This is the kind of historical question that is not merely a set of fasts but is something you should decide for yourself after reviewing the evidence. One popular view among historians is: the Missouri Compromise of 1820 is generally seen as having been necessary to maintain the balance of free and slave sates in the Senate. THe debate over slavery expansion had become very bitter and neither side was willing to compromise on the underlying moral issue. Even then. many leaders recognized that the disagreement about slavery between North and South could split the country, and it was causing deadlock in Congress. It seemed to work because both sides conceded something, but both felt they had gained something as well. Northerners were satisfied with the compromise because it kept the balance in the Senate between free and slave states. Southerners felt they won because at that time most Americans thought it unlikely that the area north and west of Missouri would ever be settled. They thought it more likely that new states would be created south of Missouri, and would likely be slave states. The Missouri Compromise quieted the slavery question, but did not resolve it. The key problems with the Compromise were (1) it did not address future expansion in a way that would maintain the balance between slave and free states, (2) it did not deal with problems that crossed state lines such as what to do about runaway slaves or efforts by abolitionists in Northern states to end slavery and assist runaways, and (3) it did not settle the question of whether national legislation should either legalize or abolish slavery everywhere, but tried to impose a political solution on what was essentially a moral question.
