There is also a corollary. Since generalized states’ rights were anathema for slaveholders, states’ rights are in no serious way associated with the promotion of slavery.
As others have pointed out, states’ rights were a more effective instrument against slavery than for it. Secession included. For example, wise abolitionists such as Garrison advocated for secession.
Say, what about states’ rights to legalize marijuana?
Historically, state and local control has been far, far more harmful to black people than federal involvement. I don’t think this is due to something special about state and local control (I’m fine with state and local control in general… except when the state and local officials in control are white supremacists), but rather something special about the ruling class in the South through our history.
These confederates sound like a bunch of dicks, wot?
Or at least, you don’t not like them.
Except that it wasn’t.
When South Carolina seceded they issued an official statement explaining why they were doing so. And it mentioned states rights.
South Carolina condemned them.
They complained about how the federal government was allowing some states to enact laws that restricted slavery inside those states. South Carolina said they wanted a national government that would protect slavery, even in states that didn’t want it. And they were seceding in order to create such a national government.
The good news is that Florida will no longer be represented in Statuary Hall by a racist and traitor, best known for killing captured black Union POW’s but for little else. Instead, Mary McLeod Bethune, sort of the female Booker T. Washington, will get the spot.
Neither the North nor the South believed in states’ rights regarding slavery, as explained by other people upthread. The South left due to fears of abolition of slavery. There is an argument that the South had the right to secede, and the North should have let them go due to state’s rights, but the South attacking Fort Sumpter certainly gave the North other reasons to reclaim them.
Some people did. This was the basis for Stephen Douglas’ principle of Popular Sovereignty; he said each state or territory should be allowed to either adopt slavery or prohibit it within its own borders.
Most people were willing to concede the choice to states. The sticking point was territories. Pro-slavery people said that territories should be required to allow slavery until they became states and they could then abolish it if they wished. Anti-slavery people took the opposite position; they said slavery should be prohibited in territories but that states could later enact it if they wished.
Both sides were being disingenuous. They knew that the way a territory was run would establish the way the subsequent state would be run. If Congress allowed slavery in a territory, slave owners would move there and would form a strong opposition to banning slavery after statehood. The same would be true if Congress prohibited slavery; with no slave owners in the territory there would be no political pressure to establish slavery in the subsequent state.
As your original post implies, this has nothing to do with the Civil War, which had everything to do with slavery.
~Max
I believe his slogan was, “No union with slaveholders!” And when secession began, some Northerners said, “Wayward sisters, depart in peace.” Which might have happened, had anyone less dedicated to the Union than Lincoln been president at the time. Then there would have been two big North American republics, and the biggest point of conflict between them would have been runaway slaves seeking asylum in the U.S. Which might well have led to war eventually. The Underground Railroad was never really a threat to Southern slavery, it never freed more than a trickle of slaves every year, but its very existence made Southern pols furious.
Might have led to war> Civil War
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.
Two things, Will will not mind fragile unions. He never stops complaining about “statists” and likes a weak government. Also, he’s the only libertarian around who thinks slavery isn’t that big a deal. He worries more about taxes than slavery
State fragmentation does not necessarily produce weak government – consider the antebellum South, where the state governments tyrannized over the localities. And even a city-state can have oppressive government – consider Sparta. Or any Western where the local bully “runs this town” (don’t know how often that actually happened in the Old West). Or feudal Europe, where every landlord was tyrant of his manor.
Doesn’t matter. That still makes it easier to move to another nation, which is Will’s go to answer on how to deal with tyranny.
But he kinda wasn’t. Look, yes, no new slave states. But then what? No one was seriously proposing freeing all the slaves.
What had been proposed was making a law that reversed the Dred Scott dec and the Fugitive slave act- in other words, if a slave got to a Free state he’d be safe. That was about it.
There was some talk about stopping the slave trade- selling of slaves. But no one was seriously talking about freeing all the slaves with a stroke of the pen.
Nibbles, but pretty much every white plantation owner would be able to keep, beat and rape his slaves during his lifetime.
Not in the least. It was 99.99% about slavery.
Then why did the Confederate Constitution forbid secession?
Yeah not to put too fine of a point on it but remember what I said earlier?
It is a fundamentally unserious argument that does not hold up to scrutiny in any way, shape, or form. The list of things wrong with it is virtually endless - the only right they cared about was the right to own slaves; every conversation about it in the historical record boils down to slavery rather than “states rights”; various southern states wanted to enforce slavery on the free states; et cetera.
I will not speculate on why WillFarnaby insists on taking this throughly unserious line of argumentation. I will, however, insist that it is not worth taking seriously, akin to someone going into a thread about evolution and insisting that the earth is 6,000 years old.