4 ms·

yep. states rights to make their own laws about slavery superseding the national law

greglindahl 8y ago
Yes, this is main way that States Rights affected the Civil War: northern states ignoring federal law and federal court rulings about returning escaped slaves. I can see several folks in this very discussion who might be surprised by this bit of history. Edit: so far two different people think I am mischaracterizing what Southern states said at the time about their state's rights. I wasn't talking about that at all. I was talking about how I (and many modern historians) think about Southern states' reaction to Dred Scott and how Northern states ignored it. Please respond to what I said, instead of something I did not say.
- Delmania 8y ago
  This is also wrong. The Civil War was about slavery. There's a speech in which a defining characteristic of the confederacy is slavery. Keep playing revisionist history.
  - greglindahl 8y ago
    I think the Civil War was about slavery, but said nothing about that in my comment. Seems that your criticism is off target.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > The Civil War was about slavery I believe the "Civil War was about states' rights" line began in the 19th century [1], around the same time as "the number of Confederate memorial installations peaking around 1910 — 50 years after the end of the Civil War and at the height of Jim Crow" [2]. In reality, "Confederate states did claim the right to secede, but no state claimed to be seceding for that right. In fact, Confederates opposed states’ rights — that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery" in "Northern states [failing] to 'fulfill their constitutional obligations' by interfering with the return of fugitive slaves to bondage" [3]. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2011/04/12/135353655/slavery-not-states-rights-was-civil-wars-causet https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2011/04/12/13535... [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/confederate-statues-meaning-timeline-history-2017-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/confederate-statues-meaning-... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html?utm_term=.f2658c73f1d0 https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-...
    - nkurz 8y ago
      Unless you have a very subtle point that I'm missing, I think you got tripped up with the numbering of the centuries. The "19th century" started in 1801 and ended in 1900 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_century) putting the Civil War itself in the late-middle of the 19th century.
      - brennebeck 8y ago
        Pretty sure the gp meant the 20th.
        JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > Pretty sure the gp meant the 20th This is correct. Sorry.
  - gizmo686 8y ago
    The North was willing to let the South keep slaves. Why then did the South feel it necessary to secede? A major grievance of the South was the North's failure to honor the fugitive slave act. Had the Northern states not exercised this right (weather they legally had it or not), we might not have had a civil war. Granted, I doubt this is what the South has in mind when citing State's rights as a justification.
    - hammock 8y ago
      >The North was willing to let the South keep slaves Source?
      - gizmo686 8y ago
        >I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save Slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy Slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free. --Abraham Lincoln https://www.nytimes.com/1862/08/24/archives/a-letter-from-president-lincoln-reply-to-horace-greeley-slavery-and.html https://www.nytimes.com/1862/08/24/archives/a-letter-from-pr...
        8y ago
- mwfunk 8y ago
  Thats not at all what the States’ Rights argument refers to, and you know that.
skybrian 8y ago
States rights wasn't good enough for them. Before the Civil War, many people in the South wanted to expand slavery to more places including new US territories and Nicaragua [1]. If they hadn't been so eager to have their way nationally, it's possible the Civil War could have been avoided. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Walker_(filibuster) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Walker_(filibuster)

Yes, this is main way that States Rights affected the Civil War: northern states ignoring federal law and federal court rulings about returning escaped slaves. I can see several folks in this very discussion who might be surprised by this bit of history. Edit: so far two different people think I am mischaracterizing what Southern states said at the time about their state's rights. I wasn't talking about that at all. I was talking about how I (and many modern historians) think about Southern states' reaction to Dred Scott and how Northern states ignored it. Please respond to what I said, instead of something I did not say.

Delmania 8y ago
This is also wrong. The Civil War was about slavery. There's a speech in which a defining characteristic of the confederacy is slavery. Keep playing revisionist history.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  I think the Civil War was about slavery, but said nothing about that in my comment. Seems that your criticism is off target.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > The Civil War was about slavery I believe the "Civil War was about states' rights" line began in the 19th century [1], around the same time as "the number of Confederate memorial installations peaking around 1910 — 50 years after the end of the Civil War and at the height of Jim Crow" [2]. In reality, "Confederate states did claim the right to secede, but no state claimed to be seceding for that right. In fact, Confederates opposed states’ rights — that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery" in "Northern states [failing] to 'fulfill their constitutional obligations' by interfering with the return of fugitive slaves to bondage" [3]. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2011/04/12/135353655/slavery-not-states-rights-was-civil-wars-causet https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2011/04/12/13535... [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/confederate-statues-meaning-timeline-history-2017-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/confederate-statues-meaning-... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-the-south-seceded/2011/01/03/ABHr6jD_story.html?utm_term=.f2658c73f1d0 https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths-about-why-...
  - nkurz 8y ago
    Unless you have a very subtle point that I'm missing, I think you got tripped up with the numbering of the centuries. The "19th century" started in 1801 and ended in 1900 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th_century) putting the Civil War itself in the late-middle of the 19th century.
    - brennebeck 8y ago
      Pretty sure the gp meant the 20th.
      - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
        > Pretty sure the gp meant the 20th This is correct. Sorry.
- gizmo686 8y ago
  The North was willing to let the South keep slaves. Why then did the South feel it necessary to secede? A major grievance of the South was the North's failure to honor the fugitive slave act. Had the Northern states not exercised this right (weather they legally had it or not), we might not have had a civil war. Granted, I doubt this is what the South has in mind when citing State's rights as a justification.
  - hammock 8y ago
    >The North was willing to let the South keep slaves Source?
    - gizmo686 8y ago
      >I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save Slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy Slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free. --Abraham Lincoln https://www.nytimes.com/1862/08/24/archives/a-letter-from-president-lincoln-reply-to-horace-greeley-slavery-and.html https://www.nytimes.com/1862/08/24/archives/a-letter-from-pr...
      - 8y ago
mwfunk 8y ago
Thats not at all what the States’ Rights argument refers to, and you know that.

skybrian 8y ago

States rights wasn't good enough for them. Before the Civil War, many people in the South wanted to expand slavery to more places including new US territories and Nicaragua [1]. If they hadn't been so eager to have their way nationally, it's possible the Civil War could have been avoided. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Walker_(filibuster) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Walker_(filibuster)