How did the constitution contribute to the beginning of the Civil War?

Question

I have an in-class essay soon and I have had trouble really understanding the prompt...

"By the 1950s the Consititution, originally framed as an instument of national unity, had become a source of national discord and eventually contributed to the failure of the union it created. Assess the validity of this statement."
Basically, was it the Constitution that caused the Civil War?

If anyone has any ideas I would appreciate it!

I went to talk to him and basically he said... Although the Consititution allowed for compromise, temorarily settling disputes, the main issue trying to be resolved, slavery, was originally in the Constitution and therefore caused "discord" among the nation.

I understand that slavery was a huge cause, and that it was in the Constitution, but why did it cause discord.

ya... i meant 1850s!!

Answer 1

The North saw no need for slavery because its economy was oriented around manufacturing and industrialization. The South relied very heavily on slavery because its economy relied on agriculture.

The Constitution never endorsed slavery, it merely acknowledged that slavery existed. Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons "all other persons," meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of "such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit," meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons "held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another," meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.

The Bill of Rights, adopted in 1791, says nothing about slavery. But the Fifth Amendment guaranteed that no person could "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This Amendment was a major point of argument.

Northerners argued that slaves were people that had a right to not be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Southerners saw the slaves as the property that is mentioned in the Amendment. They felt like the government did not have a right to abolish slavery because that would be depriving the slaveowners of their property.

The way was paved for the Civil War.

Answer 2

Another issue that comes up around the American Civil War is the issue of state sovereignty. Specifically the 10th amendment reserves the powers not specifically given to the federal government to the state or the people.

Since control over the slave trade is not specifically mentioned in the constitution, it is natural to conclude that the states where free to decide for themselves whether they would be free or slave holding.

However abolitionist states tried to push legislation through congress to ban slavery. This they could do because of the elasticity clause.

In effect, the abolitionists were defying the sovereignty of the slave states. The slave states felt that the issue was not the within the federal governments jurisdiction. The abolitionists either didn't agree or didn't care.

This is in part why the southern states seceded to form a confederacy instead of a republic with a federal government.

In to this mix enters the matter of the census. The house of representatives gives a certain number of seats to each state based on population. In this equation, slaves counted, even if only at 3/5ths of a person. And these persons could not vote. Effectively the slave states had an inflated presence in the house, and could expand simply by buying or breeding more slaves. Since slaves could not vote, this meant more power in the hands of fewer people.

Answer 3

The framers made made various compromises in the constitution and put in a lot of vague language (well regulated militia, high crimes and misdemeanors, cruel and unusual punishment, etc) in the hope that their successors would work something out.

The founders had agreed to disagree over slavery and compromised over it in the constitution. (The 3/5 clause was the most notable instance of this.) Many hoped that slavery would eventually die out. However, with the rise of cotton production it became stronger than ever. Almost every issue became tangled up with the discord between the free and slave states. For example, the whole argument over tariffs was largely a fight between the two sections. The most contentious issue was whether new states could legalize or prohibit slavery.

Both sections wanted the new states to be on their side. Settlers supporting both factions moved to the territories in order to support their section and fought each other in places like Kansas. Various compromises were instituted, but broke down because neither side was could really compromise on the basic issue of whether slavery was compatible with democracy. Southerners saw owning slaves as constitutionally protected right, which it was. Northerners saw it as the denial of the most basic human rights to millions of Americans, which it was. The Dred Scott decision added to the fire. Not only did it declare that Scott was still a slave (a justifiable conclusion from the language of the constitution); it said that black were non-citizens, having no rights under the constitution; and that the compromises made over slavery were unconstitutional, because slavery was a state and not a federal matter.

The constitution, furthermore, is vague on the relationship between the state and federal governments. WAS the United a single country of which the states were a part, or WERE the United States a federation of independent states (like the European Union), who were to free to leave the federation if they wanted to. In the first case succession was an illegal dissolution of the nation. In the second it was perfectly legal.

PS: Southerners like to claim that they fought in defense of states rights. However, the issue wasn't the legality of slavery in states where it already existed, but rather the expansion of slavery to new states. Of course, they realized that if the states were predominantly free, they could pass a constitutional amendment abolishing it altogether.

Answer 4

The southern states depended on slavery for the well being of their economy. The constitution gave states the right to decide whether or not slavery was legal. Human rights organizations in the north (and some in the south) slowly started to bring the awareness of slavery's atrocities, and pressure began to build on the federal government. It ended up turning into a political showdown that eventually led to war.

Answer 5

rights of individual states. pretty much all i can think of. and i think you mean 1850s. whatevv.. but... i'm assuming this is an APUSH course?? basically, the constitution declares rights for the states goverments... saying that the fed. goverment is not a dictatorship. in some cases the states can control peoples rights more than the country.. so.. in the case of the civil war..the southern states felt with the federal goverment trying to remove slavery, that they were taking away the south's rights... their arguement for succession was the individual rights of the states promised by the US constitution.. this should kinda ring some bells.. hope i helped. : )

Answer 6

b/c the north wanted it abolished and the thriving southern economy was based on it. Hence, discord and potential disunification of the union.

the 3/5 rule is a compromise, the admission of 1 slave and 1 free state is a compromise. The whole thing is full of compromises. Many saw the country as built on a lie until the promise that all me are created equal was true. So we had a war.

Answer 7

Slavery was a biggie. The South believed each state should choose what they wanted, the North believed that we were a union and all states should comply with the federal government. Hope that helps.

Answer 8

The seceding states wanted states to have more power because slavery was essential to the Southern economy. Northern states wanted a unifying federal government, one that outlawed slavery. If states can decide over slavery, that would've made slave states happy because there's no federal gov't disrupting your trade.

Answer 9

Slavery was in the back-burner for the constitution. They left it for future times, or generations. It was a canister all the time about to explode.

Answer 10

Because the south wanted slavery and the north didn't want it.