More handpicked essays just for you.
Southern secession and the civil war
Describe the U.S. Constitution and the process of ratification essay
Southern secession and the civil war
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
During the ratification of the Constitution, anti-Federalists proposed a compromise in which the state of New York reserved the “right to withdraw herself from the Union after a certain number of years” if the federal government did not support reforms the state favored. The Federalists immediately rejected the compromise claiming that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession. Alexander Hamilton and John Jay made it abundantly clear that the “reservation of a right to withdraw” was ultimately “inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification.” At this time legislature related to the topic of secession is in the midst of our state. This letter is not intended to debate the benefits, whether economic or social, but to discuss the legality of our rights to secession, In his Farewell Address, George Washington proclaimed, “the basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constituents of government… but the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all”. Washington, our founding father, believed in a malleable government through the constructs of constitutional amendments. The major …show more content…
actor in our country’s liberation from an oppressive England believed violent takeovers of government should be avoided and the laws of the constitutional government should be followed, until they are constitutionally amended. Despite our contrasting views on certain subjects we are still a Union at the end of the day and our Constitution is our foundation. Under the Principles of ‘98, we the states of the Union have the right to judge the constitutionality of government laws and decrees, but secession should not be used as a tool of opposition. The remnants of loose coupling as a nation under our previous Articles of Confederation are still reminiscent, yet the tribulations of the weaker order should not be neglected. Under the ratification of the Constitution, states have transferred their sovereignty to the federal government. By the Supremacy Clause of Article IV, federal law supersedes state law when a conflict between law arises. Our neighboring brothers who support and have followed secession, have done so in the name of states’ rights. However, their qualms with federal overreach have been settled in our country’s highest court, undoubtedly in their favor as evidenced by the outcome of Dred Scott. As held by Dred Scott’s case, the Property Clause could only be applied to lands possessed at the the time of ratification; as a result Congress cannot ban slavery in the territories and the Missouri Compromise was found to be unconstitutional. Regardless of the differing views on the outcome of the case, the mechanisms for developing and interpreting our country’s law were used in the case to settle one of the current social issues. Still, our neighbors push for individualism to support their agenda and beliefs while masquerading behind the apparent absence of states’ rights. Our right as states of the Union is to decide what we as a majority can and cannot do and prosperity of our nation under the guidance of the Constitution.
The country cannot prevail if states abandon the Union in times of dissenting opinions. In the past century, we have encountered acts of the federal government that have bothered several of us. Consider the controversy between the Embargo Act of 1807 and the state governments of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. Although, the New England states threatened to ignore the act under the explicit language of interposition, the states never passed a resolution nullifying the act. Alternatively, the Embargo Act was challenged in court and brought before Congress for its
repeal. In conclusion, there is a final view that I must bring forth. In response to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, Thomas Jefferson as Vice President of the United States along with James Madison drafted the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which would be the basis for the Principles of ‘98. The resolutions successfully argued the constitutionality of the Alien and Sedition Acts, in effect claiming states’ rights to challenge laws as unconstitutional, though Jefferson may have pushed the limit of his role in his response due to his beliefs in secession. His statements could certainly be seen on the edge of treason. Such threats and movements should be taken with great severity. Ultimately, the power in strengthening the nation is in the hands of us, the people of the United States of America. Secession in response to conflicting views will only result in a damaged nation and ability to secede is not an option as proven by the constructs of the Constitution.
In Federalist Paper No. 6, one of the points it discussed was that it is dangerous if the states were left ...
South Carolina’s decision to invalidate the federal law and deem the tariff unconstitutional was the first blatant disregard for the centralized government. The United States, under Jackson’s presidency, did not unite and support one another in the face of the economic tariff and hardships. Instead, the states nullified (South Carolina in particular) and the individualistic ideals and motivations of the states were exposed. State opinions, such as that of South Carolina were focused solely on their own personal benefit and how they would survive the hardships of the tariff. During the Age of Jackson, there was no unification between the states. The ideals of Jacksonian America were flawed by the growing sectionalism and individualistic ideals. The total equality and unification that Jacksonian America attempted to create was no longer an option. Jacksonian America failed, and in result, did not promote the unified democracy in the United
In the book, Apostles of Disunion, author Charles B. Dew opens the first chapter with a question the Immigration and Naturalization service has on an exam they administer to prospective new American citizens: “The Civil War was fought over what important issue”(4). Dew respond by noting that “according to the INS, you are correct if you offer either of the following answers: ‘slavery or states’ rights’” (4). Although this book provides more evidence and documentation that slavery was the cause of the Civil War, there are a few places where states’ rights are specifically noted. In presenting the findings of his extensive research, Dew provides compelling documentation that would allow the reader to conclude that slavery was indeed the cause for both secession and the Civil War.
A controversial issue during 1860 to 1877 was state’s rights and federal power. The North and South were divided over this issue. The North composed of free states and an industrial economy while the South was made up of slave states and an agricultural economy. The South did not like federal authority over the issue of slavery; therefore, they supported the radical state rights’ ideology. South Carolina seceded from the Union because it believed that since states made up the Union, it could leave when it chooses to. The government argued against the South saying that they had no right to leave the Union because the Union was not made up of just states but people. However, the South counteracted this argument with the case that the 10th amendment “declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by its states, were reserved to the states.” (Doc A) However, the government still believed that secession from the Union was unjust and decided that a new change surrounding state’s rights was necessary. As a result, when the Union won in the Civil War, a resolution was made, where the state’s lost their power and the federal government gained power. U...
While the government of the United States owes its existence to the contents and careful thought behind the Constitution, some attention must be given to the contributions of a series of essays called the Federalist Papers towards this same institution. Espousing the virtues of equal representation, these documents also promote the ideals of competent representation for the populace and were instrumental in addressing opposition to the ratification of the Constitution during the fledgling years of the United States. With further reflection, the Federalists, as these essays are called, may in turn owe their existence, in terms of their intellectual underpinnings, to the writings of the philosopher and teacher, Aristotle.
After winning the Revolutionary War and sovereign control of their home country from the British, Americans now had to deal with a new authoritative issue: who was to rule at home? In the wake of this massive authoritative usurpation, there were two primary views of how the new American government should function. Whereas part of the nation believed that a strong, central government would be the most beneficial for the preservation of the Union, others saw a Confederation of sovereign state governments as an option more supportive of the liberties American’s fought so hard for in the Revolution. Those in favor of a central government, the Federalists, thought this form of government was necessary to ensure national stability, unity and influence concerning foreign perception. Contrastingly, Anti-Federalists saw this stronger form of government as potentially oppressive and eerily similar to the authority’s tendencies of the British government they had just fought to remove. However, through the final ratification of the Constitution, new laws favoring state’s rights and the election at the turn of the century, one can say that the Anti-Federalist view of America prevails despite making some concessions in an effort to preserve the Union.
The Constitution, when first introduced, set the stage for much controversy in the United States. The two major parties in this battle were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, such as James Madison, were in favor of ratifying the Constitution. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, were against ratification. Each party has their own beliefs on why or why not this document should or should not be passed. These beliefs are displayed in the following articles: Patrick Henry's "Virginia Should Reject the Constitution," Richard Henry Lee's "The Constitution Will Encourage Aristocracy," James Madison's "Federalist Paper No. 10," and "The Letters to Brutus." In these documents, many aspects of the Constitution, good and bad, are discussed. Although the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had very conflicting views, many common principals are discussed throughout their essays. The preservation of liberty and the effects of human nature are two aspects of these similarities. Although the similarities exist, they represent and support either the views of the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists.
Federalists such as Hamilton supported ratification. But Anti-Federalists, who feared that the document gave too much power to the federal government, worked to convince the states to reject it. Hamilton believed that the ratification was necessary because giving more power to the central government was essential for the nation's survival. In The Federalist Papers Hamilton sets the stage for those that would follow, entitling that "The vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty." The essay...
While the Federalists believe in a strong, central government, the Anti-Federalists believe in the shared power of state and national governments to maintain the rights of all Americans .The Anti-Federalist favored a confederated government were the state and national governments could share power ,protect citizen’s freedom ,and independence. The Anti-Federalists found many problems in the Constitution. Many were concerned the central government take was all individual rights. Anti-Federalist primarily consisted of farmers and tradesmen and was less likely to be a part of the wealthy elite than were members of their rival the Federalist. Many Anti-federalists were local politicians who feared losing power should the Constitution be ratified and argued that senators that served for too long and represented excessively large territories would cause senators to forget what their responsibilities were for that state. They argued that the Constitution would give the country an entirely new and unknown form of government and saw no reason in throwing out the current government. Instead, they believed that the Federalists had over-stated the current problems of the country and wanted improved characterization of power allowable to the states. They also maintained that the Framers of the Constitution had met as a discriminatory group under an order of secrecy and had violated the stipulations of the Articles of Confederation in the hopes for the for ratification of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalist were sure that the Constitution would take away the rights of the American citizens and fought hard to stop the ratification on the
Following the failure of the Articles of Confederation, a debate arose discussing how a centralized government ought to be organized. The prevailing opinion ultimately belonged to the Federalists, whose philosophy was famously outlined in The Federalist Papers. Recognizing that in a free nation, man would naturally divide himself into factions, they chose not to remedy this problem by stopping it at its source; instead, they would limit its effects by placing strict structural safeguards within the government's framework. The Federalists defined a facti...
On may 25 , 1787 the constitutional convention begain at independence Hall in Philadelphia inorder to amend the Articles of Confederation . It was apparent to the framers of the Constitution that the Articles of Condeferations lacked central authority over foreign and comestic commerece threw many conflicts over time after the Revolutionary War . this wouldn’t be a harmonious amendment either . Between the federalists and the Anti – Federalist the spent the entire summer creating a new government unlike any before . Leaving no one happy proving their creation was fair . One of the biggest conflicts was the balancing of powers between the national and state powers in our feredal sytem (KTP 74).
To define the terminology of federalism to a simplistic way is the sharing of sovereignty between the national government and the local government. It is often described as the dual sovereignty of governments between the national and the local to exert power in the political system. In the US it is often been justified as one of the first to introduce federalism by the ‘founding fathers’ which were developed in order to escape from the overpowered central government. However, federalism in the United States is hitherto uncertain where the power lies in the contemporary political system. In this essay I will outline and explain how power relationship alternates between states and federal government. Moreover I will also discuss my perspective by weighing the evidence based upon resources. Based on these resources, it will aid me to evaluate the recent development in the federal-state relationship.
The opposing argument serves as a perfect gateway to the topic of relationship between Federal and State government. In the United States, the Supremacy Clause serves...
The final step in the preparation for a new government was separation from the old government. This was declared twice in the Declaration of Independence. In the beginning, “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, driving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” and in the end, “that these united colonies are, and ought to be, free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved. In conclusion, the Declaration of Independence was able to motivate people, give them ambition, and make it simple for Americans to take action.
In creating the Constitution, the states had several different reactions, including a rather defensive reaction, but also an understanding reaction. As a document that provided the laws of the land and the rights of its people. It directs its attention to the many problems in this country; it offered quite a challenge because the document lent itself to several views and interpretations, depending upon the individual reading it. It is clear that the founders’ perspectives as white, wealthy or elite class, American citizens would play a role in the creation and implementation of The Constitution.