The Missouri Compromise Conflict and the Nullification Crisis are alike in multiple ways. First off, they both separated the North and South. By causing conflict between them, it helped pave the way for the Civil War, one of the bloodiest wars in American history. Both of these conflicts helped this war in one way or the other. Another way they are alike is that they both favored the South.
The Nullification crisis started with the Legislature putting tariffs out. South Carolina thought the tariffs should be nullified and tried to do something about it. The people that supported nullifying it were known as the “nullies”. The Nullies were fighting the tariff battle alone, even though other states in the South said that they would help the
…show more content…
They were above all of the other slave states, but they wanted to be able to still own slaves. When they were allowed to become a slave state, this put the North at a disadvantage of 15-16 representatives in elections. The Missouri Compromise allowed states that were below the 36-30 line to become slave states when they were admitted to become a state. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 repealed the 36-30 dividing line for slavery in the Louisiana Purchase area. Tensions rose between the North and South even more than they had in the Nullification …show more content…
The Missouri Compromise was over the land of the states and the representative places that were allowed to be held in office, while the Nullification Crisis was more about the money that it would cost them. Another difference was the time. They were in two different times, but both had a major effect on the future. When they responded to the Nullification Crisis, it was that even the lower tariff wasn’t low enough, when the North thought they probably would accept the lower tariff. The Missouri Compromise was a more predictable outcome than the Nullification Crisis because the requirements were