in 1850, how was the Missouri compromise solved?
337229
I think that is where the US was split in two, half allowing slavery and half not allowing slavery. Kansas was then debated whether it would be a slave state or not because it was in the north, and there was fighting between abolitionists and pro-slavery people, leading to bleeding kansas where alot of people died. Sorry its been a while since i read up on that junk so i have no real details.
307566
check with Missouri.gov and research the subject
1082537
Alexander Hamilton of New York and Virginians Thomas Jefferson and James Madison worked out a compromise that permitted southern Members to support assumption of the national dept, if northern Members did not block the effort to locate the permanent seat of government on the Potomac River. Congress had been deadlocked over the issue of funding the national dept. Most northern states wanted the federal government to assume the states' debts, while most southern states opposed assumption.
62765
just because they're in prison, doesn't affect their rights to dispute the facts. If they do not agree, it won't be cheap ( and it likely won't be free no matter what) If its uncontested, and there is no disagreement about separation of assets, child custody & support etc. then you can go to http://www.legalzoom.com/divorce/divorce.asp?sState=Missouri for more information and to obtain an uncontested divorce for $249
357634
A view to a compromise.
555088
The Civil War was caused by a myriad of conflicting pressures, principles, and prejudices, fueled by sectional differences and pride, and set into motion by a most unlikely set of political events.\n\nAt the root of all of the problems was the institution of slavery, which had been introduced into North America in early colonial times. The American Revolution had been fought to validate the idea that all men were created equal, yet slavery was legal in all of the thirteen colonies throughout the revolutionary period. Although it was largely gone from the northern states by 1787, it was still enshrined in the new Constitution of the United States, not only at the behest of the Southern ones, but also with the approval of many of the Northern delegates who saw that there was still much money to be made in the slave trade by the Yankee shipping industry. Eventually its existence came to color every aspect of American life.\n\nAt the Constitutional Convention there were arguments over slavery. Representatives of the Northern states claimed that if the Southern slaves were mere property, then they should not be counted toward voting representation in Congress. Southerners, placed in the difficult position of trying to argue, at least in this case, that the slaves were human beings, eventually came to accept the three-fifths compromise, by which five slaves counted as three free men toward that representation. By the end of the convention the institution of slavery itself, though never specifically mentioned, was well protected within the body of the Constitution.\n\nIt seemed to Thomas Jefferson and many others that slavery was on its way out, doomed to die a natural death. It was becoming increasingly expensive to keep slaves in the agrarian society of the south. Northern and Southern members of Congress voted together to abolish the importation of slaves from overseas in 1808, but the domestic slave trade continued to flourish. The invention of the cotton gin made the cultivation of cotton on large plantations using slave labor a profitable enterprise in the deep South. The slave became an ever more important element of the southern economy, and so the debate about slavery, for the southerner, gradually evolved into an economically based question of money and power, and ceased to be a theoretical or ideological issue at all. It became an institution that southerners felt bound to protect.\n\nBut even as the need to protect it grew, the ability, or at least the perceived ability of the South to do so was waning. Southern leaders grew progressively more sensitive to this condition. In 1800 half of the population of the United States had lived in the South. But by 1850 only a third lived there and the disparity continued to widen. While northern industrial opportunity attracted scores of immigrants from Europe in search of freedom the South's population stagnated. Even as slave states were added to the Union to balance the number of free ones, the South found that its representatives in the House had been overwhelmed by the North’s explosive growth. More and more emphasis was now placed on maintaining parity in the Senate. Failing this, the paranoid theory went, the South would find itself at the mercy of a government in which it no longer had an effective voice. Never mind that slavery was protected under the constitution, and that it would have been impossible to make amendments to abolish it. Jefferson Davis, at the time a Senator from Mississippi, summed up the sectionalist argument himself. Speaking, in effect, to the people of the North concerning slavery, “It is not humanity that influences you… it is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the Government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement… you want by an unjust system of legislation to promote the industry of the United States at the expense of the people of the South.” There, in plain English, is the shrill, accusat
718937
While the immediate effect of the Missouri Compromise was to continue to equality between slave and free states in the Senate (Missouri and Maine), it reserved a vast majority of the area of the Louisiana Purchase into territories where slavery would be barred by federal law, and set the precedent of the northern access of slavery being on a designated parallel. This would have tremendous consequences because of the growing paranoia of slave-holding gentry in the South.\n\nWhen the slave-holding power in the South realized the actual consequences of the agreement, there would be a growing movement to not only marginalize federal power but to then force the acceptance of slavery as an institution into the psyche of people in the North. This would be seen in the Kansas - Nebraska act, in the Fugitive Slave Law, in the Compromise of 1850, etc. Slavery would go from the "Peculiar Institution," (an odd lifestyle but far away and not our business) to a forced acceptance (people in free states are forced through their taxes and law enforcement to help maintain slavery).\n\nThe people in the North had been led to believe that the problem was solved by the Southern acceptance of the Missouri Compromise, then they found they had been lied to and the problem began to get worse.
810301
The problem was referred to a committee of 11, there being 1 delegate from each State, to effect a compromise. On July 5 the committee submitted its report, which became the basis for the “Great Compromise" of the Convention.  I am not sure of the chairman, but it was based on a proposal by Roger Sherman
837752
Kansas entered statehood in 1861.  Kansas City, Mo was founded in 1821, the year Missouri became a state.
518158
In 1845 the remains of Boone and his wife were moved to Kentucky to rest in the great pioneer's "hunter's paradise." There is some controversy surrounding the final disposition of Boone's remains. Some say that Daniel and Rebecca are still in Missouri, and that the wrong remains were removed and re-buried. Others have demanded the return of the bodies to Missouri.\n\nSo it would be KY  or MO
84091
As President Grant said in his memoirs, the South stopped working for compromise when they could no longer command political dominance of the country. Back in the early 1980's, the Commerce Department put out a series of books on the economic history of the United States, which brought up many aspects of early US history that are now forgotten.\n\nAfter the revolution, when the country was a bankrupted swath of states along the Atlantic Ocean, there seemed no way the country could survive economically. Then, the industrialization of the American Northeast was financed in large part by hard currency achieved through the export of cotton and tobacco. These were the only resources the US had in large quantities that had a monopoly throughout the world, and this was of course produced exclusively in the South. The grains produced in the Northeast and later in the Midwest were largely barred from European markets because of the British Corn Laws and other agricultural protective measures across the world.\n\nYou must remember, this was before the advent of sectionalism, and many across the country gave their political loyalty to the Whig Party, which represented Business both large and small. As a result, the South would reap huge profits on cotton (which thus became an industry only for those rich and powerful enough to hold large amounts of land and large numbers of slaves) and then invest those profits in the North to build industry. This also gave the South a certain amount of extra influence in how things were done across the country.\n\nAs the North began to also grow rich because of its expanding industrial base, leaders in the North began to also throw their political and economic weight around. In the 1830's, Northern and Midwestern sections brought about a very protective tariff against foreign manufactured goods and European luxuries (hence the name Sectionalism).\n\nAs we have seen all throughout our history, when a domestic industry is protected by increasing the price of foreign competition, rather than using the protection to increase their market share and long term health, American business will simply increase their prices to maximize their short term profits. This was the case here as well. The leaders in the North, because they needed semi-skilled labor which is not condusive to slavery, started to fund the political movement to abolish slavery which, when gold was discovered in California and people had to travel through Missouri and actually see the way slaves were treated, became an uncontrollably emotional issue. The South found themselves now having to pay higher prices for goods they could not produce themselves, even though they had made those goods possible, and found their peculiar institution which was the basis of their own wealth attacked as being immoral.\n\nThe two sections of the country had found themselves growing farther apart, and the differences were becoming too stark for the Southern leaders to deal with. While they defended African slavery as moral and humanitarian, they lived in mortal fear of becoming slaves themselves. The Whig Party began to unravel, with those in the North going to the Republicans and the South going to the Democrats. With the very idea of slavery being called into question, the South demanded a concession in the Compromise of 1850 that they felt would force the whole country to recognize the institution of slavery, the Fugitive Slave Act. This completely backfired on the South, because now to the people in the North, slavery was no longer just some bad thing that was happening far far away that you could pretend was someone else's problem (like Darfur today). The new law now required Northern communities to arrest and hold captive black people in their local jails with their local police for no other reason than because someone in the South said the black person was a runaway slave (there was no hearing, and no evidence allowed other than the statement of
625165
I think so. It was definitely helped along by radicals on both sides but I don't think either the issue of slavery or that of whether or not states had a right to secede (A major point of debate and contention since the ratification of the Constitution), would ever have been resolved otherwise. It's unfortunate but sometimes that's just the way it is. In the end our country was much better off though.
205921
The Fugitive Slave Act was part of the Compromise of 1850 and said that if a slave from the south escaped to the north, the northern people would have to return it. People in the north didn't like this law (or slavery) so they often disobeyed it. It also caused the Underground Railroad to change its route to Canada so the escaping slaves wouldn't be returned.
427737
How who thought to solve problems during which conflicts?
716209
That is not what those two plans involved at all. The Virginia plan had two houses where representation was based on population and the New Jersey Plan had two houses with equal representation for each state. The Connecticut Compromise was that one house is based on population, the other equal.
904126
Minnesota admitted to the Union as the 32nd state in 1858\n\n(a five second search in Wikipedia yielded this information)
360174
Millard Fillmore\n\nDid You Know? \n\n\n• He signed the Compromise Measure of 1850, which included the Fugitive Slave Act.\n• He authorized Matthew C. Perry's trip to Japan, which helped open trade with Japan.\n• He ran again in 1856 on the Know-Nothing ticket.\n• He signed the Compromise of 1850 as an alternative to war, but it alienated both sides nonetheless. However, it did stave off war for 10 years.