The Missouri Compromise of 1820 did not have lasting effects which is the best explanation for this?
One possible explanation for the lack of lasting effects of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 is that it ultimately failed to address the underlying issues that led to conflicts between pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions in the United States.
While the Compromise temporarily settled the dispute over the admission of Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state, it only delayed the inevitable tension over the expansion of slavery into newly acquired territories. The Compromise drew a geographical line, prohibiting slavery in the Louisiana Territory north of 36°30' latitude, but this solution was seen as a temporary fix rather than a permanent resolution.
Over time, as the United States expanded further westward with the acquisition of new territories like Texas and the Mexican Cession, the question of whether these territories would allow slavery or not intensified. The Missouri Compromise did not provide a long-term framework for addressing this issue, leading to renewed conflicts and debates.
Ultimately, the lack of lasting effects of the Missouri Compromise can be attributed to the fact that it failed to address the fundamental disagreement between the pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions in the United States, allowing tensions to resurface in subsequent years leading up to the Civil War.