Congress passes the Missouri Compromise

Congress passes the Missouri Compromise


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

After months of bitter debate, Congress passes the Missouri Compromise, a bill that temporarily resolves the first serious political clash between slavery and antislavery interests in U.S. history.

In February 1819, Representative James Tallmadge of New York introduced a bill that would admit Missouri into the Union as a state where slavery was prohibited. At the time, there were 11 free states and 10 slave states. Southern congressmen feared that the entrance of Missouri as a free state would upset the balance of power between North and South, as the North far outdistanced the South in population, and thus, U.S. representatives. Opponents to the bill also questioned the congressional precedent of prohibiting the expansion of slavery into a territory where slave status was favored.

Even after Alabama was granted statehood in December 1819 with no prohibition on its practice of slavery, Congress remained deadlocked on the issue of Missouri. Finally, a compromise was reached. On March 3, 1820, Congress passed a bill granting Missouri statehood as a slave state under the condition that slavery was to be forever prohibited in the rest of the Louisiana Purchase north of the 36th parallel, which runs approximately along the southern border of Missouri. In addition, Maine, formerly part of Massachusetts, was admitted as a free state, thus preserving the balance between Northern and Southern senators.

The Missouri Compromise, although criticized by many on both sides of the slavery debate, succeeded in keeping the Union together for more than 30 years. In 1854, it was repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which dictated that slave or free status was to be decided by popular vote in the territories of Kansas and Nebraska; though both were north of the 36th parallel.

READ MORE: Slavery in America


Missouri Compromise Ushers in New Era for the Senate

The Missouri Compromise represents a major milestone in American history. Passed by Congress on March 3, 1820, the compromise temporarily settled a divisive national debate over whether new states would permit or prohibit slavery. Perhaps less known, but equally important, is the fact that this landmark legislative compromise also set the stage for a new era in Senate history

In the early years of congressional history, the House of Representatives dominated the legislative process, leaving the Senate to operate in its shadow. Americans found the more rambunctious House&mdashthen dominated by the nation&rsquos most skilled politicians&mdashto be far more interesting than the quietly deliberative Senate. Henry Clay, for example, served two short terms in the Senate beginning in 1806, but soon found its chamber too sedate for his grand ambitions. In 1811 he moved to the House, and was promptly elected Speaker on his very first day in office.

Speaker Clay was on hand in 1818 when Missouri became the first territory west of the Mississippi River to apply for statehood. When the statehood bill arrived in the House, a New York representative offered an amendment to prohibit slavery in the new state. The House approved the amended bill, but just barely, and with a vote that reflected the nation&rsquos growing sectional crisis. &ldquoYou have kindled a fire which all the waters of the ocean cannot put out,&rdquo declared one lawmaker. When the bill arrived in the Senate, pro-slavery senators struck out the offending amendment. The House refused to concur with the Senate&rsquos version of the bill, a stalemate ensued, and the statehood measure died.

Missouri renewed its application for statehood in 1820. Once again, a contentious debate stirred up anger and bitterness over a score of issues&mdashindustrial development, trade and tariff policies, and&mdashalways&mdashslavery. Seeking a way to settle the dispute and prevent disunion, Speaker Clay promoted a compromise to allow slavery in Missouri while simultaneously admitting Maine as a free state. This so-called Missouri Compromise drew a line from east to west along the 36th parallel, dividing the nation into competing halves&mdashhalf free, half slave. The House passed the compromise bill on March 2, 1820.

The next day, pro-slavery advocates in the House moved to reconsider the vote. In what one Clay biographer called the &ldquoneatest and cleverest parliamentary trick ever sprung in the House,&rdquo Speaker Clay declared the motion out of order until routine business was completed, then discretely signed the Missouri bill and sent it to the Senate for approval. When his opponents again raised their motion later in the day, Clay blithely announced that the compromise measure had already gone to the Senate and had already been passed.

Why was the Missouri Compromise so important to the Senate? It maintained a delicate balance between free and slave states. On the single most divisive issue of the day, the U.S. Senate was equally divided. If the slavery question could be settled politically, any such settlement would have to happen in the Senate. That realization inspired men like Henry Clay&mdashand Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun&mdashto join the Senate, shining the spotlight of public attention on a new stage and a new era of debate.

Ironically, it was the astute maneuvering of Speaker Henry Clay that helped bring about this new era of Senate debate, creating a legislative forum in which Senator Henry Clay would soon forge other Union-saving compromises.


What was a major result of the Missouri Compromise?

The Missouri Compromise was struck down as unconstitutional, and slavery and anti-slavery proponents rushed into the territory to vote in favor or against the practice. The rush, effectively led to massacre known as Bleeding Kansas and propelled itself into the very real beginnings of the American Civil War.

One may also ask, why was the Missouri Compromise important? Missouri Compromise, (1820), in U.S. history, measure worked out between the North and the South and passed by the U.S. Congress that allowed for admission of Missouri as the 24th state (1821). It marked the beginning of the prolonged sectional conflict over the extension of slavery that led to the American Civil War.

Furthermore, what was the result of the Compromise of 1850?

California was admitted to the Union as the 16th free state. In exchange, the south was guaranteed that no federal restrictions on slavery would be placed on Utah or New Mexico. The Compromise of 1850 overturned the Missouri Compromise and left the overall issue of slavery unsettled.

Who benefited the most from the Missouri Compromise?

The Missouri compromise consisted of several different decisions. It admitted Maine as a free state, admitted Missouri as a slave state, and prohibited slavery north of the 36 th parallel. These compromises mostly benefited the northern states.


Why did the Missouri Compromise fail?

The Compromise of 1850 broke down quickly for various reasons that involve slavery in some way. The compromise began to become discredited and useless when the majority of the North refused to follow the Fugitive slave act.

Similarly, why did the Missouri Compromise lead to civil war? The Missouri Compromise was meant to create balance between slave and non-slave states. Adding Maine as a free state balanced things out again. Thomas Jefferson predicted dividing the country this way would eventually lead the country into Civil War.

Similarly, why did the Missouri Compromise fail quizlet?

Missouri wanted to enter the Union as a slave slate. The North did not like this as it would cause and unbalance of free/slave states. Slavery would be permitted south of the Missouri border. Northerners were outraged at the possibility of further expansion of slavery against the Missouri compromise.

What happened in the Missouri Compromise?

Congress passes the Missouri Compromise. On March 3, 1820, Congress passed a bill granting Missouri statehood as a slave state under the condition that slavery was to be forever prohibited in the rest of the Louisiana Purchase north of the 36th parallel, which runs approximately along the southern border of Missouri.


Why was the Missouri Compromise significant?

Missouri Compromise, (1820), in U.S. history, measure worked out between the North and the South and passed by the U.S. Congress that allowed for admission of Missouri as the 24th state (1821). It marked the beginning of the prolonged sectional conflict over the extension of slavery that led to the American Civil War.

One may also ask, why was the Missouri Compromise bad? In the end, the Missouri Compromise failed to permanently ease the underlying tensions caused by the slavery issue. The conflict that flared up during the bill's drafting presaged how the nation would eventually divide along territorial, economic and ideological lines 40 years later during the Civil War.

Consequently, why was the Missouri Compromise important to the Civil War?

The Missouri Compromise was meant to create balance between slave and non-slave states. With it, the country was equally divided between slave and free states. Thomas Jefferson predicted dividing the country this way would eventually lead the country into Civil War.


The Impact of the Missouri Compromise

Perhaps the most important aspect of the Missouri Compromise was the agreement that no territory north of Missouri’s southern border (the 36° 30' parallel) would be allowed to enter the Union as a pro-slavery state. That part of the agreement effectively stopped enslavement from spreading to the remainder of the area included in the Louisiana Purchase.

The Missouri Compromise, as the first great federal agreement over the enslavement issue, was also important in setting the precedent that Congress could regulate enslavement in new territories and states. The question as to whether the federal government had the authority to regulate enslavement would be hotly debated decades later, especially during the 1850s.


Map The Missouri Compromise, 1820 Full Set

The maps in the Map Collections materials were either published prior to 1922, produced by the United States government, or both (see catalogue records that accompany each map for information regarding date of publication and source). The Library of Congress is providing access to these materials for educational and research purposes and is not aware of any U.S. copyright protection (see Title 17 of the United States Code) or any other restrictions in the Map Collection materials.

Note that the written permission of the copyright owners and/or other rights holders (such as publicity and/or privacy rights) is required for distribution, reproduction, or other use of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use or other statutory exemptions. Responsibility for making an independent legal assessment of an item and securing any necessary permissions ultimately rests with persons desiring to use the item.

Credit Line: Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division.


Introduction

The Compromise of 1850 consists of five laws passed in September of 1850 that dealt with the issue of slavery and territorial expansion. In 1849 California requested permission to enter the Union as a free state, potentially upsetting the balance between the free and slave states in the U.S. Senate. Senator Henry Clay introduced a series of resolutions on January 29, 1850, in an attempt to seek a compromise and avert a crisis between North and South. As part of the Compromise of 1850, the Fugitive Slave Act was amended and the slave trade in Washington, D.C., was abolished. Furthermore, California entered the Union as a free state and a territorial government was created in Utah. In addition, an act was passed settling a boundary dispute between Texas and New Mexico that also established a territorial government in New Mexico.

This resource guide compiles links to digital materials related to the Compromise of 1850 that are available on the Library of Congress website. The guide also provides links to external websites and a selected print bibliography.


History of Bipartisanship

In debating a new model for self-rule that would eventually become the Constitution, states’ delegates in the summer of 1787 were so intensely divided over the difficult idea of congressional representation that the very topic threatened to end the Constitutional Convention. Representatives from small states were loathe approve any plan that tampered with the equal representation they currently enjoyed under the Articles of Confederation. Representatives from large, populous states—who wanted proportional representation—thought the current system was obviously unfair. It was Connecticut’s well-respected Roger Sherman who proposed a compromise: a proportional House of Representatives and a Senate with equal representation, an idea that seems familiar to us now, but was so radical in 1787 that, at first, it was dismissed by the group. Eventually the Connecticut Compromise—known now as the Great Compromise—was adopted and the opposing sides in the debate each felt vindicated.

1860: Lincoln’s Team of Rivals

As smaller political parties were evolving into what was to become the modern Republican party, each faction, representing differing viewpoints on slavery and federal power, had a favorite son in the presidential election of 1860. By the time of the Republican party convention, three men representing these factions emerged as party favorites: N.Y. Sen. William Seward, Ohio Gov. Salmon P. Chase and Missouri judge Edward Bates. That all three lost the presidential nomination to a country lawyer named Abraham Lincoln was the first surprise of 1860 that Lincoln won the general election and then appointed all three of his Republican rivals to his cabinet was the second. Lincoln later added a Democrat—Edwin Stanton—as his Secretary of War. Lincoln’s so-called “team of rivals” has come to be seen as a watershed political moment as Lincoln himself explained to newspaper reporter, he felt had no right to deprive the country of its strongest minds simply because they sometimes disagreed with him.

1945: Truman’s Supreme Court Appointee

While President Franklin D. Roosevelt had some bipartisan record—he appointed Republicans as Secretaries of War and Navy—his squelched plan to pack the Supreme Court was still a bitter pill among Washington Republicans. Three months after FDR’s death, new President Harry S Truman was faced with an open Supreme Court seat, seven associate Court justices already appointed by the Democratic FDR and a legislative branch full of skeptical Republican eyes waiting to see what he would do. While naming a Democrat to the seat likely would have been approved, Truman broke with his party and instead chose Republican Ohio Sen. Harold Burton for the Court. It was an olive branch to congressional Republicans—and a chance for a new president to find common ground with the congressional opposition.

1945: Senator Vandenberg’s Bipartisan Foreign Policy

While Americans were fighting overseas in World War II, many congressional Republicans were increasingly wary of a lengthy American involvement in Europe after the war ended. Among these isolationists, Michigan Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg was the unofficial spokesman. But seeing Democrats and Republicans growing increasingly polarized about America’s role in the world while recognizing the threat a remilitarized Germany and Japan might pose, Vandenberg was moved to address the Senate in 1945, declaring that no country could “immunize itself” from the rest of the world. Vandenberg offered his cooperation to FDR in post-war planning that eventually encompassed America’s role in both the United Nations and NATO. Years later, Vandenberg summed up his view of bipartisan foreign policy: “In a word, it simply seeks national security ahead of partisan advantage.” Politics, he famously said, “stops at the water’s edge.”

1964: Civil Rights Act

With civil rights marches and racial violence dominating the news, the issue of African Americans’ legal rights could no longer be ignored. A civil rights bill proposed by congressional Democrats and supported by the White House had just passed the House of Representatives when, in early 1964, the Senate took it up for debate. Twenty-one of the Senate’s 67 Democrats were from the South and publicly opposed the bill as a bloc they began what became the longest filibuster in Senate history. The Senate’s Democratic leaders needed Republican votes to stop the filibuster and Democratic majority leader Mike Mansfield asked his counterpart, Republican Senator Everett Dirksen to step in: “I appeal to the distinguished minority leader whose patriotism has always taken precedence over his partisanship, to join with me … in finding the Senate’s best contribution … to the resolution of this grave national issue,” Mansfield said. Dirksen did more than join with Mansfield—he exhorted his colleagues to end not just the filibuster but America’s difficult past and bring the Civil Rights Act to a vote. “I appeal to all Senators,” he told the chamber. “We are confronted with a moral issue. Today let us not be found wanting …” With Dirksen’s leadership, 27 Republican senators joined 44 Democrats to end debate on June 10, 1964 the bill passed nine days later.

1965: The Great Society

A vision of President Lyndon B. Johnson, the Great Society program was given to Congress as a policy agenda in January 1965. As one of the most ambitious agendas in American history, the Great Society program, which took its name from one of President Johnson’s speeches, aimed to eliminate poverty and racial injustice, increase aid to education, promote urban renewal, and conservation, to name just a few. Congress answered the president’s call to action and enacted, with some adjustments, many of Johnson’s recommendations. The Secondary Education Act of 1965’s foundation lies within Johnson’s Great Society and garnered great support from legislators of both parties, passing with no amendments and little debate in only 87 days. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Medicare, and the creation of the Corporation of Public Broadcasting are just some of the programs that resulted in both parties of Congress working together to implement real change in the American societal landscape.

1969: Man on the Moon

When the Soviet Union launched the first man-made satellite, Sputnik 1, into space on October 4, 1957, the U.S. found itself with only a fledgling space program. Alarmed at what it perceived as the Soviet Union’s technological lead in space, Congress urged President Dwight D. Eisenhower to take immediate action and support a larger U.S. space program. It was only with the collaboration and bipartisanship of members of Congress that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was conceived and then signed into being by President Eisenhower in 1958. Eleven years later, astronaut Neil Armstrong became the first human to walk on the moon, successfully returning to earth in Apollo 11. Only with the bipartisan support of presidents and Congress alike has NASA, 30 years later, still been provided with the resources and tools it needs to keep our space dreams alive.

1973: Endangered Species Act

In 1973, President Richard Nixon called on Congress to make sweeping changes to U.S. environmental policy, calling current species conservation efforts inadequate. Democratic lawmakers Representative John Dingell and Senator Harrison Williams authored the endangered species bills which drew wide support of their Republican colleagues. Congress passed the Endangered Species Act of 1973 with overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle. The new law included protections for plants, invertebrates and the ecosystems on which they depend. Once a species was placed on the endangered list, the ESA would be tasked to come up with a plan to return it to healthy, stable levels. In 2009, more than 20 species have been de-listed due to recovery and many others have had their status down listed from “endangered” to “threatened.”

1977: The Food Stamp Program

The United State’s first Food Stamp program—the government assistance plan to provide food to the needy—was created during the Great Depression but phased out in 1943 when it was no longer needed. When the Kennedy Administration reintroduced a pilot test of the program in the early 1960s, it was not universally welcomed back, a division that only increased when the Johnson Administration made the program a permanent part of its “Great Society” a few years later. Though it was a federal assistance program, it was run by the states, which, backed by Republicans in Congress, worried about the administrative costs associated with the rapidly growing program. As various bills were introduced in the 1970s to control costs and refine the eligibility requirements of the burgeoning program, Democratic supporters began to worry too many obstacles were being put in front of families who needed help. But in 1977, Republican Senator Bob Dole and Democratic Senator George McGovern joined forces to support a bipartisan compromise intended to address both sides’ concerns: control costs by more tightly focusing eligibility requirements to the truly needy while also streamlining the program’s purchase processes. In the end, the two senators convinced their colleagues that the legislation they supported could achieve both Democratic and Republican goals—and the 1977 Food Stamp Act became law.

1983: Social Security Reform

Almost from its inception in 1935, Social Security has been one of the thorniest political issues in Washington. Seen on the left as an immutable promise to American citizens and on the right as an unmanageable beast destined to bankrupt the government, it’s easy to see why Social Security is nicknamed the “third rail” of policy debate it burns anyone who dares touch it. But in the early 1980s, official Washington had no choice the Social Security Trust Fund was poised to begin running a deficit. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan appointed a commission to study solutions to the looming problem. When the commission made its recommendations in 1983, it was Republican Sen. Bob Dole and Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Monyihan—party leaders respected at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue—who led a bipartisan group of legislators in turning the recommendations into legislation. Trying to keep the Social Security Fund solvent would mean amending the program, a move the group knew would likely mean an intense and bitter partisan battle in the halls of power. But Moynihan reminded his cohorts to focus on solving the discrete problem at hand and not get swayed by the partisan debate swirling around them. “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions,” Moynihan famously quipped, “but not their own facts.” In the end, the group’s reforms to the Social Security Act passed and were signed into law by President Reagan.

1986: Tax Reform Act

Some bipartisan moments are borne of a desire to stand on high moral principles, others are borne of more down-to-earth interests. In the divided government of 1986, Republican President Ronald Reagan found himself with a Democratic House and a Republican Senate. While the situation seemed ripe for gridlock, when it came to the 1986 Tax Reform Act, just the opposite happened—nobody wanted to look like the bad guy who killed tax reform. Lowering taxes was a hallmark of Reagan’s presidential campaigns reforming the tax code was a goal of both parties (Democrats favored simplifying the system and eliminating loopholes, Republicans favored treating capital gains and investment income the same as regular income). An unlikely alliance was formed. Add in two powerful committee chairmen in the House (Rep. Dan Rostenkowski) and Senate (Sen. Bob Packwood) who saw passage of the bill as a test of their political might and the United States got what cynics said could never be done: the biggest and most complete overhaul of the tax code in post-war America.

1990: Americans with Disabilities Act

While Americans had elected a disabled man as president in 1932, it was not until almost 70 years later that the rights of people like President Franklin D. Roosevelt became protected under law. The Americans with Disabilities Act, which makes it illegal to discriminate based on disability, was signed into law by President H.W. Bush in 1990. The landmark civil rights legislation had been difficult to pass, however, with critics claiming that disabled individuals were being accommodated unnecessarily and would cause an undue burden on employers. Seeing the need to protect a minority from discrimination, members of Congress on both sides of aisle came together to pass the ADA. Bipartisan Policy Center founders Senators Bob Dole and George Mitchell were early supporters of the law and were instrumental in its passage.

1995: Blue Dog Democrats Formed

In the historic 1994 mid-term elections, House Republicans staged an unprecedented takeover of the congressional body, turning a large Democratic majority in a serious minority. For some Democrats, though, the election-day thumping wasn’t surprising. Forty-seven House Democrats, fiscally moderate if not downright conservative and mostly from conservative-leaning districts, had long grown wary of what they saw as their party’s drift to the left and its unyielding demand to toe an orthodox party line. Feeling they’d been “choked blue” by their party’s leaders, they named themselves the “Blue Dog Coalition” and set about finding a middle ground between the warring edges of both parties. Encompassing a variety of viewpoints, the Blue Dogs are, to this day, engaged in the search for common fiscal ground between the political parties.

1996: Welfare Reform

Despite a bitterly divided government in 1996, Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed into law one of the most sweeping changes to the country’s welfare system. Welfare programs had long been a political dividing line between liberals and conservatives, but by 1996, the threat of intergenerational dependency on government welfare was clear to members of both parties. The Congress, working with the White House, walked a tightrope that made welfare opponents and supporters alternately elated and enraged. Work requirements and child support enforcement were strengthened (a Republican goal), while spending on education and child care was increased (a Democratic goal). Years later, President Clinton wrote that “I was widely criticized by liberals who thought the work requirements too harsh and conservatives who thought the work incentives too generous.” But sometimes, that’s what compromise is.

1997: CHIP

Despite making health care reform a centerpiece of the 1992 Democratic platform, the issue remained an unfulfilled goal for much of the 1990s until Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy stepped into the breach. To address the growing problem of health care for children of the “working poor”—families who couldn’t afford health care coverage on their own but had too much income to qualify for Medicare, Sen. Kennedy proposed legislation to create a federal matching fund for states that helped pay for such care. Sen. Kennedy, as Eastern and liberal a senator as they come, found an unlikely partner across the aisle to co-sponsor his legislation, Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, a western conservative whose career would seem to be the polar opposite. With Hatch involved, congressional conservatives were mollified that the program would not derail the quest for a balanced budget and the Hatch-Kennedy bill, signed into law later that year, established the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

2001: No Child Left Behind

Republican President George W. Bush, following up on campaign promise, introduced a blueprint to Congress for a new and sweeping federal slate of standards-based education programs. Using the president’s goals as a draft, two Republicans (Rep. John Boehner and Sen. Judd Gregg) and one Democrat (Rep. George Miller) signed on as co-authors of the joint legislation. But it was when Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy, one of his chamber’s most outspoken proponents of education reform and also one the president’s most powerful detractors, lent his name to the bill that it stood a chance to overcome the obstacles of inertia and interest group politicking. While the ultimate effectiveness of what became known as the No Child Left Behind Act is still being measured, its bipartisan birth is already in the history books.

2001: September 11

The terrorists who carried out the massive attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, hoped for death and destruction. The bodies of 3,000-plus Americans can attest to that. But their plans to cower America and weaken our government were thwarted almost from the moment the first hijacked airliner hit. Through the tears of shock and sorrow, American citizens united in a show of unprecedented national resolve. It was an attack on the things we hold most dear—and it shook America out of an almost decade-long political schism. In Congress, planned parliamentary obstacles and committee objections were forgotten as members gathered on the Capitol’s East Steps to sing “God Bless America”—not for the cameras, but for each other. And Wal-Mart, the very model of world-wide retail efficiency, struggled to keep up with the demand for American flags as our citizens felt an urgency not seen in generations to remind each other of what unites us.

2002: The McCain-Feingold Act

For decades, the role of campaign donations in influencing elections was a source of consternation for members of both political parties—each of which, of course, believed it was always the “other guys” who weren’t playing by the spirit of the rules. In such an atmosphere, compounded by a close and bitter presidential campaign in 2000, Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold and Republican Sen. John McCain, both ardent supporters of campaign finance reform, believed they needed to bridge the gap to avoid any reform bill from being seen as the “other guys’” solution. Enacted in 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act—commonly referred to as the McCain-Feingold Act, changed how donations could be used to support political parties and candidates and demanded that television campaign ads clearly identify who paid for them.

2005: The Gang of 14

After the 2004 elections, Senate Republicans found their power enhanced. In the previous congress, Senate Democrats ten times killed President George W. Bush’s nominations of conservative appellate court judges by threatening to filibuster. Now, with a 55-vote majority, Republicans announced the possibility of changing Senate rules to forbid the use of filibuster in considering judicial nominations—a change to the staid and traditional rules of the Senate so unprecedented that Republican Sen. Trent Lott nicknamed it “the nuclear option.” With Democratic leadership unwilling to stop filibustering nominations and Republican leadership threatening to change the rules of debate, it was a group of 14 senators—seven from each side—who stepped in to broker a peace. The so-called “Gang of 14” came to a written agreement: Democrats would not filibuster judicial nominations and Republicans would drop “the nuclear option.” With seven senators from each side part of the deal, it effectively meant that neither party had enough votes to rescind their portion.

2009: Cabinet Selections

In his 2008 campaign for president, Democrat Barack Obama made no secret of his admiration for President Lincoln and his so-called “team of rivals” approach to government. Obama campaigned on a pledge to make his cabinet bipartisan—even “post-partisan”—with an eye toward finding middle ground between political factions. Eventually, President Obama took office with Democratic primary rivals Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton as his Vice President and Secretary of State, respectively, and Republican Rep. Ray LaHood as Secretary of Transportation. And despite being a vocal critic of how the war in Iraq was being run by his Republican predecessors, Obama asked President George W. Bush’s Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, to stay in the job, to maintain continuity in the authority of American forces.

2010: Tax Deal

In order to fulfill his campaign promise to support and promote bipartisanship, President Obama signed a deal to extend the Bush-era tax cuts. The legislation cut taxes for all incomes for two years. While Obama did not agree to all aspects of the deal, he described it as “a package that will protect the middle class, grow our economy, and create jobs for the American people.” The deal angered some Democrats who were opposed to legislation they felt catered to the wealthy. However, bipartisan support for the bill coalesced around additions to the measure, such as an extension for unemployment benefits and preventing a tax increase for the middle class. The president bowed to compromise, stating, “it’s not perfect, but this compromise is an essential step on the road to recovery.”

2012: JOBS Act

In April 2012, President Obama and Congress passed bipartisan legislation known as the “Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act.” The legislation was created to help aid entrepreneurship and small business growth by limiting federal regulations and allowing individuals to invest in new companies. It dramatically increased the use of crowdfunding platforms, which are used to raise money for a variety of causes, such as startups, nonprofit organizations, or personal projects. As stated by former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, “the bipartisan JOBS Act represents an increasingly rare legislative victory in Washington where both sides seized the opportunity to work together, improved the bill, and passed it with strong bipartisan support.”

2013: Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013

Two years after reaching a bipartisan agreement on the debt ceiling, Congress announced a two-year budget agreement prior to the budget conference in December. The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 set overall discretionary spending for the 2013 fiscal year at $1.012 trillion, which was about half-way between the proposed budgets of the House and the Senate. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) stated that both sides of the aisle agreed to the proposed legislation after having several extended discussions. During the announcement of the agreement, Ryan and Murray noted that they specifically avoided striking a “grand bargain,” which required the Democrats to agree to reduced entitlement spending in exchange for the Republicans agreeing to higher tax rights. As an alternative, Ryan stated that congressional members strived to “focus on common ground… to get some minimal accomplishments.” The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 was a rare, but promising act of across-the-aisle collaboration in a time of intense gridlock.

2015: Every Student Succeeds Act

In December 2015, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was enacted and replaced the No Child Left Behind Act. The legislation was passed by both the House and the Senate with bipartisan support. ESSA reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that was passed in 1965. This legislation was the first bill since the 1980s to narrow the government’s role in public education specifically for elementary and secondary education. ESSA maintained requirement for standardized testing that were established with No Child Left Behind but gave more control to states in deciding what standards children should be held to in their districts and schools.

2016: 21st Century Cures Act

The debate regarding health care legislation remains a combative issue across the United States. Yet, a sweeping bipartisan agreement occurred around the 21st Century Cures Act, signed into law on December 13, 2016. The bill easily passed both chambers of Congress due to the bipartisan initiatives that were included in it. It strategically provided the National Institutes of Health with resources to expand biomedical research to find cures and treatments for various illnesses and diseases. It allowed for more collaboration among government and private sector researchers and provided for faster drug approval. The legislation supported extensive research funding into studying the human brain, mental and neurological disorders, and regenerative medicine. Funding included $1 billion over two years to combat the opioid crisis, $1.8 billion for former Vice President Joe Biden’s “moonshot legislation” for cancer research, and a ground breaking mental health plan. As stated by President Obama, “this is a reminder of what we can do when we look out for one another.”

2017: John McCain’s Speech after Health Care Vote

During President Trump’s campaign, he promised to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA). After numerous attempts to pass a bill, the House finally approved a repeal measure on a purely party-line vote. In the Senate, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) proved to be the decisive vote in killing the Republican effort to repeal individual and employer mandates from ACA. Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) joined Sen. McCain in voting noto the skinny repeal of ACA. McCain provided rationalization for his vote. In a speech following his decision, he urged his fellow members of Congress to work together, rather than forcefully pushing partisan bills. McCain directly encouraged bipartisanship by emploring his fellow senators “Let’s trust each other… Let’s return to regular order.” We’ve been spinning our wheels on too many important issues because we keep trying to find a way to win without help from across the aisle.”


What did the Missouri Compromise of 1820 establish?

The bill attempted to equalize the number of slave-holding states and free states in the country, allowing Missouri into the Union as a slave state while Maine joined as a free state. In the end, the Missouri Compromise failed to permanently ease the underlying tensions caused by the slavery issue.

Similarly, what was the Missouri Compromise in simple terms? noun U.S. History. an act of Congress (1820) by which Missouri was admitted as a slave state, Maine as a free state, and slavery was prohibited in the Louisiana Purchase north of latitude 36°30&primeN, except for Missouri.

Also to know is, how did the Missouri Compromise start?

Finally, a compromise was reached. On March 3, 1820, Congress passed a bill granting Missouri statehood as a slave state under the condition that slavery was to be forever prohibited in the rest of the Louisiana Purchase north of the 36th parallel, which runs approximately along the southern border of Missouri.

What was one effect of the Missouri Compromise?

The Missouri Compromise was struck down as unconstitutional, and slavery and anti-slavery proponents rushed into the territory to vote in favor or against the practice. The rush, effectively led to massacre known as Bleeding Kansas and propelled itself into the very real beginnings of the American Civil War.