How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Jane T (LLC) Your Own Question
Jane T (LLC)
Jane T (LLC), Former straight A Student - Now Mom
Category: Homework
Satisfied Customers: 8435
Experience:  Degrees in Eng., econ; JD (law), MBA, former valedictorian & winner of academic scholarship
Type Your Homework Question Here...
Jane T (LLC) is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

category: American Colonial HistoryMost contracts have in

This answer was rated:

category: American Colonial History
Most contracts have in them an escape clause in case either party wants out at some time in the future. During the Continental Congress negotions in Philly in order to hang together the South threw in with the Northern states inspite of a large number of Loyalist located in the Southern states. At that time was there any discussion as to how the Souithern states might exit at some future date or was this just the dianasore in the room that was ignored by all parties. It seems that no minutes were kept during these meetings..If for the South an escape clause could have been added in writiong the Civil war might have been avoided.
Since the justification by the North for going to war was that the union must be preserved at all cost and Scession was not an option for the South even though their withdrawal was based on this concept ie if scession/withdrawal from the union was not part of the original deal in writing it was implied. the result was that once the South signed on at the Continental Congress Convention, it was similar to joining the Italian maphia ie the only way out of the contract once you were in was feet first. My question is was there any evidence that the South even raised the question about withdrawal/scession or were they that dumb to join with out an escape clause?

What is the deadline? Is there a length requirement? Does this need to be in a format such as APA?

Customer: replied 3 years ago.

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.

Customer: replied 3 years ago.
Relist: Answer quality.
your answer is no answer to my question. go back and read the question again. You won't make a quick buck on this one. Going to a bean counter (math major) for answer was a mistake. you will need to consult an historian with knowledge of the Contitutional Convention and the Civil War for an answer to this one. good luck
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

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.

I have to run out right now, and will respond properly to you when I get back from work. I will see you then.

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.

Customer: replied 3 years ago.
Relist: Answer quality.
Yes, things were differen then and the participans may have had difficuly predicting a total break that occured years later. But i have difficulty understanding that the South would fail to bring before the group and discuss the question: how do we get out if the need arises in the future. One answer that the documents signed were not contracts in the legal sense and no escape clause was required ,then what were they?. Another option that the NOrth just out hussled the South and said, "just sign here and don't worry about nothing." ie: They all decided to kick the slavery can down the road and focus on the immediate cause of survival. If expediancy drove them to gloss over this contract with no escape clause they wold pay a very high price later
Customer: replied 3 years ago.
Relist: Answer quality.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.
Relist: Answer quality.
as i said before get an answer from a historian wih a speciality in the Constitutional Convention and the Civil War
After some thought and rereading the text of the constitution, one thing stood out to me that might be of interest. Amendments. On April 27, 1911, an amendment was proposed to dissolve the US Senate, leaving the House as the supreme lawmaking body. There is nothing to stop an amendment from being proposed to dissolve the Constitution. All it would require is a passage of 3/4 (38) of the states.
Is that along the lines of what you were looking for? If not, I will opt out of this conversation.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.
Relist: Answer quality.

Considering the history of the time there was no thought of un-forming a nation (union) at the time the union was being formed. Indeed, the great compromise between those who feared a strong federal government (the anti-federalists view which many southerners supported) at the loss of state power and those who felt the nation could not survive without a strong federal government (the federalists) able to
unite the states when needed was through several negotiations. You must also
remember that it was the Virginia plan (Virginia, a southern state and one with significant prestige and power at that time and up through the Civil War era) is the one that fought for a strong federal government and the three branches of government (judicial, legislative, and executive) that ultimately gained the votes of all present and was formalized in the Constitution in 1787.

Beyond this, one must also recognize that even back then votes were purchased and/or given in an effort to obtain what the delegates felt would best serve their
interests in the short run. Therefore, the southern states and the northern states, arguing over taxation of slaves, import fees, the legal value of a slave in terms of whether they were or were not a full human being for taxation/property purposes, and many other factors led both north and south to compromise and agree that no stop to slave imports would be made for 20 years if the south allowed a simple majority vote to determine navigation laws (in effect, due to population density in
the NE states this meant the South lost power over navigation matters but they protected the slave trade so vital to them at the time. This ended any arguments over slavery at the time and allowed the U.S. Constitution to be drafted and then accepted by all states. You can read about that here.

In the end, therefore, it was not that the southern states were stupid or ignorant in any way that no "out" clause was put into the Constitution. First, it would have been unthinkable for any state delegates, from anywhere in the recently formed U.S., so soon after the Revolutionary War, to create a document that would have, essentially, provided for the destruction of that union just as the union was being created. Second, as so often happens in human history, the northern and southern
delegates merely provided a short-term solution (slavery for 20 year for rights to control navigation (import fees, trade, etc.) necessary so that all states could accept the Constitution. Of course, they never dreamed that slavery would become so divisive, but at that time they could also not foresee that technology and the Industrial Revolution that so economically and technologically advantaged the northern states while southern states, so tied to agriculture, grew less able to provide
for their own military might as their technology did not gain from the Industrial Revolution. At that time both likely thought that in 20 years' time the issue would not still matter (people are often overly confident that their views will, in the end, prevail over those who oppose them). How often, in any government or during a time of
government legal writing do the questions "how will this turn out" and "what do we do then" get asked? Pretty much never, the only important thing is to get it done, to solve the current issue, and at that time the current issue was "how do we survive as a nation".

Also, the south ultimately left the union because of its belief in the need for state governments, not the federal government, to have the power to decide whether a state could or could not have legal slavery, not because they felt it their "natural right" due to any provision in the Constitution nor any discussion held during the Constitutional Convention. Slavery became the rallying point prior to the Civil War that completely split the federalist versus anti-federalist views, but when the nation was working to draft the Constitution those groups were arguing taxation, military protection, and other "national issues" while slavery was not seen as the key issue dividing them. To the south they were merely creating their own "revolution" to form a confederation with stronger state than federal power, that is what they viewed as their natural right, the same right exercised by the colonists when they demanded their freedom from England.
Jane T (LLC), Former straight A Student - Now Mom
Category: Homework
Satisfied Customers: 8435
Experience: Degrees in Eng., econ; JD (law), MBA, former valedictorian & winner of academic scholarship
Jane T (LLC) and other Homework Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

Customer: replied 3 years ago.

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.


In response to whether or not the issue of an escape clause was ever brought up, while there does not seem to be any evidence of it one way or the other, to be fair, I would argue it did not. The writing here particularly suggests that the issue of slavery was not discussed beyond that of the 20 year compromise in order to avoid further disagreement, so that would indicate that the idea of proposing that the southern states could simply "leave" if the issue became too problematic to remain a single union was likely not brought up as that would have created further disagreement when all were focused on agreement.

As noted above, the fact that the Constitutional Convention was premised on the principle that the nation had to continue and, therefore, a constitution had to be written and agreed upon, made this a very likely feeling and belief. Moreover, the arguments over slavery that there are records of point to the fact that the focus of the southerners at that time had to do with the protection of slavery rather than with any belief or even suggestion that they might not be able to keep slavery alive or that it would ever disappear. Indeed, the fact that slavery was such an accepted fact at that time supported the view that slavery would be a firm factor of life. Also, that 20 years seems small, I grant you, but note that the idea of twenty years only went to the issue of importation, not to the issue of the survival of slavery. This further suggests that the southern delegates did not even think the fact of slavery would ever end. Indeed, when viewed in this light and through this view, the 20 year period actually may have provided the South with a couple of benefits. The southern slave owners, with good reason, feared that if Whites were outnumbered by slaves, they would have to fear revolts or be too difficult to control. So, by agreeing to allow imports to be stopped in 20 years they seem to compromise for the good of the union, but also for their own personal benefit in terms of population control. Note also that the 20 years offers economic benefit. The holdings of slave holders, if new slaves cannot be imported, rise in value and bring higher prices at auctions for supply and demand reasons. Therefore, I do think that point of an "opt out" clause being mentioned or thought about seems unlikely.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

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.


You need to spend $3 to view this post. Add Funds to your account and buy credits.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

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

Related Homework Questions