Although the Constitution was primarily framed to retain national unity, by the 1850s the document became a source

of tension and sectional discord. Until 1845, it seemed likely that slavery would be confined to the areas that it already existed in as the Missouri Compromise had set the barriers of slavery in 1820. However, the acquirance of new land made evident that the expansion of slavery would be a debate that would split the nation. The quarrel over slavery soon spilled into the political realm and split the nation along sectional lines. Looking to the constitution as a rubric to configure the rightness of slavery, settle territorial disputes, and the notion of succession, the North and South divided because of the different interpretations of the document and the vagueness that instilled in it. Primarily, the ambiguity regarding slavery was the major pedestal to the Civil War. The debate whether slavery was viable in the nation, morally and justifiably, was not mentioned in the Constitution. However, the openness to interpretation proved to be the downfall of the nation as the South utilized their th economic and social means to justify the ends. The economic structure of the South, in the mid 19 century, became an institution that defined the Southern region. To the South, the loss of slaves meant the loss of monetary value, suggesting that the South had a major economic stake in the debate over slavery. Illustrated by the Dred Scott case, Southerners believed slaves were private property rather than human beings, which further established their distinct viewpoint in aspects of morality. When the loss of slaves was prevalent due to organizations such as the Underground Railroad, the South demanded a stringent Fugitive Slave Law, which would bar anti-slavery advocates from aiding Southern slaves to run away. In response to the controversial Fugitive Slave Law, efforts of abolitionists increased against slavery advocates of the South. Ralph Waldo Emerson, a northern abolitionist, suggests that the concept of the Fugitive Slave Law is against the morals of the Constitution and therefore implies disunion (Doc D). This indicates that the Northerners argument against the Fugitive Slave Law and slavery was derived from the Constitution, that all individuals have the right to freedom, rather than the economic benefits as the South. In fact, some Northerners, such as Seward, based their viewpoint on slavery by suggesting a higher law than the Constitution or the law ordained by Godthe moral law should be followed in respect to slavery. Additionally, suggested by William Lloyd Garrison, the Northerners argued that the Constitution did not outright advocate the right to slavery and therefore did not permit it (Doc E). Their strict viewpoint on the Constitution, in contrast to the South was different as the South actually interpreted the basis of the Constitution in conjuncture with their religion and economic stability to justify their actions. The Founding Fathers intentionally left open the door to interpretation in order to lure the South into ratifying the Constitution in 1787. Decades later, the document that was intended to string together the nation-states opened the door to irreconcilable differences. Slavery was a necessity to the Southern way of life whereas the Northerners morality was damaged with the engagement of slavery. The difference in perspectives of slavery in the North and South led to tension between the two distinct regions and became a leading reason of failure of the nation. Stemming from the debate over slavery, the tension and sectional discord built as new territories and the expansion of slavery in these territories threatened the equilibrium of the political balance. The South of 1850 was relatively well off as they had enjoyed much of the nations leadershipheaded by president southern president, Zachary Taylor and boasted a majority in the cabinet on the Supreme Court. However, the South was deeply worried about the ever-tipping political balance as there were fifteen slave states and fifteen free states. This indicates that the concept of slavery did influence the political aspects of the nation and was a vital issue that would determine the fate of the nation. Southerners feared the admission of California would set a precedent to the Mexican cession territory an area purchased largely with Southern blood, as it gave non-slave states a majority in political affairs. The Constitution, not providing an explicit procedure for the addition of new territory relative to slavery, aided in the increase of tensions between the North and South. An attempt to resolve the territorialslavery issue, the Compromise of 1850 provided a temporary solution to the dispute by adding New Mexico and Utah as states determined by popular sovereignty (Doc A) but this only helped polarize the North and South. Being pushed aside on the list of priorities of the government began to feel contempt towards their counterpart. The South, the least beneficiary of the Compromise wanted sectional balance. Their opportunity arose when the proposition of Douglass came about in the Kansas-Nebraska scheme. The addition of Kansas-Nebraska in 1854 would be the ultimate doom that leads to the civil war, in respect to territorial disputes. It led to an uproar in the Northern region of the nation. Violating the Missouri

Compromise, the heart of the North shattered, while the Southerners were inflamed when free-soilers tried to control Kansas. Depicted by Document F which refers to Bleeding Kansas, the battle between free and slave states for supremacy of Kansas led to the destruction of the nation as a whole. Individual rights and the economic value were both being blundered by the dispute over land (represented by the hanging of the individual on the right and the burning farmstead on the left). The fight between the North and the South reflected on political issues, which emerged new political parties and the split of the Democratic Party. Because the Constitution did not elaborate on the concept of slavery, the issue of how to decide if slavery is permissible in the newly acquired land was also left questionable. Ultimately, this led to the dissolution of compromise between the North and the South and was a fuel to sectional discord. In addition to the concept of slavery, expansion of slavery in new territories, the notion of succession went unaddressed by the Constitution. At the dawn of the Civil War, the issue of states rights arose once again from the Jefferson era; the debate over the allowance of succession was the alteration in this time period. Confederate president, Davis, argued that what the Constitution did not allow or say was the power of the federal government was the defaulted right of the states (Doc H). This indicates that the states rightists (Southerners) believed that it was their constitutional right to secede because the minor republics made up the national government. Suggested by South Carolinas actions after the sectional republican president Lincoln was elected, Southern states believed wholeheartedly that they could secede by a special convention. The Union president at the time, Buchanan, did not believe that the Confederate states could legally secede. Nonetheless, he could not find authority in the Constitution to stop them by force. Additionally, Unionists believed the states derived their power from the national government and seceding was illegal unless authorized by the federal government or the Constitution explicitly (Doc I). The vagueness in the Constitution regarding the succession held the nation to a weak standstill before the Civil War and caused tension on yet another of American history.