Take the 2-minute tour ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I was reading an article and was wondering if there is anything out there to indicate that the Founding Fathers saw the potential for conflict regarding these specific points:

  1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.
  2. States versus federal rights.

Is there any evidence to indicate that during and after the Revolutionary War (the time frame during which the United States was being formed into its own country), some of the Founding Fathers saw the potential for future conflicts that might lead to national dispute?

Is there any evidence that would suggest certain Founding Fathers warned that such issues could lead to a Civil War?

Is there any evidence to suggest that any were aware that such a dispute had a high chance of happening, but decided to forge ahead with the confidence that the newly formed government could resolve such issues over time?

share|improve this question
    
I edited this post to make sure it fell more in line with our question/answer guidelines. The previous version was more likely to solicit discussion or opinion. –  Steven Drennon Feb 27 '12 at 20:10
    
@Steven Drennon Thank you, that is a much better way to phrase the question. –  sealz Feb 27 '12 at 20:15

3 Answers 3

up vote 6 down vote accepted

I do not think that there exists evidence to show that the founding fathers anticipated a civil war would break out over the issue of slavery. The founding fathers were largely against the institution of slavery, but the southern delegates (where the economy was completely dependent upon slavery) were for the institution.

There were some steps taken to mitigate the effects of slavery. There is no mention of the word "slave," or "slavery" in the Constitution. The importation of slaves was to become illegal by 1808, so the founders had in place a system to limit the increase via importation. Southern states wanted slaves to be counted as full people for appropriation purposes, but that was eventually narrowed down to 3/5ths. The reality was that the founders didn't think they could make the US work without the support of the Southern states and as such they punted on the slavery issue, but managed to sneak in the power to regulate slavery with the importation ban.

The discussions of the Constitutional Convention show a desire to do away with the institution, but nothing about potential war resulting from allowing the institution to persist.

For further reading:

share|improve this answer
    
The importation ban was not intended to curve slavery, then or eventually. It was intended to bolster the slave trade (and thus the economy) of existing slave states who had large slave populations they wanted to sell. It was a lot more like economic protectionism than a social measure. Slaves were cheaper to import from the Caribbean, but that didn't do Virginia any good. –  Cody Gray Feb 29 '12 at 4:22
2  
@CodyGray Do you have any sources for this assertion? I don't doubt it's veracity, but I would be interested in further reading about the idea. –  ihtkwot Feb 29 '12 at 22:53
2  
I wouldn't really know what sources to recommend—one of the main reasons why I don't participate more actively here. Any good book on the American post-Revolutionary years or the slave trade should cover this. If I remember correctly, Eric Foner has written a lot about the domestic slave trade during the antebellum period. Lacy Ford has a good book on slavery in the Old South entitled Deliver Us From Evil, and Founding Brothers by Joseph Ellis is a nice read and I'm pretty sure covers this question as taken up during the Constitutional Convention. –  Cody Gray Mar 1 '12 at 18:35
    
@CodyGray thanks for the response. –  ihtkwot Mar 1 '12 at 18:37

There are lengthy discussions on the topic of factions and mitigating the risks of insurrection in the Federalist Papers and in the responses written by anti-Federalists. The most notable paper on this subject was Federalist No. 10.

share|improve this answer

Absolutely.

Pauline Maier "Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution" is an excellent source for both of these questions.

With respect to your first question about economic differences, consult any discussion of the Bank of the United States, the arguments between Hamilton (who argued for a commercial country) and Jefferson (who argued for a pastoral anti-commercial country). Southern states were nearly hysterical in their fear of "Northern Stock Jobbers". Or consult the controversy over the Jay treaty that almost sunk the country before it started (briefly, Northern states were willing to trade away the Mississippi in exchange for commerce, while Southern states were horrified that we would make any compromise with Great Britain.

State vs Federal rights. This was one of the chief impediments to the passage of the constitution. One of the centers of opposition in all states was by people who feared what would happen if the constitution were passed without a bill of rights limiting the power of the Federal Government. Pauline Maier's book, and Jack Rackove's lectures on iTunes are another excellent source.

Your question ignores several obvious sources of evidence. Look at the compromises needed to found the country - each of these were issues where the two sides were willing to fail rather than give in to the other.

  • Bicameral legislature - The legislature could not be formed on the basis of population nor on states. This is a key source for "states rights", but it is based in part on population counts vs development & commerce. Virginia argued for a legislature based on population, while the North pursued the Connecticut plan based on state representation. Randolph and Madison propoosed the compromise, but both sides were eager to walk from the table rather than to allow the country to be formed on the principles of the opposition.
  • The 3/5 compromise - another "walk from the table" where both sides were very aware that compromise could imperil their way of life. There is a reason for Section 9 of the constitution which forbids consideration of slavery until 1808; they knew that this was an issue that would fracture the Republic if considered too early.
  • Location of the Capitol. The first two capitols were in the North (Philadelphia, and New York) The South wanted the Capitol in the South. Jefferson and Hamilton reached an agreement that the Capitol would be established in a Federal District near the boundary between North & South. (technically teh boundary was the Mason Dixon Line, but Virginia has always considered itself not just the center of the country, but the center of the Universe).

There is ample evidence that the founding fathes saw the potential for future conflicts. You extended the question to ask whether they foresaw civil war. That's a bit more subtle, and I'm not sure what you mean. They had seen Shay's rebellion (over the rights of rural farmers against commercial interests), the government held hostage in Philadelphia by soldiers. They had to force Rhode Island to join the Union (not by force of arms, but I think it is relevant). Within a few years Burr led a seccessionist conspiracy, one of the other Northern states tried to secede, and Jefferson was created West Point because he feared the military might of the Northern states.

Yes, they foresaw the country splitting back up into states, and that would very likely engender conflict (in the short or long term, low intensity or high intensity conflict).

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.