# The Civil War was not about states' rights **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 12, 2019, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085 "2019-09-12T02:14:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![kirkrapine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/7ea924/32.png) [@kirkrapine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kirkrapine)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2019, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/1 "2019-09-12T02:14:31Z")
It could not have been. Southern states started announcing their secession immediately after Lincoln was elected – before he had actually done anything to threaten their internal autonomy – before he had even taken office. And Lincoln was not really an abolitionist. If they had not seceded, he would not have done anything to threaten their peculiar institution – at most, he would have vetoed admission of any new slave states to the Union. The Southern elites must have known that, but they didn’t care; they simply did not care to remain in the Union under a president whose party included an abolitionist wing. ---
**Author:** ![Beckdawrek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beckdawrek/32/3647_2.png) [@Beckdawrek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beckdawrek)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2019, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/2 "2019-09-12T02:30:12Z")
Oh, dude. This is really a bad idea for a thread. Of course the south didn’t want Lincoln as president. He was a known to abhor the institution of slavery. The slavery problem had been talked about since the North American continent was discovered and Europeans began arriving. There’s NO cite that will tell you the South WASN’T interested in secession for states rights. No true one. IMHO. It was common knowledge. The south didn’t want to give up slavery because of cotton. That was the main money crop. It made many people filthy rich. They would do anything to preserve that, including Secede from the Union. As well they did, to disasterous results. ---
**Author:** ![kirkrapine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/7ea924/32.png) [@kirkrapine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kirkrapine)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2019, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/3 "2019-09-12T02:37:21Z")
> [@Beckdawrek](#): > > There’s NO cite that will tell you the South WASN’T interested in secession for states rights. N.B.: I mean “states’ rights” **as distinct from** “preserving slavery.” ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2019, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/4 "2019-09-12T02:43:07Z")
Is there a list of issues that you are checking off as you make all these threads that have been done to death already? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2019, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/5 "2019-09-12T02:48:45Z")
> [@snfaulkner](#): > > Is there a list of issues that you are checking off as you make all these threads that have been done to death already? Personally, I appreciate the newcomer enthusiasm and I hope the OP decides to stick around, albeit eventually morphing into more of a respondent then an initiator. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2019, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/6 "2019-09-12T03:01:34Z")
> [@Beckdawrek](#): > > There’s NO cite that will tell you the South WASN’T interested in secession for states rights. So … it WAS about states rights? ---
**Author:** ![snfaulkner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snfaulkner/32/433_2.png) [@snfaulkner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snfaulkner)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2019, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/7 "2019-09-12T03:12:59Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Personally, I appreciate the newcomer enthusiasm and I hope the OP decides to stick around, albeit eventually morphing into more of a respondent then an initiator. I did not mean to come across as unwelcoming. I was attempting to playfully poke fun at the pattern I was noticing. I should have included winkyface or smiley face. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2019, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/8 "2019-09-12T03:14:16Z")
The best reply to anyone harping about ‘states rights’ was made years ago by Crash Course: > [@](#): > > \*\*John: \*\*Today, we discuss one of the most confusing questions in American History: What caused the Civil War? Just kidding, it’s not a confusing question at all: Slavery caused the Civil War. > > **John-From-The-Past:** Mister Green, Mister Green, but what about like States’ Rights and Nationalism, Economics…? > > \*\*John: \*\*Me-From-The-Past, in your senior year of high school, you will be taught American Government by Mister Fleming, a white southerner who will seem to you to be about a hundred and eighty-two years old. And you will say something to him in class about States’ Rights, and Mister Fleming will turn to you and he will say “ **A State’s Right to what, sir?** ”, and for the first time in your snotty little life you will be well and truly speechless. —[Crash Course US History, The Election of 1860 and the Road to Disunion](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roNmeOOJCDY) ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2019, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/9 "2019-09-12T03:15:39Z")
One thing I find most telling is the Ordinance of Secession of Alabama. The fifth paragraph reads in part: That the people of the States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri, be and are hereby invited to meet the people of the State of Alabama … Those 15 states did not all secede, but they did have at least one thing in common. I’ll bet you can guess what it is. ---
**Author:** ![Beckdawrek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beckdawrek/32/3647_2.png) [@Beckdawrek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beckdawrek)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2019, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/10 "2019-09-12T03:39:36Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > So … it WAS about states rights? What do you they wanted states rights for? ---
**Author:** ![Beckdawrek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beckdawrek/32/3647_2.png) [@Beckdawrek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beckdawrek)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2019, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/11 "2019-09-12T03:45:36Z")
> [@kirkrapine](#): > > N.B.: I mean “states’ rights” **as distinct from** “preserving slavery.” In the confederation of the South the 2 things were interconnected. The Civil war was fought to preserve a lifestyle and the riches the South had. Of course they wanted autonomous rights. To keep doing exactly what they were doing. ---
**Author:** ![kirkrapine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/7ea924/32.png) [@kirkrapine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kirkrapine)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2019, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/12 "2019-09-12T03:45:38Z")
Really, it was about elites’ rights. “I am an aristocrat. I love liberty, I hate equality.” – John Randolph of Roanoke The Southern landholding-slaveholding elite dominated their state governments to the exclusion of other whites – and even passed a lot of laws centralizing as many functions as possible at the state level, it being easier for them to control their state governments than a plethora of local governments. The abolitionists were abolitionists purely and simply out of sympathy for the slaves. They were a minority without much political clout. But there was a much larger number of white Americans who didn’t care about the slaves, but hated and feared what they called the “slave power,” that is, the political power of the Southern elite. Their fear was that those aristocrats hoped to make all America like it was in the South, dominated by an elite. And it was not a groundless fear. One Southerner published a book arguing that the ideal society was an aristocratic society, with an elite monopolizing all the wealth, power and education, and all others dependent on them. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2019, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/13 "2019-09-12T03:46:39Z")
> [@Beckdawrek](#): > > What do you they wanted states rights for? I don’t know, but your double negative is confusing. Did you say what you meant to, or was it bad bad bad grammar? ---
**Author:** ![Beckdawrek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beckdawrek/32/3647_2.png) [@Beckdawrek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beckdawrek)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2019, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/14 "2019-09-12T03:54:14Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > I don’t know, but your double negative is confusing. Did you say what you meant to, or was it bad bad bad grammar? B–a–d grammar. So sorry. I’m a southerner we like our double negatives.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![kirkrapine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/7ea924/32.png) [@kirkrapine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kirkrapine)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2019, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/15 "2019-09-12T04:01:11Z")
> [@Beckdawrek](#): > > In the confederation of the South the 2 things were interconnected. Of course they were, but “states’ rights” sounds like a nobler and more disinterested cause – which is why lost-causers persisted for decades (and some neo-Confederates even persist today) in insisting the war was for “states’ rights.” “States’ rights” sounds like a simple extension of the local-self-rule cause for which the Revolution was fought. Of course, the war ended with the South reduced to an economic colony of Northern business interests, which it remained until the 1960s – about the same time the civil rights movement started to win. A connection there, perhaps? Maybe the **white** South owes MLK a debt of gratitude – no movement, no New South. ---
**Author:** ![kirkrapine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/7ea924/32.png) [@kirkrapine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kirkrapine)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2019, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/16 "2019-09-12T04:04:04Z")
> [@Beckdawrek](#): > > B–a–d grammar. So sorry. I’m a southerner we like our double negatives.🙂 Ain’t no thang! ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2019, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/17 "2019-09-12T04:44:32Z")
> [@kirkrapine](#): > > It could not have been. Southern states started announcing their secession immediately after Lincoln was elected – before he had actually done anything to threaten their internal autonomy – before he had even taken office. Lincoln wasn’t even on the ballot in most southern states. Southerners felt, with some justification, that he was being rammed down their throats in a rigged election. And Lincoln’s party was, at that point, a single-issue one: No slavery in the new territories. Saying he wasn’t \*yet \*an abolitionist is like saying Elizabeth Warren isn’t _primarily_ coming for your guns. ---
**Author:** ![chappachula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d2c977/32.png) [@chappachula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chappachula)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2019, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/18 "2019-09-12T06:56:32Z")
> [@kirkrapine](#): > > N.B.: I mean “states’ rights” **as distinct from** “preserving slavery.” But there is no such distinction. They are the same thing. In case you didn’t get past some of the unnecessary snark in this thread, take another look at the humorous quote in post #8. And try to answer the question in the last line of the post. (here’s the answer: The southerners _did_ want states’ rights. Well, actually, only one specific right. The states’ right to preserve slavery.) And welcome to the Dope. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2019, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/19 "2019-09-12T12:43:53Z")
> [@chappachula](#): > > The southerners _did_ want states’ rights. Well, actually, only one specific right. The states’ right to preserve slavery. Well - one other right as well. The right to secede from the Union to preserve slavery. Also, welcome to the Dope, **kirkrapine**. Regards, Shodan PS - Gee whiz, a “what was the Civil War about” thread, and a 9/11 truther thread. It’s Old Home Week on the SDMB. I wonder if we landed on the moon, or if vaccines cause autism. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [September 12, 2019, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/20 "2019-09-12T12:57:55Z")
The treasonous states were not interested in the concept of states rights. Apologists sometimes say things like “well, it’s a balancing act between overreach by the federal government versus condoning the peculiar institution,” but the traitors don’t even have that fig leaf. They were all for restricting northern states’ rights to harbor escaped slaves. They were only interested in states’ rights for themselves, and not in any way out of any adherence to a noble precept of independence. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085.md?page=2)