One of the chief areas of compromise at the constitutional convention was the issue of slavery. should delegates who opposed slavery have been willing to compromise? why or why not?

The issue of slavery in the United States became almost one of the pillars of how the Constitution was framed and the problems that later arose in the new nation. It almost brought the whole Union apart, as those in favor and those against the institution battled it out both on the political, and military, arena.

The main driving cause for this conflict between the North and South was interest. While the North upheld the principles that slavery was essentially wrong, and should be abolished entirely, while all the slaves be set free, the South, whose economy, and basically their entire society, depended on slave labor, of course, opposed. In the end, if one analyzed the issue truly, what drove North and South against one another, more than reaching the freedom, or not, of slaves, was, how much power would one side of the country hold over the other if slaves remained or were removed.

So, during the two Constitutional Conventions, the problem continued and it almost prevented acceptance of the Constitution and its regulations.

Personally, I believe that there was a pressing reason for those delegates from the North, and who were against slavery, to have negotiated terms with those of the South, and that was, their desire to maintain the viability of the Union. The risk of losing what had been accomplished to that point by achieving independence, was too high. However, the problem was the surrendering of the principles that led these people to oppose slavery. They believed that human life was valuable, precious, and that slavery was an abomination. So, in hopes of retaining the Union of the country, these men gave up on their morals, their principles, to ensure that. So in the end, it is very difficult to say whether they should, or should not, have surrendered. From the human standpoint, no, their principles should have been first; but on the other hand, there was the risk of losing more lives, and the cohesiveness of a nation that had just been born.

no, dan should reduce his discretionary spending. not long-term goals involve more planning than short-term goals do