what was the major constitutional issue surrounding the civil war?

Answer 1

Actually the "Constitutional" issue boils down to the "right to secede" (and not just generally, but in the way the Confederate states did so).

People often say "states' rights" was the issue, but they seldom provide any clear definition of what those specific "rights" were, much less how the North (esp. the Republican adminstration that had been elected but had not yet taken office) disagreed with the seceding states about these rights.

In fact, when you look at the actual arguments made at the time --and especially at the secession statements of the first states to secede-- you discover that "states rights" could have only one (or both) of two specific meanings:

1) The right to hold slaves. But the odd thing here was that no one with any political power in the North advocated interfering with slavery in the South (that is, in any state where it currently existed). It was more the perceived threat --the belief that once Republicans took power they eventually WOULD seek to abolish slavery-- along with some anger that the North did not do enough to help enforce the Fugitive Slave Law, that led to secession and so ultimately to war.

If you doubt that slavery was the central issue, just check out the Declarations of Causes of Seceding States for South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia and Texas:
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reasons.html

But, in fact, the Republican position was to prevent the SPREAD of slavery into the territories and so, they hoped, to see it eventually, naturally, die out in those states where it existed. (Lincoln, for instance, had repeatedly declared that he had NO power nor intention to interfere with slavery in the states where it existed.)

2) So the only remaining Constitutional issue on which the seceding states disagreed with many in the North was whether individual states had the Constitutional right to SECEDE from the Union without the agreement of the other states.

Now the seceding states did not, of course, secede simply to assert the right to DO so! (That would have been rather silly.) Rather, they sought to secede BECAUSE of issue #1 (slavery) above... and the perception that their ability to influence national laws in support of slavery (often including its SPREAD to new territories) was weakening as the North grew larger.

In fact, much of Lincoln's first inaugural address is a sort of brief on the argument AGAINST secession (at least, secession by a state without the consent of the rest). He argues both against the idea that there was any NEED/COMPLAINT that would justify such a move at the time (reasserting the Republican position concerning leaving slavey alone, etc.) and against the idea that states had such a right.

Text of Lincoln's First Inagural:
http://historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=580

Outline of the contents and argument of the speech:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln's_First_Inaugural

(If you want a good, careful summary of the question of the right of secession, and esp. of Lincoln's arguments on this point from someone who concludes there is NOT such a right, but seeks to be fair, not dismissive, of contrary views, I highly recommend Daniel Farber's book *Lincoln's Constitution* (2003). This is one of the main points he discusses in the book.)

My own position on this:
I generally agree with Lincoln's argument that, even on the weakest construction (of the Constitution as a "contract") the notion that one party has the right to unilaterally abrogate the arrangement cannot be sustained.

BUT, more importantly, I think it is critical to not simply argue abstractly, but to note the historical circumstances. In fact, the ACTION of secession --at least for the original seven states to secede-- was a specific response to not getting the results they wanted in a fair election that was completely Constitutional! Indeed, this is exactly what they had threatened to do if the Republican candidate won the presidential race.

Now note, NO ONE contested that Lincoln had been fairly --and constitutionally!-- elected. In these circumstances, the threat of secession, not to mention its implementation, to try to FORCE people to vote for or against a specific candidate (or bill for that matter) is itself thoroughly undemocratic and contrary to the Constitution! The fact that the Southern states made such a threat, and then essentially said, "since you did not vote as WE wanted we're quitting" undercuts all their claims to be acting on Constitutionally recognized rights and tacitly argues that they ought to have a veto over laws and even over Presidential elections.

Answer 2

States Rights

Answer 3

states rights and taxs put on the souths cotton called tarrifs