Can anyone explain why the slave states accepted the 36/30 line?

It only applied to the lands of the Louisana Purchase. The slave states would be getting the better half with most of the northern area above the line pretty much uncharted. I think they were making an educated guess that that drawing the line there was going to yield states sooner and they already held 70% of the Mississippi River.

The bill bringing Missouri into the Union had difficulty getting through the house who initially voted it down. Southerners had to compromise to get Missouri in as a slave state and maintain southern balance of power in the congress. That latitude was the southern border of Missouri (excluding the heel) and then became the northern border of Texas too.

BQ78 said:

---

The bill had difficulty getting through the house who initially voted it down. Southerners had to compromise to get Missouri in as a slave state and maintain southern balance of power in the congress. That latitude was the southern border of Missouri (excluding the heel) and then became the northern border of Texas too.

---

Thanks. It would just seem that they ceded a lot of territory to the non-slave faction.

dallasiteinsa02 said:

---

It only applied to the lands of the Louisana Purchase. The slave states would be getting the better half with most of the northern area above the line pretty much uncharted. I think they were making an educated guess that that drawing the line there was going to yield states sooner and they already held 70% of the Mississippi River.

---

After Missouri was added, only Arkansas and Oklahoma could be added to the territory that would allow for slavery. Of course, Arkansas became a slave state and Oklahoma never did, unless you include the slaves brought by the American Indians.

Much of the area of the Louisiana Purchase - the area now called the High Plains - was thought unsuitable for agriculture in the early 19th century, and the area was sometimes referred to as "the Great American Desert." See the wikipedia entry under this name for more explanation. Thus, they probably didn't think there would be much growth in that region.

And the Louisiana Purchase eventually added three slave states - don't forget Louisiana, which was Spanish/French territory before that.

And the question of the status of slavery in the territories would continue to cause trouble, as completely blocking it became the central plank of the Republican party platform after its formation in 1856. I think by 1850, the Southern states realized that if the Missouri Compromise line was carried through the lands acquired from Mexico, then the free states would eventually outnumber them, especially after California, which was mostly south of the line, came in as a free state.

That would lead to such things as pressure for the acquisition of Cuba, and eventually the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

Louisiana had already become a state well before the Compromise.

I've always found it funny how the slave states bent the will of the government to their needs whenever they could. They loved the idea of popular sovereignty until California wanted to join as a free state. Then Congress apparently had the power to regulate slavery. Until it didn't with Taney and his awful Dred Scott decision.

Don't forget that they supported states' rights - except when it came to the federal Fugitive Slave Act vs state personal liberty laws, or the Dred Scott decision, which said that even states couldn't forbid slaveowners from bringing in their slave property.

Langenator said:

---

Don't forget that they supported states' rights - except when it came to the federal Fugitive Slave Act vs state personal liberty laws, or the Dred Scott decision, which said that even states couldn't forbid slaveowners from bringing in their slave property.

---

Or wrote their own Constitution that forbid the ending slavery within a state in the CSA.

Walter Prescott Webb in his book, The Great Plains, surmises that slavery was not economically viable above that latitude, so it didn't matter if they agreed to it or not. The Free States agreed because their political leaders understood that slavery could not work in the arid southwest (west of the 98th meridian).

Up to that time, the Slave States were in competition with the Free States for federal power, and during the 1800s, the Slave States (states where slavery was economically viable) expanded much faster than the Free States, thus giving them control over the federal government. However, running into the Great Plains stopped Slave State expansion cold.

Another fun question is: Why did the south agree to prohibit slavery in the northwest territory back in 1787?

Best I can tell, at that point the slave states didn't want additional slave states because they feared the competition would drive down plantation profits. Over the next few decades, as the country expanded and southerners wanted to move westward, they wanted to take their slaves with them and their position changed. Over further decades, southerners became paranoid about northern abolitionists ending slavery altogether, and then it became more about which region would force its will on the other.

Aggie_Journalist said:

---

Another fun question is: Why did the south agree to prohibit slavery in the northwest territory back in 1787?

Best I can tell, at that point the slave states didn't want additional slave states because they feared the competition would drive down plantation profits. Over the next few decades, as the country expanded and southerners wanted to move westward, they wanted to take their slaves with them and their position changed. Over further decades, southerners became paranoid about northern abolitionists ending slavery altogether, and then it became more about which region would force its will on the other.

---

I believe it's a couple of things:

1. It's my understanding that many thought slavery was a dying institution in 1786 for the most part. I've never seen any actual evidence to support that but people smarter than me seem to believe that.
2. They southern slave states were hoping to limit agricultural competition at the time.

Once cotton became King and the economic elites believe that they needed slavery now more than ever, they felt that it must be protected. To do that, they had to at least hold 50% of the Senate because the House was lost to them due to immigration, even with their unfair 3/5ths advantage. So newer slave states had to be added out west.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Aggie_Journalist said:

---

Another fun question is: Why did the south agree to prohibit slavery in the northwest territory back in 1787?

Best I can tell, at that point the slave states didn't want additional slave states because they feared the competition would drive down plantation profits. Over the next few decades, as the country expanded and southerners wanted to move westward, they wanted to take their slaves with them and their position changed. Over further decades, southerners became paranoid about northern abolitionists ending slavery altogether, and then it became more about which region would force its will on the other.

---

I believe it's a couple of things:

1. It's my understanding that many thought slavery was a dying institution in 1786 for the most part. I've never seen any actual evidence to support that but people smarter than me seem to believe that.
2. They southern slave states were hoping to limit agricultural competition at the time.

Once cotton became King and the economic elites believe that they needed slavery now more than ever, they felt that it must be protected. To do that, they had to at least hold 50% of the Senate because the House was lost to them due to immigration, even with their unfair 3/5ths advantage. So newer slave states had to be added out west.

---

Keep in mind that Eli Whitney didn't invent his cotton gin until 1793, well after the passage of the Northwest Ordnance.

Prior to that, only the long staple variety of cotton was economically viable, and that only grew in coastal areas of the Carolinas and I think Georgia. Other cash crops that worked well with slave labor - indigo and rice - were also limited to similar areas,. Tobacco was more widespread, but did best east of the Appalachians. Cane sugar, if if was commercially viable (and competitive with the European sugar colonies in the Caribbean) would have been limited largely to Florida and Louisiana, which weren't acquired until later.