Missouri Compromise
Legislative compromise between pro- and anti-slavery parties in the run-up to the American Civil War
Nº Q727854 ★★★
Rare · Literature
Missouri Compromise
Legislative compromise between pro- and anti-slavery parties in the run-up to the American Civil War
The Missouri Compromise (also known as the Compromise of 1820) was federal legislation of the United States that balanced the desires of northern states to prevent the expansion of slavery in the country with those of southern states to expand it. It admitted Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state and declared a policy of prohibiting slavery in the remaining Louisiana Purchase lands north of the 36°30′ parallel.
Last price
—
Floor price
—
7-day median
—
30-day sales
0
30-day range
—
In circulation
0
Price history
median
low – high
sales
No sales in this period
Show table
| Date | median | Low | High | sales |
|---|
Sales history
- Last sale
- —
- 30-day average
- —
- 30-day low
- —
- 30-day high
- —
- Sales 7d
- 0
- Sales 30d
- 0
No sales yet.
Anonymous sales: no buyer or seller shown. Figures count player-to-player sales only.
From Wikipedia
The Missouri Compromise (also known as the Compromise of 1820) was federal legislation of the United States that balanced the desires of northern states to prevent the expansion of slavery in the country with those of southern states to expand it. It admitted Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state and declared a policy of prohibiting slavery in the remaining Louisiana Purchase lands north of the 36°30′ parallel. The 16th United States Congress passed the legislation on March 3, 1820, and President James Monroe signed it on March 6, 1820. Earlier, in February 1819, Representative James Tallmadge Jr., a Democratic-Republican from New York, had submitted two amendments to Missouri's request for statehood that included restrictions on slavery. While the slave states earlier claimed federal protection for slavery, they now objected to any bill that imposed federal restrictions on slavery and claimed that it was a state issue, as settled by the Constitution. However, with the Senate evenly split at the opening of the debates, both sections possessing 11 states, the admission of Missouri as a slave state would give the South an advantage. Northern critics including Federalists and Democratic-Republicans objected to the expansion of slavery into the Louisiana Purchase territory on the Constitutional inequalities of the three-fifths rule, which conferred Southern representation in the federal government derived from a state's slave population. Northern Democratic-Republicans ardently maintained that a strict interpretation of the Constitution required that Congress act to limit the spread of slavery on egalitarian grounds. "[Northern] Republicans rooted their antislavery arguments, not on expediency, but in egalitarian morality." "The Constitution [said northern Democratic-Republicans], strictly interpreted, gave the sons of the founding generation the legal tools to hasten [the] removal [of slavery], including the refusal to admit additional slave states." When free-soil Maine offered its petition...
Text: Wikipédia, CC BY-SA 4.0. · Image: McConnell Map Co. (Public domain) ·