What was the principal constitutional foundation for South Carolina's proposed abandonment of the Union?
Jefferson Davis stated the argument for secession. In a famous metaphor he argued that the states simply made the federal government their agent for certain purposes. Just as a father who buys his son a suit of clothes does not cede his authority in the family to the son because the son wears those clothes so too the states did not cede their individual authority to the federal government simply because they allowed it to perform certain functions. The father could take back the clothes for any reason at any time and the individual states could take back their authority. Abraham Lincoln saw the question differently. The Articles of Confederation actually said "this union is perpetual." And the first words of the Constitution are "We,the people of the United States." Lincoln argued that the people had created the Constitution. It could be changed and secession allowed by a vote of the people but it would take a vote of all of the people to do that. Individual states were not free to secede. In 1860 this was certainly an open question. Had South Carolina sued in Federal Court to be allowed to secede the Court probably would have agreed. After all the Chief Justice was still Roger Taney, author of the Dred Scott Decision. However, neither South Carolina nor any other state sued in Federal Court. They simply acted on their own. Once they seceded the Federal Courts were no longer available to them. The Federal Government responded to their actions and ultimately prevailed in the political contest.
Why is the constitution known as the supreme law of a Nation?
A Constitution is a supreme law of a country. It contains the fundamental rules that constitute the country and its institutions. The Constitution defines the power of the entities and the limits of that power. It also describes the country's political system. Constitution interpretation is done by human beings therefore the understanding varies according to individual differences. Regarding UN Charter in respect of US I quote “The U.N. Charter is binding law in the United States. Under Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, treaties-of which the U.N. Charter is one-are considered the supreme law of the land. Article 103 of the U.N. Charter makes clear that the charter supercedes all other conflicting treaties. It says: "In the event of conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail." Unquote.
List the reasons for South Carolina's secession.?
List the reasons for South Carolina's secession. What was the principal constitutional foundation for South Carolina's proposed abandonment of the Union? To what extent was South Carolina's reasoning consistent with historical precedent and constitutional principles? Explain. How did South Carolina deal with the North's moral arguments against slavery? Please and Thankyou
Can anyone answer these questions on The United States Constitution?
Your question was: "Can anyone answer these questions on The United States Constitution?" The only corrcet answer is: Yes, I am sure someone can. The better question would be: Will anyone answer these questions on The United States Constitution?
What were the achievements and failures of the Reconstruction governments in the Southern states.?
actual reconstruction of buildings was pretty much the only achievement of reconstruction. little to nothing was done to unite the country. johnson's plan differed greatly from the plan that lincoln had proposed before his assassination in that johnson was quick to forgive southern leaders. by not "punishing" the south in any way, the Southern attitudes towards government, the freed slaves, etc. remained relatively unchanged for many years.
Could Andrew Jackson have prevented the U.S. Civil War?
He would have been 94 years old if he had still been living in 1861, and given the kind of life he led, it’s hard for me to believe he could have prevented the conflict at the age of 94 even had he still been living. It’s sort of a miracle that he lived to be 78. (Could be that Heaven didn’t want him and he was such a badass that the Devil knew he’d take over Hell.)But if he somehow could have still been healthy in 1861, then I think there’s a chance he might have done that. First of all, Jackson was a staunch Unionist; he was a veteran of the American Revolution, believed in what it stood for, and stated many times that he believed the Union was indivisible. And in the Nullification Crisis, he practiced what he preached, threatening to put himself at the head of the Army, at the age of 61, and march on South Carolina if they didn’t back down.Jackson was a firm believer in slavery, but he was also a believer in compromise, as he did with South Carolina once they stopped threatening to secede. He had no problem with the Missouri Compromise, or the idea that people could ban slavery from their territory if they didn’t want it. In 1860–61, Jackson wouldn’t have supported Abraham Lincoln, but I don’t think he would have gone against everything he’d ever believed in had Lincoln won. My guess is that his favored candidate would have been Sam Houston, who sought the Constitutional Union Party nomination that year at age 67, but lost out to John Bell because Houston was also a “Union man” above all else, and had publicly favored retaining the Missouri Compromise. The two men had been associated with each other since the War of 1812, and never had a disagreement except on Indian removal.The main reason the Civil War occurred was that the generation that came after men like Jackson and Henry Clay was radicalized on the issue of slavery, and didn’t have the common unifying factor of having fought in the American Revolution or the War of 1812 (which was seen by Americans of that era as a “second War of Independence”). A Jackson who was still living and in the public eye as late as 1861 would have been a giant of American history, but he still would have been a minority voice from a bygone era. Whether or not he could have made a difference, we’ll never know—but if anyone could have, it would have been him.