The Missouri compromise was a certain kind of agreement that was signed back in 1820, between the anti – slavery and pro-slavery factions in the United States congress .This agreement basically involved the primary regulations of slavery in the western territories.The agreement prohibited slavery in the former northern Louisiana territory exempting the upper boundaries of the proposed Missouri state.
Prior before the agreement was met, the House of Representatives had refused to accept this kind of compromise and a conference committee was to be appointed to tackle the issues arising from this compromise.
Justices would not have been achieved in lieu of such a case where struggle had erupted between the whites and the blacks, owing to the discrepancy that had existed between these to sets of human beings and Africans being considered minorities. The United States Senate rejected this move and it refused to concur with the amendment and the entire measure was all lost. Was there are any possible and fair move that would have resolved this conflict? Equity/ fairness were not the tools to play in this context for they would have achieved minimal if not insignificant difference.
During the following secession that is between 1819- 1820, a similar bill was passed with an amendment, which was introduced on 26 January 1820, by sir John W. Taylor of New York, which permitted Missouri into a union as a slave state. This quest was completed with the admission of Alabama as a slave state in December rendering the number of slave and Free states equal. Consequently, a bill was passed in the house on January 3rd 1820, admitting Maine as a Free State .
However, the Senate thought and decided to merge the two measures together, whereby a bill for admission of Maine accompanied by an amendment enabling the people of Missouri to establish a state constitution was amended (http://www. infoplease. com/ce6/history/A0833427. html). Just before the bill was send back to the house, a second amendment was adopted stirred by Jesse B. Thomas of Illinois which excluded slavery from the Missouri territory to the north and southern boundaries of Missouri, further exempting the proposed regions within the limits of the proposed state of Missouri.
Disputes emerged between the two ends that is the southern and the northern states struggling for power in congress and control over the future territories. This discourse emerged as the different factions and the democratic – Republican Party began losing its coherence. In April 21st Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter stating that such kind of a division created by the comprehensive compromise line would however, lead to the destruction of the union.
Congress considerations over the admission of Missouri raised issues of sectional balance, for the country had become equally divided between slave and free slave states each having a composition of eleven regions (http://www. pbs. org/wgbh/aia/part3/3h511. html). The admission of Missouri as a slave state was to tip up the balance in the senate which was composed of two senators from each state in due favor of the slave states. As a result of this discourse states along the northern hemisphere wanted Maine to be admitted as a free state.
By the beginning of the year 1818, Missouri had expanded in terms of population and it gained sufficient population enough to warrant its admission into a union state. Its occupants largely originated from the south and it was expected that this would be a slave state. A state house bill was passed in the house of representatives by James Tallmadge of New York the same year proposing an amendment that would ban the importation of slave trade and bring an ultimate emancipation of the slaves born in Missouri .
A close analysis following this proceedings ranging from the two ends showed that justice was sort through legal procedures and fairness was not the tool to attack the whole issue. In reference to this effect another amendment was passed to the house in February 1819 where the senate was not involved . Bitterness among candidates from both ends during the debate sharply placed emphasis towards the sectional division of Unite States (http://www. americaslibrary. gov/cgibin/page. cgi/aa/presidents/monroe/compromise_1). In 1820, a bill admitting Maine as a state was also passed through the house.
This was precisely a legal proceeding that was meant to ensure justice was observed to settle the conflict. The successful admission of Alabama as a slave state by the year 1819 converged the Free states and slave states to equal representations in the senate. This was achieved through pairing Maine and Missouri to be Free states. This equality was to be maintained. The two bills were later merged together as one senate, both having a clause forbidding slavery in Missouri and further prohibiting slavery in the remaining parts of Louisiana the Upper north 36 30’N lat and the southern boundary latitude of Missouri.
This compromise bill was rejected by the house. The rejection called for another conference meeting made up of members from both houses to ponder the issue not based on legal procedure but this time to consider equity and fairness was done on both sides. These bills were however, treated as separate entities and by March, 1820, Maine achieved its goals and it was made a state of its own while Missouri was authorized to establish a constitution of its own having no restrictions on slavery.
Stern legal procedures were to be observed in order to ensure the senate proceedings were not driven by personal or individual opinions, but whatever move taken was to be a consolidation of thoughts through various forums and consultations. The provisions to the Missouri constitution permiting the immigration of the free blacks to the states was highly objected by the many northern congressmen, a situation which called for another congressional compromise. This discourse would have stirred more conflicts once more. Stern legal procedures were to be observed this time round to settle this dispute (http://www. pbs. org/wgbh/aia/part3/3h511.
html). The Missouri legislature stood up vividly this time round to defend his constitution and held its power high that nothing in his constitution would be interpreted to abridge the rights of the citizens of United States a move that saw the charter ratified and Missouri was admitted to the Union In August 1821. Henry Clay, the speaker of the senate did not either match to secure passage of the entire compromise. The application of Missouri to be offered consideration for statehood sparked a bitter debate in the congress concerning the issue of territories which had been created as a result of the purchase of Louisiana of 1803.
With the concern that the southern end would have representational advantage, Ney York Congressman James Tallmadge introduced another amendment that was to prohibit any further expansion of slavery within the area. This action was however, to set the children of Missouri free. Despites the many dangers and challenges for having free blacks intermingling with slaves, Tallmadge come out rightly to defend his people, and he declared that he was aware of the will of his constituents and as their representatives he avowed to proclaim their hatred to slavery occurring in any shape.
Once more, legal procedures had to take toes to resolve this conflict and a consensus was reached when the two parts compromised the situation. At last the northern part of Massachusetts finally become Maine and it was later admitted to the union as a free state the same time when Missouri was being admitted as a slave state. The two ends thereby, maintained an equal balance of regions where Missouri had 12, and Maine got 12 respectively. By and large, an imaginary line, 36 digress 30 minutes north latitude was drawn while the portions of Louisiana territory lying along the north of the compromise line were to be set as Free states
(http://civilwar. bluegrass. net/secessioncrisis/200303. html). Work Cited Secession Crisis: The Missouri Compromise “A Balance of Power” March 3, 1820. Retrieved on 24th July 2009 from, http://civilwar. bluegrass. net/secessioncrisis/200303. html Missouri Compromise. Retrieved on 24th July 2009 from, http://www. pbs. org/wgbh/aia/part3/3h511. html The Missouri Compromise. Retrieved on 24th July 2009 from, http://www. americaslibrary. gov/cgibin/page. cgi/aa/presidents/monroe/compromise_1 Missouri Compromise. Retrieved on 24th July 3009 from, http://www. infoplease. com/ce6/history/A0833427. html