why did the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Crittendon Compromise fail to resolve the sect

Question

why did the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Crittendon Compromise fail to resolve the sectional crisis?

Answer 1

I think that there is one line that sums it up the best. Lincoln once said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand". There was no way the United States government could survive being half free and half slave. It had to be one or the other, not both.

The issue of free or slave got so tense and heated that making compromises was not achieving anything and the passion for compromising.

Answer 2

I can't remember who said it, but there's a fairly famous saying that "compromise" means that both parties leave the table unhappy. The compromises listed in your question were stopgap measures made by people deperate to avoid conflict but without anyone really addressing the actual issues. All they did was prolong the inevitable flare-up. The one benefit they did have in prolonging the conflict was to at least hold evrything together until Lincoln came along. Had Civil War broken out under any of the stuffed shirts we had for President immediately before Lincoln, the outcome could have been far worse.

Answer 3

2 is really the Kansas-Nebraska Act. ok and N were earlier guaranteed free territories lower than the Missouri Compromise (1820), because both are north of Missouri's southern border. at the same time as the ok-N Act made them open to both slavery or freedom by common vote, it spark off a hurry of idealists from both area to settle the territories and be sure them for his or her respective area. This brought concerning the phenomenon of 'Bleeding Kansas', in which bands of both professional-slave and abolitionist settlers may attack one yet another to swing the inhabitants in opt for of their area. a million is okay-N also. the outline is inapt, because it quite in common words delivered outrage from northern abolitionists, because the territories were guaranteed free earlier the Act, and now ought to probable bypass slave. yet in common words the ok-N A positioned the slavery question as a lot as common sovereignty (vote).

Answer 4

I think that's also true about a house divided.

Have you ever tried (or seen someone else try) draw an imaginary line down the center of a room and tell the other person that's their side and this is mine? Inevitably there will be fighting and arguing, someone trying to extend the boundaries of their side, etc.

I think you can apply the same principle here.