Civil War Legality

The Nullification Crisis, which transpired under Andrew Jackson’s administration created a controversy not only during its time, but also in the years to follow and ultimately was one of the many causes of the Civil War years later. The Nullification crisis soon developed in the early 1830’s when the state of South Carolina began to have issues with the protective tariff (which was designed to protect the industry in the northern United States by taxing imports). At this point in history, many of the leaders of South Carolina were under the idea that a state did not have to follow a federal law and could “nullify” the law. This was a result that many colonists from South Carolina felt that the protective tax was benefiting the

One of the most prevalent justifications and causes for southern secession was the protection of state and citizen rights. More specifically, the protection of the rights given to them, and protected by, the fifth amendment of the Constitution. This amendment protected the rights to property that American citizens possessed, which in the south translated into the protection of their slaves, whom they considered their property. The majority of southern opinion was that the northern states, or the union, were attempting to “strike down the rights of [the] Southern slave-holder and override every barrier which their constitution has erected for his protection” (Document 2, p. 93). By this, the southern opinion was arguing that the northern majority in the federal government was intentionally limiting southern citizens’ constitutional rights, which in the 1860’s was a serious accusation. The most common instance used to support this was the, in the southern opinion, disregard for the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. Many secessionists pointed out that this law was meant to protect property rights, but that multiple northern states were attempting to nullify it (Document 2, p. 94), thereby attacking southern rights in addition to the federal laws in place.

The conclusion of the Civil War in favor of the north was supposed to mean an end to slavery and equal rights for the former slaves. Although laws and amendments were passed to uphold this assumption, the United States Government fell short. The thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments were proposed and passed within five years of the Civil War’s conclusion. These amendments were to create equality throughout the United States, especially in the south where slavery had been most abundant. Making equality a realization would not be an easy task. This is because many problems were not perceived before and during the war. The reunification of the country would prove to be harder than expected, and entry into a new lifestyle would be

The Southern States depended on slave labor to thrive. In 1804, the American Convention of Abolition Societies reported that North Carolina considered “the preservation of their lives, and all they hold dear on earth, as depending on the continuance of slavery…” (Levine, 1992) In the first month of the Civil War, Confederate President Jefferson Davis reminded his congress that the Southern states had flourished up to the point based and dependent upon the Negro slave labor. He added proudly, “The labor of African slaves was and is indispensable…” The economic success of the whole of the United States owed over three quarters of its exports to this labor, and “was absolutely necessary

By the end of the war, the Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution was implemented and granted slaves with freedom making the Emancipation Proclamation norms universal and permanent. In such a way, the Thirteenth Amendment brought freedom to slaves nationwide and formally abolished slavery in the US. But at first glance, the major goal of the Civil War was achieved but the abolition of slavery alone was not enough to integrate former slaves into the US society and make them a part of the nation. Instead, further legislative changes were needed since slaves should have equal rights and opportunities to exercise their freedom. Otherwise,

The Civil War was fought over the “race problem,” to determine the place of African-Americans in America. The Union won the war and freed the slaves. However, when President Lincoln declared the Emancipation Proclamation, a hopeful promise for freedom from oppression and slavery for African-Americans, he refrained from announcing the decades of hardship that would follow to obtaining the new won “freedom”. Over the course of nearly a century, African-Americans would be deprived and face adversity to their rights. They faced something perhaps worse than slavery; plagued with the threat of being lynched or beat for walking at the wrong place at the wrong time. Despite the addition of the 14th and

Every effort the North made to pacify the South and/or to help the Blacks was blatantly rejected by the South. If the North declared one law, the South would find a loophole and thus the country was a mess of disunity and debate over Constitutional changes (?) (Doc. A and B). This tug-of-war is also anther reason for why no social changes resulted from constitutional changes from 1860 to 1877. Even if the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were wholeheartedly radical and revolutionary constitutional changes, social changes, never mind developments, were not in any way possible because of strong Southern resistance (Doc. G).

The South, on the other hand, was highly dependent upon the institution of slavery. It was still primarily an agricultural society that needed as many laborers as possible in order for the plantation owners to make ends meet. According to historian Douglas Harper, “In 1793 came the cotton gin, which brought a 50-fold increase in the average daily output of short-staple cotton, promoted the rapid expansion of a ‘cotton kingdom’ across the Deep South, and made large-scale slavery profitable.” Because of this, the slave became an essential tool to the farmers of the south; more money became invested in slavery rather than in industrial improvements. Based upon the 1860 U.S. Census, there were almost a whopping total of four million slaves in the South alone. In fact, the more slaves an owner had, the more prestige. “Most slave owners owned fewer than five slaves, and only 12 percent of Southerners had twenty or more slaves. Many whites who had no slaves looked with envy upon the wealthy, and to a degree admired them.” This hierarchy had a clearly defined social structure which created distinctions between rich and poor whites as well as racial segregation. This agricultural society and its strict hierarchy only increased the social and racial disparities found in the southern region of the United States.

Slavery was the focal point of the economy in the South, this inthrallment was the fuel for the agricultural South as well as the industrial North. Slaves would work the lands of their masters and bring in the raw materials produced, and these raw materials, commonly tobacco and cotton, would be shipped to the North and Europe. The North used the raw materials for the textile mills from the South because it made more economic sense because it cost less than the raw materials coming from Europe. Both regions became dependent upon each other, "the ruin of thousands and hundreds of thousands in the manufacturing states..." (Doc A) would occur if slavery was prevented from spreading by the Republicans. This claim being that if the North continued its free-soil mentality, it would fail as well due to a lack of raw materials caused by an insufficient amount of land for slaves and plantations; "a blow at slavery ia a blow at commerce and civilization..." (Doc R). The North was strongly tied economically to the products of slavery, the South was immensely impacted by slavery, it was the foundation and

The Civil War that occurred was one of the darkest times in our history as a country. It was a time where there was a complete breakdown of social and political systems. Hundreds of thousands were killed and hundreds of thousands more were aversely affected. However, it was also a time of remembrance and significant moral progress. It is remembered as the turning point in American History and would be the foundation for the Civil Rights movement many years later.

One main and obvious reason for the adamant views of anti-slavery and slavery and the ultimate unsuccess of the Missouri Compromise was the diverse circumstances between the Northern and Southern economic systems due to geography and other factors. There was a much larger number of free blacks in the North, showing the varying degree between their economic system compared to the South.(A) The economic well-being of the South, who 's revenue came mainly from farming, was based on the free labor of slaves. John C. Calhoun asserted that the "South will not, cannot, surrender our institutions.....that there never has yet existed a wealthy and civilized society in which one portion of a community did not......live on the labor of the other." The abolition of slavery was viewed by the South as economic suicide. Northerners, who mainly manufactured goods and used the labor of poorly paid immigrants, viewed slavery as morally wrong as well as unnecessary. With the help of free blacks in the North who expressed their experiences as slaves and promoted liberation through propaganda, such views of

One of the last call that the opponents made before the civil war was the principle of popular sovereignty in which the people state that government exist to serve them and help them to move as a nation, over the U.S. history this sovereignty led to riots and fight between people from the same states which wanted to abolish slavery against the ones that wanted to keep

The Union, backed by President Abraham Lincoln, was trying to abolish slavery. The South found this to be oppressive and used their right to "throw off such Government" and, one by one,

Federalization of crime has expanded dramatically in the 200 plus years since the drafting of the U. S. Constitution. The original scope of the federal criminal jurisdiction was very narrow, and crime control was left largely to the states. Until the Civil War, there were only a small number of federal offenses, and they dealt with injury to or interference with the federal government itself or its programs. The federal offenses during this time were treason, counterfeiting, piracy, and felonies committed on the high seas (Marion & Oliver, 2012). Except in those areas where federal jurisdiction was exclusive, the District of Columbia and the federal territories, federal law did not reach crimes against individuals; such as murder, rape, arson, robbery and fraud, were absolute concern of the states. State laws defined these offenses which were prosecuted by state or local officials. Congressional activity making essential local conduct a federal crime has accelerated greatly, notably in areas in which existing state laws already criminalize the same conduct. One must examine the history of federalization of crime to clearly understand why the U.S. Government began to federalize crime and the arguments for and against the federalization of crime.

The stability that slavery created in the American South between 1820 and 1860 was phenomenal. Economic stability was like no other country had ever seen, this economic stability created a global marketing network throughout many different nations, trade routes that still exist within modern America today. Slavery became the bedrock of American South livelihood; it became so valuable that it was almost seen as unimaginable to live without slavery. “It was inconceivable that European colonists could have settled and developed America without slave labour taking place,” this was according to……. The reason the south prospered and grew like it did was due to slavery. The value that slaves had to their slave owners was unquestionable. Slave owners were able to receive loans, whilst using their slaves as guarantors; these loans would then have been used in the purchasing of further land, more livestock and more slaves. It was also said that slave owners used their slaves to pay of any outstanding debt they may have had. It is clear to see the economic value that slaves possessed; they were included in the valuation of estates, for example; (Example), and this in turn became a source of tax revenue for the National as well as the local Governments, it was also