You are trying to dodge the point again. You allege the Southern states had a total commitment to slavery, and you also allege they controlled congress.
If both of the things you allege were true, there would be no need for "compromise" and there would be no possibility of such a thing as the "Wilmot Proviso" even making it to the floor.
Now you've been caught. You have to discard one claim or the other, because they are patently contradictory. Both cannot be true or the "Missouri Compromise" (which was itself unconstitutional) could not have made it through congress. The majority that is committed to something do not "compromise" regarding it.
Wilmot's proviso passed the House, but never the Senate, during a brief period of Whig ascendance.
By 1853 Southern Democrats again controlled both houses of Congress and the Doughfaced Northern Democrat President Pierce.
DiogenesLamp: "Now you've been caught.
You have to discard one claim or the other, because they are patently contradictory.
Both cannot be true or the 'Missouri Compromise' (which was itself unconstitutional) could not have made it through congress.
The majority that is committed to something do not 'compromise' regarding it."
Ridiculous -- Missouri Compromise of 1820, seriously?
The 1820 Missouri Compromise was made during the "era of good feelings" when President Monroe had over 80% Democrats in both houses of Congress.
So possibly you meant the 1850 Compromise, which was entirely different.
Do you remember Whig Henry Clay from Kentucky, a slave-holder from a slave-state?
He sponsored the 1850 Compromise, so the political issue was one group of Southern slave-holders versus another, not strictly North vs. South.