5 ms·

The states rights thing is pervasive. I was taught the same thing in a public school all the way up North in Michigan. (late 90s, early 2000s)

krapp 8y ago
It's just true enough to not be an outright lie, while being enough of a lie of omission to serve its purpose as propaganda. Yes, the Civil War was about states' rights. Yes, the South was fighting for independence from what it saw as Northern political bias and Federal overreach. But all of those ancillary issues were about defending slavery as an economic and cultural institution.
- buu700 8y ago
  Well said. The meme of "it wasn't at all about states' rights and if you think it was you're a (racist|revisionist|CSA apologist)" is more confusing than persuasive. And that's my perspective as someone who grew up with "war about slavery" as the default interpretation, only learning about contemporary states' rights arguments in later history classes at my (public Virginia) high school. (And then only learning from HN/reddit that "Northern aggression" / "states' rights" propaganda was even still a thing.) I expect someone raised on that propaganda would be even more confused, likely enough to conclude that the speaker is lying or misinformed.
- int_19h 8y ago
  It's misleading even then, when you look at the actual complaints of the states (as expressed in their declarations of independence). For example, most of them complained about the free states' pushback to the Fugitive Slave Act, which was also a states' rights issue - but the one where interests of the slaveholders aligned with a stronger federal government strong-arming states; and they didn't have any qualms about that. Similarly, in the Confederate constitution, there were some provisions added that specifically restricted the ability of the states to handle slavery in their jurisdiction - e.g. the "right of transit and sojourn" (which essentially meant that free states were forced to respect the "property right" of any slave-owning citizen of another state who comes to reside there) - this, of course, was in response to Dred Scott.
  - wavefunction 8y ago
    This exactly, the American Civil War was precipitated by Southern aggression via Dred Scott.
- gizmo686 8y ago
  Saying it was about slavery is also misleading (although less so than just saying states rights). At the time the civil war started, the North was willing to compromise on the issue of slavery [0]. The North did not fight to abolish slavery. Had the South surrendered earlier (or never seceded at all), they would have been able to keep their slaves [1]. The reason the North fought was to preserve the union (apparently not an answer on the citizenship test). I actually think that preserving the Union is, in some sense, a more technically correct answer, since the South did not start the war [2]. The South declared its independence. The North started the war to prevent the South from gaining its independence [3]. As an aside. Independent of my actual interperatation of history, I think it would be highly unreasonable to deny citizenship to someone for holding a controversial belief that is shared by a significant portion of the country. Like it or not "states rights" is an American interpretation of the Civil war, even if it is one that is not historically accurate. And we really do not want the government to be in a position of dictating the "correct" history. [0] You could argue about how trustworthy the North was. I would argue the main cause of the Civil war was that the South lost confidence that the North was (or would continue) to compromise on this issue. [1] At least for a while. With hindsight, I am sure that slavery would have eventually been abolished in the South as well, and it probably would have been the North that was the primary political force behind it. [2] Fine, they did open the attack of Fort Sumter when the Union refused to withdraw. You could therefor argue that the South did technically start the war, but I find that to be a bit of a stretch. [3] As I mentioned above, this was the primary motivation of the North. The North, at the start, did not continue this sentence with "...so that they could abolish slavery".
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Like it or not "states rights" is an American interpretation of the Civil war, even if it is one that is not historically accurate. More accurately, “states rights” was, at the time of the Civil War, a code word for protecting slavery that was revived during the Jim Crow era as a broader code for protecting segregation and systematic discrimination, and the faction which uses it that way has always been strong enough to play a major role in shaping the national mythology.
  - enkid 8y ago
- pulisse 8y ago
  > But all of those ancillary issues were about defending slavery as an economic and cultural institution. It's insane how often this is disputed when the Confederate states explicitly asserted this in their various declarations of secession. Mississippi's, for example, begins[1]: > In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. > Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. [1] http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississippi_declaration.asp http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississippi_declaration.asp
  - code_duck 8y ago
    Apparently the idea of giving field workers freedom of self determination and wages didn’t even occur to them.
snovv_crash 8y ago
It was about states' rights, specifically states' to continue practicing slavery.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  Federal law protected these rights, and the rights to retrieve fugitive slaves. The southern states objected to northern states ignoring Dred Scott, which was a federal court ruling.
  - snovv_crash 8y ago
    Legally, yes. Just because it is legal doesn't mean it is right though. Moreover, the US was way behind Euope on this issue and I suspect they wouldn't have lasted long until sanctions were imposed on slave-produced goods, especially tobacco and cotton.

krapp 8y ago

It's just true enough to not be an outright lie, while being enough of a lie of omission to serve its purpose as propaganda. Yes, the Civil War was about states' rights. Yes, the South was fighting for independence from what it saw as Northern political bias and Federal overreach. But all of those ancillary issues were about defending slavery as an economic and cultural institution.

buu700 8y ago
Well said. The meme of "it wasn't at all about states' rights and if you think it was you're a (racist|revisionist|CSA apologist)" is more confusing than persuasive. And that's my perspective as someone who grew up with "war about slavery" as the default interpretation, only learning about contemporary states' rights arguments in later history classes at my (public Virginia) high school. (And then only learning from HN/reddit that "Northern aggression" / "states' rights" propaganda was even still a thing.) I expect someone raised on that propaganda would be even more confused, likely enough to conclude that the speaker is lying or misinformed.
int_19h 8y ago
It's misleading even then, when you look at the actual complaints of the states (as expressed in their declarations of independence). For example, most of them complained about the free states' pushback to the Fugitive Slave Act, which was also a states' rights issue - but the one where interests of the slaveholders aligned with a stronger federal government strong-arming states; and they didn't have any qualms about that. Similarly, in the Confederate constitution, there were some provisions added that specifically restricted the ability of the states to handle slavery in their jurisdiction - e.g. the "right of transit and sojourn" (which essentially meant that free states were forced to respect the "property right" of any slave-owning citizen of another state who comes to reside there) - this, of course, was in response to Dred Scott.
- wavefunction 8y ago
  This exactly, the American Civil War was precipitated by Southern aggression via Dred Scott.
gizmo686 8y ago
Saying it was about slavery is also misleading (although less so than just saying states rights). At the time the civil war started, the North was willing to compromise on the issue of slavery [0]. The North did not fight to abolish slavery. Had the South surrendered earlier (or never seceded at all), they would have been able to keep their slaves [1]. The reason the North fought was to preserve the union (apparently not an answer on the citizenship test). I actually think that preserving the Union is, in some sense, a more technically correct answer, since the South did not start the war [2]. The South declared its independence. The North started the war to prevent the South from gaining its independence [3]. As an aside. Independent of my actual interperatation of history, I think it would be highly unreasonable to deny citizenship to someone for holding a controversial belief that is shared by a significant portion of the country. Like it or not "states rights" is an American interpretation of the Civil war, even if it is one that is not historically accurate. And we really do not want the government to be in a position of dictating the "correct" history. [0] You could argue about how trustworthy the North was. I would argue the main cause of the Civil war was that the South lost confidence that the North was (or would continue) to compromise on this issue. [1] At least for a while. With hindsight, I am sure that slavery would have eventually been abolished in the South as well, and it probably would have been the North that was the primary political force behind it. [2] Fine, they did open the attack of Fort Sumter when the Union refused to withdraw. You could therefor argue that the South did technically start the war, but I find that to be a bit of a stretch. [3] As I mentioned above, this was the primary motivation of the North. The North, at the start, did not continue this sentence with "...so that they could abolish slavery".
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Like it or not "states rights" is an American interpretation of the Civil war, even if it is one that is not historically accurate. More accurately, “states rights” was, at the time of the Civil War, a code word for protecting slavery that was revived during the Jim Crow era as a broader code for protecting segregation and systematic discrimination, and the faction which uses it that way has always been strong enough to play a major role in shaping the national mythology.
- enkid 8y ago
pulisse 8y ago
> But all of those ancillary issues were about defending slavery as an economic and cultural institution. It's insane how often this is disputed when the Confederate states explicitly asserted this in their various declarations of secession. Mississippi's, for example, begins[1]: > In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. > Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. [1] http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississippi_declaration.asp http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississippi_declaration.asp
- code_duck 8y ago
  Apparently the idea of giving field workers freedom of self determination and wages didn’t even occur to them.

snovv_crash 8y ago

It was about states' rights, specifically states' to continue practicing slavery.

greglindahl 8y ago
Federal law protected these rights, and the rights to retrieve fugitive slaves. The southern states objected to northern states ignoring Dred Scott, which was a federal court ruling.
- snovv_crash 8y ago
  Legally, yes. Just because it is legal doesn't mean it is right though. Moreover, the US was way behind Euope on this issue and I suspect they wouldn't have lasted long until sanctions were imposed on slave-produced goods, especially tobacco and cotton.