How could a member of congress opposed to slavery on moral ground have voted for the missouri compromise?
445919
Because he would have been lynched by his own constituents.
183020
bill that became law on May 30, 1854, by which the U.S. Congress established the territories of Kansas and Nebraska. By 1854 the organization of the vast Platte and Kansas river countries W of Iowa and Missouri was overdue. As an isolated issue territorial organization of this area was no problem. It was, however, irrevocably bound to the bitter sectional controversy over the extension of slavery into the territories and was further complicated by conflict over the location of the projected transcontinental railroad. Under no circumstances did proslavery Congressmen want a free territory (Kansas) W of Missouri. Because the West was expanding rapidly, territorial organization, despite these difficulties, could no longer be postponed. Four attempts to organize a single territory for this area had already been defeated in Congress, largely because of Southern opposition to the Missouri Compromise. Although the last of these attempts to organize the area had nearly been successful, Stephen A. Douglas, chairman of the Senate Committee on Territories, decided to offer territorial legislation making concessions to the South. Douglas's motives have remained largely a matter of speculation. Various historians have emphasized Douglas's desire for the Presidency, his wish to cement the bonds of the Democratic party, his interest in expansion and railroad building, or his desire to activate the unimpressive Pierce administration. The bill he reported in Jan., 1854, contained the provision that the question of slavery should be left to the decision of the territorial settlers themselves. This was the famous principle that Douglas now called popular sovereignty, though actually it had been enunciated four years earlier in the Compromise of 1850. In its final form Douglas's bill provided for the creation of two new territories—Kansas and Nebraska—instead of one. The obvious inference—at least to Missourians—was that the first would be slave, the second free. The Kansas-Nebraska Act flatly contradicted the provisions of the Missouri Compromise (under which slavery would have been barred from both territories); indeed, an amendment was added specifically repealing that compromise. This aspect of the bill in particular enraged the antislavery forces, but after three months of bitter debate in Congress, Douglas, backed by President Pierce and the Southerners, saw it adopted. Its effects were anything but reassuring to those who had hoped for a peaceful solution. The popular sovereignty provision caused both proslavery and antislavery forces to marshal strength and exert full pressure to determine the “popular” decision in Kansas in their own favor, using groups such as the Emigrant Aid Company. The result was the tragedy of “bleeding” Kansas. Northerners and Southerners were aroused to such passions that sectional division reached a point that precluded reconciliation. A new political organization, the Republican party, was founded by opponents of the bill, and the United States was propelled toward the Civil War
985942
The Connecticut Compromise of 1787 in the United States, also known as the Great Compromise, was struck in the creation of legislative bodies. It joined the Virginia Plan, which favored representation based on population, and the New Jersey Plan, which featured each state being equal. Roger Sherman, from Connecticut, played a large role in constructing the compromise
925694
There are a few Republicans out there that I would have voted for an opposing candidate even if that candidate was a crack whore. Congressthug John Sweeney for one.
810825
Contrary to the popular belief shown in these answers it did not start in the American Congress.  It started in the assembly of France.  Those that sat on the Speakers right were loyal to the Republic and those that sat to the left were seeking to change the government.\n\nThere was no original conection to religion at the start, but there has been an intertwining of personal beleifs since then.
183569
After the Dems embraced the spirit of civil rights, there was an exodus of "the racist element" from that party to the Republican Party. The latter accepted them with open arms. Contrary to another answer the Dems have not only voted for most CR legislation but have introduced most legislation into the House and Senate. The president who most hindered those efforts was - in my opinion -  himself part of that exodus from the Dems, Ronald Wilson Regan. He is the one who claims to have "never seen discrimination in this country". I am not saying he was a Racist, but it was his blatant opposition to traditional CR policies that set the mood for acceptance of anti-Black sentiment in this country.
742645
Thomas Jefferson wasn't very religious and was very in favor of the Separation of Church and State.  He felt that that is why there were people there they wanted to be free to worship as they pleased, and that for that to be possible the State shouldn't be in favor of one particular religion.
86700
well, SHE wasn't a congressMAN.\nJeannette Rankin was the first female elected to congress and voted against both the japan and germany/italy declaration of war because she was a pacifist (she also voted against the declaration of war in WWI when she was in the house of representatives)\n\n/edit \nTo the person below:\nit is easy to say "oh oh, look see, pacifism is bad" without delving into the facts.  You may want to look into Rankin sometime and see what her background was, why she became a pacifist.  She did not vote against the war declarations in order to stop the war, but, rather, to make a statement.  I studied her a bit for a project I did while working on my master's in american history, she was a fascinating individual.
928410
According to the compromise, Texas would relinquish the land in dispute but, in compensation, be given 10 million dollars -- money it would use to pay off its debt to Mexico. Also, the territories of New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah would be organized without mention of slavery. (The decision would be made by the territories' inhabitants later, when they applied for statehood.) Regarding Washington, the slave trade would be abolished in the District of Columbia, although slavery would still be permitted. Finally, California would be admitted as a free state. To pacify slave-state politicians, who would have objected to the imbalance created by adding another free state, the Fugitive Slave Act was passed.\n\nOf all the bills that made up the Compromise of 1850, the Fugitive Slave Act was the most controversial. It required citizens to assist in the recovery of fugitive slaves. It denied a fugitive's right to a jury trial. (Cases would instead be handled by special commisioners -- commisioners who would be paid $5 if an alleged fugitive were released and $10 if he or she were sent away with the claimant.) The act called for changes in filing for a claim, making the process easier for slaveowners. Also, according to the act, there would be more federal officials responsible for enforcing the law.\n\nFor slaves attempting to build lives in the North, the new law was disaster. Many left their homes and fled to Canada. During the next ten years, an estimated 20,000 blacks moved to the neighboring country. For Harriet Jacobs, a fugitive living in New York, passage of the law was "the beginning of a reign of terror to the colored population." She stayed put, even after learning that slave catchers were hired to track her down. Anthony Burns, a fugitive living in Boston, was one of many who were captured and returned to slavery. Free blacks, too, were captured and sent to the South. With no legal right to plead their cases, they were completely defenseless.\n\nPassage of the Fugitive Slave Act made abolitionists all the more resolved to put an end to slavery. The Underground Railroad became more active, reaching its peak between 1850 and 1860. The act also brought the subject of slavery before the nation. Many who had previously been ambivalent about slavery now took a definitive stance against the institution. \n\nThe Compromise of 1850 accomplished what it set out to do -- it kept the nation united -- but the solution was only temporary. Over the following decade the country's citizens became further divided over the issue of slavery. The rift would continue to grow until the nation itself divided.
371896
the Compromise of 1850, thereby repulsing Southern threats of secession while urging Northern support for a stronger law for the recovery of fugitive slaves.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Webster\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1850
984761
Most democrats (which is mostly how I voted) tend to follow a "we are responsible for the welfare of society" type belief system, whereas republicans seem to follow a "let's create an enemy, a 'them', and work against 'them' (us vs. them)" kind of system.\n\nI'm more for inclusion than exclusion.\n\nOf course, this is a very vague generalization.\n\nI also (being from Missouri) voted for McCaskill over Talent partially because Talent looks like a child molester.  True story.
190455
During the time of the Convention a number of issues were addressed.  One of the primary concerns was how was the Congress of the United States to be structured and how would the members gain membership.  The suggested approaches were from a single house with hereditary members to a bicameral congress with all members elected directly from the people.  \n\nThe final version was a bicameral congressional structure with the upper house membership comprised of two members from each State and these elected by the legislature of the State from which they come.  The lower house was to have members in numbers defined by population and this would result in each State having unique numbers of representatives, and these representatives would represent the people of a given district and only the citizens of that district could vote for that representative.  \n\nIn this process people would be represented by a single directly elected representative.  The States each represented by two representatives.\n\nTo carry this further, the President would be elected by delegates to the Electoral College and delegates would be elected in a manner singularly directed by each State.\n\nThe members of the Supreme Court would be selected by the President with advise and consent of the Senate.\n\nThe pattern here should be obvious, that is, popular election of these offices was not desired by the Founders.  Even the members of the lower house were elected by small districts within each State.  \n\nI’m only guessing that this is what you were asking about, because there were other issues and your question wasn’t clear.
577090
When in time did the state want to be admitted to the Union.  Missouri was admitted to the Union as a slave state as part of the Compromise of 1820.  As part of the compromise, states north of the Missouri line were free states while state south of the line were slave states. \n\nIn 1848, the US won a war with Mexico and expanded territories West.  California wanted to be admitted to the Union as a slave state at this time.  So Congress constructed the Compromise of 1850 which allowed the annexed territories from Mexico to self-determine their status, except for California which was admitted as a free state.
729128
Ultimately, I think this is a non-partisan issue.  \n\nPreserving societal morals is a human question, not a Republican one.  \n\nTaking the vote to the states, is a good start, and wholly supported Constitutionally, under the 10th Amendment.
847708
He didnt. I dont vote.\n\nWe are to pray for our leaders. The bible tells us to do that. We are also supposed to follow the laws (like not speeding etc) unless the Laws go against God.\n \nAs Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, the president is explicitly charged with the duty of maintaining the military, defending our borders and preserving national interests through the use of violence if necessary or expedient. If I, as a follower of Christ, could not conscientiously serve in that role, then how can I in good conscience cast my support for someone else to do that in my stead? I am nonresistant.\n \nIn the past, members of the Anabaptist tradition have paid a very high price for their view —loss of property, forced emigration, imprisonment, and even martyrdom have all been a part of our collective story.\n\nVoting, after all, is not just a “right.” It is also a “rite”—a ritual of identity and loyalty binding the individual to the nation. Abstaining from elections signal that our first loyalty is to the worldwide fellowship of Christian believers, not to the nation-state.\n Jesus is my basis. He said follow me and enter the kingdom of heaven. He made no mention of service to another government. He also said to swear not. We are taught to say yes or no.\n\nWhen we as strangers and pilgrims are hindered by the laws of the land we are in, we submit without complaint or leave.\n\nThe gospel has been lived and preached in every land with persecution.\n\nWhen we live by his law and bless our rulers and enemies we are following his example even when it gets us imprisoned or killed.\n\nJerusalem in the days of King Solomon was a lot like America today with its "FREEDOM OF RELIGION" and BUSINESS,and like America and Europe today it was one big brothel.\n\nIt doesn't matter who is elected, the winner will not defend and preach the gospel of Jesus Christ even if he or she goes to church..\n\nBeing born in the United States I have many advantages, mainly that I can peacefully descent but that day is passing quickly as Satans world government takes over.\n \nChristian allegiance can only be to that one kingdom--the Kingdom of God. The second chapter of Daniel illustrates the kingdoms of the world and the final one kingdom that will rule the world in righteousness-the Kingdom of God. True disciples of Christ respect the flags of all nations but give allegiance to the flag of no nation. Our allegiance is to a kingdom that will never fall (Daniel 2:44).\n\nAs Christian believers, we are not first and finally citizens of the USA. We are citizens of Heaven. It is best not to speak of America as ,.our" country. It is not our country. It is the country in which we happen to have been born. None of us had a choice about where we should be born. What if you had been born in Pakistan or North Korea or Cuba? Would you be patriotic there? Then why should you be patriotic here in the USA?\n\nDuring World War 11, Lutherans fought for Germany and Lutherans fought for America. They killed each other. Why? For patriotism and for the glory of God. Does that make sense to you? They were, each in turn, patriotic for their own country.\n\nIf we vote, we are selecting a representative to act for us as individuals. When that representative makes choices and decisions, we are then obligated to support them. This could include going to war. If they declare war, that blood could well be on our hands. Those citizens who participate in the process of selecting civil officials (governors and presidents)--are then obligated to support the decisions of the officers when they are in office.\n\nWhat does the Bible say about our citizenship? Philippians 3:20 clearly tells us that our citizenship is in Heaven. Hebrews 13:14 says that God's people are looking for a country because they have no continuing city here. The Bible further says that we are ambassadors (2 Corinthians 5:20). An ambassador is a person representing a foreign coun
712088
He is a democrat by heart.  He is a man of conviction (one of the fiew the democrat party HAD).  He will vote democrat towards most issues, but if he disagrees with something of theirs, he will vote against it.\n\n"control" means having more votes than the opposition.
229436
The Kansas–Nebraska Act was a United States Act of Congress passed on January 23, 1854, organizing a territorial government for the lands that later became the states of Kansas and Nebraska. Opponents saw it as the triumph of the Slave Power and formed the new Republican Party to defeat it. The Act was a key step on the way to the American Civil War.\n\nThe availability of tens of millions of acres of excellent farm land made it necessary to create a territorial infrastructure to allow settlement. Railroad interests were especially eager to start operations, for they needed farmers as customers. Four previous attempts to pass legislation had failed. The solution was a bill proposed, in January 1854, by Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois. He was the Democratic party leader in the Senate, the chairman of the Committee on Territories, an avid promoter of railroads, an aspirant to the presidency, and, above all, a fervent believer in popular sovereignty or grass roots democracy. His slogan was "Let the People Rule," which in this case meant the decision on having slavery would be made by the residents themselves. His bill caused a firestorm of protest because it was a rejection of the 1820 Missouri Compromise and might allow the expansion of slavery into Kansas, where it had been forbidden. Even before the bill passed, a new grass roots opposition party was being organized in every northern state, the Republican Party. Northern Democrats, Southerners, and President Franklin Pierce supported the bill. Douglas used brilliant parliamentary maneuvers to get the bill passed on May 30, 1854. It was signed into law by Pierce; he was a "doughface" or northerner whose political support came mostly from the South. In effect, there were now three political positions in American politics, represented by Northern Democrats (led by Douglas), the Northern Republicans, and the Southern Democrats. In 1860, they would each run a candidate for president.\n\nThe act divided the region into the Kansas Territory (south of the 40th parallel) and the Nebraska Territory (north of the 40th parallel). The most controversial provision was the stipulation that each territory would separately decide whether to allow slavery within its borders. This provision repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which had prohibited slavery in any new states to be created north of latitude 36°30' since Kansas and Nebraska would be north of that line and could now choose to allow slavery.