Want this question answered?
It depends on when you begin the timeline. Since 1789 there were problems with slavery, but as the nation approached the middle 1800's the issue became more profound. As news states entered the Union the question came up if they would be free or slave. Acts were passed to address this problem , but that didn't help. The Mason-Dixon Line was drawn and that didn't help. Added to the mix were court decisions and elections of pro/anti slave fractions. With the election of Lincoln in 1860 things came to a head and in April 12, 1861 Ft. Sumter happened and the civil war had begun.
cotton on most plantations though you could also argue tobacco for Virginia which is a Southern Colony
States could nullify federal laws. That states could and should decide when Congress was passing unconstitutional laws PLATOO against a loose interpretation of the constitution
While many argue that the South fought only to keep slavery legal, slavery was only a part of the reason the South wanted to fight. The South did not like the fact that if the North won, there will be a very centralized government that will favor the rich Northern part of the U.S. The South wanted a decentralized government where states rights was supreme. The South fought for states rights which includes the right to own slaves.
Quite a variety of 'good subjects to argue about' can be found in regard to 'anti-federalist and federalist' matters. Put in question-form, two of the most important (and controversial) are the following: First, at what point does federal power move from 'reasonable' to 'tyrannical'? Second, do states have the right to secede from the Union?
John C. Calhoun argued that the tariffs violated equal rights. According to his perspective, tariffs not only favored the northern states, but also harmed the southern states. Imported goods hurt the income of all people in South Carolina. As far as Calhoun was concerned, helping support the northern industrial base was not the purpose of the federal government.
John C. Calhoun argued that the tariffs violated equal rights. According to his perspective, tariffs not only favored the northern states, but also harmed the southern states. Imported goods hurt the income of all people in South Carolina. As far as Calhoun was concerned, helping support the northern industrial base was not the purpose of the federal government.
Northern states objected because enslaved people were legally considered property. So, some argued that as property, Slaves should be counted for taxation but not representations.
It depends on when you begin the timeline. Since 1789 there were problems with slavery, but as the nation approached the middle 1800's the issue became more profound. As news states entered the Union the question came up if they would be free or slave. Acts were passed to address this problem , but that didn't help. The Mason-Dixon Line was drawn and that didn't help. Added to the mix were court decisions and elections of pro/anti slave fractions. With the election of Lincoln in 1860 things came to a head and in April 12, 1861 Ft. Sumter happened and the civil war had begun.
Yes, the thirteen states did have disagreements over tariffs and boundaries, which led to conflicts both before and after the American Revolution. States like New York and New Jersey disputed boundaries, while differing economic interests led to debates over tariffs and trade regulations. These issues ultimately contributed to the push for creating a stronger central government under the U.S. Constitution.
In the context of the American Civil War, the concept of “states’ rights” was used by the South to argue for the right of individual states to make their own decisions, particularly when it came to issues like slavery and secession. It was a way to push back against any perceived interference from the federal government or Northern states.
The disagreement over if and how slaves should be counted for Congressional apportionment purposes. The opposing sides were the northern states and the southern states. The northern states who opposed slavery argues that only free state inhabitants could be counted towards apportionment while the southern states argued that slaves should counted towards their population apportionment number.
Yes. Lincoln referred to this rather portentously as 'four score and seven years ago' when he made the Gettysburg address. Or you could argue that the US was re-founded in 1865 after the failed secession of the Southern states.
the Union was an alliance of sovereign states
There is not a way to use The Declaration of Independence to argue against quitting. It is only a document that states the independence of a state.
the national government's powers should be interpreted narrowly.
Well you could argue that Buddhism began on the birth of the Buddha which was 623B.C. This happened in northern India, near the Himalayas.