<p>This thread is solely exclusive to one question. The question was phrased something like this "What is the historical significance of the Missouri Compromise" The two contested answers are:</p>
<p>A) banned slavery north of 36 30.
B) Avoided conflict over slavery</p>
<p>I opt for choice A</p>
<p>i put A...</p>
<p>prsh its B</p>
<p>I will stand by my answer and it's B.</p>
<p>it is definitely B</p>
<p>i put A and im standing by it</p>
<p>B wasn't "avoided conflict over slavery" it was "delayed conflict over slavery" and it is the answer.</p>
<p>Ok, here's why its B. The Missouri Compromise line did ban slavery over territories above the 36 30 line. But, the question was worded a specific way. It said ALL territories over hte 36 30 line. Missouri is located over the 36 30 line, yet slavery is allowed in Missouri, therefore Missouri is the one exception. Choice A's wording was ALL, and therefore, because of Missouri, it is incorrect.</p>
<p>ANswer is choice B.</p>
<p>The reason A is wrong is that the compromise still allowed slavery above 36'30 in THE STATE OF MISSOURI. Slavery was banned for territory OTHER than MIssouri north of 36'30. The way answer A is stated, it implies that slavery is banned in MO too, which is incorrect.</p>
<p>Aatif, beat me by a minute!</p>
<p>Ayup. B was right.</p>
<p>i knew that from taking us history in 8th grade...and it wasnt ap or anything, it was just 8th grade social studies</p>
<p>I said it was B.</p>
<p>B is correct .... thanks guys</p>
<p>lol yeah I put B, too.</p>
<p>the 36,30 line did not extend to the pacific; remember, the whole thing with the crittenden compromise was to EXTEND the line to the pacific.</p>