“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 the pro-slavery faction won in the Missouri compromise. The fact that Missouri was a state that allowed slavery meant that the slave states could keep the status quo. Missouri could've ended human slavery right then and there, but was made a slave state, keeping things the way they were.
ReplyDeleteIt is quite true that their was a missed opportunity resulting in the propelling of pro-slavery forces.
DeleteI agree that it was a missed opportunity to not have Missouri be an anti-slave state, but the western lands that were made to be slave-free was a huge win for the anti-slavery faction, and benefited them quite a bit.
DeleteI agree with the fact that the missouri compromise was a lost chance, which did hurt the anti-slavery faction.
DeleteI agree that the Missouri compromise enforced a pro slavery status quo
DeleteI agree that this was a missed opportunity to make Missouri an anti-slavery state.
DeleteThe compromise itself did set a precedent that slavery could still remain
Deletei agree because of they did something different they may have made a step to ending slavery
DeleteI believe that the pro-slavery faction of the United States benefited most and "won" in the Missouri compromise. This is because regardless of the precedents set afterward it was a missed opportunity and a failure on the behalf of the anti-slavers. The assumption of Missouri was an opportunity to end slavery once and for all in all new sates. Instead a precedent was set, which was a fail on behalf of the anti-slavers.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the anti-slavery states missed an opportunity.
DeleteThe anti-slave states definitely missed an opportunity, but the pro-slavery faction didn't benefit at all, whereas the western lands that were now free of slavery benefited the anti-slavery faction a lot.
DeleteThough I don't necessarily agree with your opinion, I can understand how you have come to see your points. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to try to end (or at least stop the spread) slavery, but it didn't at all.
DeleteIt was definitely a missed opportunity, as it could have changed the tide in terms of slavery completely, and yet it retained the status quo.
DeleteI believe that the anti-slavery faction benefited the most from the Missouri Compromise. The pro-slavery faction did not benefit at all, because for them, nothing changes at all. The balance of power was not shifted at all from before, but the opportunity to spread slavery to the west , and to the north, was completely removed. Considering that America was expanding westwards, and the majority of the western lands had to be slavery free to conform to this document, the pro-slavery faction lost a lot of potential slave states, while the anti-slavery states had gained a lot of territory that had to be slave free, and could shift the balance of power. Although no side truly "won" this debate, as nothing really changed directly afterwards, the Missouri Compromise gave the ant-slavery faction a much better chance to expand and shift the balance into their favor.
ReplyDeleteWhile I believe that the pro-slavery party benefitted the most, I agree that cutting off the south from westward expansion and having the western lands be slave-free was a blow to the pro-slavery faction, and something that would be wielded over the south in the future.
DeleteAlthough, my beliefs differ from those stated above I do believe that there was minimal change at the moment for pro-slavers. However, it was turning point that was not achieved by anti-slavers.
DeleteThe balance of power wasn't changed at all, especially after when Maine was added as a free state just days after the Missouri Compromise.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWhile not much changed after the compromise, maintaining the status quo was a victory for the pro-slavery side, and they still retained the ability to spread slavery west underneath that 36' 30' line, as well to the south.
DeleteI think that the fact that nothing changed was a win for the pro-slavery side, as that was their whole goal.
DeleteI agree because it wreaked the souths plans to expand west.
Deletei agree it stopped them from moving west but all that really did in the long run was to strengthen slavery in the states where it was already legal
DeleteThe pro-slavery party benefitted the most from the missouri compromise. This was because the pro-slavery faction had kept missouri as a slave state. This set the precedent that slavery was alright, so long as it was in a certain area, and it was a missed chance for the abolitionists and the people who were anti-slavery.
ReplyDeleteI agree that this was a big missed chance
DeleteI agree this was a missed chance for people who were anti-slavery.
DeleteThis was a missed chance to abolish slavery completely instead of leaving it in some states.
DeleteThe Missouri Compromise definitely helped out the anti-slavery faction much more than the pro-slavery faction. It is true that Missouri was agreed to be a slave state, rising the number of slave states to 12. However, a couple days after the Missouri Compromise, Maine was introduced as a free state, which basically evens out the number of free and slave states. Additionally, the Missouri Compromise Line (36' 30' line) also prohibited the South from gaining new slave states above the 36' 30' line (with the exception of Missouri). Based on this, it can be concluded that the Missouri Compromise helped out the anti-slavery faction more than their pro-slavery counterparts.
ReplyDeleteI agree it weaken the souths position in the long run
DeleteI think that the pro-slavery faction benefited the most from the Missouri Compromise. This compromise set a precedent that slavery was still ok in America, meaning that when the anti slavery people tried to dismantle it they’d face trouble due this compromise. Anti-slavery people could’ve taken this chance to make a statement that no matter where slavery isn’t ok, but instead they didn’t.
ReplyDeleteI agree, precedents were and still are very powerful
DeleteI agree. The anti-slavery faction missed a chance they had to make more of a difference.
DeleteI agree, the pro-slavery faction had a big advantage with the amount of how benefited they were with the whole situation that happened.
DeleteI agree that setting that mindset (precedent) for the Americas was a big win for them.
DeleteI believe that of both sides, the pro-slavery faction benefited the most from the Missouri Compromise. If Missouri had been anti-slavery, it could have been an incredible win for the country and a large step in the movement towards abolition. However, it was not, and it set a precedent for the rest of the Louisiana Territory. Knowing how westward expansion played out now, it is easy to say that there was not much available land, but in the 1800s, expansion southward into Mexico and South America was a very real possibility, and letting this precedent be set was a risk that could have resulted in abolitionists being a distinct minority.
ReplyDeleteI agree, it set the movement against slavery back by a while
DeleteI agree, with the whole situation, the pro slavery faction benefited the most.
DeleteYeah, the best part about this argument though was showing how good it would've been if it had went the other way, I thought that was really convincing.
DeleteI agree that pro-slavery benefited the most as well a missed opportunity to show that there really was a movement to abolish slavery would have been making Missouri a anti-slavery state but they didn't succeed in doing that.
DeleteI think the pro-slavery faction "won" more from the Missouri compromise over the anti-slavery faction. It re established the precedent of slavery being constitutional, and undid decades of progress towards making slavery illegal since precedents like that had strong impact on the future
ReplyDeleteAdmitting a slave state made it seem as if slavery was acceptable, which did set the anti-slavery faction back on their mission to abolish slavery.
DeleteI believe that the pro-slavery faction won in the Missouri compromise. Missouri was kept a slave state. This could have been an opportunity for people who were anti-slavery to abolish slavery but they didn't.
ReplyDeleteI agree. It was definitely a missed opportunity
DeleteI agree that abolishing slavery would have led to the other side benefiting most.
DeleteThe pro-slavery won the Missouri compromise, as slavery still persisted with the line that divided free and slave states. The fact that slavery wasn't abolished means that the anti-slavery faction still has to find a way to make the establishment void.
ReplyDeleteThe anti-slavery faction definitely did not benefit much from the Missouri compromise.
DeleteI agree where u say since slavery wasn't abolished then the anti-slavery faction still hasn't done anything to establish themselves.
DeleteThe anti slavery faction probably won the Missouri compromise. This is because Maine evened out the number of states again and the 36th parallel was established. Also with retrospective. the south didn't even get all the land below the 36th parallel because California, partially below the 36th parallel and then new Mexico and some other states in the southwest were not suited for the southern plantation economy so slavery was not expanded into them. Therefore the anti slavery faction won the Missouri compromise.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the anti-slavery faction won the Missouri Compromise. However, it is important to keep in mind that the 36' 30' line deal in the compromise only applied to the states in the Louisiana Territory. West of the territory, the pro-slavery faction was allowed to spread slavery to those states, even if it was north of the 36' 30' line.
DeleteThe pro-slavery faction benefited most in the Missouri compromise because it allowed a slave state to be admitted into the Americas. The anti-slavery faction lost in this situation because all of the work they had made towards abolishing had come crumbling down with the acceptance of this slave state. This also gave the pro-slavery faction power to believe that slavery was acceptable, so they ultimately "won" with the Missouri compromise.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the pro-slavery faction benefited more because they ruled out an opportunity for the anti-slavery group to abolish slavery to a much more full extent. A precedent was said that slavery wasn't that harmful and could be negotiated on which really slowed down the abolishonists' goals.
ReplyDeleteI agree, and the abolitionist add on added a good take on your ideal.
DeleteI believe that the pro-slavery faction of the United States won in the Missouri compromise because of it being more benefited. They won because even with the precedents set afterward, the anti-slavery people against the pro slavery faction had a big defeat, being a big win to the pro slavery faction.
ReplyDeletei think that the proslavery faction benefited because they gained more land to their side while when you look at the situation of maine the north didn't get and but it only just grabbed a old part of land and made it a new state. i also think that in the long term they did win to an extent and it also set the idea to the the south that what they were doing was perfectly find while the north lost a opportunity to do something
ReplyDeleteThe pro-slavery faction of the United States won in the Missouri compromise because the quid pro quo kept the status quo. The maintaining of slavery in Missouri set a precedent that slavery would be kept in the new states that were being made in the West, therefore keeping the status quo of slavery.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Missouri Compromise, if anything, ensured that there would be more anti-slavery states in the West because the 36' 30' line prevented any of the Louisiana Territory from becoming slave states.
DeleteThe anti-slavery factions won in the Missouri Compromise because the 36' 30' line created a precedent, allowing the states against slavery to dominate the US. Although the compromise technically ended in a tie (with pro-slavery states getting Missouri and anti-slavery states getting Maine), the balance would be off for future states. This is because the 36' 30' line gave all of the Louisiana Territory to the anti-slavery states. The reasoning of the Southern states was that the US would grow to be much larger, allowing slavery to still spread, especially down to Central and South America, but this would not be the case.
ReplyDeleteI think the pro-slavery faction won during the Missouri Compromise. The reason I say this because they allowed Missouri to be accepted as a slave state which shows the pro-slavery faction that there is possibility more compromises like this will happen. They will stick true to their beliefs hoping things will change around them rather than them trying to change themselves.
ReplyDeleteI think that the pro-slavery faction benefited the most from the Missouri Compromise, because they got to keep the goal they started out with. As well as this, the anti-slavery faction lost because they didn't complete their goal. Also, by having a slave state state there is still a mentality in the America that they were trying to change.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Pro-slavery faction benefitted most and won from the Missouri Compromise. They took the opportunity to abolish slavery away from the anti-slavery group, making them accept this big defeat.
ReplyDeleteThe pro-slavery group were able to maintain Missouri as a slave state. They were able to put out the idea that said "slavery is okay".