Alexander Stephens: A Constitutional View of the Late Civil War

Shelby's Foot

Corporal
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Been perusing this book and I have some questions.

Stephens claims the Compromise of 1820 is unconstitutional. This is a new one for me. It made me think about Congressional power over territories, which sonds like it ought to be plenary. Aritcle IV says Congress can make all needful rules for a territory. I am having trouble imagining why Congress couldn't ban slavery in a territory, or why, after the territory became a state, the supremacy clause wouldn't prevent the state for overturning that.

I thought about the Northwest Ordinances (which is under the Articles of Confed) especially, and wondered if Stephens thought something in the Constitution removed a power the Congress of the Confederacy thought it had.
 
Back
Top