Name:______________________________________________
Compromise… Student Sample Essay
Class Period:____
HOW TO WRITE!
Directions:
1. Read the prompt carefully and then read the essay. Consider the effectiveness of the students’ ATFQ.
2. Highlight the thesis. Highlight the conclusion. Are they consistent? Discuss with your group and annotate in left margin!
3. Underline each specific piece of evidence, and circle any comparative context found in the essay. How much evidence was
4.
used? Record your tally for each paragraph. Were there any historical errors? Did the errors detract from the effectiveness of the argument?
Evaluate the effectiveness of the essay. What do you think it scored? [Use the rubric (in writing guidelines).] Discuss with your group
and annotate in the space provided!
Prompt:
Assess the extent to which moral arguments and political actions maintained continuity or fostered change in the context of TWO of the
following; Missouri Compromise, Mexican-American War, Compromise of 1850, Kansas-Nebraska Act.
During the antebellum period many northerners such as Abraham Lincoln were opposed to the
spread of slavery. Others wanted to abolish it outright such as William Lloyd Garrison. These views of freesoil and abolition contrasted with the Southern embrace of slavery which caused tense sectionalism. From
1820 to 1854 the moral arguments and political actions maintained continuity by continuing the political
strategy of compromise in order to preserve peace and the union as seen in the Missouri Compromise and
Kansas Nebraska Act. However the political actions taken in these two compromises fostered more change
than continuity to a great extent. Although the Missouri Compromise seemed to settle the issue in 1820, by
the time of the 1854 Kansas- Nebraska Act came along the conflict had escalated beyond what Missouri
could manage. These arguments and actions, therefore, eventually resulted in war where the question of
slavery was finally resolved once and for all. Civil War illustrated the extent of change created over this time
period.
Before the Missouri Compromise was set into action there was a large dispute between the north
and the south over the balance between free and slave states. The Northern states had all outlawed slavery
before the question of Missouri was raised. Morally, many in the North believed that slavery was wrong
based on Christian beliefs like “treat others the way you wish to be treated” or the “Golden Rule” as well as
the simple hypocrisy of living in a republic where “all men are created equal” believing that no man should be
held under bondage because in God’s eyes all men were created equally. Many of these beliefs were
supported by abolitionists such as the Anti-Slavery Society in which members such as William Lloyd
Garrison, Frederick Douglass, and Harriet Tubman who all advocated for the emancipation of slaves
because it went against moral principle. These views maintained continuity from earlier abolitionists like
Benjamin Franklin and the Society of Friends during the Revolutionary Era. Besides questioning slavery the
North also took political action. Knowing that ending slavery was unlikely, northern states wanted to make
sure that southern states (slave states) did not outnumber them in Congress. As people migrated into new
lands gained from the Louisiana Territory, tensions rose. They were quite high when Missouri applied for
statehood as a slave state. If Missouri was allowed to enter as a slave state then the free states would be
overpowered on the Senate floor. Maintaining a political balance of power (continuity) was very important to
both the North and the South as neither wanted to be subjugated to the views or policies of the other.
Political actions were taken in the Missouri Compromise to ensure that slavery did not exceed the 54’ 40”
line continuing the previous “Mason Dixon line” approach to dividing the nation. This was put into place to
ensure that slavery did not expand northward or westward. In addition, the state of Maine was brought in the
very next year which maintained an equal number of free and slave states. The arguments and efforts,
therefore, of Northern states to stop the spread of slavery was ineffective since slavery did spread into
Missouri. However, they did prevent the South from gaining more political power. As a political action, the
Missouri Compromise maintained continuity by continuing a balance of power, but fostered greater change
by dividing the entire nation into free and slave territory.
Much later during the time period the Kanas-Nebraska Act was passed which basically ended the
Missouri Compromise strategy of drawing a line on the map. This was a political change to a great extent. By
then many more Northerners had become morally opposed to slavery and had spoken out against it but
there were also other sentiments involved in anti-slavery movements. Many were opposed to slavery
because white families had a hard time competing against the cheap labor of the slaves and could not rise to
grasp the renowned “American Dream”. So many northerners who were opposed to slavery were not
primarily opposed because they believed that it was morally wrong, but because it threatened their ability to
produce a stable income and rise out of poverty. When the Kansas-Nebraska Act was put into place in the
hopes that popular sovereignty would make Kansas a slave state and Nebraska a free state (maintaining
balance, a political continuity), and to also organize more territory from the Louisiana Purchase in order to
further the transcontinental railroad, there erupted a large amount of dispute. This conflict instigated dramatic
change in addition to the change created by negating the Missouri Compromise Line. Because it repealed
the Missouri Compromise in which slavery was not to expand north of the 36’30 line and also because many
in Kansas were thoroughly against slavery, both morally, and for their financial well-being which led to the
event known as Bleeding Kansas where bloodshed had become evident over the dispute, this change also
involved the end of peaceful compromise. Those opposed to the spread of slavery like John Brown went to
Kansas and killed pro-slavery Southerners. Those who thought the political strategy of popular sovereignty
would maintain balance were proved wrong when the territory became chaotic. Therefore, those against the
spread of slavery did have a victory because popular sovereignty did not result in Kansas entering as a slave
state. Unfortunately it did mean civil war.
Therefore, from 1820’s Missouri Compromise to 1854’s Kansas Nebraska Act political strategies
fostered more change than maintained continuity. Even though the arguments for and against slavery
continued, over this time efforts to limit or end slavery increased dramatically. As Bleeding Kansas illustrated
the failure of compromise, these changes fostered change to a great extent. These changes are similar to
the changes seen in the Revolutionary Era when political strategies shifted from political reform and
reconciliation between the colonies and Great Britain to a Declaration of Independence and war. The shift in
political strategy and enlightenment inspired beliefs on liberty created immense change while also
maintaining continuity as the colonies had a high level of autonomy for the century prior to the French and
Indian War. In both instances, change was so dramatic as to end in warfare.