The Missouri Compromise of 1820 did not have lasting effects. Which is the best explanation for this?(1 point)

Question

Responses

The compromise only applied to the lands of the Mexican Cession, so it quickly became irrelevant.
The compromise only applied to the lands of the Mexican Cession, 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 limited the number of states that could be admitted per year, so it could not be enforced.

The compromise relied on popular sovereignty, and public opinion was overwhelmingly opposed to it.
The compromise relied on popular sovereignty, and public opinion was overwhelmingly opposed to it.

The compromise only applied to the lands of the Louisiana Purchase, and a later law effectively overturned it.

Answer 1

The best explanation for why the Missouri Compromise of 1820 did not have lasting effects is: The compromise only applied to the lands of the Louisiana Purchase, and a later law effectively overturned it.

The Missouri Compromise was primarily a response to the admission of Missouri as a slave state and involved establishing a line that determined the status of slavery in certain territories. However, it was ultimately rendered ineffective by later legislation, particularly the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which introduced the concept of popular sovereignty and allowed new territories to decide the issue of slavery for themselves, thus undermining the compromises made in 1820.