Talk:Missouri Compromise

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


This is a very thoughtful and precise discussion of the Missouri Compromise. My compliments to the author. -- Robert P. Forbes, Yale University


This article really needs a map. Neutralitytalk 21:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Question

"the Compromise of 1820 was ... also as a clear recognition that Congress has no right to impose that Henrey Clay was upon a state asking for admission into the Union conditions which do not apply to those states already in the Union." - I don't follow that statement. Didn't the compromise essentially say that states above the 36° 30’ line could never allow slavery? Wasn't that a condition that the federal government couldn't impose on current states at the time? --JW1805 (Talk) 23:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Passive Voice

This article has some massive issues with the passive voice. I will try to take care of that as soon as possible but that might be a long time, so if anyone can do it earlier please go ahead. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EmmDoubleEw (talk • contribs) 18:07, January 2, 2006.

[edit] Second paragraph missing something?

The second paragraph (blah blah blah) seems to be missing something to connect it to the first paragraph. The first paragraph says the compromise "was an agreement passed in 1820". The second paragraph starts off by saying, "The United States Senate refused to concur in the amendment, and the whole measure was lost." Which amendment? There is no mention of an amendment in the first paragraph.It should be able to be enough

The second paragraph continues with, "During the following session (1819-1820), the House passed a similar bill with an amendment introduced on January 26, 1820". Following session to what?

The first paragraph mentions the compromise passing in 1820, but the second paragraph seems to reference something that happened prior to 1820. I think something must have been left out between the first and second paragraphs.

Agoodall 19:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This entry needs fixing

I'm not sure what happened since this entry was complimented by the fellow from Yale, but now the entry is garbled and makes little sense. The sentence that begins "in the meantime" looks to have had something edited out of it. Can someone who is authorized to make edits (and has knowledge of the compromise) please fix it? —This unsigned comment was added by 65.16.122.133 (talk • contribs) 22:51, March 31, 2006.

Thanks very much, but now the prior comment by Agoddall regarding the second paragraph remains an issue. What IS the antecedent of the first sentence?

it says the proposed state of missouri . not missouri as it shouuld.

[edit] Second Paragraph Repats it's self.

The second paragraph repeats it's self starting with the quote from Thomas Jefferson's letter to John Holmes. Imformation has also been deleted. I personally think this article needs to be rewriten as yesterday it contained more imformation and more paragraphs. Because this article is being edited for the worse so much, I suguest that an editing password be made for it. I am curently writing a paper about this subject and with this horible editing, Wikipedia has not been able to help me much. 64.147.3.148 23:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Matt Scanlan64.147.3.148 23:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this part needed?

the House passed a similar bill with an amendment introduced on January 26, 1820 by John W. Taylor of New York allowing Missouri into the union as a slave state.

[edit] repeal?

Didnt the US Supreme Ct case of Dred Scott v. Sandford overturn the Missouri Compromise?


[edit] Picture of picture in right corner doesnt work

The title above explains it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaglestrike117 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about the Northwest Ordinance?

It states in the article that this was the first time congress banned slavery in a territory,

what about the northwest ordinance? wasnt this also banning slavery in a territory.

141.154.154.72 (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the crucial distinction is that the Northwest Ordinance was passed before the Constitution was adopted, thus before the 3/5th compromise and rise of the slave power. So it could not have been foreseen that banning slavery in the old northwest would result in any disproportionate loss of representation in Congress, because representation didn't work that way under the Confederation. DMorpheus (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Impact on political discourse? Self Contradictory sentence

I'm tagging the following paragraph/sentence as needing clarification (or removal of the second half that I've place in italics.)

On the constitutional side, the Compromise of 1820 was important as the first precedent for the congressional exclusion of slavery from public territory acquired since the adoption of the Constitution, and also as a clear recognition that Congress has no right to impose upon a state asking for admission into the Union conditions which do not apply to those states already in the Union.

In creating two separate requirements (slave/free) for different territories the Compromise appears to do the exact opposite of what the second half of the sentence claims. Indeed the sentence appears to be the result of some sort of congressional compromise akin to the one in 1820. Perhaps it should be separated, appropriately explained and cited? If that cannot be done then I suggest removing it. Red Harvest (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody has been able to explain the self-contradiction and nobody has given a citation for this, I'm striking it. Red Harvest (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Even the first part of the sentence is a bit of a stretch. See Lincoln's Cooper Union speech of April 1860, in which he cites a number of occasions after 1787 when Congress at least limited slavery in territories. They didn't exclude it but they placed limits, and at the time no one jumped up to make the 'states' rights' argument. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

funny monkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.151.187 (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)