# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/61 "2019-09-13T15:09:29Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Not in the least. It was 99.99% about slavery. I think it’s a good point to make that the Union id NOT fight the war as some sort of anti-slavery crusade. From the Federal perspective, it was more of a combination of putting down a rebellion and preserving the union. Slavery was a distant third- there were slave states that remained within the Union. For the Confederacy, they seceded because that they felt that they were going to be denied what they felt their was their “right” to own slaves- that was pretty much the only right that they were concerned with when they talked about states’ rights being denied. The Union war was NOT a crusade against slavery, which is something that needs to be said. By saying that “it was all about slavery”, it leads people to believe that the Union was animated by that more than the other concerns, which is not true. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/62 "2019-09-13T15:17:41Z")
> [@kirkrapine](#): > > Then why did the Confederate Constitution forbid secession? That would be glorious hypocrisy if true, but my Google and a skim of the CC does not find it. ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/63 "2019-09-13T15:51:20Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > That would be glorious hypocrisy if true, but my Google and a skim of the CC does not find it. The preamble to the CC does say “We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a **permanent federal government** , establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity…” which may be what kirkrapine had in mind. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/64 "2019-09-13T15:53:52Z")
The Confederate Constitution didn’t explicitly forbid secession; on the other hand, it didn’t explicitly protect any right of states to secede either. (Even _Joseph Stalin_ stuck a clause in the [1936 Soviet Constitution](http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1936-2/stalin-constitution/stalin-constitution-texts/the-stalin-constitution/) claiming that “To every Union Republic is reserved the right freely to secede from the USSR”, which clause was carried forward to each of the USSR’s subsequent constitutions.) Like the U.S. Constitution (which [the Confederate Constitution was a close adaptation of](http://www.jjmccullough.com/CSA.htm)) the Confederate Constitution simply doesn’t say anything about the issue of state secession one way or the other. On balance, the Confederate Constitution doesn’t seem to have been much more protective of “states’ rights” than the pre-Reconstruction U.S. Constitution was (and in a few areas was arguably somewhat _more_ centralized). The Confederate Constitution did have much more explicit and considerably stronger protections for slavery than did even the pre-Reconstruction U.S. Constitution. > [@Andy\_L](#): > > The preamble to the CC does say “We, the people of the Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a **permanent federal government** , establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity…” which may be what kirkrapine had in mind. It’s kind of a funny “gotcha”, but that arguably simply meant that this was the “permanent federal government” as opposed to the [“provisional” Confederate Constitution](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csapro.asp) (which was explicitly time limited to a maximum of one year). ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/65 "2019-09-13T16:01:22Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > It’s kind of a funny “gotcha”, but that arguably simply meant that this was the “permanent federal government” as opposed to the [“provisional” Confederate Constitution](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csapro.asp) (which was explicitly time limited to a maximum of one year). Ah, that makes sense. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/66 "2019-09-13T16:08:47Z")
And a “permanent federal government” says nothing about whether any individual state has to remain under its jurisdiction. It just means that as long as there’s a Confederacy, here’s what the federal government is. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/67 "2019-09-13T16:45:57Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I think it’s a good point to make that the Union id NOT fight the war as some sort of anti-slavery crusade. From the Federal perspective, it was more of a combination of putting down a rebellion and preserving the union. Slavery was a distant third- there were slave states that remained within the Union. > > For the Confederacy, they seceded because that they felt that they were going to be denied what they felt their was their “right” to own slaves- that was pretty much the only right that they were concerned with when they talked about states’ rights being denied. > > The Union war was NOT a crusade against slavery, which is something that needs to be said. By saying that “it was all about slavery”, it leads people to believe that the Union was animated by that more than the other concerns, which is not true. The United States was fighting because it was attacked. By a country that was attacking them in order to defend slavery. It’s like World War II. Germany attacked Poland because it wanted more territory. So Poland wasn’t seeking territorial expansion - but territorial expansion was still the reason why Poland was fighting. So to sum up: slavery slavery slavery slavery slavery. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/68 "2019-09-13T17:05:15Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > On balance, the Confederate Constitution doesn’t seem to have been much more protective of “states’ rights” than the pre-Reconstruction U.S. Constitution was (and in a few areas was arguably somewhat _more_ centralized). The Confederate Constitution did have much more explicit and considerably stronger protections for slavery than did even the pre-Reconstruction U.S. Constitution. The one difference I noticed which does seem like a big deal, is that the CC allowed the states to apply taxes to ships from other states. ISTM, allowing trade wars between states would have led to a much less economically united country. And since tariffs were an important part of government revenue at the time, likely seen as giving noticeable more power to the states. (though the ability to lay duties was subservient to federal treaties) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/69 "2019-09-13T17:25:45Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The United States was fighting because it was attacked. By a country that was attacking them in order to defend slavery. The federal position all along was that the rebel states did \*not \*secede, and couldn’t (even if they said they did), and were \*not \*a separate country, but that it was simply an insurrection that needed to be suppressed as the Constitution provided. The rebels committed the first acts of aggression, yes, but that’s what made it an insurrection instead of posturing. What would have happened if the secession declarations had \*not \*been followed by insurrection is an interesting hypothetical, beyond noting that those states would have abandoned their federal representation and negotiating power entirely. Preserving the union and ending slavery were \*both \*Union goals, the first one being at least partly a cover story for the second one until it became a generally held enough position for it to be stated more openly. Lincoln’s own often-quoted statements were those of a politician who knew he couldn’t get too far ahead of his people - he most certainly \*was \*an abolitionist, but he couldn’t get abolition done without the slave states first losing their ability to resist it. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/70 "2019-09-13T17:36:08Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I think it’s a good point to make that the Union id NOT fight the war as some sort of anti-slavery crusade. From the Federal perspective, it was more of a combination of putting down a rebellion and preserving the union. Slavery was a distant third- there were slave states that remained within the Union. > > For the Confederacy, they seceded because that they felt that they were going to be denied what they felt their was their “right” to own slaves- that was pretty much the only right that they were concerned with when they talked about states’ rights being denied. > …e. It _was_ all about slavery, since without slaves the South would not have seceded in the first place. No secession, no Civil war. And of course Lincoln wasnt going to take their slaves away anyway. ---
**Author:** ![kirkrapine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/7ea924/32.png) [@kirkrapine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kirkrapine)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/71 "2019-09-13T18:24:59Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Preserving the union and ending slavery were \*both \*Union goals, the first one being at least partly a cover story for the second one until it became a generally held enough position for it to be stated more openly. Lincoln’s own often-quoted statements were those of a politician who knew he couldn’t get too far ahead of his people - he most certainly \*was \*an abolitionist, but he couldn’t get abolition done without the slave states first losing their ability to resist it. Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined. —Frederick Douglass, 1876 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/72 "2019-09-13T18:25:00Z")
Lincoln explained it better than any of us here: > [@](#): > > One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!” If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope – fervently do we pray – that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether”. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/73 "2019-09-13T18:56:31Z")
> [@Abraham Lincoln](#): > > It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. That’s some magnificent snark right there. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/74 "2019-09-13T20:18:52Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > That would be glorious hypocrisy if true, but my Google and a skim of the CC does not find it. This is interesting because I had heard it explictly stated too, but also looked at the Confederate constitution after you posted and did not see any clause prohibiting secession. Apparently there was a proposed amendment to add a clause explicitly allowing secession, but it was voted done. Some of the commentary on it theorizes that the drafters felt that if they wrote a clause explicitly allowing secession but otherwise used the language of the US constitution, they were effectively saying “the US constitution doesn’t allow secession, it would requires a clause like the one we added” which contradicted their argument that they were legally separating themselves from a compact. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/75 "2019-09-13T20:28:19Z")
> [@kirkrapine](#): > > Then why did the Confederate Constitution forbid secession? A person can believe the right to secede is present under the US Constitution, fight to defend said right, and still believe that secession should be outlawed in the Confederate Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/76 "2019-09-13T20:32:42Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > It _was_ all about slavery, since without slaves the South would not have seceded in the first place. No secession, no Civil war. > > And of course Lincoln wasnt going to take their slaves away anyway. Without boats there would have been no slaves in the Americas, I guess it was all about boats. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/77 "2019-09-13T20:37:43Z")
> [@kirkrapine](#): > > Well, I don’t know about that. Once the principle of secession were established as legitimate, both the USA and CSA would have become very fragile unions, liable to fragmentation at any time, and that could have led to a **lot** of wars. I’m glad I’m living on a politically unified landmass, unlike Europe. Yes Europe was much better when people were fighting to unify it? No. Decentralized Europe saw the flowering of Western Civilization. Yes i’ll take the Renaissance over WWII and the Soviet Union. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/78 "2019-09-13T20:38:00Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > It _was_ all about slavery, since without slaves the South would not have seceded in the first place. No secession, no Civil war. > > And of course Lincoln wasnt going to take their slaves away anyway. Well yeah, but the North didn’t go to war to abolish slavery. That’s what I’m trying to say; they weren’t concerned enough with the slave issue to go to war except that the South was seceding as a result of it. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/79 "2019-09-13T20:47:53Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > A person can believe the right to secede is present under the US Constitution, fight to defend said right, and still believe that secession should be outlawed in the Confederate Constitution. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2019, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085/80 "2019-09-13T20:52:59Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > :rolleyes: Did Confederates claim a right to secession under the Constitution? Of course. Dispute? Did they defend the right when challenged? Of course. Dispute? Did they outlaw secession in the Confederacy? Of course. Dispute? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-civil-war-was-not-about-states-rights/840085.md?page=5)