Not battle, but a debate. The Missouri Compromise of 1820.
Because of the enormous new territories acquired from Mexico. These extended so far either side of the Missouri line that the Missouri Compromise was not workable. This intensified the debate over new territories joining the Union as slave-states.
Because of the enormous new territories acquired from Mexico. These extended so far either side of the Missouri line that the Missouri Compromise was not workable. This intensified the debate over new territories joining the Union as slave-states.
There was not a major decision that led to it but there were many that led to it such as the dred Scott decision and the Missouri compromise and the compromise of 1850 and the Lincoln- Douglas debate
Franklin Pierce supported the Kansas-Nebraska Act which cancelled the Missouri Compromise leading to a new rise of the debate about the spread of slavery in the Western Territories. After the outbreak of the Civil War he declared support for the Confederacy.
The Missouri Compromise temporarily settled the debate over slavery by allowing Missouri enter the Union as a slave state. Maine was allowed to enter the Union as a free state.
The Missouri Compromise temporarily settled the debate over slavery by allowing Missouri enter the Union as a slave state. Maine was allowed to enter the Union as a free state.
Not battle, but a debate. The Missouri Compromise of 1820.
The Compromise of 1850 undid much of the work of the Missouri Compromise made a few years prior. Unfortunately, the Compromise of 1850 did not alleviate the tensions of the slave debate, and the Civil War broke out just ten years later.
yes
The arguments were the standards ones about the morals of slavery. These did not change much. It was the agreement they came to - the Missouri Compromise - that was notably successful because it was simple, a straightforward line in the sand, North of which slavery would be illegal. It kept the pece for thirty years.
yes
There were several, of which the best was the Missouri Compromise of 1820 - drawing a line in the sand. Anything North of that parallel was free soil. It kept the peace for thirty years, and would have kept it a good deal longer, but the admission of California rendered it impractical.The Missouri Compromise.It was an attempt to simplify the debate, and draw a single line of latitude, as the parallel North of which slavery would be illegal.It lasted 30 years, until the admission of California, which extended so far either side of the Missouri line that both sides claimed it.It was replaced by another compromise which did not last.The Missouri Compromise, which kept the peace for thirty years.By drawing a line in the sand, and declaring slavery illegal anywhere North of the line, they were able to keep a balance of slave-states and free states for voting in Congress. It was the admission of California - too big to fit the terms of the Compromise - that forced them end it.
The political issue behind the question of expanding slavery after the Mexican-American War was whether the newly acquired territories would be free or slave states. This debate ultimately led to the Compromise of 1850, which temporarily resolved the issue by allowing some territories to decide on the issue of slavery through popular sovereignty.
Because of the enormous new territories acquired from Mexico. These extended so far either side of the Missouri line that the Missouri Compromise was not workable. This intensified the debate over new territories joining the Union as slave-states.
the admission of California as a free state
A sensible compromise, whereby Missouri would be allowed to join the Union as a slave-state, but after that there would be no slavery allowed, North of the parallel that marked Missouri's Southern border, in any of the territories acquired through the Louisiana Purchase.