3 ms·

You are correct that slavery was the "trigger", but just as it shouldn't be purely about states' rights it also shouldn't be purely about slavery. It's more com

You are correct that slavery was the "trigger", but just as it shouldn't be purely about states' rights it also shouldn't be purely about slavery. It's more complex than that and including the discussion on states' rights sets the groundwork to understand a lot of the attitudes still present in the South about limited power and government (not just Federal) overreach in general.

bhickey 8y ago
The states' rights narrative has as much historical basis as the stab-in-the-back myth.
jjeaff 8y ago
It seems that without the catalyst of slavery, and the vitriol towards blacks and the idea that they might obtain equal rights, was probably the only way these issues of states rights would have come to war.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  I think the history of the world paints a different picture. Worldwide, and since our earliest recordings of history, governments have tried to expand themselves to encompass ever greater regions and ultimately grant themselves ever more expansive power. And invariably there is a backlash, frequently a war, and then a dissolution before another great power emerges and starts combining the disparate pieces into a new whole to repeat the entire process all over again. The only thing that really slowed this cycle (which had been accelerating) was nuclear weapons which make outright war between developed nations basically impossible. This beautiful [1] video shows the remarkably frequent shifting or Europe's borders through the centuries. It's easy to just look at that and zone out but you have to consider that each color there was at one time a real and genuine government that the people likely expected to last more or less indefinitely. Many of those blips which you see so seemingly rapidly evaporate were longer lived than the United States. For instance the strikingly visible Ottoman empire lasted for some 600 years. And, in a story told a countless times before and one that will be told a countless number of times in the centuries to come, it wasn't some great force or power that brought it down. It was internal political disagreements which culminated in an armed revolution. The problem with humanity is that the only thing we want as much as the power to rule ourselves, is the power to rule others. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LfdXoL3Xck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LfdXoL3Xck
- chrismeller 8y ago
  Probably, but that wasn't my point at all. Yes, it's unlikely that something like tobacco or cotton tariffs would have escalated to war, but they _could_ have. As with anything in history it's helpful to have a broader picture and not simply focus on one aspect. Eliminating the states' rights aspect entirely leaves you without valuable context when you're looking at modern day political debates and makes it easier to view the entire thing from an absolutist standpoint that simply demonizes the south - everyone in the south was evil because they did this thing that was wrong, but that would clearly never happen to _us_.
  - bhickey 8y ago
    > Eliminating the states' rights aspect entirely leaves you without valuable context Except claims about states' rights are without any historical basis. They were concocted fifty plus years after the fact to cast the Confederates in a noble light. As others here have pointed out, articles of secession specifically call out preservation of the institution of slavery without any assertion of states' rights.

bhickey 8y ago

The states' rights narrative has as much historical basis as the stab-in-the-back myth.

jjeaff 8y ago

It seems that without the catalyst of slavery, and the vitriol towards blacks and the idea that they might obtain equal rights, was probably the only way these issues of states rights would have come to war.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
I think the history of the world paints a different picture. Worldwide, and since our earliest recordings of history, governments have tried to expand themselves to encompass ever greater regions and ultimately grant themselves ever more expansive power. And invariably there is a backlash, frequently a war, and then a dissolution before another great power emerges and starts combining the disparate pieces into a new whole to repeat the entire process all over again. The only thing that really slowed this cycle (which had been accelerating) was nuclear weapons which make outright war between developed nations basically impossible. This beautiful [1] video shows the remarkably frequent shifting or Europe's borders through the centuries. It's easy to just look at that and zone out but you have to consider that each color there was at one time a real and genuine government that the people likely expected to last more or less indefinitely. Many of those blips which you see so seemingly rapidly evaporate were longer lived than the United States. For instance the strikingly visible Ottoman empire lasted for some 600 years. And, in a story told a countless times before and one that will be told a countless number of times in the centuries to come, it wasn't some great force or power that brought it down. It was internal political disagreements which culminated in an armed revolution. The problem with humanity is that the only thing we want as much as the power to rule ourselves, is the power to rule others. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LfdXoL3Xck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LfdXoL3Xck
chrismeller 8y ago
Probably, but that wasn't my point at all. Yes, it's unlikely that something like tobacco or cotton tariffs would have escalated to war, but they _could_ have. As with anything in history it's helpful to have a broader picture and not simply focus on one aspect. Eliminating the states' rights aspect entirely leaves you without valuable context when you're looking at modern day political debates and makes it easier to view the entire thing from an absolutist standpoint that simply demonizes the south - everyone in the south was evil because they did this thing that was wrong, but that would clearly never happen to _us_.
- bhickey 8y ago
  > Eliminating the states' rights aspect entirely leaves you without valuable context Except claims about states' rights are without any historical basis. They were concocted fifty plus years after the fact to cast the Confederates in a noble light. As others here have pointed out, articles of secession specifically call out preservation of the institution of slavery without any assertion of states' rights.