The best explanation for why the Missouri Compromise of 1820 did not have lasting effects is that the compromise only applied to the lands of the Louisiana Purchase and a later law effectively overturned it.
This is because the Missouri Compromise only addressed the issue of slavery in the territories acquired through the Louisiana Purchase, which primarily encompassed the central portion of the United States. It allowed for the admission of Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state, while also drawing a line (36°30' parallel) across the rest of the Louisiana Purchase territory, stating that any states north of the line would be free states and those south of it would be slave states.
However, this compromise was effectively overturned by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which allowed popular sovereignty (the idea that the residents of a territory could vote on whether to allow slavery) instead of adhering to the Missouri Compromise's line. This led to more tensions and conflicts over the issue of slavery, ultimately leading to the American Civil War.
Furthermore, it is important to note that public opinion was overwhelmingly opposed to the Missouri Compromise, as highlighted in the statement. This opposition and the changing dynamics of the country contributed to its limited long-term impact.
The Missouri compromise of 1820 did not have lasting effects which is the best explanation for this the compromise only applied to the lands of the Mexican citizen so it quickly became irrelevant the compromise limited the number of states that could be admitted per year so it could not be enforced the compromise only applied to the lands of the Louisiana purchase and a later law effectively overturned at the compromise relied on popular 70 in public opinion was overwhelmingly opposed to it
1 answer