Talk:Missouri Compromise/Archive 1

Untitled
does not help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.206.54 (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a very thoughtful and precise discussion of the Missouri Compromise. My compliments to the author. -- Robert P. Forbes, Yale University

This article really needs a map. Neutralitytalk 21:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln
I noticed that at the bottom of the article Abraham Lincoln is not linked. I think it would be convenient to have this done. I would do it myself, but alas I do not have enough access to get by the semi-protection. --AtomicKetchup (Talk) 14:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Question
"the Compromise of 1821 was ... also as a clear recognition that Congress has no right to impose that Henrey Clay was upon a state asking for admission into the Union conditions which do not apply to those states already in the Union." - I don't follow that statement. Didn't the compromise essentially say that states above the 36° 30’ line could never allow slavery? Wasn't that a condition that the federal government couldn't impose on current states at the time? --JW1805 (Talk) 23:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Passive Voice
This article has some massive issues with the passive voice. I will try to take care of that as soon as possible but that might be a long time, so if anyone can do it earlier please go ahead. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by EmmDoubleEw (talk • contribs) 18:07, January 2, 2006.

Second paragraph missing something?
The second paragraph (blah blah blah) seems to be missing something to connect it to the first paragraph. The first paragraph says the compromise". The second paragraph starts off by saying, "The United States Senate refused to concur in the amendment, and the whole measure was lost." Which amendment? There is no mention of an amendment in the first paragraph.It should be able to be enough

The second paragraph continues with, "During the following session (1819-1820), the House passed a similar bill with an amendment introduced on January 26, 1820". Following session to what?

The first paragraph mentions the compromise passing in 1820, but the second paragraph seems to reference something that happened prior to 1820. I think something must have been left out between the first and second paragraphs.

Agoodall 19:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest re-writing this section of the discussion, because it is dated. The opening section of the article has clearly been edited since the above comment was written. The second paragraph article is currently very clear, and elucidates some of the mystery created by missing referents [the amendment referred to, as well as the bill the amendment was meant to modify] in the first paragraph. The opening section could become very clear just by dropping that last sentence.

RJosephNewton (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This feeling is shared even by the people who made comments afterwards. I believe, I may echo the same concern.

It is not that only that there this article lacks organic unity that is that the contents do not relate to the preceding and succeeding paragraphs but what I find that on the whole, the article requires to be rewritten. It really lacks in content. It is an important topic in American history. It is identified with the end of Era of Good Faith. It is identified with even end of Republican unity and coming back of the Whigs. It is identified with soon to come Jackson. It is identified with those legendary sets of 'Compromises and Moderation' device with which the 'march towards west' had taken place and when the device of 'Compromises and Moderation' failed, it resulted in Civil War. It is an important feature of Ante-bellum America. In short, there is every need to rewrite this topic. The people having good knowledge of the sources of that period must come together. There is need to write this stage and event of Antebellum America to a level, where whenever anyone reads it, a justice would be done to its historic importance. --Sumir 10:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumir Sharma (talk • contribs)

This entry needs fixing
I'm not sure what happened since this entry was complimented by the fellow from Yale, but now the entry is garb li like carne asada ed and makes little sense. The sentence that begins "in the meantime" looks to have had something edited out of it. Can someone who is authorized to make edits (and has knowledge of the compromise) please fix it? —This unsigned comment was added by 65.16.122.133 (talk • contribs) 22:51, March 31, 2006.


 * Fixed --JW1805 (Talk) 03:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much, but now the prior comment by Agoddall regarding the second paragraph remains an issue. What IS the antecedent of the first sentence?

it says the proposed state of missouri . not missouri as it shouuld.

Second Paragraph Repats it's self.
The second paragraph repeats it's self starting with the quote from Thomas Jefferson's letter to John Holmes. Imformation has also been deleted. I personally think this article needs to be rewriten as yesterday it contained more imformation and more paragraphs. Because this article is being edited for the worse so much, I suguest that an editing password be made for it. I am curently writing a paper about this subject and with this horible editing, Wikipedia has not been able to help me much. 64.147.3.148 23:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Matt Scanlan64.147.3.148 23:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this part needed?
the House passed a similar bill with an amendment introduced on January 26, 1820 by John W. Taylor of New York allowing Missouri into the union as a slave state.

--

repeal?
Didnt the US Supreme Ct case of Dred Scott v. Sandford overturn the Missouri Compromise?

Picture of picture in right corner doesnt work
The title above explains it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaglestrike117 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What about the Northwest Ordinance?
It states in the article that this was the first time congress banned slavery in a territory,

what about the northwest ordinance? wasnt this also banning slavery in a territory.

141.154.154.72 (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the crucial distinction is that the Northwest Ordinance was passed before the Constitution was adopted, thus before the 3/5th compromise and rise of the slave power. So it could not have been foreseen that banning slavery in the old northwest would result in any disproportionate loss of representation in Congress, because representation didn't work that way under the Confederation. DMorpheus (talk) 13:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Impact on political discourse? Self Contradictory sentence
I'm tagging the following paragraph/sentence as needing clarification (or removal of the second half that I've place in italics.) "On the constitutional side, the Compromise of 1820 was important as the first precedent for the congressional exclusion of slavery from public territory acquired since the adoption of the Constitution, and also as a clear recognition that Congress has no right to impose upon a state asking for admission into the Union conditions which do not apply to those states already in the Union." In creating two separate requirements (slave/free) for different territories the Compromise appears to do the exact opposite of what the second half of the sentence claims. Indeed the sentence appears to be the result of some sort of congressional compromise akin to the one in 1820. Perhaps it should be separated, appropriately explained and cited? If that cannot be done then I suggest removing it. Red Harvest (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Since nobody has been able to explain the self-contradiction and nobody has given a citation for this, I'm striking it. Red Harvest (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Even the first part of the sentence is a bit of a stretch. See Lincoln's Cooper Union speech of April 1860, in which he cites a number of occasions after 1787 when Congress at least limited slavery in territories. They didn't exclude it but they placed limits, and at the time no one jumped up to make the 'states' rights' argument. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

funny monkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.151.187 (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Edward Everett
What does a speech by a Senator in 1854 have to do with the Missouri Compromise of 1820?98.216.193.53 (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Error I noticed
When the article talks about Missouri being entered as a slave state it says this complicated things because Alabama had been entered as a slave state and now the number of slave and free states was "equal." This makes no sense and it should be "unequal," not "equal." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwolk1224 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, that's correct. Alabama's admission evened the balance of slave and free states; admitting Missouri would have thrown that back to imbalance. Preventing the imbalance is a contributing factor the Compromise and the admission of Maine. —C.Fred (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

the first map
It's... wrong, shows W. Virginia... please use historicly accurate maps--Jakezing (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Further Clarification of Amendments Needed
Just browsing through the article, it seems to me that further clarification needs to be made for both the Tallmadge and Thomas amendments, especially since the page Tallmadge Amendment redirects here, yet there is no mention of it here at all. The Thomas amendment is also simply mentioned by name and not explained, which may be confusing for some readers, especially considering that there was another Thomas Amendment in the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1833. D dc  c  05:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

hi... uh missouri??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.146.142 (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson expressed his opinion on the Missouri Comprmise in a letter to John Holms dated April 22,1820. Jefferson wrote that the Missouri question,"like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the union." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.119.140.10 (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification of claim of Senate's initial refusal
I was reading through this article and noticed a the beginning a clarification and citation was needed regarding the Senate refusing to pass the House's bill in 1819. Looking through the15th Congress's (2nd session) Annals for the Senate (at 273) I see that the Senate offered and passed an amendment (Feb. 27, 1819) that struck the anti-slavery provision from the Senate bill (which was, until that amendment, identical to the bill the House passed)  31-7. The bill without the anti-slavery amendment was passed 3 days later, and the House responded in turn that there would be no change in their bill (at 282).

Likely, the Senate's being comprised of equal numbers of senators from slave and free states (whereas the House's numbers favored free states since the north was more populated) was behind their reticence. Politically speaking, senators from free states could not afford to alienate half of the Senate if they wanted support for other issues.

Also, I think the text of 1819's anti-slavery provision is particularly worth integrating into this article. (Reading through the Annals, this is the first time I've read the actual amendment and I was surprised.) The contested anti-slavery provision reads as follows: "And that all children of slaves, born within the said State, after the admission thereof into the Union shall be free, but may be held to service until the age of twenty-five years." It is typical in laws to provide for a gradual shift, but it seems important to note that this first bill would not have prohibited slavery as we think of it, but allowed slaves to continue being enslaved. Also, those newly born children of slaves, though free, could have been pressed into service; thus their "freedom" before 25 was nominal at best.

I don't have access to edit the article, but it would be great if someone could integrate this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmjames8 (talk)] 21:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

ERROR IN PICTURE
Second Missouri Compromise

The Louisiana colony was French and not Spanish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.148.121.9 (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It was French, then it was Spanish, then Napoleon had Spain hand it back to France before he handed it to the United States... AnonMoos (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Help needed to tidy restored text
I have just restored some text deleted by a vandal way back at 13:01, 17 February 2006. The first sentence of the (now) third paragraph in the lead now makes sense again, but it needs someone who knows the subject to tidy it up and bring it into line with the current status of the rest of the article. Thanks. Jan 1 naD (talk • contrib) 16:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Drop Last Sentence of First Paragraph
The opening of this article can be remdied fairly simply by dropping the last sentence of the first paragraph. It refers to an amendment that had not previously been cited. Neither had the bill the amendment was attached to been cited at that point, which makes the sentence rather nonsensical. The exact same sentence occurs at the end of the second paragraph in proper context. An alternative approach might be to add sufficient description of the bill and amendment to the first paragraph. That would make an opening paragraph rather weighty, though.

RJosephNewton (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from RJosephNewton, 24 February 2011
edit semi-protected

Please drop the last sentence of the first paragraph of the introduction section. That sentence is repeated verbatim at the end of the second paragraph, where it is in proper context. Since the sentence refers to an amendment and thus implies an original bill, neither of which had previously been described in any way. It simply makes no sense as currently written.

RJosephNewton (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -Atmoz (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)