To understand the impact that States’ Rights had on the North and the South requires an understanding of States’ Right as a Constitutional Concept.
The Constitution was ratified primarily to define a general government. To accomplish that end, the general (or federal) government was defined by powers delegated to within the Constitution (primarily Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 through 18. The powers defined here are those of the power of the Congressional Branch of the federal Government (re: Article I, Section 1).
Article II defines the powers of the President or Executive Branch of Government.
Article III defines the powers of the Judicial Branch of government.
These three Articles are the primary definition of the federal government and are only (Constitutionally) enhanced by powers refused to the States.
The powers remaining are included within the 9th Amendment to the Constitution (the ninth ratified article of the Bill of Rights) and are those of the States or People.
The Rights of the States in this context included (up until the 1860s) the power of State Nullification. That is, if the federal government enacts some rule or law, that State Legislatures decide is unconstitutional, they can nullify it within the borders of their States. States both North and South supported this concept with some of them using it. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison supported this concept and here you can reference the Virginia Resolution (written by James Madison) and the Kentucky Resolution (written by Thomas Jefferson).
To make a point, States’ Rights had nothing to do with slavery. Slavery, as an American institution was already protected in the Constitution and continued to be so protected until 1865. Slavery was also protected by the Court until 1869 (re: Texas v. White).
States’ Rights prevailed (over the federal government) in 1826 over the issue of the Creek and Cherokee Tribes and their eventual removal to West of the Mississippi when the Georgia Governor threatened Nullification backed up by Civil War..
The States of Wisconsin and Massachusetts threatened the use of State Nullification .over the issue of the Fugitive Slave Act through enactment of new Personal Liberty Laws.
As another point, States could already make their own laws in every area that wasn’t constitutionally barred from them doing so, and areas delegated to the federal government unless required by federal legislation.
Nor was this a matter of the Northern States being for a strong federal government and the South being for States’ Rights. Many of the Northern States were also for States’ Rights. This was evident with the heavy Copper Head movement in the Northern States and with the proposed 14th Amendment of 1868 never reaching Constitutional ratification and being implemented by federal mandate with some Northern States voting against it. (Its implementation was verified by the United States Supreme Court, cir. Chief Justice Salmon Chase, decision in the 1869 case of Texas v. White where due to Right of Conquest.
In short, although used in differing circumstances, each State had the same stake in the concept of States’ Rights. It is a Constitutional issue not a regional one. By 1869 the federal government had intruded on the Constitutional position of the States in terms of delegated powers and States rights had been minimized for all States.
2006-12-03 10:58:28
·
answer #1
·
answered by Randy 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The South was able to better keep the institution of slavery because of State's Rights. States' Rights are that a state has as much or more power than the federal government, so the South was better able to combat the Northern states' efforts to dismantle slavery.
The North was able to better sustain the Union. The South threatened time and time again to secede from the Union many times before, so at least the North was able to keep the nation together by conceding something to the South.
2006-12-03 01:46:55
·
answer #2
·
answered by . 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
The North and South had many differences. One of these differences was political views. The North held the federal government supreme. They wanted to hae a strong federal government. The South supported states' rights. They believed that the federal government shouldn't be too strong. They did believe in a strong(ish) government, but believed states should also be powerful and have influence in the country.
2006-12-03 02:20:03
·
answer #3
·
answered by kaymay09 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Slavery, the right to make there own laws,if it wasnt already illigal my the whole country then they could make it illegaland more specific to themso the south could say put in laws about crops and such and the north could put in labor laws and industry stuff. Personally i am for states rights other wise its someone who lives across the country telling you what you need and can and cannot do.
2006-12-03 01:53:52
·
answer #4
·
answered by phrani c 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
i would like to help ,but i would be typing all day , go to a local library and look up what you need to know it should be in the history section or borrow someone history book who is in school . their are a lot of good that came from this action besides the abolishment of slavery and voting rights .
2006-12-03 01:49:57
·
answer #5
·
answered by chotpeper 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
does texas need a new constitution
2015-11-12 02:38:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by Adesuwa 1
·
0⤊
0⤋