Explain how the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 attempted to settle those divisions and whether or not those compromises were effective in solving the divide between anti-slavery and pro-slavery factions in the United States.
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 attempted to settle the division between anti-slavery and pro-slavery factions by establishing a line across the country at 36°30' latitude, with states north of the line prohibiting slavery and states south of the line allowing it. This compromise allowed for a balance of power between free and slave states in Congress.
The Compromise of 1850 attempted to address the growing tensions over slavery by allowing California to enter the Union as a free state, while also enacting a stricter Fugitive Slave Law to appease Southern interests. Additionally, the compromise allowed for popular sovereignty in the territories of New Mexico and Utah to determine the issue of slavery for themselves.
However, while both compromises initially helped to maintain a delicate balance between free and slave states, they ultimately failed to settle the deep-rooted divisions between anti-slavery and pro-slavery factions in the United States. The compromises only temporarily postponed the inevitable conflict over slavery, as tensions continued to rise leading to the eventual outbreak of the Civil War in 1861.
In conclusion, while the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 were attempts to settle the divide between anti-slavery and pro-slavery factions, they were not effective in addressing the fundamental differences and ultimately did not prevent the outbreak of the Civil War.