{| class="wikitable" style="border-collapse:separate;background-color:white"
|+ Territorial Crisis – copyedit last paragraphs to encyclopedic style
! align="center" width="200"|Old version
! align="center" width="200"|New version
|-
|align="center" style="border-color:#FFE49C;border-style:solid;border-width:1px 1px 1px 4px;"|[box.2.a] 
The first of these “conservative” theories, represented by the Constitutional Union Party, argued that the historical designation of free and slave apportionments in territories should become a Constitutional mandate. The Crittenden Compromise of 1860 was an expression of this view.[n.]
|align="center" style="border-color:#A3D3FF;border-style:solid;border-width:1px 1px 1px 4px;"|[box.2.b] 
The first conservative view argued for avoiding secessionist crisis by a return to the balance of 1820. The Congress determines the slavery question at the time of organizing a territory to balance the incoming states slave and free. This was the “Missouri Compromise” view supported by the Constitutional Union Party of John Bell and the Crittenden Compromise of 1860.[n.] 
[tvh.8.12.2012][tvh.9.12.2012]
|}