteI agree, they incorrectly believed that this compromise would still let the pro-slavery faction have power over the anti-slavery group
DeleteI agree that anti-slavery won as well.
DeleteI also agree that anti-slavery had won with this one.
DeleteHonestly, it makes sense the compromise benefitted the anti-slavery faction the most, Ensuring that future states that start to pop up from the north of 36'30 parallel, are free states, which would mean its a decisive landfall for the Southern slave states..
ReplyDeleteI agree, the US territory north of the 36'30 parallel would inevitably become free states, helping the anti-slavery faction's cause. (More senators/representatives to help with lawmaking, etc.)
DeleteI agree, more states were above the parallel than below. This meant that the slave states began to lose power and eventually lead to their downfall.
DeleteI agree. The creation of new states not allowed to have slaves was a win regardless.
DeleteI agree, and I wrote something similar.
DeleteI agree, the anti-slavery faction would be gaining more free states.
DeleteI agree, it is more of a loss for the pro-slavery group.
DeleteI think the Missouri Compromise benefitted the anti-slavery faction more and established a favorable precedent for them because a lot more of the land available was north of the 36'30 parallel, so when those territories became states they would be free states and not participate in slavery. Additionally, it created an even stronger divide between the northern and southern states which likely made the eventual civil war much easier. This decision helped anti-slavery causes in both the short and long term.
ReplyDeleteYeah I agree on how it divided the north and southern states, as there was greater enmity.
DeleteI agree, the divide amplified the conflict which accelerated the Civil War and eventual end of slavery.
DeleteI agree, and your point about the civil war is an important thing to consider.
DeleteI agree although it was a win for the North it added to the tension that was already growing between the North and the South.
DeleteI strongly agree with the point about the civil war.
DeleteThe Missouri compromise benefitted anti-slavery because it finally had a 50/50 split of anti-slavery and pro-slavery states, something they never achieved before. The territory allowing slavery was much bigger than the territory not. It increased political representation of the anti-slavery north, as Maine also joined the Union.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the fact there was now a 50/50 as opposed to slave sate dominance was significant.
DeleteYes, they had more land.
DeleteYeah, and as the country expanded, the North continued to grow much more than the South, meaning that the territorial differences increased and benefited abolitionists.
DeleteI agree, the Missouri Compromise benefitted anti-slavery factions.
DeleteI agree it had its benefit on anti-slavery.
DeleteI believe the Missouri Compromise benefitted the anti-slavery faction to a greater extent than the pro-slavery side. Not only did the South falsely believe the U.S would continue to expand South when signing the agreement, the compromise, as mentioned by my peers, ended the possibility of slavery above the 36'30 line and stopped possibly mistreatment of would-be slaves.
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree. This deal did not really benefit pro-slavery in any way, especially when the us didn't expand the way southern states predicted.
DeleteI think the Missouri compromise proved anti-slavery victory because they had more land which was free and this crated the movement even stronger. The divide even allowed the civil war to become easier and slavery to stop moving south.
ReplyDeleteI agree, as the already established lines would make who you are loyal to easier to decide.
DeleteI believe that the Missouri Compromise helped the anti-slavery faction, but both sides lost in some respects. By passing the Missouri Compromise the South lost slavery in all land above the 36'30 line which is the majority of America. Not only that, but many Southerns' idea that the U.S. would expand further South was incorrect, meaning they did not earn any new land. However, if at the time an anti-slavery side individual was against the institution of slavery this decision was still a loss in some part as Missouri did not enter the Union as anti-slavery which could have effectively ended slavery in the U.S
ReplyDeleteI agree, I think neither side really saw this as a victory.
DeleteBefore, slavery was secure because pro-slavery states always outnumbered the anti. The South falsely believed that the US would expand further south and the North gained Maine, so the anti-slavery faction ultimately benefitted more than the other side as the land available north of the parallel would be free states.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the South clearly had great confidence that the US would expand farther south, or they would not have given up so much territory.
DeleteI agree the South was losing it's power and the north just seemed to be expanding.
DeleteI agree. South pre-planned and ended up giving the North the advantage.
DeleteYes, it's easy to say that the South did overestimate the expansion of the United States, it wouldn't just be climbing into Central America, the Caribbean, or even South America, it wasn't ready for that, so I can see why the northern states would've benefited much more than the southern ones.
DeleteI agree. The Missouri Compromise made is so that the free states finally outnumbered the slave states, which was ultimately a win for anti-slavery factions.
DeleteI believe that the Missouri Compromise more benefited the anti-slavery states. This is because the unorganized territories that would likely have become slave states, were above the line, and therefore prevented from developing into slave states. This would allow the anti-slavery states to begin to outnumber the pro-slavery states, and begin to slowly remove slavery from the states.
ReplyDeleteI agree, and it would set the motion into other states doing the same to stay in the majority.
DeleteThe Missouri Compromise was definitely more of a benefit for the anti-slavery states because it showed how more states were abolishing slavery and for the first time it was an even amount of states showing that there was change happening and slavery could be coming to an end.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Missouri compromise definitely gave the anti-slavery factions a victory as it allowed the South to activly support it, with the impression of expanding further down south, making it easier to stop slavery from spreading above the 36’30 line and allowing states above the line (which was the majority of the land of the U.S) to be free states, and eventually outnumber slave states.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Missouri Compromise helped abolitionists because this compromise gave the abolitionists an advantage. This advantage was having more anti-slavery states than pro-slavery states. The South believing that the US would expand towards the South was wrong and it cost them a lot.
ReplyDeleteI don't think any abolitionists would be happy about this because they wouldn't want any type of slave state in the union.
DeleteI agree that it did cost the south for accepting the deal because in the end their prediction was wrong. The north had more land in the end.
DeleteI think the Missouri Compromise was a victory for neither side. While the anti-slavery states lost in that they had to let slave states into the union, the slave states had to let non slave states into the union. In some cases compromises are wins for both sides, the Missouri compromise was not one of these. I feel like both sides lost.
ReplyDeleteI can see this. Personally I think that it benefitted the anti-slavery factions in the long term, but the initial impact of compromise wasn't really good for either side.
DeleteThis is most definitely true, especially the fact that the South had more representation in Congress, it would be easy for them to just block the statehood of an incoming state until it becomes a slave state of something like that.
DeleteI think this is a valid argument, neither side could be the winner if the enemy is part of the union.
DeleteI disagree, I think the increase of slave states would encourage the free states to think of ways to ban slavery in America.
DeleteI think that the compromise was more of a procrastination than anything else, as future political engagements over new territories and the legality of slavery in them continued to fester despite the Missouri Compromise.
DeleteI think that while the Missouri compromise was not initially beneficial, it ultimately helped the anti-slavery factions. It ended up giving them a lot of territory, which was unprecedented because they had never outnumbered the slave states before. It gave them a lot of representation, and also showed the people that society could function without use of slavery.
ReplyDeleteI agree, it was not immediately beneficial but was very in the long run.
DeleteAgreed, it limited slavery's expansion in the long run and set a precedent displaying that slave-less societies could function just as well.
DeleteI don't really believe anyone won, and although anti-slavery states didn't have much land south the 36'30 parallel, that land they had was pretty fertile, especially near the Mississippi River. After all, more population meant more representation in the House, or the states could just be really small south of the parallel, though that would be kind of cheating the system to constantly just divide states to make more. The northern lands I believe weren't so fertile, so it's not very likely that these states would have much representation. It would still be the North and the South just debating with each other about statehood in the Louisiana territory in Congress.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the compromise wasn't so much of a victory as it was a postponement.
DeleteI believe the 36' 30' line did set a precedent for anti slavery victory. The map shows the amount of land owned by the U.S at the time. Compared to the south, the North had a lot of land to use. The line made sure that land above it wouldn't become a slave state. As we eventually know, the U.S did expand all the way to the west, but not to places like South America like the pro slavery states wanted. Those states had basically agreed to end slavery by agreeing to the line since the North would always have more land.
ReplyDeleteI agree—the more land the north took, the less the south would be able to get.
DeleteI believe that the Missouri Compromise would ultimately be a victory for anti-slavery factions, since the drawn divide between the country would cause conflict between the two sides, allowing for the anti-slavery rhetoric to spread.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the missouri compromise was certainly a victory for the anti-slavery factions as it allowed their ideas to spread.
DeletePersonally, I think that the 36'30' line had set a precedent that gave the anti-slavery factions a victory. The pro-slavery group believed that we would continue to expand south, which did not turn out as expected, so I consider this as more of a loss than anything else.
ReplyDeleteThe Missouri Compromise was a victory for the anti-slavery factions as it ensured that all future states past the 36'30' line were free states. Although it did not seem very helpful at first, as more of America's land was taken up, it was seen as more of a victory. As stated previously, it took more of a long term approach which made sure that anti-slavery thoughts and culture would spread more than pro-slavery ideas.
ReplyDeleteI think that the 36º30' line set a precedent of rivaling compromises that wouldn't solve anything longer than a short term, although in this specific instance it seemed the North had beaten the pro-slavery states there were many other debates between the two, for example the state of California becoming a free state or the Utah and New Mexico territories having slavery and also slavers being able to enter the North to chase runaways.
ReplyDeleteThe Missouri Compromise was a victory for the anti-slavery faction—the north expanded, which meant that the amount of anti-slavery areas increased, while the south stayed relatively the same.
ReplyDeleteI think the Missouri Compromise was a benefit towards the anti-slavery faction. The amount of anti-slavery places have increased which shows the improvement made in the demolishing of slavery.
ReplyDeleteWhile any slavery anywhere is still ultimately a loss for human rights, this was, in my opinion, ultimately a victory for anti-slavery factions. It limited slavery, prevented its expansion, and ensured the existence of more free states, or at least free territory. However, with that said, it did nothing to diminish slavery where it already was, so it certainly was not a win towards full abolition. It was however, a step towards gradually phasing out slavery by limiting its expansion and boundaries.
ReplyDelete