Constitution 1850 Dbq Essay

The constitution details, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state…and each senator shall have one vote.” This equal representation along with careful maintenance of regional balance in the Senate allowed for Southern states to retain their national veto over slavery. Lastly, the constitution’s allowance for the establishment of the Supreme Court that could, with a single decision, overturn years worth of legislation provided a monumental setback. In the court case Dred Scott v. Sandford, the court ruled that the federal government did not retain the power to prevent slavery in the territories. Although slavery was eventually abolished by the fourteenth amendment, the long struggle and numerous constitutional roadblocks demonstrate how a number of provisions within the constitution hindered the ability of the national government to efficiently overcome a national concern.

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 Constitutional Convention of 1787 and the subsequent ratification of the constitution proved to be a more significant event in American political history than the Declaration of Independence. Many of the american leaders believed we needed to a new, stronger government. They had to persuade the states that stronger government was the right direction to ensure the country’s success.They did that with the constitutional convention but, To sway the states in the right direction documents such as the Federalist papers led the states to ratify the new U.S. Constitution. Which then led to the U.S. Constitution that we still live by to the day.

At this time it seemed that the issue of slavery was the only problem in the United States, almost as if a slave was being forced down the throats of the freesoilers (Document F). Stephen Douglas drafted the Kansas-Nebraska Acts in hopes of adding two new states: Kansas and Nebraska. Although it seemed that one would be a slave state, and the other a free state, the slavery issue would be decided by popular sovereignty. Many opposed this decision but did not know how to deal with it. The reason they did not know was because the Constitution did not mention it. William Lloyd Garrison said “the Constitution which subjects them to hopeless bondage is one that we cannot swear to support” (Document E). He was trying to say that the constitution can’t answer the question of slavery because the words “slave” and “slavery” are not in the constitution.

The early eighteen hundreds was a time of great controversy in the United States of America. Sectionalism, the difference of opinions between northern and southern states over federal government polices, was growing stronger. Vice President John Tyler took charge after the death of President William H. Harrison, but without a strong party alignment he did not accomplish much. He did, however, annex Texas in 1845 at the end of his term. Texas’s annexation disrupted the delicate balance between northern and southern states in Congress.

As many people might not know, The fathers of America created the goal "to form a perfect union", which was influenced after the Articles of Confederation was passed and became a problem, it is still used today to unify the states. The goal “to form a more perfect union”(Davidson 216) which explained ”to strengthen and unify the county”(Davidson 216) is one of the goals of the constitution. The purpose of this goal was to get the states to agree and work together. In order to make this possible, constitution fave a vast range of power to the national government. This goal is used up to the present time.

However, the commerce in question directly arose from and served slavery, and therefore the Nullification movement in South Carolina must be seen in its correlation to Carolinians feeling the threat of abolition. It is for this reason that I look to John C. Calhoun, a fervent opposer of the Tariff, who perfectly embodies the connection I am making by saying “I am a planter - a cotton planter. I am a Southern man and a slaveholder.” Calhoun is a man who believes that slavery is, in his own words, a “positive good”, and is, as most other Southers opposers are, channeling his anxiety concerning the threat upon institution of slavery being channeled into another, more controllable issue. Calhoun believes that the Tariff favors the industrial North such as my home state of Massachusetts, but fails to see that prosperity within the manufacturing industry of the North will benefit the country as a whole. Giving the states the right to veto or nullify laws is, by nature, unconstitutional, and gives way for immense separation between states, as slaveholding states could veto laws that they deem to be a to the industry of

Force could have saved our geographical union, but not our republic. The primary problem President Lincoln dealt with was two different interpretations of the constitution. Abolitionists aligned with Frederick Douglass’ argument that the language of the Constitution is, “’We the people;’ not we the white people.” Alternatively, many southerners sympathized with Stephen Douglas’ political philosophy motivated by democratic equality. Douglas believed, “It is no answer to this argument that slavery is an evil, and hence should not be tolerated. You must allow the people to decide for themselves whether it is a good or an evil.” He believed “that each State must decide for itself the nature and extent of these rights.” Furthermore, many southerners adamantly agreed with John Calhoun’s belief that “the states retained…the exclusive and sole right over their own domestic institutions.” In sum, Lincoln and Douglass believed that slavery was not a constitutional right, whereas Calhoun believed it was a Constitutional right, and Douglas believed it was up to the people to decide. This division could have permanently fractured our country, but

Between the writing of the constitution and the 1850s, more than 70 years have passed. Growth of the United States landscape increased, division was created between the North and South, and the diminishing effectiveness of national unity promoted by the constitution became evident by the 1850s. The topic and the view of the constitution concerning slavery and other key points caused the people of the States to become more polarized in their views and grow apart. The constitution’s lack of representation caused sectional distaste and tension resulting in the failure of the union.

For President Lincoln, he sought to preserve and protect the union. He felt that a divided America would fall and fail if they weren’t united ,“my opinion is that no state can, in any way lawfully, get out of the Union, without the consent of the others; and that it is the duty of the President, and other government functionaries to run the machine as it is.” (Lincoln) The states had made numerous attempts to resolve one of the major issues that were threatening the union and that issue was Slavery. It was becoming hard to resolve arising issues having separate laws for states only lead to further division. Abraham Lincoln stated, “We are in civil war. In such cases there always is a main question; but in this case that question is a perplexing compound -- Union and Slavery. It thus becomes a question not of two sides merely, but of at least four sides, even among those who are for the Union, saying nothing of those who are against it.” (Lincoln) As a

“The President asserts that he approved the proclamation...to save the Union...but was not in favor of freeing their slaves” Douglass, p. 5). Even with many people supporting slavery, Douglass asserts how the Constitution can be saved and save those that are bound by the chains of slavery. He says how “slavery has no Constitutional existence in the country” (Douglass, p. 6). Douglass is supportive and hopeful, and offers this input, “Slavery will be a conquered power in the land. I am, therefore, for the war, for the Government, for the Union, [and] for the Constitution” (Douglass, p.

“In politics Mr Lincoln told the truth when he said he had ‘always hated slavery as much as any Abolitionist’ but I do not know that he deserved a great deal of credit for that for his hatred of oppression & wrong in all its forms was constitutional – he could not help it,” wrote Attorney Samuel C. Parks, a longtime friend of Abraham Lincoln.1 Contemporary Robert H. Browne recalled Abraham Lincoln telling him in 1854: “The slavery question often bothered me as far back as 1836-40. I was troubled and grieved over it; but the after the annexation of Texas I gave it up, believing as I now do, that God will settle it, and settle it right, and that he will, in some inscrutable way, restrict the spread of so great an evil; but for the present it

There always has been a misconception about how the origin of America begun. Usually, the constitution would be regarded as the first form of government, however it was truly the Articles of Confederation which was in a way horrendous. In 1786 and 1787, the problem became crucial when in Massachusetts farmers rose up and close the courts for enforcement of tax collections and judgments for debt; thus, Shay’s rebellion. The Philadelphia constitution transpired in September 17, 1787 where delegates from each state came to revise the “Articles of Confederation. To a prodigious extent, the US constitution was a radical departure from Articles of Confederation for reason such as, it could collect taxes, the three branches of government, and representation of states.

This gridlock is one of the reasons that some have come to call the US

First, the American Revolution brought about greater political uncertainty in the newly formed country. Because the United States was finally split apart from England, they broke away from the charters which had governed them as colonies. Most of these charters were replaced by similar documents, albeit with a different purpose. As soon as the war ended, states began to draft their own constitutions. [1] Many of these constitutions were cut from a similar mold. Even though the constitutions were similar to each other, there was still a major problem. Even though the states worked together by forming an army to rebel against the British, they all considered themselves separate and sovereign entities after the war. [2] Because the United States was a new country in the early stages of independence, this lack of identity made them very weak as a whole. At a time when the country needed solidarity more than anything. Also, many of the new constitutions were bold and experimental for the time period, whereas others were simply extensions of things that originated in the beginning of the revolution. [3] Because the states were still in their infancy, these constitutions were not necessarily set in stone. However, the framers of