How exactly did states rights and slavery contribute to causing the civil war?
Basically, slavery was a very important part of the economy of the Southern US states, to the point that getting rid of it would cause them economic harm. As opposition to slavery started to increase, the south started to worry that it would be outlawed. The North also started to obtain more votes and the south was increasingly worried about this. There were some attempts at passing constitutional amendments that would protect slavery in the south, but these failed. When Lincoln took over, they decided to break away. States' rights refers to the states' ability to make decisions for themselves independent of other states or the union. There was a lot of friction over how far this went. Obviously slavery was one of the main ones in this case. The south argued that if slave owners took their slaves to another state, they got to keep them. The North argued that if slavery was illegal in a given state, then any slaves taken there were freed automatically. For the most part, though, the states' rights argument was more or less just used to justify everything else the South was fighting for. Interestingly, one of the amendments that would have stopped slavery from being banned was the Corwin amendment. Because it has no time limit, it is technically still possible for the states to ratify it. Whether or not that would actually count is another matter, as the 13th amendment has already passed.
DID THE CIVIL WAR RESOLVE THE ISSUES OF STATE RIGHTS AND FEDERAL POWER?
i think of you have have been given some good factors, yet in the tip, the Civil conflict grew to become into fought over state's rights to self-determination. Slavery grew to become into the nice and comfortable-button concern of the day, and used as a rallying element. The North could no longer have cared much less with reference to the slaves -- as evidenced by the Dred Scott determination of 1857, whilst the ideal courtroom of america declared that blacks have been inferior and had no rights which could be respected. Economically, having the South secede from Union could weaken the Union, and get rid of the tarrifs and taxes that have been accrued in the South with the sale of agricultural products to England and Europe. Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions had defined the thought any powers no longer especially assigned to the federal government have been hence the jurisdiction of the states, and that the form grew to become into only an contract between states, no longer an overriding ruling authority. The Southern states felt that the subject of slavery grew to become into the jurisdiction of the states, and if those "rights" have been abolished, it made the federal government some distance more desirable than it grew to become into meant to be. Slavery grew to become into additionally a controversy in the advance of america in the West. California, whilst it utilized to connect the union, grew to become right into a non-slavery section because of the fact of previous treaties with Mexico -- as much as that element, the coverage of the U.S. grew to become into to only admit states the two balanced between slavery and non-slavery. California grew to become right into a super non-slave state -- which pushed the admittance of quite a few states that have been slave states, plenty to the dismay of Northern abolitionists.
What did states rights have to do with the civil war?
You had till the final paragraph. The Civil War is a ultimate instance of why the government demands to paintings extra carefully with the states on problems in order to affect them on any such grand scale. If the government desires whatever so sweeping, possibly it will have to be viewed as an Amendment to the Constitution in order that it is going to now not violate the tenth Amendment. Currently there are lots of matters that the government does that violates the tenth Amendment and the states simply allow them to have it. In a few circumstances, like instantly affecting the economic climate of the states, many states consider the ought to talk out. At no factor will have to we do away with the rights of the states simply for the reason that they desire slaves or they do not desire well being deal with their residents. You'll realize that the thirteenth Amendment addressed the problem. Since it took two/three of Congress (that is each residences), to agree the problem used to be now not approximately slavery however it relatively used to be approximately States Rights. If it used to be relatively approximately slavery, then it could had been a extra tricky vote and should not have handed so without problems. (I comprehend it took a yr, however the wounds from the Civil War have been nonetheless there).
No. There is a mountain of evidence against that conclusion. The most powerful argument that I've seen is this:Look at the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. That was the key piece of legislation that Southern states demanded as a condition of California coming into the Union as a free state. They had no problem whatsoever with disregarding the state's rights of northern states. According to the fugitive slave act, the federal government was to compel law enforcement in northern states to become de facto enforcers of southern slave codes!They were also not shy about using the federal government using its power to support slave interests whether it meant censoring congressional speeches, censoring the U.S. postal service, or agreeing with a supreme court decision that used southern interpretations of who was or was not an American citizen in the Dred Scott decision. Southerners applauded that decision that said northern state laws were irrelevant and civil rights did not apply to a citizen of a northern state if he or she was or ever had been a slave. They were fine with the federal government undoing the Missouri Compromise with the Kansas-Nebraska Act. They demanded the federal government accept the Lecompton constitution for Kansas even though it was clear that slave supporters in Kansas were in the minority there. No, no, they demanded that the federal government enforce our rights!Southerners, with some northern allies, had a functional majority in the Senate until 1860. All but 2 of the 15 presidents prior to 1860 were either slaveholders or supporters of the slave system (the two exceptions being John Adams and John Quincy Adams). So when did they secede on the basis of "state's rights?" When the election of Abraham Lincoln made it clear that the south had lost its disproportionate power over the federal government. Oh! Now state's rights was important to them!Clearly that was a convenient excuse. Then we can look at the secession declarations in which southerners were very clear that protection of slavery was their primary reason for seceding.
What were the causes and origins of the American Civil War? Do you agree with this list?
Can you add to the list or, perhaps, do you believe that any of the so-called causes or origins should be removed from the list? (I shall award the BEST ANSWER to the BEST argument) Causes and Origins of the American Civil War: A Summary There were a series of significant events which greatly affected States' Rights, the Union, African Americans and accelerated the American Civil War. These historical events are commonly referred to as the "Causes of the American Civil War" and are listed without significant order: States' Rights (Bill of Rights and the 10th Amendment), High Tariffs, Nullification Crisis, Missouri Compromise, Kansas-Nebraska Act, Manifest Destiny, Dred Scott Case, Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, Bleeding Kansas, Crittenden Compromise, John Brown, and President Abraham Lincoln's election (Lincoln didn't receive a single Southern electoral vote). SOURCE: http://thomaslegion.net/causes.html
How did slavery lead to the Civil War?
Slavery was only a side factor when it came to the civil war. Primary cause of the war was economics. Industrialized North vrs rural South and especially attempts by the North to control who and how the South sold it's cotton too. England had more to do with the civil war than slavery to be honest. Even the election of Lincoln who was a well known proponent of abolishing slavery was more in fear that state sovereignty would be overruled whether it was about slavery, economics or other attempts to override states rights. So even the election of Lincoln was not directly connected to slavery. What was connected to slavery was the guerrilla war going on between Kansas and Missouri. This opened up the whole can of worms as to whether slavery could spread or not. Southern interests wanted to see slavery spread to the West and the North desperately wanted to stop the expansion of slavery. A number of incidents which helped spark the war were also related to slavery. Harper's Ferry the best example. An anti-slave father and his sons took over a US armory in an attempt to ferment a slave revolt. The biggest single connection was when Lincoln signed the emancipation proclomation. Lincoln needed to give the civil war a moral purpose. The North was coming apart at the seams despite recent military victories. Riots in the streets and serious political pressure to end the war beset Lincoln. That was until he made the war about abolishing slavery, when he did that the people of the North rallied behind him. It gave a noble reason for the slaughter. There were many factors that led to the civil war, but the single greatest was a Federal government which has overstepped it's power and trampled on the Constitution. Slavery could have been abolished without a war. There was already intense pressure on the South to end slavery from both the North and abroad. Had the only issue been slavery war would have probaby not happened.
What role did the slaves and slavery play in the civil war?
There were three causes The formation of a National Bank, public works project in the North and Lincoln's inability to get congress to compensate slave owners for loss of property. Feel the full implementation of a National Bank was the main reason, because that may have got Lincoln killed and Johnson impeached. States Rights was a major issue. Reading how that issue was glossed over to get ratification of Constitution. Not into history enough to answer if Federal Government had enough funds to get all states to obey some laws like it does today, or the benefits of going it alone out weigh the collective security of staying together so don't know if civil war had to happen someday. Lincoln only freed the slaves, when he eventually did to get a loan from France. And by the time of Civil War slavery in massive farm production was on the way out, but owners wanted to be compensated for something they didn't need. imagine what the cost of keeping slaves increased to when the North refused to return run-aways.
The Lincoln-Douglas debates did NOT cause the Civil War. The causes of the Civil War were slavery, state’s rights, sectionalism, and economic competition between the states. The Lincoln-Douglas debates catapulted Lincoln onto the national stage, and allowed him to make a viable run for the presidency of the United States. If any Republican had won the presidency in 1856. 1860, or 1864, it is quite likely Civil War would have ensued as a result of Southern fears that a Republican president would act to restrict the expansion of slavery. Lincoln benefited and suffered from his success in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, but the debates, in themselves, did not start the American Civil War.
Why the Lincoln-Douglas debate was a cause of the civil war?
The debates were about a senatorial election, which Stephen Douglas won. They had very little to do with the onset of the war itself, except that the publicity established both men's reputations. The Civil War was about the right of the Federal Government to dictate policy to the individual States. The issue that it blew up on was slavery, but many people who felt slavery was appalling fought for their State because they agreed with the principle of States' rights. Robert Edward Lee was one of those. Despite being offered the command of the Union army he felt obliged to support Virginia. Ironically the Confederate General Pemberton at Vicksburg chose the Confederacy despite being born and raised in Vermont. Whoever told you that the debates caused the war ignores the truth. It was not the debate, period. If you want to read a brilliant analysis of the root causes, read "This Hallowed Ground," by Bruce Catton.
Nick du Plessis has it pretty much right. The Republicans were not so much pro abolition as they were against the spread of slavery into the new territories. Lincoln himself believed that slavery was permitted under the constitution in the States that already had it, but was adamantly opposed to letting new states establish it. For the slave states on the other hand it was about a balance of power. When the Constitution was ratified there were 7 slave states (if you include New York which didn’t abolish slavery until after 1800) and 6 free states.Over the ensuing years various compromises were enacted so that as new states were added to the Union that balance was maintained. Unfortunately much of the territory gained from the Mexican War was not suited to a plantation style, slave based agriculture. The South saw that future compromises were impossible and that they would ultimately lose control of the Senate a well as the House. Succession was the only way that they would be able to maintain their “peculiar” institution.