Answer:
I dont Kbnow what the answer is try toi use instead
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
I think what could have happened to the nation if the Missouri Compromise had not passed was that events, incidents, differences, and debates would have caused the premature beginning of the American Civil War in 1820.
Those years were a time of too much tension. The issue of slavery had already divided the nation.
That moment really illustrated the dichotomy of American society's attitudes about slavery in the early 19th century.
The context of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was that there were many problems with slavery in the states. Some approved and depended on slavery, others -mostly the Northern states- disapproved and supported desegregation. In 1819, Missouri asked to enter the Union as a slave state, breaking the balance between supporters and non-supporters. By passing the Missouri compromise, the US Congress had an opportunity to soothe the complicated situation. It granted the Missouri request, and at the same time, Main was admitted as a free state.
The strategy of the Civil War for the Confederacy (the South) was to outlast the political will of the United States (the North) to continue the fighting the war by demonstrating that the war would be long and costly.
According to the preamble, the purpose of the declaration is to break up the bond between the King and the colonies because the King as a ruler and as a form of government has not been able to protect or has even purposefully breached the unalienable rights for his own good and against the people.
The three unalienable rights that are listed are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They are self-evident and unalienable meaning that nobody can or should try to take them away from you and you are born with those rights. This is based on the philosophy of John Locke.
According to Jefferson, the primary reason for the existence of a government is to protect these rights. If a government is not protecting these unalienable rights then it should be changed for a new one which is what they want to do to the British crown since it is not protecting them.
According to the declaration, the government derives power from the people who choose it. It is specifically stated that the power of the government comes from the consent of the people to be governed. If the people don't want a government they are allowed to change it.
It is appropriate for the people to abolish their government when the government becomes tyrannical and breaches these unalienable rights and stops protecting people who elected it. This is why he states grievances as to what the king did to hurt the people which is why he should be changed.
