The Missouri Compromise of 1820 attempted to maintain a balance between slave and free states by establishing a line (the 36°30' parallel) which determined the status of slavery in the territories acquired from the Louisiana Purchase. Here’s an analysis of each option given your question:
-
There was a foreign threat south of the line. - While there were various concerns regarding foreign threats in different contexts, this statement does not directly relate to the Missouri Compromise or imply favoritism towards the North.
-
There was less farm land south of the line. - This option is not accurate as the Southern U.S. was known for its agricultural productivity, particularly in the cultivation of cash crops like cotton.
-
There was more territory north of the line. - This statement likely represents the sentiment of many Southerners who may have viewed the allocation of new territories as favoring the expansion of free states, thereby giving the North an advantage in terms of potential political power, representation, and economic opportunities.
-
There was more fresh water north of the line. - While fresh water availability is a consideration, it does not significantly pertain to the perceived advantages of the Missouri Compromise regarding the favoring of one region over another.
Given these analyses, the best answer to why some Southerners might feel the Missouri Compromise favored the North is:
3. There was more territory north of the line.