What is a reason that the Missouri Compromise did not have lasting effects?
(1 point)
Responses
It only applied to the lands of the Louisiana Purchase.
It only applied to the lands of the Louisiana Purchase.
It only applied to the lands of the Mexican Cession.
It only applied to the lands of the Mexican Cession.
It relied on popular sovereignty.
It relied on popular sovereignty.
It limited the number of states that could be admitted per year.
It limited the number of states that could be admitted per year.
Which of the following laws would the Free-Soil Party have supported?
(1 point)
Responses
cottonocracy
cottonocracy
slave codes
slave codes
Wilmot Proviso
Wilmot Proviso
Fugitive Slave Act
The reason that the Missouri Compromise did not have lasting effects is that it only applied to the lands of the Louisiana Purchase.
The reason that the Missouri Compromise did not have lasting effects is because it only applied to specific territories and did not address the underlying issue of slavery. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was a legislative agreement that aimed to maintain a balance of power between free states and slave states in the United States. It stipulated that Missouri would be admitted as a slave state while Maine would enter as a free state, thus maintaining the balance between slave and free states in the Senate. Additionally, it established the 36°30' parallel as a boundary, stating that any territory north of this line would be free and any territory south of it would be open to slavery.
However, the Missouri Compromise only dealt with the territories acquired in the Louisiana Purchase and did not address the issue of slavery in other areas such as the lands acquired in the Mexican Cession. This limitation meant that it did not have a lasting impact on the expansion of slavery and the associated tensions between the North and the South. Moreover, the reliance on popular sovereignty, where the residents of a territory could decide the status of slavery through a vote, further contributed to the eventual breakdown of this compromise as it could lead to an unbalanced distribution of slave and free states.
Furthermore, the limitation on the number of states that could be admitted per year had little impact on the overall issue of slavery in the long run. This restriction did not address the underlying conflict between the proponents and opponents of slavery, nor did it provide a comprehensive solution to the issue.
In summary, the Missouri Compromise did not have lasting effects because it only applied to specific territories, it relied on popular sovereignty which was ultimately divisive, and it did not adequately address the deeper tensions surrounding slavery in the United States.
Which of the following laws would the Free-Soil Party have supported?
(1 point)
Responses
cottonocracy
cottonocracy
slave codes
slave codes
Wilmot Proviso
Wilmot Proviso
Fugitive Slave Act
Fugitive Slave Act