The question “what was agreed to in the Missouri Compromise” centers on a major congressional settlement over slavery and the admission of new states in 1820. The compromise permitted Missouri to be admitted as a slave state and Maine as a free state. Thismaintainedthe equality of the representation of free and slave states in the Senate. The compromise banned slavery in most of the rest of the Louisiana territory Purchase lands north of latitude 3630 north latitude.
The compromise neither resolved the fundamental conflict betweenpro-andanti-slavery advocates, but rather contained the dispute when westward expansion threatened to make the issue unsustainable for Congress.
The Missouri Compromise: What did Congress compromise-And what did it not. – Gilder Lehrman Institute.
Why Did the Missouri Compromise Become Necessary?
The whole stir started once Missouri tried to get the right to enter the Union. At that time, the U.S. Territory spread out rapidly on account of the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, and as residents started filling up communities across these regions, they aspired to be recognized as states.
A new state could impact elections, as every state is guaranteed a voice in the U.S.
Senate despite population differences. The big issue was that divided stances between “free” states where slavery was prohibited and “slave” states with a legalize of slavery existed, and bringing Missouri in as a slave state would imbalance what existed. Congress then wrestled with more than Missouri’s right to statehood: Do new regions have the same slavery as the nation? The debate became heated as Representative James Tallmadge Jr.
Suggested that slavery should be restricted as a term of Missouri’s accession before the solution took form.
What Was Agreed to in the Missouri Compromise?
The settlement is easiest to understand as several connected decisions rather than a single simple rule.
1. Missouri Would Enter the Union as a Slave State
Part one was Missouri being admitted as a slave state. The argument over the new state’s admission came to a resolution and Congress admitted Missouri as a slave state, denying the compromise for restriction of the new state being free slavery not allowed. This was a major issue because Missouri was west of the Mississippi River and this brought up a debate whether or not there would be slaves in the newly added west territories.
According to the National Archives, the admittance of Missouri as a slave state was one of the more integral points of the Missouri Compromise of 1820.
Missouri as a slave state was seen as a move in the direction of those who opposed federal regulation.
2. Maine Would Enter as a Free State
The second major part was the admission of Maine as a free state.
Maine had previously been part of Massachusetts and was seeking admission as a separate state. Congress linked Maine’s admission with the Missouri question, creating a political balance between the two admissions.
The result was straightforward:
Missouri → slave state
Maine → free state
This combination was to balance the sides and neither side would be able to make a quick push in the Senate. The Library of Congress points out that balancing free and slave states was the goal of the Compromise. Also, the U.S. Senate points out that the two sections balance.
3. Slavery Would Be Prohibited North of 36°30′ in the Remaining Louisiana Purchase Territory
A Third major provision created a spatial limitation. Slavery was banned by Congress in the Louisiana Purchase territory north of 3630 north latitude (Missouri is the important exception; it was allowed into the Union as a slave state as part of this compromise.) This line became known as the Missouri Compromise line.
- North of 36°30′: slavery was prohibited in the covered territory.
- South of 36°30′: the compromise did not prohibit slavery.
The line was, then, a spatial formula with regard to westward slavery. Of course, the clause should not be caricatured as simply saying that slavery was automatically legal throughout the south of the line; the compromise forbade the expansion to the north of the line, it did not guarantee for slavery wherever to the south of the line.
4. Missouri Was an Exception to the Geographic Restriction
A common misunderstanding is that the 36°30′ line simply divided Missouri.
It did not.
This was an actual law in which the US Congress designated that Missouri would be admitted to the US as a slave state, but explicitly forbade the establishment of slavery in the territory from the Louisiana Purchase north of the 3630 line. The 3630 prohibition was part of the original legislation as part of the admission of Missouri to be the 24th state state as part of the so called Missouri Compromise. While the restriction applied to a part of the Louisiana Purchase territory and not the entire area, the prohibition clearly prevented slavery in that area.
5. The Compromise Preserved the Political Balance Between Free and Slave States
The Missouri Compromise was also a political arrangement designed to preserve sectional balance.
At this time the Senate was a particularly key chamber, since both states received the same amount of senatorial representation. If one group obtained a large amount of the states they could use it to great gain in national legislation.
The admission of Missouri and Maine in the same packet prevented the balance from being altered. This balance was said by the US Senate as “one of the main reasons this compromise was important.”
This also demonstrates an essential element of early 19th Century American politics: slavery wasn’t only a moral and social issue. It was also a constitutional, territorial, economic and political issue that centered upon the dispersal of power in a federal government.
Why Was the Missouri Compromise So Controversial?
The controversy was not simply about where to draw a line.
At a deeper level, members of Congress disagreed about whether the federal government had authority to restrict slavery in territories and under what conditions Congress could regulate the admission of new states.
Northern representatives increasingly sought ways to prevent slavery from expanding into western territories. Southern representatives viewed restrictions on slavery’s expansion as a threat to the political and economic position of slaveholding states.
The dispute surrounding Missouri therefore exposed a growing sectional divide.
The U.S. Senate’s historical account notes that the Missouri controversy involved more than slavery alone, with disagreements also connected to industrial development, trade, tariffs, and broader sectional interests.
The slavery question, however, became the most explosive part of the debate.
How Was the Missouri Compromise Passed?
The legislation emerged after months of difficult congressional negotiations.
Available through Congressional records, the House and Senate first disagreed about Missouri’s admission or the imposition of limitations against slavery associated with Missouri’s admittance. Eventually, the Senate considered the Maine and Missouri petitions as one, combined these pieces as well as considered the slavery restriction of the territory associated with the 36 30 line. Ultimately, after the House voted down the Senate model, a House-Senate conference committee fashioned the comprise which Congress later agreed.
The final legislation was approved by Congress in March 1820, and President James Monroe signed the Missouri Compromise on March 6, 1820.
The process demonstrates why the term “compromise” is appropriate. Neither sectional position won everything it wanted.
Those seeking Missouri as a slave state received Missouri’s admission without a slavery prohibition. Those seeking to limit slavery’s expansion received the geographic restriction north of 36°30′ and the admission of Maine as a free state.
What Did the Missouri Compromise Accomplish?
The immediate achievement was political stability.
Instead of allowing the Missouri statehood dispute to produce an indefinite congressional deadlock, lawmakers reached a settlement that allowed the admission process to proceed.
The compromise also established a temporary framework for handling the expansion of slavery.
For several decades, the 36°30′ line became an important reference point in national political debates about slavery and territorial expansion. The arrangement remained in effect until the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 effectively repealed the territorial restriction.
This longevity is significant. The compromise did not merely solve one congressional vote; it became part of the political system through which Americans debated the expansion of slavery for decades.
What Were the Limitations of the Compromise?
The biggest limitation was that it managed the conflict without resolving its underlying cause.
The compromise did not answer the fundamental question of American history and slavery or whether it should be allowed to expand into new territories.
Instead, it established a political boundary.
That distinction became increasingly important as the United States acquired additional territory.
When the country expanded after the Mexican-American War, the old geographic formula became harder to apply. New territories did not fit neatly into the political assumptions behind the 1820 agreement.
The U.S. Senate’s historical account notes that territorial expansion after the Mexican War renewed the dispute over slavery and contributed to the sectional conflicts of the 1850s.
In other words, the compromise postponed a conflict that continued to evolve.
Missouri Compromise vs. Compromise of 1850
These two agreements are sometimes confused because both attempted to reduce sectional conflict over slavery.
They were different, however.
| Missouri Compromise | Compromise of 1850 |
| Passed in 1820 | Passed in 1850 |
| Centered heavily on Missouri’s admission and territorial slavery | Addressed disputes arising from territory acquired after the Mexican-American War |
| Admitted Missouri as a slave state | Created a package of measures concerning several territories and states |
| Admitted Maine as a free state | Included California’s admission as a free state |
| Established the 36°30′ territorial restriction | Did not simply extend the Missouri line across the new territories |
The two settlements illustrate how Congress repeatedly attempted to use compromise to contain sectional disagreements.
What Happened to the Missouri Compromise Later?
The agreement eventually lost its legal and political force.
In 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act damaged and effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise restriction on slavery in the territories. This legislation employed the idea of popular sovereignty, which gave citizens of the new territories the right to decide whether to allow slavery.
The repeal would prove extremely significant politically, because it reopened the slavery question in territories where it had previously been deemed excluded by the Missouri Compromise. The ensuing clashes in Kansas are arguably one of the most visible instances of the growing section crisis in America. Three years later, the Supreme Court would rule on the Missouri Compromise itself in Dred Scott v. Sandford.
The court ruled that Congress had no power to restrict the existence of slavery in the territories and was thus invalid in its restriction of it in Missouri. Its repeal and subsequent Supreme Court battle would not diminish its historical impact at all-quite the opposite.
Why Is the Missouri Compromise Important in U.S. History?
Why the Missouri Compromise is so significant: It highlights a legislative effort by the United States to solve an increasingly problematical conflict. It temporarily maintained the parity in free and slave states. It imposed a territorial constraint on slavery’s proliferation and defined statehood for both Missouri and Maine as distinct.
It reaffirmed that Congress could continue to reach bi-partisan or sectional compromises even with massive disagreement.
However, part of the significance of the compromise also lies in its inherent flaws. Treating the territoriality of the slavery issue as a political problem that can be managed by state admissions and boundaries seemed to only postpone inevitable conflict. The subsequent period after the Missouri Compromise, according to historical materials housed in the Senate, is characterized by rising sectionalism that would eventually lead to pre-war crisis. Thus, the Missouri Compromise can serve as both a successful political accommodation and ultimately, a failure to resolve the underlying dilemma of slavery.
Common Misunderstandings About the Missouri Compromise
It did not abolish slavery.
The Missouri Compromise did not end slavery in the United States. It permitted Missouri to enter as a slave state and regulated slavery’s expansion in specified federal territory.
It did not divide the entire United States into free and slave zones.
The 36°30′ provision applied to specified territory from the Louisiana Purchase, rather than creating a permanent national division in which every state north of the line had to be free and every state south of it had to permit slavery.
It did not permanently settle the slavery question.
The arrangement lasted for decades but was eventually undermined by the Kansas-Nebraska Act and declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Dred Scott.
Maine and Missouri were deliberately paired.
Their simultaneous admission was central to preserving the political balance between free and slave states.
The Broader Historical Meaning
The most useful way to understand the Missouri Compromise is to see it as an attempt to control the political consequences of territorial expansion.
The United States was growing, but every new territory raised a difficult question: Would slavery expand with the nation?
Congress answered that question in 1820 through a combination of state admissions and a territorial boundary.
That solution worked temporarily because it addressed several political interests at the same time. Missouri entered as a slave state, Maine entered as a free state, and slavery was prohibited in much of the remaining Louisiana Purchase territory north of 36°30′.
But the compromise could not eliminate the fundamental disagreement between those who wanted slavery to remain protected or expand and those who wanted its expansion restricted.
As western expansion continued, the old settlement became increasingly difficult to maintain.
Conclusion
So, what was agreed to in the Missouri Compromise? Congress agreed to admit Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state, helping preserve the balance between free and slave states. It also prohibited slavery in the remaining Louisiana Purchase territory north of 36°30′ north latitude, with Missouri excluded from that territorial restriction.
A Necessary Temporary Measure The compromise represented an important temporary settlement of a burgeoning section crisis. It satisfied an urgent political necessity by saving the Congress from immediate disaster over Missouri and it established a principle of spatial settlement of the slavery question. It does not, however, serve as an effective compromise on the underlying question of slavery itself.
Later, the Kansas-Nebraska bill would repeal the line, and the Supreme Court subsequently voided the compromise with Dred Scott.
But the Missouri Compromise matters less for having fixed a lasting solution and more for demonstrating the intensity of sectional disputes and the limited effectiveness of political agreements when confronted with the full force of those conflicts.
FAQs
1. What were the three main parts of the Missouri Compromise?
The main provisions were the admission of Missouri as a slave state, the admission of Maine as a free state, and the prohibition of slavery in most of the remaining Louisiana Purchase territory north of 36°30′ north latitude.
2. Why was Maine included in the Missouri Compromise?
Maine was admitted as a free state alongside Missouri, which entered as a slave state. Pairing the two helped preserve the political balance between free and slave states in the Senate.
3. What was the 36°30′ line?
It was a line of latitude established by the Missouri Compromise. Slavery was prohibited in the covered Louisiana Purchase territory north of 36°30′, except for Missouri itself.
4. Did the Missouri Compromise end slavery?
No. It regulated slavery’s expansion in certain territories but did not abolish slavery. Missouri was admitted as a slave state under the compromise.
5. How long did the Missouri Compromise last?
Its territorial slavery restriction remained in effect for about 34 years before the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 repealed it.
6. Why did the Missouri Compromise fail?
It could temporarily manage the political dispute but could not resolve the fundamental conflict over slavery and its expansion. Later territorial expansion reopened the issue, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act directly undermined the compromise.
7. What was the Missouri Compromise’s long-term significance?
It temporarily preserved sectional political balance and created a framework for regulating slavery’s expansion. Its later repeal and constitutional controversy demonstrated how deeply the slavery question had become embedded in American politics.
