whats the significance of the missouri compromise?
831608
The Missouri Compromise, also called the Compromise of 1820, was an agreement passed in 1820 between the pro-slavery and anti-slavery factions in the United States, involving primarily the regulation of slavery in the western territories. It prohibited slavery for all new states north of the 36°30' line, or the border of the Arkansas territory (excluding Missouri). Prior to the agreement, the House of Representatives had refused to accept this boundary and a conference committee was appointed. The United States Senate refused to concur in the amendment, and the whole measure was lost. During the following session (1819-1820), the House passed a similar bill with an amendment introduced on January 26, 1820 by John W. Taylor of New York allowing Missouri into the union as a slave state. In the meantime, the question had been complicated by the admission in December of Alabama, a slave state (the number of slave and free states now becoming equal), and by the passage through the House (January 3, 1820) of a bill to admit Maine as a free state.
233566
In short, because anything of significance required unanimous agreement, it was becoming unwieldy to act as a general government.  Two areas where this stood out.  One was acting as the singular contact with foreign sovereignties.  The other was in collecting funds from the States to pay for the general government.
229436
The Kansas–Nebraska Act was a United States Act of Congress passed on January 23, 1854, organizing a territorial government for the lands that later became the states of Kansas and Nebraska. Opponents saw it as the triumph of the Slave Power and formed the new Republican Party to defeat it. The Act was a key step on the way to the American Civil War.\n\nThe availability of tens of millions of acres of excellent farm land made it necessary to create a territorial infrastructure to allow settlement. Railroad interests were especially eager to start operations, for they needed farmers as customers. Four previous attempts to pass legislation had failed. The solution was a bill proposed, in January 1854, by Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois. He was the Democratic party leader in the Senate, the chairman of the Committee on Territories, an avid promoter of railroads, an aspirant to the presidency, and, above all, a fervent believer in popular sovereignty or grass roots democracy. His slogan was "Let the People Rule," which in this case meant the decision on having slavery would be made by the residents themselves. His bill caused a firestorm of protest because it was a rejection of the 1820 Missouri Compromise and might allow the expansion of slavery into Kansas, where it had been forbidden. Even before the bill passed, a new grass roots opposition party was being organized in every northern state, the Republican Party. Northern Democrats, Southerners, and President Franklin Pierce supported the bill. Douglas used brilliant parliamentary maneuvers to get the bill passed on May 30, 1854. It was signed into law by Pierce; he was a "doughface" or northerner whose political support came mostly from the South. In effect, there were now three political positions in American politics, represented by Northern Democrats (led by Douglas), the Northern Republicans, and the Southern Democrats. In 1860, they would each run a candidate for president.\n\nThe act divided the region into the Kansas Territory (south of the 40th parallel) and the Nebraska Territory (north of the 40th parallel). The most controversial provision was the stipulation that each territory would separately decide whether to allow slavery within its borders. This provision repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had prohibited slavery in any new states to be created north of latitude 36°30' since Kansas and Nebraska would be north of that line and could now choose to allow slavery.
177811
the Compromise of 1877 was an imaginary line to seperate the free states and the slave states during the civil war.
781395
Tenn was the last state to secede.\nVP for Abe Lincoln was a Tennessee man, Andrew Johnson.\n\nTenn was also the first to rejoin the Union.
312821
It is to briefly explain what Americans were fighting for and what they expected in the shaping of a better America, so that issues concerning everything around us, could be properly managed for "WE the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union and establish justice to ensure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our prosperity do ordain  to establish this Constitution for the United States of America.\nEach of the points stated in the preamble signfy what we as Americans stand for and believe in.
4490
Visit the website. You can get a sense what the school in general believes in what events they put on and if the school has a newspaper read it. This is all in order to get a general sense. I would also plan a trip there, find some students talk to them.\n\nhttp://www.missouri.edu/
600738
Its where the states got to chose if they wanted to be a slave state or a free state. I'm studing the SAME THING!!! Good luck!! =)
186202
The Connecticut Compromise of 1787 in the United States, later known as the Great Compromise, was struck in the creation of legislative bodies. It joined the Virginia Plan, which favored representation based on population, and the New Jersey plan, which featured each state being equal. Roger Sherman, from Connecticut, played a large role in constructing the compromise.
23933
During the 1850s, the compromise over land had made the country divided. Not only was it due to slavery, it was the lack of state's rights (that differ from the federal government). President Andrew Jackson even argued with his Vice President that states do not have any reason to disband from the country and its rules after the states have signed the ultimate contract, the Declaration of Independence. The secession of South Carolina demonstrated the frustrations of state's rights and slavery disputes.\n\nIf you need to cite any failed compromises, the biggest one that could be used would be the Missouri Compromise. It was eventually considered as a failure once Dred-Scott jurisdiction contested with it.
921875
Compromising is EXTREMELY important.  Two people are never going to agree on everything.  Just remember if you compromise, and do something you don't want to do, he/she may do the same for you.
56142
It's a great book, one which inspired the American Revolution (repudiated the Divine right of kings to rule without consent of the governed).\n\nAlso, to do good with all one's wisdom and strength is the highest religion.  And the doctrine of a savior is unjust: no honest man can accept another's dying for him.\n\nThese were (and are) revolutionary concepts which helped change the history of our early republic.
218572
This is going to be just a quick summary...\nFor the most part, it was not all about slavery. The states North of the Mason-Dixon line were content with slavery in the South...the problem was the "Westward Expansion." The North wanted the new states to be free from slavery, whereas the South wanted those states to be open to slavery. There were a few compromises made years before the actual war began, however, those obviously did not work. On December 20, 1860, South Carolina announced it's leave from the Union...Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas followed. \nOn February 4th, 1861, the Confederate States of America was formed with Jefferson Davis as the president. A new constitution was drawn up. Key differences were:\n*The president and vice president were elected for six year terms whereas the North had only four years. \n*The protection of slavery in new territories was given. \n*No slave trade with Africa\n*President Davis could take a loan for $15 million for the creation of a military force of 100,000. \nPresident Davis was inaugurated February 18, 1861. \n\nPresident Lincoln for the Union said, "Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face and face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after seperation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends?Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old quesetions as to terms of intercourse are again upon you. In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to 'preserve, protect, and defend' it..." (Page 8)\nThe first shots of the Civil War were fired on April 12th, 1861 at Ft. Sumter, South Carolina. The fight lasted for thirty-four hours, and ended by the North surrendering. The war continued until April of 1865. \nAfter it was all said and done, most of the South was destroyed and the loss of lives on both ends, are up to this day, only an estimate (over 100,000). It is said, the number of Yanks and Rebels who died are greater than the loss of American lives in both World Wars, the Korean War, and the Vietiman War...all combined.\n\nI hope this has been helpful to you. Here are some other books to check out if you are really interested in the Civil War:\n-"After the Civil War" by John S. Blay\n-"The Life of Johnny Reb" by Bell I. Wiley\n-"The Life of Billy Yank" by Bell I. Wiley\n-"Embattled Courage" by Gerald F. Linderman\n-"The Civil War: Strange & Fascinating Facts" by Burke Davis
437119
The Union Reconstructed\n\nThe United States in April 1865, a time of crisis\n\n—Union faced a const. Crisis—what to do with 11 former confed. States?\n\nLincoln’s position—they were “out of their proper relation” with the US\n\nLincoln opponents maintained they were now conquered provinces.\n\n—Executive branch had assumed broad powers during the war.\n\n—Politically, Republicans supreme.\n\n—Opposition virtually nonexistent.\n\nPost-war economics\n\n—stark contrast between north and south.\n\n--South in ruins, physically and economically. plantations\nNational Reconstruction Politics\n\nPresidential Reconstruction\n\n5/29/1865 Johnson outlines two Reconstruction policies. Based on idea the South had never left the Union.\n1) Swear allegiance to the Const. And the Union. Would get amnesty and pardon and propertyrights back.\n\n2) Next proc. Set up way in which state govts. Could be reestablished. First, pres. Appointed a loyal governor. Then a state convention called of persons loyal to the union. Must ratify 13th amend. Void secession, repudiate confederate debt, elect new officials to congress.\nProblem-southern states send former confederates to congress.\n\nCongressional Reconstruction:\n—Split develops between C. and Pres.\n—14th Amendment\nWhy did Congress Amend the Constitution?\nSouthern attempts to regain economic and civil control\nBlack codes\nRacism, alive and well in north and south.\nCongressional Reconstruction Triumphant\n--at the end of the day it was clear president’s plan not working.\n1867---Congress outlines plan\nThe President Impeached\n—Congress restricted the presidents powers by passing the Tenure of Office Act\nBuilding an African-American community\n--FAMILY\n--Reunion\n--Privacy\n--SEPARATE CHURCHES\n--POLITICS\nEmancipation and the Nation\n1. Expanded Rights\n--1866 Civil Rights Act\n--14th Amendment, 1866\n2. Expanded Govt Power\n--Federal Level\n--Freedmen's Bureau\n--State level\nE. Retreat from Reform\n1. Southern Causes\n--Racial Violence\n--"Redemption"\n2. Northern Causes\n--Supreme Court\n--Panic of 1873\n--Election of 1876/Compromise of 1877
985942
The Connecticut Compromise of 1787 in the United States, also known as the Great Compromise, was struck in the creation of legislative bodies. It joined the Virginia Plan, which favored representation based on population, and the New Jersey Plan, which featured each state being equal. Roger Sherman, from Connecticut, played a large role in constructing the compromise
183020
bill that became law on May 30, 1854, by which the U.S. Congress established the territories of Kansas and Nebraska. By 1854 the organization of the vast Platte and Kansas river countries W of Iowa and Missouri was overdue. As an isolated issue territorial organization of this area was no problem. It was, however, irrevocably bound to the bitter sectional controversy over the extension of slavery into the territories and was further complicated by conflict over the location of the projected transcontinental railroad. Under no circumstances did proslavery Congressmen want a free territory (Kansas) W of Missouri. Because the West was expanding rapidly, territorial organization, despite these difficulties, could no longer be postponed. Four attempts to organize a single territory for this area had already been defeated in Congress, largely because of Southern opposition to the Missouri Compromise. Although the last of these attempts to organize the area had nearly been successful, Stephen A. Douglas, chairman of the Senate Committee on Territories, decided to offer territorial legislation making concessions to the South. Douglas's motives have remained largely a matter of speculation. Various historians have emphasized Douglas's desire for the Presidency, his wish to cement the bonds of the Democratic party, his interest in expansion and railroad building, or his desire to activate the unimpressive Pierce administration. The bill he reported in Jan., 1854, contained the provision that the question of slavery should be left to the decision of the territorial settlers themselves. This was the famous principle that Douglas now called popular sovereignty, though actually it had been enunciated four years earlier in the Compromise of 1850. In its final form Douglas's bill provided for the creation of two new territories—Kansas and Nebraska—instead of one. The obvious inference—at least to Missourians—was that the first would be slave, the second free. The Kansas-Nebraska Act flatly contradicted the provisions of the Missouri Compromise (under which slavery would have been barred from both territories); indeed, an amendment was added specifically repealing that compromise. This aspect of the bill in particular enraged the antislavery forces, but after three months of bitter debate in Congress, Douglas, backed by President Pierce and the Southerners, saw it adopted. Its effects were anything but reassuring to those who had hoped for a peaceful solution. The popular sovereignty provision caused both proslavery and antislavery forces to marshal strength and exert full pressure to determine the “popular” decision in Kansas in their own favor, using groups such as the Emigrant Aid Company. The result was the tragedy of “bleeding” Kansas. Northerners and Southerners were aroused to such passions that sectional division reached a point that precluded reconciliation. A new political organization, the Republican party, was founded by opponents of the bill, and the United States was propelled toward the Civil War
138020
I have a good website that you can go to!\n\nhttp://dig.lib.niu.edu/twain/politics.html\n\nHope that helps you at least a little bit!