What is the deadline? Is there a length requirement? Does this need to be in a format such as APA?
no deadline but answer .ASAP,i need a complete answer that is cogent. need a word format
I do not think that there was any dinosaur in the room to be ignored. Neither side would sign the constitution as the other side wrote it. The large southern states wanted to have more votes in congress because they had more people, and the small states wanted one state to have one vote or else they would be swamped by the large states. Until Roger Sherman came up with a solution, it looked unlikely that a constitution would be signed. The Great Compromise settled this by making two houses of congress. The House of Representatives was weighted towards the large states because its membership is based on population, and the Senate says that every state, no matter how small, gets the same voice as any other. Because both sides, the south with it's larger population, and the north with an equal say, were satisfied that they would get their say in the new government, there was no need to talk about a plan to destroy it.
this answer is interestin but begs the originak question. Go back and read the question and then ask yiourself is my responce an answer. ie did the South enter into a contract without any escape clause, or discussion as to how do we get out if this doesn't work out. Were they that dumb to throw in with the Norfth forever with no reguard if things don't work out. Not an easy question to answer and your boiler plate responce is not adequate. You will need to contact an historian who specialized in the Consititutan Cconvention. I tnhink the South's position for the ensuing civil war was that one of their "naturna rights " was Scession from the Union. the North disagreed and war resulted.
Your position is that the south should have had the right to exercise a right to break a contract, that the north refused to allow them to have their natural rights to do so.
I understand that it seems odd that a country that was created by a fight for independence would refuse to allow part of it to be free from the rest when it wanted to, but things were different in 1860 than it was in 1775.
In 1775, everyone was board with creating a new nation that had a chance of being different from everything that they had ever seen, free from the power of a king, from the power of religion, from an aristocracy. A government with no one to answer to answer to except its people. The two sides had different ideas about how to do it, but no one in 1775 had any thought, ignored or not, to any need for an escape clause.
The Civil War could not have been avoided because if the south had been allowed to leave and make into two separate nations, both would have collapsed because they needed each other. Look at the Republic of Texas's history.
Pretty good ans. However, if i had been a Southern deligate, I would never have entered into any contractual relationship without considering an escape clause, especialy knowing the North's hostility towareds slavery. It would have been worth the risk of "we might all hang separetly." The South had slavery for several hundred years and the practice was deeply embeded in its core values . so twenty additional years extention seems a weak pittance in comparison. I think if an escape clause had been done ie you chose to enter and you could chose to leave , could have prevented the civil war . My questionis: that since no minutes of the meetings were kept , did the subject of an escape clause ever even come up? I think it must have, but apparently got no wnere as "the British are coming" .. The weak option offered by the North of a twenty year extention would have made me VERY suspecious.
I have contacted U Va Dept History in search of an expert in the Constitutional Convention of 1776 to see if he is aware of some evidence that someone might have thougnht of/considered an end game. I think the history of contract law might reveal that in those days a man' s word was as good as his bond and that contracts need not be so specific and hold eveerone's feet tothe fire if indeed the result of the Constitutional Convention could be considered a contract/constitution . The problem is that no minutes were kept of the meetings but they did write letters and they had newspapers.
I will let you know if i can strike gold at U Va. It would be so great if I could find evidence . ie not only was the North holding its nose when it joined with the slave states but the
South vowed under the table to keep its powder dry