ipl-logo

Northern And Southern Interpretation Of Constitution

1406 Words6 Pages

rthern and Southern Interpretation of Constitution The years leading up the the Civil War, or the Antebellum Era, was full of controversy and disagreement in the United States. There were numerous issues that continued to divide the North and South, many of which stemmed from their different views of the Constitution. From the birth of the nation, the North was predominantly full of Federalists (who later turned to Whigs) who passionately believed in a strong and central government, a national bank, tariffs, and a loose interpretation of the Constitution. Their Southern counterparts were not Federalists but instead Democratic-Republicans, which was a political party that opposed many Northern viewpoints. Democrats believed in a smaller federal …show more content…

They had a more strict interpretation of the constitution. In other words, they believed that the only way the government could do something is if the Constitution explicitly allowed it. Each side argued how the Constitution proved their beliefs, however neither side got very far in the effort to resolve these issues, as it was many of these problems that ultimately led to the Civil War. Throughout the Antebellum Era, Northerners and Southerners greatly disagreed on many issues due to their respective viewpoints of the Constitution. The North tried to fight off the tariff and the national bank through their loose interpretation of the Constitution, while the South used their strict interpretation to say that both the tariff and national bank were constitutional. When it came to slavery however, Southerners attempted to justify it through the Constitution while Northerners …show more content…

In 1816, the first tariff was passed in an attempt to protect American industry against foreign competition. However, it was evidently clear that this tariff would only benefit the North and somewhat drain the South economically. Because Northern manufacturers were the ones who were selling products, the South would be paying extra money for items that they could not produce themselves or live without. Gradually over the next few years Southern resentment towards the tariff continued to grow and grow. Eventually, tensions reached an all time peak when the “Tariff of Abominations” was passed, which almost caused South Carolina to secede from the Union. South Carolina attempted to nullify the tariff through the theory of nullification, which states that the states have the right to nullify any law that is unconstitutional. Southerners claimed that the tariff was unconstitutional (as it only benefited the industrialized North), they claimed it was their right as a state to nullify the tariff and not have to pay for it. Thus, Southerners believed that the tariff should go away as a whole as they felt it went against what the founding fathers wrote in the Constitution. The North on the other hand loved the tariff, as it benefited them. They clung to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 of the Constitution, which said that Congress had the power to tax. Therefore, Northerners felt that the tariff was

Open Document