Introduction
The civil war was a fight over the state rights, and this claim can be supported by the idea that the thirteen colonies in America staged often defied the policies imposed by their mother country. The vast oceans that separated them from Britain served as a means for them to distance themselves from the monarchical rule and be independent in their way. Thus, the concept of state right was already observed even before the American Revolution and the Civil War. During the declaration of American Independence, there was also a need for the newly established national government to compromise some of its policies in order to achieve balance and to avoid further conflict that could possibly ruin the newly established government. There were many people who claimed that the Civil War was mainly waged against slavery, however, based on the definition of states' rights and the elements that triggered the Civil War, one finds that the war was generally about the state’s rights.
While the Civil Right was often attributed as a war against the system of slavery, it was in fact a war on state rights because it originated from the struggle about the right of the federal government in regulating or abolishing slavery. The move to regulate and abolish slavery affected the decision making of state government. A better understanding of the right of every state can be traced on the 10th Amendment to the U.S Constitution, which states that, “powers not delegated to the United Stes by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” (The Constitution). Further, in the Virginia and the Kentucky Resolve promulgated by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison provided a clarification on the specific role of states to check on the federal governments. According to the Virginian resolve, the states “have the right, and are in duty bound to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and maintaining, within their respective limits the authorities, rights and liberties, appertaining to them” (Madison, n.p).
The Civil War was largely attributed to the conflict between the northern states’ want for the abolishment of slavery and that of the southern state’s insistence for its retention. According to the supporter of slavery, included in the rights of the states, as provided for by the constitution was the right of every state to determine whether to retain or abolish slavery within its territory. They further pointed out a US Supreme Court decision on Dred Scott v. Sandford case where the court held that, “a negro, whose ancestors were imported into the US, and sold as slaves” (Kommers et al 908), shall not have the right to become an American citizen.
Another argument pointed out by the Southerners was that the ultimate abolition of slavery will relegate the states in the South as inferior states. According to the Southerners, the abolition of slavery was an apparent discrimination against them. They argued that the institution of African slavery that existed for hundred of years in many parts of the country shall have the protection of the federal government. Therefore, any state that opted to preserve slavery can do so in its own territory.
On the other hand, the anti-slavery states argued that their rights will also be violated by the continued system of slavery. Consequently, the northerners tried vehemently to assail the institution of slavery and the states that supported it. Further, some northern leaders helped many slaves in the south to escape, and provided support for them to start a new and free life in the north. While there were peaceful attempts to resolve the conflict on slavery, such as arguments, debates and cordial compromises, the Civil War eventually erupted. The unresolved conflict between the pro-slavery sentiments of the south and the anti-slavery ideas of the north were triggered when the southerners felt that their rights was compromised with the election of Abraham Lincoln who was anti-slavery advocate.
Conclusion
While there were people who argued that the root of the Civil War was the institution of slavery, some others pointed out that it was a war that was about state rights. When the Southerners erupted in anger against the abolishment of slavery, it was viewed as a response to what they thought as a total disregard of their right as states. Further, there was a feeling of resentment over the idea that the north’s proposition to abolish slavery was a means to destroy the economy of the South. The southerners felt that the complete abolition of slavery, without regard to the economic needs of their region was a sign of taking away their state right to govern themselves. Accordingly, the different perspective of the north and the south about the institution of slavery can be traced to the fact that the north has advanced in many aspects, while the south remained to depend on slaves to work in the massive plantations.
Works Cited
Kommers, Donald, Finn, John, Jacobson, Gary. American Constitutional Law: Essays, Cases, and Comparative Notes. Rowman & Littlefield
“The Constitution of the United States,” Amendment 1.
Madison, James. The Virginia Resolve. Retrieved from legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/The+Virginia+and+Kentucky+Resolves
