1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
denpristay [2]
3 years ago
8

The Missouri Compromise limited slavery but failed to abolish it.

History
1 answer:
rusak2 [61]3 years ago
8 0

Explanation:

Though the Missouri Compromise managed to keep the peace—for the moment—it failed to resolve the pressing question of slavery and its place in the nation's future. ... The controversial law effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise by allowing slavery in the region north of the 36º 30' parallel.

The Missouri Compromise was ineffective in dealing with the issue of slavery because it increased sectionalism between Northern and Southern states. Instead of solving this issue of slavery in new territories Congress only increased the tension between North and South.

Henry Clay then skillfully led the forces of compromise, engineering separate votes on the controversial measures. On March 3, 1820, the decisive votes in the House admitted Maine as a free state, Missouri as a slave state, and made free soil all western territories north of Missouri's southern border

MARK AS BRAINLIEST

You might be interested in
How did the geography of Greece influence Greek economic activity?
Lostsunrise [7]
A: it Encourage people to use the sea for food and trade!
5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why did Hitler plan his own vote in April?
mart [117]

The law was a Nazi implementation of the Aryan Paragraph, which called for the exclusion of Jews and non-Aryans from organizations, employment and eventually all aspects of public life.
8 0
4 years ago
How were Simon bolivar and Jose de San Martin similar
Butoxors [25]

José de San Martín vs. Simón Bolívar

José de San Martín, 1778-1850, and Simon Bolívar, 1783-1830, were two of the primary causes of independence of countries from colonial powers in Latin America. Simon Bolívar is primarily known for liberating Venezuela, and he is called the Liberator of the North. José de San Martín, known as the Liberator of the South, is primarily known for freeing Argentina. Both men are well-known and lived during about the same time period and even met each other. However, their areas of liberation, methods of liberation and motives were very different from each other.

Bolívar and Martín differed in areas of jurisdiction – Venezuela and Argentina, respectively, as well as methods and means of revolution. Bolívar was 26 years old when Venezuela declared its independence in 1811, and under the revolutionary leader he brought back Francisco de Miranda, who had long advocated freedom from the Spanish rule Venezuela was once under, to become Venezuela’s leader. However, after an erratic and unsuccessful leadership, Bolívar captured Miranda (after his rebel army was stopped) and betrayed him by turning over to the Spanish, but the Spanish only sent Bolívar into exile (unlike Miranda, who they imprisoned). After returning from exile, Bolívar taught creoles that they could rebel successfully against 3 decades of Spanish rule, but was then drove out by the Spaniards. After being chased out of Venezuela three more times, while using terror tactics the Spanish had once used against Creoles such as suffocation, while gaining the support of the British and a bond with Haiti, and while declaring that he would abolish slavery as his first official act (if in power), he decided to build a guerilla warfare army in 1817. After defeating the Spanish in New Granada (which consisted of present-day Columbia, Ecuador, Venezuela, and Panama) using guerilla tactics and the help of thousands of mercenaries from Britain and Germany, he met with San Martín and desired to take advantage of Spain’s falling empire (due to political disagreements and an army revolt), but did not collaborate with him on a major scale. Bolívar formed a series of nations called “Grand Columbia” out of New Granada from which he intended to make a “model of strength and aggression from outside and of cooperation inside”, however, this unification soon disbanded itself (Adams, 33). Bolívar’s last battle ended in splendor in 1823, as it was entirely between cavalry with swords and lances.

5 0
3 years ago
An important factor leading to World War II was ________ anger over the treaty that ended World War I.
UNO [17]

Answer:

Hitler

Explanation:

3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How did the French and Indian war lead to the new British police
ad-work [718]
The British wanted to make the american colonies pay for the war so they placed a-lot of taxes on them

8 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which president was in the habit of answering the phone personally in the White House
    5·1 answer
  • What compromise was made during the Indian Removal Act of 1830?
    6·1 answer
  • Which general used tactics of total warfare in Georgia during the Civil War?
    8·2 answers
  • What was the main goal of the American Indian Movement?
    11·1 answer
  • What determined alliances in Suez crisis?
    15·2 answers
  • Please help me I will give you bring<br>brainlist​
    5·1 answer
  • Was the hebrews black or white
    8·1 answer
  • Sent ______ to King George asking him to respect the colonists' rights as British citizens. Organized a __________ of British go
    10·1 answer
  • ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    13·1 answer
  • What might have been some arguments in favor of remaining loyal to Britain?
    11·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!