3 ms·
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.
by 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.