missouri compromise :: essays research papers

The forefathers of our country had some(prenominal) ideals on the inherent inalienable rights of man, although this did not hold true for all in all peoples. Our country practiced buckle downry of the African. The agricultural economy of the southwestern necessary the labor of slaves to complete their work. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 outlawed thraldom of the true territory of the United States, but after the purchase of the Louisiana territory and the settlement to come, the question of slavery was once once again forced into the governmental arena of our country.1 The bit Compromise would be an effort to once again silence this issue. The articulate speeches of the 16th congress both north and south showed the strong positions held by each side. The defense of slavery in the 1790 1820 blockage may be characterized generally as being in a affirm quiescence, only occasionally roused from a passive condition to mystify articulate. On the other hand, the idea of sla very in the North was notwithstanding beginning to become formulated, and many northerners were beginning to see slavery as a threat to their institution of government. Thomas Jefferson, a proponent of the indwelling rights theory, stated that slavery was a cruel war against human disposition itself violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in persons of a aloof land.2 While the attitudes of northerners and southerners was not completely one for slavery, and on against, the events of the atomic number 42 debates would bring our country into a new era of a broadening schism between North and South with slavery as the chief(prenominal) cause. Never before had the South so vigorously defended slavery against the approach of northern offense.When the bill was first proposed in 1819 the number of redundant and slave states was equal at 11. When the debate got underway, Taylor and Tallmadge stated the argument strongly for the restricitonists, and Scott, seconds territ orial delegate, for the right of unqualified admission. Upon such a controversy, Missouris favor was already maintaing slavery in its border and the existence warranted statehood. By the compromise of 1787 Missouri would have become a free state because of the majority being North of the Ohio River. Slaveholders, however, were determined to bring slavery into Missouri, and a substantial number of slaveholders settled in Missouri.3 The proponents of the Missouri add-in argued that congress had no right to interfere with the construction of a state constitution except that it be Republican in form.