States Rights?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't think you will receive a reply. Typically when someone makes the kind of offhand dismissal you are quoting, they do not have anything to back it up.

Well that was the first of two times in one day I've been told that I subscribe to revisionist history. I'm starting to get depressed.

 

[Gunny]

Well that was the first of two times in one day I've been told that I subscribe to revisionist history. I'm starting to get depressed.

Consider the source. Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with your argument.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I find it amazing that somewhat "educated" Americans still believe the South was fighting for states rights. I ask them what rights had been violated that suddenly made them feel the need to seceed from the Union. They can never answer with even a decent falsehood

Secession was itself the primary "state right" at stake in the War. The question there was whether or not states were, in fact, sovereign as they were claimed to be, and members of the Union voluntarily.

The conflict that led to the War Between the States was primarily one of political power, as are most wars, and whose view of the United States and how it should be was going to prevail. Because the divide between the two primary worldviews tended to run down the line between slave states and non-slave states, many of the skirmishes in this rhetorical fight took place via that smokescreen. It is very hard to believe, however, that anyone was seriously arguing about plantations in Arizona and New Mexico because they thought it was a genuine concern.

Because the arguments sparked by this fundamental conflict included things like tariffs that harmed the South while benefitting the North, which territories would have slaves and which wouldn't, and ultimately whether or not the states had the right to withdraw from the Union if they no longer felt membership was to their benefit, it has all been lumped together under the very generalized heading of "states' rights".

I hope this has been helpful to you. Perhaps next time, instead of simply stating that no one can answer you, you could try actually asking. Or just picking up a history book.

 

[editec]

Because the arguments sparked by this fundamental conflict included things like tariffs that harmed the South while benefitting the North, which territories would have slaves and which wouldn't, and ultimately whether or not the states had the right to withdraw from the Union if they no longer felt membership was to their benefit, it has all been lumped together under the very generalized heading of "states' rights".

Yeah, I think that's a fair assessment of the situation.

The Southern slave states basically had two complaints: tariffs, which were in place to foster growth of American industries and to raise revenue for the Federal government, but cost Southern agricultural businesses more money, since they had to pay most of those tariffs; and the Southen states concern that eventually slavery might be outlawed.

Now rather than say that they didn't want to pay taxes on imports, and they wanted to continue to own human beings as slaves, their apologists latched onto a euphemism which makes their treasonous war against the Republic sound more noble and less venal.

We're weren't fighting for our right to exploit people as slaves, and so we don't have to pay taxes on imports! NOOOOOOOOOOOO, we were fighting for States' rights.

Of course, take away the issue of slavery and our forefathers' rebellion would have never happened, and we all know that perfectly well,

So let's just all pretend that we were fighting over some noble sounding principle in the law, because describing our REAL motives makes the myth of the chivalrous South look rather like the great big fat lie it really was.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Actually the slaves were free in the north long before the war, and there were things like the Missouri Compromise that had to do with states entering the union because there were free and slave states!
And as for plantation owners they would have never gotten rid of slavery on their own, places like South Carolina are not ideal for working in the summer.

Untrue. Slavery actually almost died on its own a couple times without any war. It is not, after all, a particularly efficient system. Had outside factors not come into play each time to continue propping it up, the South would have had to largely abandon its agrarian lifestyle and industrialize a lot sooner, as the North did. Left to itself, it would have done so eventually, anyway.

 

[pegwinn]

Yeah, I think that's a fair assessment of the situation.

The Southern slave states basically had two complaints: tariffs, which were in place to foster growth of American industries and to raise revenue for the Federal government, but cost Southern agricultural businesses more money, since they had to pay most of those tariffs; and the Southen states concern that eventually slavery might be outlawed.

Now rather than say that they didn't want to pay taxes on imports, and they wanted to continue to own human beings as slaves, their apologists latched onto a euphemism which makes their treasonous war against the Republic sound more noble and less venal.

We're weren't fighting for our right to exploit people as slaves, and so we don't have to pay taxes on imports! NOOOOOOOOOOOO, we were fighting for States' rights.

Of course, take away the issue of slavery and our forefathers' rebellion would have never happened, and we all know that perfectly well,

So let's just all pretend that we were fighting over some noble sounding principle in the law, because describing our REAL motives makes the myth of the chivalrous South look rather like the great big fat lie it really was.

I like the "treasonous war" bit. Amazingly that is how the Brits felt about the disloyal colonies and the issue of taxation. The one area that you conveniently left off was the right to secede.

If you have the right to join, then you also have the right to quit.
If you can be accepted into the club, you can also be kicked out of the club.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah, I think that's a fair assessment of the situation.

The Southern slave states basically had two complaints: tariffs, which were in place to foster growth of American industries and to raise revenue for the Federal government, but cost Southern agricultural businesses more money, since they had to pay most of those tariffs; and the Southen states concern that eventually slavery might be outlawed.

Now rather than say that they didn't want to pay taxes on imports, and they wanted to continue to own human beings as slaves, their apologists latched onto a euphemism which makes their treasonous war against the Republic sound more noble and less venal.

We're weren't fighting for our right to exploit people as slaves, and so we don't have to pay taxes on imports! NOOOOOOOOOOOO, we were fighting for States' rights.

Of course, take away the issue of slavery and our forefathers' rebellion would have never happened, and we all know that perfectly well,

So let's just all pretend that we were fighting over some noble sounding principle in the law, because describing our REAL motives makes the myth of the chivalrous South look rather like the great big fat lie it really was.

Well, I'm certainly glad we got the simplistic, outraged children's view of history. So much easier than actually reading a history book and trying to understand the complex issues at hand and the people dealing with them and the historical perspective that applied. Just say, "North good, South evil. Bad, bad, bad South", and you can dispense with all the messy scholarship.