The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-07-2015, 08:27 PM
RE: The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
(03-07-2015 06:14 PM)ThatAtheistChick Wrote:  
(03-07-2015 08:36 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Yes, the argument that they were fighting for states' rights is given the lie by their own Constitution. They may have asserted they were fighting for states' rights, but that is not an honest assertion when their own Constitution denied states the right to decide for themselves on the one issue that was dividing the union. With that, it is clear that the states' rights argument was and is a fig leaf offered up to avoid having to defend the indefensible.

I give you, The United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 2.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charter...cript.html

Yes, that is what we are talking about. That the southern states wanted a federal law to trump state laws (with the caveat that only the federal laws they agreed with).

So the notion that it was about state's rights, is incorrect as that is a blatantly hypocritical view of the facts.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
03-07-2015, 08:59 PM
RE: The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
I'm certain people believe (including the soldiers at the time) that it was about state's rights, but it was and is a lie.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2015, 01:04 AM
RE: The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
(03-07-2015 06:14 PM)ThatAtheistChick Wrote:  
(03-07-2015 08:36 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Yes, the argument that they were fighting for states' rights is given the lie by their own Constitution. They may have asserted they were fighting for states' rights, but that is not an honest assertion when their own Constitution denied states the right to decide for themselves on the one issue that was dividing the union. With that, it is clear that the states' rights argument was and is a fig leaf offered up to avoid having to defend the indefensible.

I give you, The United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 2.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charter...cript.html

My point was not that the Union had pure motives. My point was that the motives of the CSA were not what was claimed. If states' rights were the issue over which the Confederates seceded, then why should they have clauses in their Constitution forbidding the states to exercise independent rights?

I'm well aware of the clause you've cited. It doesn't explain the contradiction in terms practiced by the CSA. If states' rights were truly the cause of secession, why should the CSA Constitution have a passage specifically denying states the right to liberate slaves? And what does that tell you about the motivations for that war?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
04-07-2015, 07:50 AM
RE: The Civil War was about States' Rights, not slavery
(04-07-2015 01:04 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(03-07-2015 06:14 PM)ThatAtheistChick Wrote:  I give you, The United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 2.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charter...cript.html

My point was not that the Union had pure motives. My point was that the motives of the CSA were not what was claimed. If states' rights were the issue over which the Confederates seceded, then why should they have clauses in their Constitution forbidding the states to exercise independent rights?

I'm well aware of the clause you've cited. It doesn't explain the contradiction in terms practiced by the CSA. If states' rights were truly the cause of secession, why should the CSA Constitution have a passage specifically denying states the right to liberate slaves? And what does that tell you about the motivations for that war?
Gotcha. I get what you are saying. Interesting...very interesting. I will have to share that with my husband. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ThatAtheistChick's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: