What was the purpose of the Missouri Compromise?

To maintain the balance of power between slave states and free states

To create a new state in the South

To expand slavery into new territories

To abolish slavery in all states

What was the outcome of the Missouri Compromise?

It postponed the Civil War for several decades

It sparked a rebellion in the South

It led to the secession of several Northern states

What was the reaction of Southern leaders to the Missouri Compromise?

They opposed it and viewed it as a threat to their way of life

They were neutral and did not take a stance

They were not aware of the compromise

They supported it and saw it as a way to expand slavery

What was the role of the House of Representatives in the Missouri Compromise?

They passed the Tallmadge Amendment, which prohibited slavery in Missouri

They approved the admission of Missouri as a slave state

They had no role in the compromise

They proposed the boundary line between slave and free states

What was the significance of the Missouri Compromise in American history?

It demonstrated the growing divide between Northern and Southern states over the issue of slavery

It established the principle of states' rights over federal authority

It led to the formation of a new political party, the Whigs

It paved the way for the abolition of slavery in all states

Missouri Compromise (2-3, 2-4)

Missouri Compromise 2

Dred Scott was born enslaved in Virginia in 1799. In 1833, he was purchased by Dr. John Emerson, an army surgeon, living in Missouri. At the time, the U.S. was divided into free states (where slavery was outlawed) and slave states (where slavery was allowed). The Missouri Compromise of 1820 made Missouri a slave state. But it also outlawed slavery in any territory north of it. In 1833, Dr. Emerson was assigned to a fort in Illinois, and later, a fort in the Wisconsin Territory. He took Dred Scott with him. They lived in these areas for years. Even though slavery was outlawed in both places, Emerson never freed Scott. Eventually, Scott was sent back to Missouri to live with Emerson’s wife, Eliza Sanford*. After the doctor died in 1843, Scott tried to buy his freedom. Sanford refused. With the support of his church, abolitionists, and friends, Scott sued to get it. His case ended up going all the way to the Supreme Court. The Arguments Scott sued using two Missouri laws. One said any person held in wrongful enslavement could sue for their freedom. The other stated any person taken to a free territory was automatically free, and could not be re-enslaved. Sanford argued that the Missouri laws applied only to someone moving to free areas by choice. Dr. Emerson was ordered by the army to move to his posts. Sanford also said that military authority was greater than the states’. And since they lived on military bases, Emerson did not have to follow state or territory laws. The Decision In a 7–2 decision, the Court ruled that Dred Scott was not free. Chief Justice Roger Taney stated that all people of African descent, free or enslaved, were not U.S. citizens. They did not have rights, like the power to vote or sue in court, so Scott’s case was invalid. But Taney did not stop there. He added that, because enslaved people were property, the Fifth Amendment protected the rights of enslavers. The Fifth Amendment says the government can’t take someone’s property without going through the courts or paying for it. Laws that banned slavery, like the Missouri Compromise, were unconstitutional. No level of government, Taney said, state or federal, could outlaw slavery.

Missouri Compromise reading

Missouri Compromise - 1820 - United States History

The Missouri Compromise and South Carolina Reaction - Starter Quiz

The Missouri Compromise and South Carolina Reaction - Exit Quiz

Sectionalism & the Missouri Compromise

Understanding the Missouri Compromise

Related quizzes

Related quizzes