The Constitution was written at at time when the "union" of the states was tenuous. Though many wanted to abolish slavery, the wealthy land-holders in Virginia did not. They were too dependent on slavery to work their land. Their livelyhood was at stake. In order to insure that the southern states would join the union, slavery was not abolished at the writing of the Declaration of Independence and later in the writing of the Constitution. Virginia in particular was key to the success of the new nation in its ability to break away from the British homeland.
When the constitution was written there was some discussion concerning slavery, but every man in that room owned or had owned slaves. Most of the men were rich planters, including Washington, and they really didn't see that there was any thing wrong with slavery at that time. When they spoke of "the people" this did not include slaves. The clash came between the northern and southern states over whether slaves should be counted in determining the number of representatives a state could have in Congress. Thus, the three fifths clause was born that stated that 3/5 of the slaves would be counted in the state population.
Actually it was, and it was even observed as an institution textually, prior to the ratification of Amendment XIII.
But many regard the survival of America as a nation as having pivoted upon the issue of slavery as an institution. Since it was outlawed, America survived. Had the confederacy prevailed in the Civil War, America would not have.
U.S. Const., Amend. XIII:
"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
Amendment XIII was not simply about doing away with slavery in America. It has also, for the Court, been about the "badges and incidents of slavery", such as the in the case of Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)--and many, many others. Worth further research.
it wasnt different
because it wasnt secure and could cause even more problems
Thomas Jefferson acually was a antifedaralist, or someone who didn't support the constition. He thought it would take away the colonists rights as free people.
The civil war was fought over states rights, it wasnt until the 1960s that jews changed the history books to make it out like the civil war was over slavery.
if there wasnt you wouldnt be using a computer now
The South wanted more control of their own states. Lincoln did not support this. Also, the South supported slavery, and Lincoln didn't.
Becsuse Nevada wasnt a state when the constitution was written and signed.
it wasnt different
There were 13 American colonies when the Constitution was written. It wasnt until December of 1787 - 3 months after the constitution was ratified that statehood was given to Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_date_of_statehood
the africans were untreated and it really wasnt fair for them.
Republicans
The constitution wasnt created in 1956, it was made in 1776.
Because the civil was wasnt about slavery.
no it wasnt because the Northern Whigs joined with other opponents of slavery.and the north was against slavery yes they were against slavery the democrats were for it
yes. He wasnt as opposed to slavery as many people think. He was just interested in conserving the nation.
michigan wasnt a state
it was difficult because of the slavery there wasnt slavery in the northern colonies... anyone that studied the colonies would know that... -Jrskirbybob fadghdfghdfkjtherhtuieruifhdjkfhjksdhfuirhfuihdihdjkhkjdhfiduherjfnsdjkfniudghdfjkhgjkdfhguihgjkhdfjkghjkdfhgihurigfrhdgjkfjkhfuigdsfhgdifhgdfjkhdfuigrhughruighjdhdfuiguigdfhgufdhgdfgjuhduigfhugfhkdfguihugifhdhgjkfhgjf