Slavery was expressly recognized, and to a certain degree protected in the Constitution. Recognition can be found in Art I with the 3/5 comprise dealing with population for the purposes of congressional representation. It is also referenced, and protected in Article I section 9 where Congress is prohibited from interfering with the slave trade until 1808. However imported slaves could be taxed at a rate of up to $10 per person. The importation of slaves was formally outlawed after this protection expired, but the prohibition was widely ignored and rarely enforced until the South seceded. The next reference is found in Article IV section 2 which is the fugitive slave clause. This required slaves who may have fled to other jurisdictions had to be returned to their masters. Given the language of this clause and the two previously cited references, it can be fairly said that slavery was a constitutionally protected institution and Congress could not outlaw it. In addition to which there is of course the 10th Amendment already cited.
The Constitution did not ban slavery, it was silent on this issue.
At least even the abolitionists in Congress had enough respect for the Constitution then:
The 10th 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.”
That was before progressive judges started re-writing the meaning of the Constitution to expand federal powers at whim, like for things like Obamacare.
Federal legislation did start to truncate slavery. Banning the importation of slaves in 1807 (international trade) and making slave trading a capital offense (1820).
Anti-slavery efforts in Congress bonged down after the Missouri-Compromise of 1820, which attempted to legislate a balance between free and slave states. The attempts became part of the ongoing legal and constitutional debates that did not resolve the issue and saw the political tensions over it rising. You know what eventually followed.
‘s the way it happened and there isno going back.”... trying to understand the relationship between the United States and the individual states on the issue of the legality of slavery at the state level. .. Somebody told me the federal government was always the primary government when federal laws and state laws conflicted. ... why couldn’t the federal government just outlaw slavery at the state level ...?”
Contrary to what many traditionalists believe, law (and societal custom) were not static, absolute, timeless, nor unchanging - neither before 1860 nor after. Especially not in the USA.
The British colonies that in the 1770s/1780s agreed to enter into the entity which became the USA called themselves “states” and were thought of as independent nations (that’s what “free and independent state” means): sovereign national entities possessed of all powers and prerogatives other countries enjoyed - including the freedom to enter into a unified nation with the other states, and the opposite side of that coin - the freedom to depart from “the union” when it suited.
That aspect of the United States’ self-concept dominated law and politics until ACW ended in a victory for “the Union” - the non-slave-holding states. “The Union” decided the question - not by reason, logic, appeal to Divine authority, nor anything save by force of arms.
A giant page of history had been turned. Law, societal custom, and religious understanding adapted.
The change was described more poetically and succinctly by author Shelby Foote in the ACW documentary by Ken Burns, right there in the first segment. Foote said these words on camera (approximately): “Before the war, people said ‘The United States are;’ after the war, they said ‘The United States is.’ “
ping
Seems like it was a majority issue. As more and more states joined the Union, the question was always: “is the state going to be a slave state or a free state.”
The issue kept getting kicked down the road, until it could no longer be contained. The results were disaterous and America has paid the price many times over, and we are still paying.
We are facing a similar problem with third-world illegals today. Because "it's good for business". The spineless open borders Senate is akin to the slave merchant politicians of the 19th century — here in the 21st century, country be damned, open broders is "good for business".
State militias in the succeeding states surrounded Federal installations, unarmed them and made them march on foot home. The Federal government wanted their arms, horses,wagons, and other equipment back. The WAR started when an installation refused to leave without their equipment. Not over slaves.
Read the text of the Supreme Court Decision Scott V. Sanford (AKA the Dred Scott Decision). It is very explicit in that the Federal Government cannot interfere with Slavery in any state where it is legal. It declares the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional and it mandates the Federal Government enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. It is because of this court decision, that the 13th Amendment was passed. Changing the Constitution was the only way around the Dred Scott Decision.
It was a state’s business and there was no federal law against it until the 13th Amendment.
They said wrong. For example, a federal law was passed which purported to make possession of a firearm within 500 ft. of a school illegal. It was overturned in federal court because that was not an issue over which the federal government has authority.A lot more things than that should be off limits to the federal government, but the Seventeenth Amendment converted the Senators from representatives of the governments of the states to representatives of the people of the states. Consequently, federal judges (confirmed and possibly impeached in the Senate) have no fear of crossing the state governments. And accordingly give them less respect than the Constitution as designed did.
Because that's considered a state responsibility.
Why could the federal government ban alcohol throughout the country?
Because we passed a constitutional amendment allowing them to do so (big mistake).
Okay, so why can the federal government ban marijuana in all the states?
That's a tough one. It started by taxing hemp -- the federal government is allowed to impose excise taxes by the Constitution -- but the tax was replaced by a complete ban.
Today, I think the mandate for marijuana prohibition is the power to regulate interstate commerce, though it's a funny thing: there are a lot of websites dedicated to proving that Congress can't ban pot and not many devoted to the opposite proposition, even though it's the law of the land.
The tricky question is whether current federal bans on drugs could be extended to alcohol and tobacco.
It could happen I guess (so start stockpiling now).
What does all this have to do with slavery?
Congress could have created a voluntary compensated emancipation plan (if there had been enough votes for it), but it couldn't just emancipate the slaves against the will of the masters, because that would mean confiscating property without due process and interfering in a state's internal affairs.
Practically, though, almost all anti-slavery measures were defeated in the years leading up to the Civil War (the exceptions: the ban on international slave trade in 1807 and the ban on slave trading in the District of Columbia in 1850).
The slave states had too much power in Congress.
Unless the feds planned on replacing cotton pickers in Mississippi, the crop which had made Mississippi one of the wealthiest states, with federal troops, then some kind of conflict was inevitable.
That depends on whether the law involves federal or state powers.
The distinction's gotten very murky over the years.
There are some areas where state law prevails, but a state law that sought to overturn federal regulations in an area where the federal government had authority would most likely be overturned by the courts, just as a federal law that usurped state powers would also be questioned by the courts.