“The boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave.” - Thomas Jefferson
The retired Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to his friend Marquis de Lafayette in 1820 as an attempt to justify spreading human slavery across America. Lafayette had identified the hypocrisy of slavery in the United States since the American Revolution. Jefferson argues that spreading human slavery "thinly" across the West would "dilute" the institution's power and lead to the end of slavery in America.
This issue of course came up in 1820 when the territory of Missouri attempted to enter as a state. Many believed that its position on slavery would set a precedent for all new states in the West.
Looking at the Missouri Compromise that was created by Henry Clay, would you say that the pro-human slavery factions won or did the 36' 30' line set a precedent that gave the anti-slavery factions a victory.
If you feel that no one has won, share why.
As is our practice write your answer into the comments section, and reply to the the comments of at least two other classmates
Sakari Jackson
ReplyDeleteAt this point, I don't believe either side has won- it's more of a stalemate, as neither side has reached their preferred point. The South can't increase slavery through purchase, but generations are still passing and slaves are still having children, so Jefferson's idea of diluting slavery did not work. BUt the 36 30 N line did allow slavery to stop completely in the North, and later on, the Northwest. It prolonged the inevitable Civil War, or even caused it as tension rose. But if I had to pick a side, I'd say that the future was definitely leaning to the anti-slavery sentiment winning over all, if not for moral reasons then for economic ones.
I also agree that this was not enough to end human slavery and that this was not a full win for either side.
DeleteI agree that it is a stalemate, but I think that it is not a complete stalemate, and that the pro slavery side came out better.
DeleteI agree; although it can be argued to tilt different ways, neither side truly came out victorious. I appreciated how you looked at this on the level of how this affected slavery as a whole in the United States rather than from a political perspective. My answer was primarily focused on it from a political view of faction power, so I'm glad I got to read your response and think about it in a different way.
DeleteI agree, and I think that your idea of a "stalemate" is very interesting.
DeleteI agree that it wasn't a complete victory and that it was indeed a stalemate.
DeleteI agree, it was definitely not a win for anyone but a stalemate
DeleteI also agree, it led to a precedent of a stalemate, this would lead to a almost a century of neither the north and south completely winning.
DeleteI agree, that both sides didn't really walk away with what they wanted. Your term "stalemate" was a good was to describe the situation.
DeleteI believe that the 36' 30' line did allow the anti-slavery factions to have more of a win, but not completely. This line did set a precedent about the importance of slavery and gave a huge plot of land that could be admitted to statehood that would not be states that allowed slavery. However, if Missouri had been allowed into the country without this compromise and the 36' 30' line, the anti-slavery factions would have experienced a massive win. The power would have shifted and the anti-slave states would be able to vote out slavery. By requiring this compromise, it shows that the pro-slavery factions still have a very big influence in the US during the early 1800s.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this completely. The pro slavery faction came out a little bit better.
DeleteI agree, the 36' 30' line was definitely a victory for anti-slavery factions.
DeleteI agree, I also said that anti-slavery got a slight edge, but slavery was nowhere near its end and it still had a massive influence.
DeleteI believe that neither side got a victory. Neither of them ended up getting what they truly wanted. I do believe that the pro slavery side of things came out of the deal happier though, compared to the anti slavery faction.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Both sides are polar opposites with their beliefs, to a level where no side would let the other win without a fight.
DeleteEthan Lader
Yes I agree, it was truly a compromise.
DeleteI agree, but overall, the anti slavery states won because they effectively prevented the slave states from outnumbering them.
DeleteI agree. Even though the compromise sort of benefits the anti-slavery side of the nation, it's not broad enough to be decisively called a win for them.
DeleteI think that the anti slavery factions won in the longterm, because they both maintained the current balance and secured a future in which new states would be free states. This first part prevented immediate conflict and resolved the tension between the North and the South in exchange for continuing the current balance a little longer. The second part provided for a future in which the balance would be shifted to the anti slavery faction as new states above the 36' 30' line join the United States of America as free states. Even though the Southerners won a small victory in making Missouri a slave state, I don't think it compares to what the anti slavery faction accomplished in the Missouri Compromise.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Given the deep divide where no side will forfeit what they already hold, no one will win until one side gets everything.
DeleteEthan Lader
I agree, it prevented the increase in the number of slave states, to where they would outnumber the free states. This ensure that the slave states cant overpower the free ones, resulting in all states becoming slave states
DeleteI agree with a lot of this, but I disagree that it resolved tension between the north and south. I think it pushed down immediate conflict and made tension grow, which eventually resulted in a war.
DeleteI agree, the 36' 30' line was very good for anti slavery in the longterm.
DeleteI personally believe that no side has one. Abolitionists in the North have a goal of ending all slavery, rather than only in specific areas, while White Southerners, along with pro-slavery citizens in the North will not be satisfied unless slavery is legal across the country. Due to that deep divide, a compromise for whether to introduce slavery into new states doesn't solve an issue that will not be solved until one side takes all.
ReplyDeleteEthan Lader
I agree, this a clear sign of the deep division between the North and the South. Although the Missouri Compromise helped de-escalate tension in the short term, it did not solve the deeper issue. It will arguably take a Civil War to do that.
DeleteI agree, neither side has won, but one can consider the Missouri Compromise as an individual victory for the north.
DeleteI believe it was a victory for the anti slavery factions, as it established a specific border to were slavery can take place, therefore limiting slavery. Without it it is likely slavery could have been prominent in the west and parts of the north east. It was kind of like trapping it in a jar to prevent it from spreading.
ReplyDeleteYes, agreed. Even though the precedent was set that northern states are anti-slavery, there was never a legal or binding contract that made slavery in the northern areas illegal. The Missouri Compromise did what nothing had ever done before: put a physical boundary of slavery.
DeleteI respectfully disagree, I think that the anti slavery factions didn't win as their goal was to abolish slavery, not limit it. This just prolonged slavery within America, which I don't think is really a win for the anti slavery factions.
DeleteI think the Missouri Compromise was more of a victory for the free states. Even though Missouri was added as a slave state, the 36, 30 parallel was established, meaning that a lot of western territory (which was the area that was expanding at the time) had to be free states. Even though there was a lot of area to the south (below the 36, 30 parallel) that America could absorb, such as Central and South America, and make slave states, that wasn't very realistic. Mexico won its independence in 1810, which I would assume would set the precedent that the areas south of the United States were untouchable. Even if not, the nation didn't have the resources to start a whole new conquest of a whole new continent with inhabitants (indigenous and European.) For these reasons, I think the Missouri Compromise was a win for the free states, but I can also see how it can be viewed as a win for either side, as each side ended up gaining a state in the end.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea that it might have been a stretch for America to conquer more land to the south. I also think that there were other ways that the Missouri Compromise helped slavery last for longer.
DeleteI agree with what you said. The anti-slavery states did seem to get the better end of the stick, but it is only slightly better.
DeleteI find it very interesting on why you think it was a victory for the free states.
DeleteI don't think either side fully won, but I think it might have benefitted slave states more. The compromise prevented slavery from spreading further north, but it also encouraged slavery to spread west. It also maintained the balance between slave and free states, which prevented slavery from being officially banned by the federal government. Overall, it postponed the decision of whether America was going to support slavery or freedom, which allowed slavery to last longer and allowed tension about slaver in the U.S. to rise, which led to the civil war.
ReplyDeleteI agree- I think that rather than accomplishing something big for either side, the Compromise maintained the balance with a line that was already pretty much there, even if it wasn't drawn.
DeleteI believe that the 36' 30' line was a victory for the anti-slavery factions because although the territory of Missouri was originally labeled as a slave state, it heavily limited the power and reach to where slavery could take place, and made it much more likely that there be no slavery in future westward territories.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if it could be classified as a victory simply because it didn't fully reach the goals of the northern side.
DeleteAgreed. Slavery's expansion was effectively handicapped by this compromise.
DeleteI think the compromise of the 36' 30' line benefitted the anti-slavery factions in the United States government more than the pro-slavery factions. At the time, there was no America-owned territory that could feasibly enter the Union as a state, meaning that all "possible states" would have been anti-slavery if they were admitted. However, the Compromise didn't achieve either side's end goal (ending slavery and keeping slavery alive, respectively), meaning that the law can't really be touted as a victory for either side.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree completely. It wasn't by any means a victory but it did benefit the north more.
Deletei think that the 36' 30' line benefitted anti-slavery factions because it stopped slavery from spreading further in the us. Although it didn't end slavery, it did out a sort of "cap" on it and made the slave states weaker as they didn't have any extra new states too add.
ReplyDeleteI sort of don't agree since the slave states could have just added more of them to the west if the US bought them.
DeleteI agree, the 36' 30' line kept slavery's expansion in check.
DeleteI personally think that the 36' 30' line benefited the pro slavery factions because some states above it, such as Kentucky, Missouri and Virginia remained slave states even though they were north of the line. The reason this line was created was to "balance" out the amount of slave and non slave states, and Missouri was admitted as a slave state in order for Maine to be admitted as a non slave state. Missouri was a state that could have been a non slave state if the slaveowners didn't push for it to be a slave state, which could have effects even to this day.
ReplyDeleteNeither side has won, yet. The south has been given free range to expand slavery, and has been given Missouri. The north meanwhile, has managed to get legislation through that has permanently restricted the expansion of slavery in the United States. Both sides made concessions and both sides were given promises.
ReplyDeleteI agree. The compromise doesn't favor one side. It kind of promotes a stalemate between the two sides.
DeleteI agree. It's hard to say that either side "won," since they both had to make substantial sacrifices in their cause.
Deletei would agree, but try considering what ended up working out years later
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that neither side has won. Both of them didn't get what they desired, and they also didn't fully achieve their goal. However, the anti-slavery factions did seem to get more benefits from this in the long term. The north were granted western territory, that they would obviously make non-slavery land, while the South just got Missouri, which is still very important. The compromise ended up promoting both the expansion and the prevention of slavery.
ReplyDeletei agree, maybe neither gained a end goal, but in the long run maybe one did ending up succeeding more than the other
DeleteI think that neither of the sides gained a victory. It seemed like allowing both states to enter the Union as whatever they wanted was just a way to get it out of the way. While there was fighting between each side, they both ended with what they wanted. It became a compromise, which almost makes me think it was a win for the pro-slavery because they were taking away from tipping the balance for the anti-slavery.
ReplyDeleteThe Compromise wasn't a decisive win for either side. I think both sides agreed to it because the US was expanding, and they saw potential to become the dominant side if more states above or below the 36'30' line were added. Neither the pro-slavery nor the anti-slavery gained much from the Compromise, because neither was given enough territory or control to overpower the other side.
ReplyDeleteI agree because I think the compromise was really made to ease tensions for a few more years rather than solve the root of the problem
DeleteI feel that the anti slavery won on the grounds that the two of them kept up the current equilibrium and got a future wherein new states would be free states. This initial segment forestalled prompt clash and settled the strain between the North and the South in return for proceeding with the current equilibrium somewhat more. The subsequent part accommodated a future in which the equilibrium would be moved to the abolitionist servitude group as new states over the 36' 30' line join the United States of America as free states. Despite the fact that the Southerners won a little triumph in making Missouri a slave state, I don't think it looks at to what the abolitionist servitude group achieved in the Missouri Compromise
ReplyDeleteOverall I agree with your sentiments on how in the end, the anti-slavery group won in the long run. However, I do think that in the short term, although the compromise helped to quell the tensions for the short term, the victory for the anti-slavery groups did not happen until a very long time, over the course of a few decades and a civil war between the two sides.
DeleteI believe that no one won in the compromise, and I think the 36' 30' line was really something to ease the tension for a few more years. As Americans continued moving west, the question of slavery would continue to be asked. In retrospect, no one won this compromise, and even in 1820, no one was given land that truly overpowered the other side.
ReplyDeleteI agree! They were definitely just trying to ease tension, but it only made the question of whether to keep slavery more public.
DeleteI think that the anti-slavery side had more of a win, but not completely. The north were granted western territory, that they would obviously make non-slavery land, while the South just got Missouri. Slavery wasn't allowed to spread with this deal and it was in a way contained. However, pro-slavery groups still had a very big influence, and were nowhere near quelled by this deal.
ReplyDeleteI agree. It was a very short term solution.
DeleteI agree, it was a compromise but the anti-slavery side had more of a victory.
DeleteI would say it had mixed results. The 36'30' line showed that slavery could successfully be banned in new areas, and along with Maine being a free state, was a win for anti-slavery factions. That being said, the fact that the Missouri Compromise allowed Missouri to keep slavery showed that enslavement still had a lot of support in the government.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, although it was determined as a "compromise" on paper and officially, it was easy to tell that it was not the case in real life, with conflict and tension still brewing, but simmered down for the moment.
DeleteI think that the pro slavery states one in the Missouri compromise when what they gained is compared to what the anti slavery factions gained. The Anti slavery factions limited the spread of slavery above the 36' 30', but they did not stop slave states from being added to the union. The slave states, on the other hand, could admit more states to the union who were pro slavery as long as they were below the line. Therefore, I believe that the south actually gained more.
ReplyDeleteI imagine that the 36' 30' line overall had nobody exactly "win," since both sides were still at each other's throats after the compromise, with neither side getting what they had wanted. However, the anti-slavery side did have a tiny bit of an edge over the pro-slavery side, which eventually translated to a victory and abolishment of slavery in the long run. Slavery was constricted to specific areas now due to this deal, and many of the anti-slavery rhetoric was beginning to also catch on in popularity.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the anti-slavery states had more of a victory. The 36' 30' line definitely constricted slavery.
DeleteI think that the 36' 30' line was more of a compromise, but it did benefit the anti-slavery or free states more. They were granted western territory which could be made into anti-slavery land and the 36' 30' line stopped slavery from spreading more in America.
ReplyDelete