4 ms·
IMO that's the correct answer. The only reason it was flourishing was due to lack of enforcement of federal law. It needs to be addressed at the federal level o
by brightball 9y ago
IMO that's the correct answer. The only reason it was flourishing was due to lack of enforcement of federal law. It needs to be addressed at the federal level or there needs to be a clear method for states to veto/nullify/ignore federal laws that they feel overreach.
I can't remember the procedure, but isn't there some method for a state to nullify a federal law that it disagrees with?
- buttcoinslol 9y agoUh, some states tried to use the concept of nullification to keep slavery around and failed. Not exactly a shining endorsement.. edit: It's important to learn about history.
- Clubber 9y agoAs mentioned before, slavery was legal during the antebellum period, and Lincoln never publicly said he would abolish it (until he did). The political theory though is if new states are required to be slave-free, then the South would end up being suffocated by anti-slave votes over time. It's an interesting time to try to understand.
- owenmarshall 9y agoThere is a method for states to nullify federal laws they disagree with; the last time we tried it, though, the side effects were a bit undesirable.
- seanmcdirmid 9y agoSlavery was not against federal law when that happened. It only happened much later toward the end of the war with the 13th amendement.
- Clubber 9y agoAs an aside, if you believe the Emancipation Proclamation to be legally binding, slavery was legal in the North longer than it was in the South.
- seanmcdirmid 9y agoThat would be equivalent to an executive order, I’m not sure if you could call it a law, more like a regulation. But maybe things were a bit different back then.
- Clubber 9y agoIt was, but the South had seceded, so they considered themselves a separate country with a separate (albeit hastily constructed) government, so executive orders don't apply to other countries. The legality of secession wasn't even decided until after the war, so it was a bunch of murky legal territory.
- seanmcdirmid 9y agoExecutive orders as military directives definitely applied to the south specifically because it was a different country. The president is command and chief after all. If we considered the south a part of the USA, it would have been much murkier.
- brightball 9y agoWas it ever decided?
- Clubber 9y agoYes, sort of. After the end of the war, it was ruled unconstitutional (by SCOTUS), but only applied to 1869 onward. (perhaps meaning it was legal in 1861). The actual ruling is still being debated. https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/2056/was-the-secession-of-the-confederate-states-illegal https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/2056/was-the-sec...
- SEJeff 9y agoYes, the 2nd Amendment, however that tends to not work so well.
- hnal943 9y agoNo, outside of secession, there is no way for states to nullify federal law. This is why the federal government should be extremely limited in its dealings, the rest remaining with the state and local authorities.
- VLM 9y agoYou'll get an infinite number of snarky comments about the War of Northern Aggression back in the early 1860s but the more modern answer is yes states have taken cases to the Supreme Court with highly mixed results WRT nullification of laws. Its not really the kind of thing where historical batting averages have any influence on next weeks attempt, but historically I think individuals have scored slightly better with the Supreme Court than states have. Its also very fuzzy to categorize when the court case technically involves a private citizen who merely happens to be the states attorney general as his day job, is that a win for the state or just a win for some dude?