1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Temka [501]
3 years ago
12

Conflicts over the respective roles of national and state governments have been around since America's beginning. The Civil War

was fought over questions of states' rights: Can a state create a law that allows for slavery? Does a state have the right to secede from the Union? Even today people disagree on how much power the federal government should have; some would like the states to have more power. An area where this debate has made the news in recent years includes: Illegal Immigration - Is protecting America's border with Mexico mainly a federal or a state issue? What laws - state or federal - have been broken when a person enters the U.S. illegally? What should a state do if the current federal methods aren't working? Does a state governor have the authority to enforce federal laws against illegal immigration? Can a state use its laws against trespassing as a means to arrest illegal aliens? Analyze the historical conflict including the limits on national and state government, and draw conclusions as to whether you agree with decisions that were made. Identify the pros and cons of limiting state powers and give your opinion on how much power the states should have as compared with the federal government. Option 2.
History
1 answer:
Kitty [74]3 years ago
3 0
States’ Rights in the Colonies

When the original 13 independent colonies announced their independence from Great Britain in 1776 they regarded themselves as sovereign (independent) states. The demands of the Revolutionary War forced the states to recognize a need for a central government. The Continental Congress established Articles of Confederation, an agreement that created a weak central government. In the years following the Revolutionary War, individual states created their own laws, attempted to make foreign treaties on their own, etc. Europe saw the young United States as weak. The polyglot of laws, danger from Europe and the national government’s ineffectual response to Shay’s Rebellion in Massachusetts convinced many Americans that a “more perfect union” was needed. The United States Constitution, which the country has operated under since 1789, strengthened the central government in many ways, including taxation, the ability to call up state militias for national service, etc. It also established certain individual rights throughout the nation, including freedoms of speech, assembly, religion, etc. The Ninth Amendment stated,  “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” and the Tenth Amendment says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” These two amendments assured the states of continued autonomy in handling most of their internal affairs.

Slavery and Tariffs

Disputes arose at times. During the War of 1812 New England states met to discuss seceding from the Union because the war was interfering with their trade with Britain. In 1832 national tariffs that benefited Northern manufacturers while hurting the economy of Southern states led to the Nullification Crisis, in which South Carolina declared the tariffs null and void. The state threatened to leave the Union, but a compromise was reached that temporarily defused the crisis.

What brought the question of states’ rights to the fore was changing attitudes toward slavery. Northern abolitionists began vehemently assailing the institution and the states that continued to practice it, nearly all of them below the Mason-Dixon Line. Some Northerners aided the escape of runaway slaves (a violation of the Constitution’s provisiions that made a fugitive from one state a fugitive in every state) and mobs sometimes assaulted slave owners and slave hunters seeking runaways. (Slavery originally existed in all states, and the writers of the Constitution avoided addressing the matter of perpetuating or ending slavery in order to obtain ratification from all states.) When victory in the Mexican War (1846-48) resulted in the US expanding its territory all the way to the Pacific Ocean, the question of whether or not to permit slavery in the new territories. The debate over slavery intensified, creating a widening gap between slaveholding and nonslaveholding states. When a “purely regional party,” the new Republican Party swept the 1859 elections in the North and the party’s candidate Abraham Lincoln, an avowed foe of the expansion of slavery, Southern states seceded from the Union. See Causes of the Civil War on HistoryNet.

After the Civil War

It has been said that before the Civil War the country was referred to as “The United States are … ” but after the war the description became “The United States is … ” Yet questions of federal vs. state power continued to crop up. Virginia sued to reclaim certain of its western counties that had become part of the breakaway state of West Virginia during the war but was rebuffed by the Supreme Court, and Reconstruction raised many federal vs. states questions.

In the 1925 Gitlow vs. New York decision, the Court held that the Bill of Rights applies to the states as well as to the federal government, in keeping with the 14th Amendment. In 1948, a group of Southern delegates walked out of the Democratic National Convention and formed the States Rights Party (nicknamed the Dixiecrats). The reason for the party split was that the traditionally conservative Democratic Party was becoming more liberal and had embraced a platform for the coming election that called for federal anti-lynching legislation, abolishing poll taxes in federal elections (which had been used to keep African Americans from voting), desegregation of America’s military services, and creation of a permanent Fair Employment Practices Committee to prevent racial discrimination. 


You might be interested in
What was a consequence of the plessy v. ferguson decision in the south?
Nataly_w [17]
On May 18, 1896 the U.S. Supreme Court case Plessy  v. Ferguson ruled that separate but equal facilities were constitutional.
8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
What did the populist party view as the falling of the two major parties​
lana66690 [7]

Answer:

When the Populist Party saw that the two major parties were falling, they took it as an opportunity to gain voters for the next elections. They blamed the terrible state of the economy of both parties, not just one. More voters rushed to the party, but the party dissolved soon.

3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Will be marked brainliest please help
MAVERICK [17]

Answer: We know that systemic change is what is most required. Structures and systems create and reinforce the hierarchies we seek to dismantle. And the decisions people make and how we treat each other matters — being knowledgeable and passionate about systemic change doesn’t absolve those who hold dominant group identities from causing interpersonal harm.  We recognize that the challenges we are experiencing can feel intractable. We turn to research from the mind science of identity, as it helps to explain why others’ — or even our own — interpersonal behaviors may contradict the equality that our society and our workplaces espouse. We draw on practical, evidence-based strategies to align individual behavior and institutional practice with conscious values of equity. Since 2009, Perception has been committed to equipping individuals and institutions with deep insights about how we experience identity differences, recognition of the impact of current practices on individuals of various identities, and evidence-based strategies to live out their values of equity. In the years we have been doing this work it has become apparent that for institutional change to occur, those who hold power must engage authentically, commit to accountability and transparency, and invite everyone to be part of the conversation. This requires a data-driven approach, the identification of context-specific protocols, and culture change while centering the experiences of those impacted, that ensures genuine belonging for all.

Explanation:

Your welcome!

Have A Nice Day!

7 0
2 years ago
Which president kennedy or jhonson had a higuer rating for his civil rights effort
Lemur [1.5K]
President Johnson is the answer
4 0
3 years ago
Why is voting considered one of the most important rights of all citizens?
Masja [62]
This is considered one of the most important rights of all citizens because citizens can vote for leaders to represent them who share the same interests, ideas, and beliefs.
5 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What was nixons claim
    9·1 answer
  • What effect did the fifteenth amendment have on th American political system
    13·1 answer
  • Which political party rose to power in Germany during the 1930s?
    14·1 answer
  • How do you know if the law is unjust
    9·2 answers
  • What did Khrushchev's speech spark in Hungary? How did he respond?
    10·1 answer
  • Until the age of exploration and the emergence of a new global economy, __________, not Europeans, dominated trade.
    14·2 answers
  • Why are private companies unlikely to provide public goods
    6·1 answer
  • Railroads played in extremely important part in developing the west what are two specific ways that railroads affected growing a
    15·1 answer
  • Blank is a fundamental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something.
    8·2 answers
  • What were the changes to Spanish and American claims in North America made by the Adams-Onís Treaty? Select all that apply.
    7·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!