how did the U.S. contstitution attempt to regulate slavery, and what did it fail to do?
607236
To understand that human beings can educate themselves.
429703
It was one of the contributory causes. The North wanted to weaken the institution while the South wanted to preserve it. The South believed that President Lincoln intended to end it contributing to secession. \n\nLincoln initially declared his purpose to be the preservation of the Union, not emancipation. He had no wish to alienate the thousands of slaveholders in the Union border states, some of whom stayed loyal. The long war radicalised the Governments policy. With the Emancipation Proclamation, announced in September 1862 and put into effect four months later, Lincoln adopted the abolition of the Slave Power as a second mission—that is slaves owned by rebels had to be taken away from them and freed.
673971
I've read that it was the South's continued practice of slavery that turned off the English.  The British had outlawed slavery and didn't much care to be associated with it anymore.  Had the Confederacy abandoned that institution, I think you might have seen a slightly different outcome, but then again, slavery was one of the reasons (not THE reason, but ONE of many reasons) for the conflict in the first place, so...
954233
it showed the harsh rearlity of slavery and portrayed the south in a bad light. the south feared that it might persuade congressmen and political leaders to abolish slavery.
629584
Was and is anything ever constitutional? After all we are basing this on codes of ethics, however ethics has no base becasue it deals with perception. Therefore, technically speaking only YOU can answer the question. Be a historian, read the information and interpret a reasonable answer. Yet nothing can be reasonable because everything is a product of your mind and your mind is a product of you.\n             Nonetheless, if you want my opinion, it was constitutional. After all, the radical reconstruction was implemented by radical republicans who wanted and got the emancipation of slaves after the Civil war. What was not constitutional was how the South tried to avoid and disregard all the laws imposed upon them (ie Jim Crow Laws, Plessy vs Ferguson, etc.)All that they were doing was helping the south by implementing ammendments such as the 13, 14, and 15 to justify their reasons for being there. It was a form of unifying the union after the war and through "carpetbagers" they were able to do so. However, the South did not like the "north" being up in their business, which of course resulted in the Reedemers and the Compromise of 1877.
1110466
No central government under the Articles of Confederation. This meant no taxes could be levied to support an army or run vital operations without consent of state legislatures. Each state had its own exchange rate, since there was no regulation of inner-state commerce. There was also open rebellion like Shay's rebellion that had to be put down with limited resources. So in 1787 the founding fathers met in Philadelphia to draft the constitution under the guise of fixing the Articles of Confederation.\nThe constitution solved many issues, but left the issue of slavery and as the nation expanded this would lead to Civil War. Southerners wanted slavery to expand into Western lands and the compromise of 1850 allowed it. However in Kansas territory slave owners and abolitionists had a mini civil war, long before Fort Sumter. The other major issue in the nation was expansion because from the War of 1812 thru the Mexican War, all the winnings were in territory. Hawks in the country wanted the US to have Canada all the way to the Pacific. This is called manifest Destiny. Through conquest and purchases this was acheived excpt Canada was not conquered during the war of 1812. \nAnother major issue was overseas commerce because many nations did not respect American ships and attacked them. Barbary pirates and the British were two groups to have done this. In response to the Barbary Pirates the marines took Tripoli and it was the first time an American flag flew over a foreign capital.
600397
They didn't choose to do so.  They were forced into slavery.
874750
Traditionally states north of the Mason-Dixon line had been free and those south of it had slavery.  With California coming in as a free state this was broken, and the balance tipped against the slave states.  However, Missouri was admitted as a slave state despite being north of the line.  This preserved the balance, and kept the southern states from doing anything drastic.  At the same time, the Supreme Court issued the Dredd Scott decision which allowed slaveowners to pursue escaped slaves even in free states, and ruled the Northwest Territorial Ordinance which established the outline for creating states unconstitutional because it obligated states north of the line to be free.  The point was states could chose on their own, not by Congressional fiat.  All this made the South very happy and quieted some of the agitation, although the abolitionists were very unhappy, but their political influence at this point was not all that great.  By delaying the crisis for a decade the North improved its lead in population and manufacturing, with the result that despite some of the most inept military leaders the world has ever seen, the North won the war.
836159
That was the norm back then. They had to compromise on the slave situation or the Constitution would never have been ratified by all the states.  But the people who wrote the constitution provided a legal framework and a form of government that allowed for progress and the eventual provision of rights to blacks and women. That is what makes us a great nation now.
371896
the Compromise of 1850, thereby repulsing Southern threats of secession while urging Northern support for a stronger law for the recovery of fugitive slaves.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Webster\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1850
945147
This was established shortly after the Articles of Confederation. A large number of northern states lagged behind the population of the South. Whites in the South then outnumbered the number of whites in the north. When it came to determining representation in the United States Congress, the southern states wished to count their slaves as well which would give them a largely disproportionate representation. The northern states argued that their state of life-long servitude made them less than men, and to count them as a man would undermine the entire reason for a slave system in the first place, thus opening the way for the radicals already calling for abolishment of slavery a hole to maneuver their agenda through Congress. The southern states, not wishing to give up any comfortable lead in the House then made a compromise that every slave would count as 3/5 of a man. This still gave southern states their majority (later to change despite large number of slaves) while giving northern states the breathing room necessary to enact legislation that was in their own interest.
200055
??? Slavery has existed since the beginning of time. The N. American Slave trade existed for a very short time in comparison to other historical slave periods.\n\nThe United States has done an extraodinary thing in correcting a lot of its wrongs with Affirmative Action, Brown v The Topeka Board of Education, the Voting Rights Act and other measures.\n\nWe have a way to go, but of late we have the likes of the Oprahs, Powells, Woods, and other pioneers that we can point to and say America is overcoming.
693681
Some causes of slavery were immigration from other countries.this is because the u.s. did not want other groups of people to come.another was that they did not like the immigrants for some odd reason.An effect was that conflict around the u.s. started.Another effect was the war between the north and the south.An effect was also the underground railroad that helped slave escape from slavery.hope this helped!         :-)
811785
The Bill of Rights was demanded by critics of the Constitution (the Anti-Federalists), who noted that the Constitution did not prevent the federal government from restricting certain rights. The Bill of Rights was largely meant to prevent the very abuses that caused the Revolutionary War, and/or abuses that had traditionally been solved by other facets of English Common Law.\n\nIn essence, the Bill of Rights sets up certain parts of an individual's life that government may not interfere with or directly regulate. For the most part, these protections are only between the Federal government and the individual, until the 14th Amendment was largely interpreted to force the States to also hold to the Bill of Rights as well.
635084
Have looked at the wikipedia entry on the fugitive slave law?\n\nHere is just some of what it says:\n\nPassed by the United States Congress on September 18, 1850 \nMade any federal marshal or other official who did not arrest an alleged runaway slave liable to a fine of $1,000. Law-enforcement officials everywhere in the United States now had a duty to arrest anyone suspected of being a runaway slave on no more evidence than a claimant's sworn testimony of ownership. The suspected slave could not ask for a jury trial or testify on his or her own behalf. In addition, any person aiding a runaway slave by providing food or shelter was to be subject to six months' imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. Officers capturing a fugitive slave were entitled to a fee for their work.\n\nIn fact the Fugitive Slave Law brought the issue home to anti-slavery citizens in the North, since it made them and their institutions responsible for enforcing slavery. Even moderate abolitionists were now faced with the immediate choice of defying what they believed an unjust law or breaking with their own conscience and belief.
1007419
You're a blabbering idiot....try reading something instead of posting inane comments masquerading as questions..\n\nThe Proclamation was issued in two parts. The first part, issued on September 22, 1862, was a preliminary announcement outlining the intent of the second part, which officially went into effect January 3, 1863, during the second year of the American Civil War. It was Abraham Lincoln's declaration that all slaves would be emancipated in all states which had seceded from the Union and which had not returned to federal control by January 1, 1863. The ten affected states were individually named in the second part. Not included were the Union slave states of Maryland, Delaware, Missouri and Kentucky. Specific exemptions were stated for 48 counties of Virginia designated to become the state of West Virginia, and also for New Orleans and several named parishes in Louisiana already under Union control. That is, areas under Union control on January 1, 1863 were not affected. Lincoln did not think he had legal authority over these areas under his Constitutional war powers.\n\nLincoln himself had declared he had no constitutional authority to free the slaves. In addition, freeing slaves was still a risky political act, since there were still slave states loyal to the Union and the initial war aims were centered on preserving the Union rather than freeing slaves. As such, the proclamation was a military order issued by Lincoln in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief, rather than the equivalent of a statute enacted by Congress, or a constitutional amendment.
367761
D. Federalists wanted a strong central government. Anti-Federalists wanted the individual states to have more power than the national government. The Constitution was very pro-federal government. Try reading the Federalist Papers (dry, sure, but fascinating if you take the time). Also check out the History Channel's show "10 Days that Unexpected Changed America" - the episode about Shay's Rebellion.\n\nMoseschung - good answer, except slavery DID concern them long before the Civil War. I'm reading Alexander Hamilton's biography by Ron Chernow, and slavery was a major sticking point between factions from the very beginning of this country.