Should The Missouri Compromize Manifest Destiny?

Words: 1256
Pages: 6

During the beginning of the 1800s, the American government pushed for expansion toward the West Coast in the belief of Manifest Destiny. The question of slavery in the United States often created conflict, and with territory gained in the Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican-American War, the issue of slavery in the territories was at the forefront of American politics. The Missouri Compromise depicted an illusionary line that split the settled land where the Slavery and the Free were on either side. The Louisiana Purchase created a larger but more split-apart America. The unity of the states increasingly became more delicate with territorial expansion and the issue of slavery being the primary driver of the conflict. The increase of territory …show more content…
The Oregon territory treaty allowed for benefits for both sides and united the United States under the banner of Manifest Destiny. Land acquired by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the Mexican-American war also caused great conflict. Even though most Americans supported Manifest Destiny, the question of whether the newly acquired land would be slave or free drove a wedge between regions of the country. The Wilmot Proviso also increased the tension as it would make all the land taken not have slavery. Tension became more pronounced when California wanted to become a free state. They wanted to become a state that had a constitution banning slavery without a slave state to create an equilibrium. The Compromise of 1850, allowed California to become a free state and for popular sovereignty to be allowed in the states of Utah and New Mexico. However, in return for the benefits given to the Northern side, the Fugitive Slave Act has been strengthened and now can’t be