11 ms·

The reason you didn't have slavery in the north (and thus a north to fight the south in the civil war) was because of states' rights. California changed the env

The reason you didn't have slavery in the north (and thus a north to fight the south in the civil war) was because of states' rights. California changed the environmental law of the land - because of states' rights. It goes both ways. There is nothing intrinsically good nor bad with it. It's part of how the system is designed to operate.

rat87 4y ago
There may be nothing intrinsically bad but it tends to be associated with bad ideas and cause bad outcomes.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> The reason you didn’t have slavery in the north (and thus a north to fight the south in the civil war) was because of states’ rights. No, it wasn’t. “States rights” is a later pro-slavery slogan. It is not and never has been the same thing as loose federalism. And there were, in fact, slaves in the North until it was abolished nationally (in more states at the time of the Revolution than at the time of the Civil War, and even fewer at the end of the Civil War, but the last three states where slavery existed until terminated by the 13th Amendment were Kentucky, Delaware, and New Jersey.)
- InTheArena 4y ago
  This is not true. States versus Federalism has been an argument since the first presidency with Hamilton, Adams, and Washington stacked up against Madison and Jefferson. The reason that states existed at all in the north - despite states having laws forbidding it - was because of the supreme court.
  - larkost 4y ago
    This is not quite right. You are forgetting Kentucky: a slave state that explicitly decided not to leave the union and fought alongside the non-slave states against the Confederacy. Even Abraham Lincoln had declared himself as a non-abolitionist until the Gettysburg Address. He campaigned, and started his governing as a status-quo politician. The main thing that southern politicians railed against him was that he wanted to keep the compromise and have the "new territories" (areas that were not yet states) be kept non-slave territories. There is nuance here, but basically the Confederacy pissed him off so much that he changed his mind and decided that he would push for the abolition of slavery, starting by ending it by force in the Confederacy. He moderated after the war somewhat, and his death (at the hands of a Southern conspiracy to re-start the war and bring back slavery) almost got us to full equality, but wound up in a compromise that got us the Jim Crow laws.
    - daveevad 4y ago
      > You are forgetting Kentucky: a slave state that explicitly decided not to leave the union and fought alongside the non-slave states against the Confederacy. I had always believed that Kentucky was neutral in the Civil War. Both Lincoln and Jefferson Davis (President of the Confederate States) were born in Kentucky. Reading the wikipedia article[0], it seems like it's really complicated but it still looks mostly correct to me that Kentucky was more neutral than not. [0](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_in_the_American_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_in_the_American_Civil...)
  - stjohnswarts 4y ago
    It was an argument all through the founding, and is why we have a "2 senators per state" senate guaranteeing even the lowest population states still have some power and say in government.

rat87 4y ago

There may be nothing intrinsically bad but it tends to be associated with bad ideas and cause bad outcomes.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> The reason you didn’t have slavery in the north (and thus a north to fight the south in the civil war) was because of states’ rights. No, it wasn’t. “States rights” is a later pro-slavery slogan. It is not and never has been the same thing as loose federalism. And there were, in fact, slaves in the North until it was abolished nationally (in more states at the time of the Revolution than at the time of the Civil War, and even fewer at the end of the Civil War, but the last three states where slavery existed until terminated by the 13th Amendment were Kentucky, Delaware, and New Jersey.)

InTheArena 4y ago
This is not true. States versus Federalism has been an argument since the first presidency with Hamilton, Adams, and Washington stacked up against Madison and Jefferson. The reason that states existed at all in the north - despite states having laws forbidding it - was because of the supreme court.
- larkost 4y ago
  This is not quite right. You are forgetting Kentucky: a slave state that explicitly decided not to leave the union and fought alongside the non-slave states against the Confederacy. Even Abraham Lincoln had declared himself as a non-abolitionist until the Gettysburg Address. He campaigned, and started his governing as a status-quo politician. The main thing that southern politicians railed against him was that he wanted to keep the compromise and have the "new territories" (areas that were not yet states) be kept non-slave territories. There is nuance here, but basically the Confederacy pissed him off so much that he changed his mind and decided that he would push for the abolition of slavery, starting by ending it by force in the Confederacy. He moderated after the war somewhat, and his death (at the hands of a Southern conspiracy to re-start the war and bring back slavery) almost got us to full equality, but wound up in a compromise that got us the Jim Crow laws.
  - daveevad 4y ago
    > You are forgetting Kentucky: a slave state that explicitly decided not to leave the union and fought alongside the non-slave states against the Confederacy. I had always believed that Kentucky was neutral in the Civil War. Both Lincoln and Jefferson Davis (President of the Confederate States) were born in Kentucky. Reading the wikipedia article[0], it seems like it's really complicated but it still looks mostly correct to me that Kentucky was more neutral than not. [0](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_in_the_American_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_in_the_American_Civil...)
- stjohnswarts 4y ago
  It was an argument all through the founding, and is why we have a "2 senators per state" senate guaranteeing even the lowest population states still have some power and say in government.