Final answer:
The question discusses a historical figure's reaction to the Missouri Compromise, suggesting a temporary alleviation of tensions over slavery in the U.S., symbolized by the compromise line as a reprieve rather than a permanent solution. The former president likely understood that the issue would resurface, requiring future resolution.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question appears to refer to a historical figure's reaction to an event. Since it mentions the Missouri Compromise line and Cleveland, it's likely related to American history, specifically to reactions surrounding the Missouri Compromise. In context, when it is said that the line is a 'reprieve only, not a final sentence,' it implies that the compromise was a temporary solution to the issue of slavery expansion in the United States rather than a lasting resolution.
The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was a significant event as it admitted Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state, keeping the balance of power in Congress. The 'reprieve' that is mentioned would suggest that this decision temporarily alleviated sectional tensions without actually addressing the fundamental disagreement over slavery. The use of the phrase 'not a final sentence' by a historical figure like a former president would indicate an understanding that the issue would resurface and need to be confronted in the future.
Overall, the former president's reaction seems to recognize the Missouri Compromise as a stopgap, a brief moment of peace in the ongoing conflict over slavery that still yearned for a definitive and just solution, which would only come decades later with the Civil War and the abolition of slavery.