However, when these same advocates were faced with the possibility of losing their political power by living in accordance with their own arguments, they admitted that they understood the people they had under their absolute control were men and not animals. Such an admission was tantamount to declaring that they didn't really believe in equality, but instead wanted to protect their own liberty to live their preferred way of life. They formed arguments for states' rights, which consisted of a kind of collectivized justification of liberty at the state level rather than on the personal level, and threatened to reject the constitution if their rights were not protected. The North, on the other hand, had rid itself of slavery earlier in its history, driven by the moral arguments of abolitionists and the fact that their economy had never really depended on slavery. They espoused a belief in equality but were not willing to let that belief get in the way of their desire to solidify the move toward the constitution. The upshot was that slavery, an institution which allowed neither liberty nor equality, proved the lie of equality, but did so in a way that would eventually also prove the lie of liberty.
As the nation ratified the constitution and moved through its early history, there were numerous developments which showed that liberty and equality were incompatible in ways unrelated to slavery. The rise of Andrew Jackson and populist
However, the institution of slavery always remained at the forefront of the national debate and at every turn it seemed to indicate that liberty and equality were zero-sum games. As the nation expanded westward and new territories were annexed, the question of whether to allow slavery was always a major concern. The nation struck upon a balancing act which basically guaranteed that with each free state added a slave state would be added. As long as slavery was permitted in the nation, it seemed that liberty and equality could coexist only in a tense standoff.
Finally, when the nation could no longer stand the tension, the Civil War erupted as an all-out argument between liberty and equality, with slavery as the prize. The North wanted to impose its will on the South and thereby increase equality. The South wanted to protect its own liberty, which would allow its states to continue meting out the most horrible injustice. As the nation went to war, there were other considerations that had an impact, including economic and cultural differences, but the questions of slavery, liberty and equality were the driving forces which pressed fingers to triggers. In the end, as slavery was ended and the South was forced to give up its cherished (albeit horrible) institution, equality won.
Or did it? In the years following, Reconstruction showed that the discrimination of racism was as wicked as the absolutism of slavery in prompting a battle between liberty and inequality. Jefferson's legacy, complicated by more than just the peculiar institution, showed the struggle to bind liberty and equality together was far from complete.
The Southern states were dependent on slavery for the maintenance of their economy. While the abolitionist movement had
