What arguments can you make for the 3/5th clause and the fudgetive slave laws in the constitution?
The 3/5 clause was put into the Constitution so as to even out the representation of the two portions of the country (slave and free) in Congress. It had nothing to do with the net worth of the individual; it was simply used so that neither side would have a decided advantage in Congress. Had the slaves been counted as whole numbers for representation, the South would have had a huge advantage in the House; if they hadn't been counted at all, the North would have had a huge advantage. 3/5ths made the sides equal. As for the fugitive slave law, it actually predates the Constitution, having its basis in the Articles of Confederation of the New England Confederation nearly 150 years earlier. What irritates me the most is people attempting to apply 21st century morals to 18th century individuals.
Was the Compromise of 1850 bad or good? Why?
I see it as a good thing. Both sides got what they wanted. Hence the name compromise. Sorry to the first answerer, people did not consider prolonging the suffering of the AA back then. Why should they, you and most like you do not even know what it was like. The slaves had it better then a lot of people in the industrialized north, where children died in mines and factories daily. Talk about suffering. I am no saying slavery is right or good. It is just an historical fact. Like it or not it happened here and is happening today all over the world. The slaves were treated well for the most part, despite Hollywood. They were property and an investment. You do not abuse or mistreat a horse or cow, they were thought of as the same thing. I may get thumbed down or even reported but this is not my idea, this is a bit of reality for your save the world attitudes. The compromise assured peace and lack of conflict. Anytime you can put off war, it is a good thing.
If the issue of slavery was removed from the Civil War, would the Confederacy still have seceded because of other "states' rights?"
No. The slavery issue was, indeed, the cause of secession. An examination of the secession resolutions of the states, the contemporary press coverage, the speeches of the Southern leaders, all confirm this conclusion. Here's the well-known "Cornerstone" speech by Alexander Stephens (March 1861):"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."No, the secession was not about the general principle of "states' rights." Indeed, one of the major grievances of the Southern states was the failure of the northern states to adequately respect and enforce the federal Fugitive Slave Act. What is true is that the issue was perceived quite differently between the regions. The Southern slaveholders had advanced the proposition that Lincoln and the Republicans would seek to abolish slavery in the slave-holding states. Lincoln was insistent that his opposition was to the extension of slavery, and that he was not intending to interfere with the institution where it was currently legal. It is possible that, had there not been agitation and misrepresentation of Lincoln's stated policy, a different outcome could have been achieved.But going back to the original question: there was no non-slavery related issue that would have led to the secession of the Confederacy.
Is Millard Fillmore a very bad President?
Obama doesn't know a whole lot. Fillmore was the first president born after the death of George Washington. Only the second to achieve office by the death of the president. Fillmore was a Constitutionalist. Though he personally opposed slavery and detested it, he stated more than once that it was a guarantee of the Constitution and that we were therefore bound by it. Fillmore further changed the administration completely, by accepting the resignations of the entire cabinet. Fillmore agreed with and signed the Compromise of 1850, which allowed California to be admitted to the union as a free state, set the boundaries of Texas, made New Mexico a territory in its own right and abolished the slave trade in Dc. It also established federal protection for those seeking fugitive slaves. Fillmore further granted Utah territorial status and maintained American neutrality in European revolutions. He also sent Commodore Matthew Perry to open trade with Japan, thereby ending Japan's isolationism, even though it didn't get completed until after the next president took office. Fillmore also CREATED the White House Library. On balance, Fillmore may be barely remembered by President Obama and others, but that does not make him a worthless, nothing president. He accomplished a great deal.
Wealthy Southerners point of view of Confederacy in 1861?
During the Civil War, there were many viewpoints and reasons for secession and other topics. For U.S. History, I'm having a difficult time in finding viewpoints of a wealthy southerner/plantation owner in the year 1861. I'm supposed to be writing an editorial that expresses how a wealthy southerner might view the establishment of the Confederacy in 1861. Any websites that might help? Thanks! 1 second ago - 3 days left to answer.
If the US treatment of illegal refugees is justified by their violation of the law, was it also justified when American Northerners returned fugitive slaves to their Southern owners, due to the law requiring it? What is the difference?
If the US treatment of illegal refugees is justified by their violation of the law, was it also justified when American Northerners returned fugitive slaves to their Southern owners, due to the law requiring it? What is the difference?We have come a long ways in 167 years! besides the numerous changes in law and the constitution we hopefully have become more civilized during that time.The current situation begs to differ. We are criminalizing anyone trying to enter the US. Those entering seeking political asylum are not illegal aliens but have ever right to seek refugee status in the US according to US law and international laws and treaties that the US in signatory to. What has been happening on the boarder is tantamount to crimes against humanity. Even those crossing the boarder illegally are only guilty of a misdemeanor that certainly doesn’t warrant separating children from their parents.Your comparison to the fugitive slave act smack of ignorance and bigotry and is being reported to Quora moderation as an insincere question.
Are there examples in the U.S. of conservative policies that are in conflict with a states rights perspective?
Drug prohibition. It was never about public health or public safety, but a bludgeon in the culture wars. Conservatives in power and in middle America blamed the counter-culture and the sweeping changes of the 1960s on drugs. They reversed gains made by African Americans and other oppressed peoples and the counter-culture by throwing them in jail for their proclivities, and forced all the states to heel for the same goal.Even today, when 4 states plus the district of Columbia, have legalized cannabis, and 23 have legalized it for medical use, conservatives have been frothing at the mouth to try and stamp this trend out wherever they can.