It is of continued interest to me as to how the Constitution is applied today as compared to how it was intended to be applied at the time of ratification.
Of passing interest is Amendment 1.
At the time of ratification, the States were functionally independent nations, confederated. The empowerment of the Federal government was not terribly unlike the formation of the EU.
Independent nations bound by common currency, and regulation of trade among signatories, etc.
The Constitution laid out what the Federal government could and could not do, and established the structures within which it would/could operate.
At that time, interestingly, the State of Maryland required that all government officials be Roman Catholic. This was in no way seen as a violation of the establishment clause as it was not the Federal government doing the establishment, but the State.
The Constitution governed(s) the actions of the Federal government. The States were largely free to operate without Federal oversight or interference.
Slavery, despite its inherent immorality, was not addressed in the Constitution. Had it been none of the Slave states would have ratified it.
In advance of the Civil War it rightly, probably, should have been addressed as the Abortion issue was recently ruled by the Supreme Court. And for similar reasons.
Was Slavery the cause of the Civil War? In my mind it was not. State’s Rights was the cause.
But Slavery was, without question, the catalyst.
The possibility that the North would lose all the money the slaves produced was the catalyst.
In 1860, Southern production created 200 million in trade value with Europe, and 500 million in trade value with the North.
The vast bulk of that money ended up in Northern pockets, primarily as a consequence of protectionist laws and protectionist tariffs.
With the South seceding, the North was looking at kissing 700 million per year in value good bye.
They were not amused, and in fact were quite alarmed.
When they invaded, it wasn't because they cared about slaves, it was because they cared about themselves.
Slavery was an issue that divided the regions. I'll even stipulate it was an important issue. I do not agree however with the claims of some that it was the only issue. I don't even agree that it was the most important issue.
The South hated centralized power and favored states' rights. That wasn't something they came up with in the mid 19th century so as to protect slavery as some claim. That was what Southerners believed in at the time the US Constitution was ratified and that is still their inclination today. The North - especially New England - favored the centralization of power be that 250 years ago or today.
THE big issue IMO was the same one it almost always is - money. The Southern states economy was geared toward the export of cash crops. They needed low tariffs. The North which was behind Britain and France when it came to industrializing, needed protectionist tariffs against imports from those countries because it could not compete otherwise. Given their larger population, the North was almost always able to push through a higher tariff than the Southern states wanted. Even the "compromise" tariff was 17%. When they could get their way, they pushed it up to over 50%. The Confederate Constitution set the maximum at 10%.
This issue affected every Southerner be they among the 5.63% of the White population who owned slaves or the 94.37% who did not. The North then using its greater representation in Congress to vote itself far more of the federal government's expenditures even after Southerners had paid 75% of the tariff was like rubbing salt in the wound.
Just as their grandfathers had done when they felt they were getting hosed for others' benefit in 1775, the Southern states had had enough by 1861....knowing they could no longer stop the Morrill Tariff from passing.
People almost always fight over money.
“Slavery, despite its inherent immorality, was not addressed in the Constitution.”
It was addressed in the sense it was enshrined in the United States Constitution.