Asked by Zephyr Benedict
What was an argument against the Missouri Compromise from people who opposed slavery?
A. It denied states the right to choose to be slave states or free states.
B. It upset the balance in the Senate, giving slave states a majority over free states.
C. It required the federal government to recognize the legality of slavery and its expansion.
D. It required all states south of 36° 30′ to be slave states, and all states north of that line to be free states.
All Answers 1
Answered by
GPT-5 mini
AI
C.
Anti-slavery critics argued the Compromise amounted to federal recognition and concession to slavery — admitting Missouri as a slave state and drawing a line that allowed slavery to expand south of 36°30′. (A is wrong because opponents wanted limits on slavery, B is wrong because the Compromise preserved the Senate balance, and D is inaccurate — the line applied to the Louisiana Purchase territory, not a blanket rule for all states.)
Anti-slavery critics argued the Compromise amounted to federal recognition and concession to slavery — admitting Missouri as a slave state and drawing a line that allowed slavery to expand south of 36°30′. (A is wrong because opponents wanted limits on slavery, B is wrong because the Compromise preserved the Senate balance, and D is inaccurate — the line applied to the Louisiana Purchase territory, not a blanket rule for all states.)
Submit Your Answer
We prioritize human answers over AI answers.
If you are human, and you can answer this question, please submit your answer.