what issues did the Missouri Compromise settle? What were its terms?

I was going to leave this one be, but the previous answer was SO wrong that I had to step in.

First, the basic terms of the Missouri Compromise:

- Admitted Maine as a free state

- Admitted Missouri as a slave state

-Prohibited slavery above the 36-30 Latitude (except in Missouri)

It did not state that for every free state there would be a slave state and vice verse. Also, the Civil War was not a decade later - it was 40 years later.

The Missouri Compromise was considered by those in the North to be the final answer to slavery. They revered it, and they stood by it. When it was repealed in the early 1850's, that's when we started on the true road to war. had the Missouri Compromise been left alone - if the southern slave states hadn't used their congrssional power to repeal it and again attemted the spread of slavery, there would have been no Civil War - but the slave powers didn't care about that.

SLAVERY WAS THE PRIMARY ISSUE THAT LED TO THE CIVIL WAR. "State's rights" in the South were only important insofar as it involved the right to own slaves. Revisionist historians like to use "state's rights" as a way to defend the actions of secessionists, but outside of slavery secessionists cared very little about state's rights. If you go to the books, the newspapers, the magazines, and the speeches OF THE TIME, like I have for the last 30 years, and ignore all the dirivitive crap written 100-150 years after the war, you'll find that slavery was THE issue, in the North and in the South. What right did the South fight to protect? Slavery. What were the leaders of the North trying to stop slavery. The rest were minor differences. Go to the sources, and you'll see. Yes, they used the term "states rights" from time to time, because that was the polcitically correct terminology for saying they wanted to keep their slaves. What right were they almost exclusively talking about when talking about state's rights? Slavery. Sometimes it would be thrown in with "opression" and "economics" but it always came down to slavery.

No slavery - no war, period.

You had two very opposite groups involved in this conflict. The slave states were run largely by a group of secessionists, although they weren't publicly admitting that in the 1850's. They desperately wanted to maintian their hold on the power they currently enjoyed at that time - they had enough votes in congress to demand compromise after compromise and to control most legislation. They used that power to repeal the Missouri Compromise and allow the reintroduction of slavery into areas it had previously been prohibited. They are occasionally portrayed as the downtrodden oppressed, under the thumb of the terrible North, but nothing could be further from the truth. They were strong, and they wanted to keep that power, lest their ability to promote and maintain slavery be taken from them

Meanwhile the North was largely anti-slavery, that sentiment was growing almost daily, and the repeal of the Missouri Compromise was taken as a betrayal by most people of the North. While those who favored immediate abolition were not the majority, those who demanded the stop to the expansion of slavery were.

The repeal of the Missouri Compromise and the introduction of the Kansas-Nebraska Acts so enraged and worried the North that adversaries gathered together to form a new political party, the Republican Party, in 1854. They considered the repeal as a betrayal of trust and a surrender to the slave powers (see the notice at the end) To those who say that slavery wasn't the main issue, keep in mind that the platform of the Republican Party (formed by Whigs, free-Soilers, Know-Nothings, Free Democrats, and other parties that dissolved their past affiliations in order to form the Republican Party) was primarily to stop the spread of slavery immediately and to eliminate it from the coutry as quickly as possible - it's why the Party was formed, and the evidence that slavery was the issue in the North as well as the South is plain in the fact that the Republican Party won the Presidency and majority control of government just 6 years after it was formed!

This signaled a ticking clock to the secessionists, because they saw the anti-slavery senitment gaining strenth and the Republican Party gaining power throughout the 1850's. They new that in 1860 their hold on power would be gone, and they had to act. They knew as far back as 1857 that they would be taking these steps a few years later. On March 4, 1857 Jefferson Davis took the oath of the Senate, vowing to uphold the Union and the Constitution with his very life, meanwhile he and other secessionist leader continues their plans of rebellion.

During the late 1850's President Buchanan and the other secessionist leaders and slavery sympathizers worked their plan. Arms were sold to secessionists, forts in the South were emptied of arms and troops, the Army and Navy were spread thin and wide so they could not respond in an emergency. The propoganda campain to keep the southern people in fear of the North and unsettled continued.

Lincoln's election in 1860 was used by the secessionists to rally support of the people, and called "the last straw." The funny thing is that Lincoln, of all the possible Republicans, was the last person they had to fear, because Lincoln had already said many times over that he would not mess with slavery where it existed. But who the candidate was didn't matter - it was time for the secessionists to act before it was too late, so they portrayed Lincoln as a radical abolitionist and an enemy of the South. Truth is, it could have been anybody. The Confederacy was planned a loong time before anyone ever heard of Abraham Lincoln in the South.

When the North refused to accept secession, and the North wouldn't make the first agressive move, the Confederacy fired - on a fort manned mostly by musicians with few weapons.

So, was it possible to end slavery without War? I'm not saying there weren't ways, but first you have to know that there were people plotting treason and betraying their oaths for years prior to 1860, and that they were not going to stop short of their goals.

The only thing that would have prevented war would be the acceptance of slavery by the United States and/or the surrender of the United States of all the states and territories it held that called itself the Confederacy. Since that would not have ended slavery, then the answer is that there was no alternative but to have some kind of conflict, some kind of war.

Slavery was the issue, it was the reason. It was a calculated plan by those who chose to protect slavery by betraying their countrymen and turning traitor - to protect slavery, and not some mythical idea of "state's rights" because the only right they cared about was the right to enslave another race.

MORE EVIDENCE THAT SLAVERY WAS THE ISSUE

Below is one of the annoucements of a meeting (1854) called to form this new party. This was from Michigan, and was one of many such announcement and meetings. It's a fascinating story:

"TO THE PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN

A great wrong has been perpetrated. The slave power of this country has triumphed. Liberty is trampled underfoot. The Missouri compromise, a solemn compact, entered into by our fathers, has been violated, and a vast territory dedicated to freedom has been opened to slavery.

This act, so unjust to the North, has been perpetrated under circumstances which deepen its perfidy [treachery]. An administration placed in power by Northern votes has brought to bear all the resources of executive corruption in its support.

Northern Senators and representatives, in the face of overwhelming public sentiment of the North, expressed in the proceedings of public meeting and solemn remonstrances [protest], without a single petition in its favor on their table, and not daring to submit this great question to the people, have yielded to the seductions of executive patronage, and, Judas-like, betrayed the cause of liberty; while the South, inspired by a dominant and grasping ambition, has, without distinction of party, and with a unanimity almost entire, deliberately trampled under foot the solemn compact entered into in the midst of a crisis threatening the peace of the Union, sanctioned by the greatest names of our history, and the binding forces of which has, for a period of more than thirty years, been recognized and declared by numerous acts of legislation. Such an outrage upon liberty, such a violation of plighted faith, cannot be submitted to. The great wrong must be righted, or there is no longer a North in the councils of the nation. The extension of slavery, under the folds of the American flag, is a stigma upon liberty. The indefinite increase of slave representation in Congress is destructive to that equality between freemen which is essential to the permanency of the Union.

The safety of the Union -- the rights of the North -- the interests of free labor -- the destiny of a vast territory and its untold millions for all coming time -- and finally, the high aspirations of humanity for universal freedom, all are involved in the issue forced upon the country by the slave power and its plastic Northern tools.

In view, therefore, of the recent action of Congress upon this subject, and the evident designs of the slave power to attempt still further aggressions upon freedom -- we invite all our fellow citizens, without reference to former political associations, who think that the time has arrived for a union at the North to protect liberty from being overthrown and downtrodden, to assemble in mass convention on Thursday, the 6th of July, next, at 4 o’clock, P.M., at Jackson, there to take such measures as shall be thought best to concentrate the popular sentiment of this State against the aggression of the slave power."

This meeting was attended by people from all parties, and they formed an election ticket of Free Democrats, Free Soilers, Whigs, and more - now all calling themselves Republican.

Zachariah Chandler, a devout Whig, said:

"Misfortunes make strange bedfellows. I see before me Whigs, Democrats and Free-Soilers, all mingling together to rebuke a great national wrong. I was born a Whig; I have always lived a Whig and hope to die fighting for some of the Whig doctrines. But I do not stand here as a Whig. I have laid aside party to rebuke treachery."

The Republican Party was founded on, and throughout the 1850's primarily existed to, stop slavery. Without slavery, there was no conflict important enough to form new parties, to bring traitors to the forefront, to cause a country to fire upon itself.

Terms Of The Missouri Compromise

For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/avhAG

The Missouri Compromise dealt with the issue of the status of slavery in the northern part of the Louisiana Purchase. In 1819, Missouri asked for admission to the Union as a slave state. Since there was no corresponding free territory ready for admission, this would upset the sectional balance in the US Senate. Admission was delayed a year. In 1820, Maine was detatched from Massachusetts and admitted as a free state. Missouri followed in 1821 as a slave state. There would be no slavery north of 36 degrees, 30 minutes, except in the state of Missouri, which is almost entirely north of the line. Virtually no one in either section believed that the Missouri Compromise would be the final solution to the question of the spread of slavery to new territories. Leaders at the time were hoping to buy the nation 20 years or so to work out a "final" solution. And by the way, 36, 30 IS NOT the Mason-Dixon Line. The Mason-Dixon Line is the border between Pennsylvania and Maryland.

This Site Might Help You.

RE:

what issues did the Missouri Compromise settle? What were its terms?

the terms were that for every free state there would be a slave state inducted into the union. as for what it settled; Nothing.

There was a thing called the civil war a decade later. That really settled the issue.

However most southeners were not fighting over slavery. They were fighting for one interpretation of the US Constitution. That the states had right that could not be over ruled by the Federal Goverment

The unionists were fighting for another. That the federal Goverment could in fact tell the states what was and wasn't law.

The argument over the two interpretations began when the document was radified and in some ways still goes on today.