Wiki User
∙ 13y agoNo, It only was prohibited to any new states that would enter the union from that date forward. MO could not have slaves. Maryland was entered the union as a "free" state. No states that would later come into the union that initially territory within the Louisanna Purchase could not have slaves.
Wiki User
∙ 13y agoWiki User
∙ 12y agoThe Missouri Compromise did not end slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves during the Civil War only because the president was allowed to take away land only during the war. Most slave owners either never knew about the Emancipation Proclamation, Or never told their slaves that they were free. After the Civil War, the 13th Amendment was passed, which allowed full citizenship to all slaves.
Wiki User
∙ 9y agoNo. The Missouri Compromise didn't end the slave trade. Importing and Exporting slaves out of the country had ended in 1808, but the internal slave trade continued, buying and selling slaves and their children. The Missouri Compromise didn't do anything about that. What it did was to draw a line and say no more slave states above this line... except Missouri who has already applied.
The slave trade continued until the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and really past that, since it wasn't actively enforced until 1865, with the end of the war and the passing of the thirteenth amendment.
And really, although that ended the legal slave trade, even now there is an illegal slave trade in the United States.
Wiki User
∙ 13y agoSort of. Basically it prohibited slavery in the northern parts of the former Louisiana Territory except for the area of the proposed state of Missouri.
No. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 allowed slavery in those parts of the Louisiana Purchase that were South of the line. North of the line, it was illegal. This simple and sensible compromise kept the peace for thirty years.
The Missouri Compromise addressed slavery in the Arkansas and unorganized territory of the Great Plains. Slavery was prohibited in all of these areas, except within the boundaries of Missouri.
The Missouri Compromise was a temporary band aid on the problem of slavery. Many in the South wanted slavery and many in the North did not. It made more people unhappy.
The Compromise of 1850 can be compared to the Compromise of 1820 (Missouri Compromise), mainly by comparing how the two compromises were different and alike in how they were able to successfully appease both the North and the South on the issue of slavery. The Compromise of 1850 was designed to prevent the South from seceding, and delaying the Civil War. It was created mostly to deal with the problem on how to annex California into the Union, because the North and the South disputed over whether or not to split California into two different states, the Northern section being slave-free, and the Southern section allowing slavery. The Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery above the line of 30o60' North, except in Missouri, therefore solving the problem of how to divide the land acquired by the Union in the Mexican War.
The Missouri Compromise itself (1820). Also the very last compromise attempted before the outbreak of war (Crittenden) proposed that the Missouri Line could be re-established and extended all the way to the Pacific. It was this compromise that Lincoln rejected, because it could have allowed some extension of slavery.
The Missouri Compromise was used to please both pro and anti-slavery people from the North and South with a regulation that prohibited slavery in some states and allowed it in other.
The Missouri Compromise postponed the issue of slavery.
No. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 allowed slavery in those parts of the Louisiana Purchase that were South of the line. North of the line, it was illegal. This simple and sensible compromise kept the peace for thirty years.
It would reinstate the Missouri Compromise line, extending it to the California border. Slavery would be prohibited to the north of the line and protected south of the line.
The Missouri Compromise addressed slavery in the Arkansas and unorganized territory of the Great Plains. Slavery was prohibited in all of these areas, except within the boundaries of Missouri.
The Missouri Compromise affected the area in the former Louisiana Territory, except within the boundaries of the state of Missouri. It was a compromise that prohibited slavery within the territory.
The factor used to decide whether an area could be open to slavery under the Missouri Compromise was its geographical location. This compromise established a line at latitude 36°30' where slavery would be permitted south of the line and prohibited north of it, with the exception of Missouri.
True, slavery was prohibited North of the Ohio River after 1820. The Missouri Compromise prohibited slavery in the former Louisiana Territory north of the parallel 36°30' north except within the boundaries of the proposed state of Missouri.
The Missouri Compromise splits the early America into the South (where slavery is upheld) and the North ( Where slavery is banned)
Missouri Compromise
No - in the North. It banned slavery anywhere North of the parallel that marked Missouri's Southern border. This was a successful compromise which kept the peace for thirty years.
The Missouri Compromise was a temporary band aid on the problem of slavery. Many in the South wanted slavery and many in the North did not. It made more people unhappy.