Coming back to the beginning of the American history, when the United States consisted of only thirteen states, the representatives of the northern (lets call them as “free”) and southern (lets call them as “slave”) states had almost the equal rights in the Congress. Also, it should be pointed out that slavery problem didn’t arise during that period of time. However, the situation was completely changed, when the boundaries of United States approached to West. Both the northern and southern parts were worried about the advantages in the parliament, which, as it is known, was formed on the basic of the following principles: the members of House of Representatives and two deputies from each state - the Senate. In fact, just the Senate became the main reason of the “battle” between the North and South later. It should be emphasized that in the first half of the nineteenth century two main tendency or saying in other words two main ways of bourgeois development took place in the U.S.: one – in the North, other – in the South. So, the main questions of the second American Revolution were the following: Would the further development of capitalism in the U.S. be provided with a way of slavery destruction and would the victory of a free farmer over the slave-owning system take place in the future? Firstly, the main reason of mass contradictions and conflicts became customs tariffs. The point is that, the Northern bourgeoisie was interested in selling the production and therefore demanded high customs for the manufactured goods which were brought from abroad. Slave-holders didn’t support them. So, Legislative Assembly of the South Caroline state in 1832 demanded the complete cancellation of customs tariffs, threatening to disconnect from the U.S.A. The main its argument was so-called “nullification” doctrine, according to which, states can ignore the decisions of the federal authority if they didn’t correspond the constitution. It is clear, that such kind of explanation was very profitable for the separatism representatives, especially in the South of the country. In general, collisions of interests of industrial bourgeoisie and slave-owners led to the unavoidable conflict, which afterwards caused the civil war.  It is obvious that, the given conflict became the beginning of the very tense fight between the following economical systems:  strengthening bourgeois system and weakening slave-holding one.  On the background of the given fight, the political history of America at the period between the independence and civil wars was more visible. Also, at the beginning of the 19-th century various disagreements arose between the representatives of the following political parties: the party of federalists and the party of democrat-republicans. The first party was established by Hamilton. So, focusing on the huge bourgeoisie and successful planters, federalists didn’t want to support the democratization of the constitution. As to the Republican party, at the head of Jefferson, it was highly supported among the industrial bourgeoisie, small planters, farmers and craftspeople. The main purposes of the given party included: the development of bourgeois-democratic freedoms and restrictions of the huge planter’s activity. The beginning of the long conflict was considered to be raising a question on Missouri State. Coming back, we can see that when the territory of Missouri applied for admission to statehood, the Congress and the nation were confronted with a unique substantive question that had far-reaching implications both for the settlement and for the future political status of all the states that might be carved from the vast area acquired from France in the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. Nevertheless, despite all faced difficulties and problems Missouri managed to become a state in 1818                (Bartelby, 2006, p.1). However, the settlers from Missouri also wanted their state to be a slave state. So, the question: “Should slavery be allowed in the new state of Missouri?” was suggested to be the most important for the citizens of that state at that moment (Blaustein, 1968, p.16).  The fact that southern slaveholders had already migrated into the Missouri territory made the question more than academic. The Congressmen from the North did not want another slave state. Also, at the same time Maine asked to be admitted to the Union ( p.17 ).  The discussion on the given problem was very dangerous for the U.S. because it could lead to the split of the country into two enemy sides. Planters tried to create the special law, according to which, the state would have to receive slave status, however they faced mass protests from the delegates of free states. Nevertheless, the given conflict was finished by the Missouri Compromise in February of 1820. As a result, the new agreement was reached, according to which, Missouri had a slave status, but the new Maine State was simultaneously accepted to statehood as a free one. Also, the territory north of 36' 30' north latitude was considered to be free ( p.17 ). Afterwards, the act of March 6, 1820 took place, according to which, fugitive slaves could be apprehended north of the compromise line and returned to their owners. As the American history showed, Missouri Compromise was regarded to be the most long-lived, because no states applied for admission to the statehood of the U.S.A. during the next thirty years. Coming to the conclusion, we can say, that obviously the acceptance of free states undermined the positions of the slave-holders in the Senate. In fact, the Missouri Compromise managed only to suspend the open battle between two economical systems. Later, it was broken when the question, which was connected with the future of such states as California, New Mexico and Utah, was raised. In 1854 the dispute over two states Kansas and Nebraska, which were located north of    36' 30' north latitude touched upon the Missouri Compromise again. As the result, the 36°30´ proviso held until 1854, when the Kansas-Nebraska Act repealed the Missouri Compromise completely. References Bartelby, Inc. The compromises of 1820 and 1850. Retrieved July 20, 2006 from   Blaustein A.P. (1968). Civil Rights and the Black American. A Documentary History, 9, 16-19