The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was a significant piece of legislation aimed at resolving tensions between slave and free states as the United States expanded westward. Some Southerners might have viewed the compromise as favoring the North for a few reasons:
-
Geographic Balance: The compromise allowed Missouri to enter as a slave state while Maine entered as a free state, which maintained the balance of power in Congress. However, it also established the 36°30' parallel as the line dividing free and slave territories in the Louisiana Purchase, which limited the expansion of slavery into new territories that would be free.
-
Expansion Opportunities: The areas north of the compromise line (36°30') were designated as free, which meant that Southern slaveholders would have fewer opportunities to expand their plantation economies into new territories, thereby limiting their economic growth potential compared to the North which could expand its industry and population.
-
Political Representation: As new free states entered the Union, the North could gain more political power and representation in Congress, potentially leading to an increased ability to pass legislation that would impact Southern interests negatively, such as restrictions on slavery.
-
Growing Antislavery Sentiment: The Missouri Compromise not only attempted to maintain the balance but also underscored the growing national division over slavery. As time passed, the restrictions placed by the compromise could be perceived by Southerners as indicative of a trend toward Northern dominance in political affairs.
In essence, the Missouri Compromise might have been seen by some Southerners as a mechanism that limited their rights and interests regarding the expansion of slavery, thus favoring the North in the long-term political and economic landscape.