The Missouri Compromise Of 1820-1860

615 Words3 Pages
Those who sought new economic opportunities in the US during the 1800s looked westwards. As settlers flocked into the Louisiana territory, people who favored territorial growth, soon began to covet the rich lands of California, Texas, and New Mexico. Expansionists justified their views of expanding the country with the Manifest Destiny, a belief where God himself wanted the US to own all of North America. They thought that Mexicans, with their weak government and economy, were inferior to the US, and thus, didn’t deserve to keep the lands that Americans need. The question of whether or not slavery should be allowed in the new western additions was hotly debated. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was an attempt to solve this question: by admitting Maine as a Free State and Missouri as a slave state into the Union, while banning slavery in the Louisiana Purchase in the northern part. However, the Missouri Compromise didn’t apply to the new territories that weren’t part of the Louisiana Purchase. The south was heavily dependent on the cotton economy, and forced labor sustained it. The North opposed slavery, which was believed to be a restrain on the slave’s…show more content…
Many crossed the Rockies and the Sierra Nevada into the Oregon Territory, California, New Mexico and Texas. US expansion was the greatest in Texas. By 1835, about thirty thousand American settlers reached Texas, and outnumbered Tejanos by about six to one. Although Mexico allowed Americans to settle in Texas for cheap land grants, Americans had a few agreements to follow: become Mexican citizens, worship as Roman Catholics, and accept Mexican constitution (which banned slavery). The settlers ignored their part of the bargain. In 1835, Texans revolted against the Mexican government, which wanted to establish an autonomy. Texas revolted successfully, became an independent country, and petitioned to join the US as a slave

More about The Missouri Compromise Of 1820-1860

Open Document