The American Civil War

[Farnhamia]

Was the south concerned about 'states rights' in the fugitive slave act? Or in dred scott vs sanford? Or bleeding Kansas/ Or when they tried to force states to accept slavery when the people didn't want it? They only cared about 'states rights' when it suited them

It was the priniciple of it, many Southern leaders were offended by the invasion of Northern policies on such institions, the turbulent years even before the war had split the nation, and the more slave states or territories then the better the Southern faction would be in terms of influence in the Government. The free states challenged this which led to civil hostilities and briefly halted with compromises.

And what was the South's response? War. "Offended by the invasion of Northern policies," my ass. It was the South that forced the Fugitive Slave Act on the Northern states.

[Laerod]

Who messed up the spoilers?

Irony...

[Numer]

I agree with state's rights heavily, but slavery was awful, so it's gonna have to be Union.

[Frisbeeteria]

It was the priniciple of it, many Southern leaders were offended by the invasion of Northern policies on such institions, the turbulent years even before the war had split the nation, and the more slave states or territories then the better the Southern faction would be in terms of influence in the Government. The free states challenged this which led to civil hostilities and briefly halted with compromises.

And what was the South's response? War. "Offended by the invasion of Northern policies," my ass. It was the South that forced the Fugitive Slave Act on the Northern states.

OR DID THEY!?!

[Ertae]

Union. The Confederate system was inefficient and their cause was poorly-veiled racism.

[Noobubersland]

I agree with state's rights heavily, but slavery was awful, so it's gonna have to be Union.

The right to own slaves?

[Frisbeeteria]

I agree with state's rights heavily, but slavery was awful, so it's gonna have to be Union.

It wasn't about state rights.

[Wamitoria]

I agree with state's rights heavily, but slavery was awful, so it's gonna have to be Union.

The South was not fighting on behalf of states' rights. I cannot tell you how many times that this has been said and backed up on this here thread.

[Noobubersland]

Union. The Confederate system was inefficient and their cause was poorly-veiled racism.

Their cause was racism, they thought that blacks were the inferiors of whites, so they should work for them

[Wamitoria]

Union. The Confederate system was inefficient and their cause was poorly-veiled racism.

Veiled?

[Numer]

I agree with state's rights heavily, but slavery was awful, so it's gonna have to be Union.

The right to own slaves?

No, but I think states should make most decisions on matters other than slavery. E.g. Prohibition. They could've of just opted to turn it over to the states.

[Wamitoria]

The right to own slaves?

No, but I think states should make most decisions on matters other than slavery. E.g. Prohibition. They could've of just opted to turn it over to the states.

The south was opposed to such measures.

[Safed]

Personally, I would have, at least to start with, have supported the Confederacy because of state's rights, in fact, most of Europe did.
Lincoln introduced the Emancipation proclamation because of the support for the South from Europe. By shifting the focus of the war onto slavery, he removed any support the South previously had, because Europe had for the most part banned slavery at least 30 years earlier.
Indeed, Lincoln was not the great liberator many think. One direct quote, when asked about slavery and freeing of the blacks, his response was:

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.” - Abraham Lincoln, Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858

[Ifreann]

A bit more of a grey area than that, given the country it was in had just secceded and hence could claim that the fort was rightfully theirs. Obviously the union didn't see it like that.

Not gray at all. You don't get to say, "We're tired of playing with you, and that fort? That's ours," and then start shooting at it. You negotiate your exit from the Union and part of the settlement covers the forts and arsenals and all. The Southern leadership's short-sightedness killed tens of thousands of their countrymen, and for what? The right to own other humans as property.

Pretty important right, that. *nods*

[Noobubersland]

No, but I think states should make most decisions on matters other than slavery. E.g. Prohibition. They could've of just opted to turn it over to the states.

Why? Why should provinces have the rights of countries?

[Occupied Deutschland]

Union. The Confederate system was inefficient and their cause was poorly-veiled racism.

Veiled?

Very thinly.

[Numer]

No, but I think states should make most decisions on matters other than slavery. E.g. Prohibition. They could've of just opted to turn it over to the states.

The south was opposed to such measures.

Exactly, I'm saying they could've just let Southern states pass it, and urban Northern states not. I'm saying that I think all of the states should be able to make most decisions.

[Des-Bal]

No, but I think states should make most decisions on matters other than slavery. E.g. Prohibition. They could've of just opted to turn it over to the states.

The only things states use their rights to do is take away the rights of their citizens.

[Alien Space Bats]

It was the priniciple of it, many Southern leaders were offended by the invasion of Northern policies on such institions, the turbulent years even before the war had split the nation, and the more slave states or territories then the better the Southern faction would be in terms of influence in the Government. The free states challenged this which led to civil hostilities and briefly halted with compromises.

So the War occurred because the North dared hold a different opinion on slavery than the South?

[Wamitoria]

Personally, I would have, at least to start with, have supported the Confederacy because of state's rights, in fact, most of Europe did.

[rage]FOR THE FUCKING 18 MILLIONTH TIME, THE SOUTH WAS OPPOSED TO STATES RIGHTS[/rage].

[Bornisia]

It was the priniciple of it, many Southern leaders were offended by the invasion of Northern policies on such institions, the turbulent years even before the war had split the nation, and the more slave states or territories then the better the Southern faction would be in terms of influence in the Government. The free states challenged this which led to civil hostilities and briefly halted with compromises.

And what was the South's response? War. "Offended by the invasion of Northern policies," my ass. It was the South that forced the Fugitive Slave Act on the Northern states.

Sir, do not bring your ass into this. Also, I agree with your statement on the topic of war, Lincoln basically gave the South the opportunity to start the war if they wished it (Fort Sumter). The South and it's fugitive slave act was the result of the growing tension and rift between the states and indeed the government.

[Forsakia]

A bit more of a grey area than that, given the country it was in had just secceded and hence could claim that the fort was rightfully theirs. Obviously the union didn't see it like that.

Right, after a bit of searching, I've discovered sources that cite November 22, 1841 as the day that Fort Sumter undeniably became federal property as evidenced by the Secretary of State of South Carolina.


(Saucy sauce)

That South Carolina owned Fort Sumter or the land it was on is a lie.

So basically, the case is even more water-tight than the US claim to Guantanamo Bay.

Is that really relevant? It's one thing to acknowledge federal government ownership of something while you're within that government, when countries go independent they tend to view government property as transferring to them.

(Of course they should have sent a politely worded 'sod off' before firing on the place).

[Numer]

No, but I think states should make most decisions on matters other than slavery. E.g. Prohibition. They could've of just opted to turn it over to the states.

The only things states use their rights to do is take away the rights of their citizens.

Nice blanket statement.

[Wamitoria]

The only things states use their rights to do is take away the rights of their citizens.

Nice blanket statement.

With the exception of medical marijuana laws, it's always been the case.

[Laerod]

Veiled?

Very thinly.

Not at all. Not at all.