0
Northern and southern states argued over new states entering the U.S. primarily due to the balance of power between free and slave states. The South wanted new states to allow slavery to maintain their political influence, while the North aimed to limit the spread of slavery to bolster free state representation. This tension heightened sectional divisions and contributed to conflicts like the Missouri Compromise and later the Civil War. Ultimately, the debate over new states reflected broader issues of economic interests, social values, and human rights.
What else can I help you with?
What year did the northern and southern states in the US argue about slavery?
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.
What was the major cash crops in the southern colonies in the early 1700's?
cotton on most plantations though you could also argue tobacco for Virginia which is a Southern Colony
What did the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions argue?
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
What were the souths motives for fighting the civil war?
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.
What are good subjects to argue about on the subject anti-federalist and federalist?
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?
What rights did John C. Calhon argue that tariffs violated?
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.
What rights did John c. Calhoun argue that tariffs violated?
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.
Why did some northern delegates argue that enslaved people should be counted for taxation but not representation?
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.
Did scalawags argue that slavery was necessary for the economy?
Scalawags, who were Southern whites that supported Reconstruction and the Republican Party after the Civil War, generally did not argue that slavery was necessary for the economy. Instead, they often sought to promote economic development and integration with the Northern states, advocating for policies that would benefit the South's economy in a post-slavery context. Many scalawags were more focused on progressive reforms and rebuilding the South rather than defending the institution of slavery.
What year did the northern and southern states in the US argue about slavery?
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.
What did the south mean by the phrase states rights?
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.
Why did the cooperationists argue that South Carolina should secede from the Union?
Cooperationists in South Carolina argued for secession from the Union primarily to protect the institution of slavery and ensure states' rights. They believed that the election of Abraham Lincoln posed a direct threat to Southern interests and that secession was necessary to preserve their way of life. Additionally, they felt that a united Southern front would provide greater leverage against Northern opposition, advocating for a coordinated response rather than individual state actions. Ultimately, they viewed secession as a means to safeguard their economic and social systems against perceived Northern aggression.
What disagreement lead to the Three Fifths Compromise Who were the opposing sides What did each side argue?
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.
Was it before the civil war when the US founded?
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.
Why did Calhoun argue that states had the right to void federal law?
the Union was an alliance of sovereign states
How can the Declaration of Independence could be usef to argue against quitting?
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.
Which states do some argue that the electoral college provides an advantage to?
Some argue that the electoral college provides an advantage to smaller states with fewer electoral votes, as it gives them proportionally more influence in the presidential election compared to their population size.
