Did the Compromise of 1850 lead to Southern secession, or did it prevent secession? Explain how

Answer 1

By the time that lawmakers crafted the Missouri Compromise, divisions of culture, economics, and attitudes had only grown wider between North and South. The Compromise of 1850 only exacerbated the rifts further widened by Texas statehood five years earlier. Since the 3/5 compromise written into the Constitution, the new nation's trajectory into the national trauma of the Civil War was inevitable.

Answer 2

This is a typical AP style question where you can answer it either way if you are able to defend yourself but generally this would be thought of as leading to secession. If you want to go in favor of it leading to secession, you could use the following three points:

1. Slave states were upset by the addition of a large free state
2. Banning slave trade in Washington DC
3. neither antislavery senators nor firewaters would vote yes on the bill

To argue that it prevented secession (again, I'd probably go the other way, but if you're reviewing for the AP test you could ultimately get points if you're able to defend yourself)

1. Even when the bill was "unbundled" (all the measures were voted on separately) the bill passed, showing widespread support
2. There were elements meant to appease both parties, such as the admittance of CA as a free state and the new Fugitive Slave Law
3. new boundary between TX and Mexico was generally popular --> good sentiments