What is the reason that the Missouri Compromise did not have lasting effects? It only applied to the lands of the Louisiana Purchase, it only applied to the lands of the Mexican cessation, it relied on popular sovereignty, it limited the number of states that could be admitted per year
The Missouri Compromise did not have lasting effects primarily because it only applied to the lands of the Louisiana Purchase. This limitation caused its provisions to become obsolete as the United States expanded westward and acquired new territories outside of the Louisiana Purchase area.
Additionally, the compromise did not apply to the lands of the Mexican Cession, which were acquired after the Missouri Compromise was enacted. This further limited its scope and effectiveness in addressing the issue of slavery in newly acquired territories.
Another reason for its limited impact was that the Missouri Compromise relied on the concept of popular sovereignty, which allowed the residents of each territory to decide whether to allow slavery or not. This approach led to continuous debates and conflicts in subsequent years, as the issue of slavery became more divisive and contentious.
Furthermore, the compromise's limitation on the number of states that could be admitted per year was another factor that diminished its lasting effects. This provision, known as the "one state added, one slave state added" rule, aimed to maintain a balance between free and slave states. However, it could not accommodate the rapid territorial expansion of the United States and its increasing divisions over the issue of slavery.
In summary, the Missouri Compromise did not have lasting effects due to its limited geographical application, failure to address new territories, reliance on popular sovereignty, and constraints on the number of states that could be admitted. These factors ultimately rendered the compromise ineffective in resolving the ongoing disagreement over the expansion of slavery and contributed to the eventual outbreak of the Civil War.