1 Answer | Add Yours
I think that both the Constitution and the Confederacy spoke to union of states. The Constitution was driven by the need to "form a more perfect union" and with the idea of states remaining together and being represented as such. The Confederacy was driven by a similar idea in that Southern states felt their voice being invalidated and a need to have this represented drove the development of the Southern union. The South believed that that Constitution was a compact, a voluntary agreement that was not binding. The North saw the Constitution was permanent and not something that one can join and disengage whenever seen fit. I think that this helps to bring out a major difference between both the Confederacy and the Constitution. The Constitution sought to make clear what the focus of a nation should be and provided a framework for this government as a statement. The Confederacy was more of a reaction to what was happening. The Constitution's emphasis on rules, regulations, and procedures was something laid out and designed in detail at the Constitutional Convention. The Confederacy was more of a response that was driven by passion. The technical elements of governance and procedures were not as strongly worded because of the emotional contagion of the time. In this lies another strong difference between both of them, as well.
We’ve answered 319,199 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question