How did the Missouri Compromise address sectional tensions over slavery in new states?

How did the Missouri Compromise address sectional tensions over slavery in new states?

• A. It allowed states to choose slavery status by popular vote in all new territories.
• B. It admitted Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state and drew a parallel line prohibiting slavery north of 36°30'.
• C. It banned slavery in all states above the Mississippi River.
• D. It created a federal program to fund railroads.

Answer: (B)

The main idea tested is how the government tried to manage the spread of slavery by balancing free and slave states and by drawing a geographic boundary for slavery in new territories. The Missouri Compromise admitted Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state to keep the Senate evenly divided, then drew a line at 36°30′ north latitude across the remaining Louisiana Purchase lands: slavery would be prohibited north of that line, while slaveholding would be allowed south of it (Missouri itself being the exception when admitted). This created a clear rule intended to limit slavery’s expansion and ease sectional tensions for a time. Other options don’t fit because they describe ideas not in the compromise: popular sovereignty in all territories, or bans on slavery simply based on being north of the Mississippi River, or federal funding for railroads. The line at 36°30′ and the Missouri/Maine admissions are the key pieces that address how sectional tensions were addressed.

The main idea tested is how the government tried to manage the spread of slavery by balancing free and slave states and by drawing a geographic boundary for slavery in new territories. The Missouri Compromise admitted Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state to keep the Senate evenly divided, then drew a line at 36°30′ north latitude across the remaining Louisiana Purchase lands: slavery would be prohibited north of that line, while slaveholding would be allowed south of it (Missouri itself being the exception when admitted). This created a clear rule intended to limit slavery’s expansion and ease sectional tensions for a time.

Other options don’t fit because they describe ideas not in the compromise: popular sovereignty in all territories, or bans on slavery simply based on being north of the Mississippi River, or federal funding for railroads. The line at 36°30′ and the Missouri/Maine admissions are the key pieces that address how sectional tensions were addressed.