States Rights: What do you think?

[Camelza]

States don't have rights. People have rights, states have powers.

I think that pretty much covers it.

[Zorga]

States should have more rights, but not too much. (Then it would be AOC, which failed)

BUT to address earlier statements about slavery, the Civil War was fought on States rights. The civil war BECAME ABOUT SLAVERY when Lincoln ISSUED THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION.

Just wanted to say that.

[Olerand]

States should have more rights, but not too much. (Then it would be AOC, which failed)

BUT to address earlier statements about slavery, the Civil War was fought on States rights. The civil war BECAME ABOUT SLAVERY when Lincoln ISSUED THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION.

Just wanted to say that.

It was always about slavery. The South attacked that fort when Lincoln, a Republican with the abolition of slavery officially on his agenda, was elected president.

This new "it's about states' rights(which are not a thing)" argument is an attempt by the American right and its southern heartland to rewrite history.

[Zorga]

I must have to say, that Lincoln wasnt an abolitionist.

He wanted to keep slavery, not expand it. He only became an abolitionist, when the Emancipation was given, to encourage the Union to keep fighting, to honor those who died at Gettysburg.

http://www.history.com/news/5-things-yo ... ancipation

[Olerand]

I must have to say, that Lincoln wasnt an abolitionist.

He wanted to keep slavery, not expand it. He only became an abolitionist, when the Emancipation was given, to encourage the Union to keep fighting, to honor those who died at Gettysburg.

http://www.history.com/news/5-things-yo ... ancipation

So he was against it and wanted it abolished, but didn't know how to do it as it was enshrined by law.

He was for abolition, if not a member of the "abolitionist movement".

It was about slavery, states' rights is a smoke-screen.

[Talonis]

This was a small reason however. It was mainly about the two economies becoming very different, the cultures of North and South were gradually becoming distant, and the South in general did not like the Federal government superseding their laws.

That's not a small reason. The two economies becoming different was because of, say it with me, slavery.

Sla... ver... farmingversusfactorization... almost.

Sure, slaves were a thing that held a place, but Lincoln didn't believe he had the power to undo slavery until the Emancipation Proclamation, which was done in wartime due to the increase of a President's power during a war, meaning that if the war was based on that, it would've been pointless to the President, who thought it was mostly about maintaining Union continuity.

[Olerand]

That's not a small reason. The two economies becoming different was because of, say it with me, slavery.

Sla... ver... farmingversusfactorization... almost.

Sure, slaves were a thing that held a place, but Lincoln didn't believe he had the power to undo slavery until the Emancipation Proclamation, which was done in wartime due to the increase of a President's power during a war, meaning that if the war was based on that, it would've been pointless to the President, who thought it was mostly about maintaining Union continuity.

Which is why he didn't start the war.

Southern states afraid that a man against slavery reached the presidency, and could therefore start acting to eliminate slavery, did.

[Genivaria]

Sla... ver... farmingversusfactorization... almost.

Sure, slaves were a thing that held a place, but Lincoln didn't believe he had the power to undo slavery until the Emancipation Proclamation, which was done in wartime due to the increase of a President's power during a war, meaning that if the war was based on that, it would've been pointless to the President, who thought it was mostly about maintaining Union continuity.

Which is why he didn't start the war.

Southern states afraid that a man against slavery reached the presidency, and could therefore start acting to eliminate slavery, did.

What he^ said.

[Islamic State of UKIP]

State's rights is a bunk argument. You should give the states power in certain areas and should still be able to superseded by federal laws. In America the problem is you give states too broad of an array of powers to use. The more conservative states have an incredibly liberal interpretation of the Constitution and think anything not explicitly says is their right. This creates issues because the states think they can break federal law simply because the Constitution, which is entirely made of compromises, doesn't say "Texas can't have slaves" which is utterly stupid and creates issues

[Talonis]

Sla... ver... farmingversusfactorization... almost.

Sure, slaves were a thing that held a place, but Lincoln didn't believe he had the power to undo slavery until the Emancipation Proclamation, which was done in wartime due to the increase of a President's power during a war, meaning that if the war was based on that, it would've been pointless to the President, who thought it was mostly about maintaining Union continuity.

Which is why he didn't start the war.

Southern states afraid that a man against slavery reached the presidency, and could therefore start acting to eliminate slavery, did.

That's a fair analysis. But the south wanted essentially to have sovereign states with a federal government to do two things: military and interstate interaction.
I'd say that slavery was about half of the cause, if only because of how seriously intertwined it happened to be with society.

[Zorga]

Like I said before, it was not about slavery.

When Lincoln was elected into office in 1860, he had no intention of freeing blacks. The South, scared that they would get their rights violated from the powerful government, decided that they no longer wished to be under this government. They each seceded, and then formed a union of states, the CSA, to combine their strengths and common goals. When war broke out, the Union wasn't against slavery. Sure, they had a lot of abolitionists, but most Unionists were not abolitionists, while some even opposed abolition. Before the emancipation, they just wanted to preserve the Union, not abolish slavery. But Lincoln, having a Union which was loosing interest in the war after numerous Confederate victories, especially at both Bull Runs, and the Defeat of the "Peninsula Campaign" (which is where I live). PLUS, they became frightened when the South invaded Maryland, and Southern Pennsylvania in an attempt to surround D.C. However, the southern defeats of Antietam and Gettysburg gave Lincoln a new reason to keep the war going. Instead of just honoring the dead at both battles (which were the bloodiest in US history), he added a new twist; slavery. And THATS when the war became about slavery. Immediately after the Emancipation Proclamation, you saw blacks volunteer and the public opinion of the war go up, which eventually wore down, and crushed the confederacy.

They seceded for 2 main reasons, Unfair taxes and laws that were harmful to the south's economy. The taxes hurt the south's plantation heavy economy, and laws which limited them their freedom. Taxes limited goods from Europe, which was a large trading partner for the south, which forced Southerners to pay large amounts of money for American made products from the north, which angered a lot of the Southerners. Laws which harmed the economies of the south were put into order during the 1840's and 1850's, which hurt southern crop production and limited the freedom of the states. States thought they had a right to nullify these laws, in which the US government decided to deny, and forced the south to do only one thing, secede. They had no other choice.

It wasnt about slavery, it was about States rights, and their own choice on how to run their respective areas.

[Olerand]

Which is why he didn't start the war.

Southern states afraid that a man against slavery reached the presidency, and could therefore start acting to eliminate slavery, did.

That's a fair analysis. But the south wanted essentially to have sovereign states with a federal government to do two things: military and interstate interaction.
I'd say that slavery was about half of the cause, if only because of how seriously intertwined it happened to be with society.

States' rights is a false lie instigated by the American right and their southern heartland to deny the true meaning of the war.

It was the ownership of Blacks. Not some fundamental disagreement about the prerogatives of the State.

[Olerand]

Like I said before, it was not about slavery.

When Lincoln was elected into office in 1860, he had no intention of freeing blacks. The South, scared that they would get their rights violated from the powerful government, decided that they no longer wished to be under this government. They each seceded, and then formed a union of states, the CSA, to combine their strengths and common goals. When war broke out, the Union wasn't against slavery. Sure, they had a lot of abolitionists, but most Unionists were not abolitionists, while some even opposed abolition. Before the emancipation, they just wanted to preserve the Union, not abolish slavery. But Lincoln, having a Union which was loosing interest in the war after numerous Confederate victories, especially at both Bull Runs, and the Defeat of the "Peninsula Campaign" (which is where I live). PLUS, they became frightened when the South invaded Maryland, and Southern Pennsylvania in an attempt to surround D.C. However, the southern defeats of Antietam and Gettysburg gave Lincoln a new reason to keep the war going. Instead of just honoring the dead at both battles (which were the bloodiest in US history), he added a new twist; slavery. And THATS when the war became about slavery. Immediately after the Emancipation Proclamation, you saw blacks volunteer and the public opinion of the war go up, which eventually wore down, and crushed the confederacy.

They seceded for 2 main reasons, Unfair taxes and laws that were harmful to the south's economy. The taxes hurt the south's plantation heavy economy, and laws which limited them their freedom. Taxes limited goods from Europe, which was a large trading partner for the south, which forced Southerners to pay large amounts of money for American made products from the north, which angered a lot of the Southerners. Laws which harmed the economies of the south were put into order during the 1840's and 1850's, which hurt southern crop production and limited the freedom of the states. States thought they had a right to nullify these laws, in which the US government decided to deny, and forced the south to do only one thing, secede. They had no other choice.

It wasnt about slavery, it was about States rights, and their own choice on how to run their respective areas.

I don't feel like having to rebuke this silly lie again, so instead:

6 Civil War Myths, Busted
Of Course the Civil War Was About Slavery
Slavery: Cause and Catalyst
of the Civil War
Was the Civil War actually about slavery?
Top Five Causes of the Civil War

While researching this, I found a site that asserted it was not about slavery.
It was called Confederate Pride, or some such nonensense.
Like I said, tells one some things about those who started and support this lie doesn't it?

[Talonis]

State's rights is a bunk argument. You should give the states power in certain areas and should still be able to superseded by federal laws. In America the problem is you give states too broad of an array of powers to use. The more conservative states have an incredibly liberal interpretation of the Constitution and think anything not explicitly says is their right. This creates issues because the states think they can break federal law simply because the Constitution, which is entirely made of compromises, doesn't say "Texas can't have slaves" which is utterly stupid and creates issues

It does now, though. Also, technically, anything it does not expressly give the federal government permission for is a state right.
Those who say that it is a guideline rather than a legal document are out of their minds, and clearly have no idea what a contract is. It's a legal document, thus, it is to be followed by those who agreed to it. These parties continue to do so, and so, the document is still in full theoretical force.

Whether it is observed in practice is to be seen, and it's largely ignored in a wide number of cases.

[Zorga]

That's a fair analysis. But the south wanted essentially to have sovereign states with a federal government to do two things: military and interstate interaction.
I'd say that slavery was about half of the cause, if only because of how seriously intertwined it happened to be with society.

States' rights is a false lie instigated by the American right and their southern heartland to deny the true meaning of the war.

It was the ownership of Blacks. Not some fundamental disagreement about the prerogatives of the State.

No it wasn't....

I like a statement by Winston Churchill; "war, is written by the victors". Since the US won the civil war, they have manipulated the history, and have changed it to look like the US was the good guy. I remember in elementary school, they talked about how the Civil War was about slavery, which corrupted the actual meaning of the war to young ones, who always thought that it was indeed about slavery. But, it wasn't, and it continue to be a huge debate today.

[Olerand]

States' rights is a false lie instigated by the American right and their southern heartland to deny the true meaning of the war.

It was the ownership of Blacks. Not some fundamental disagreement about the prerogatives of the State.

No it wasn't....

I like a statement by Winston Churchill; "war, is written by the victors". Since the US won the civil war, they have manipulated the history, and have changed it to look like the US was the good guy. I remember in elementary school, they talked about how the Civil War was about slavery, which corrupted the actual meaning of the war to young ones, who always thought that it was indeed about slavery. But, it wasn't, and it continue to be a huge debate today.

Check my links.

One does not get to rewrite history to fit their liking. I would like France's involvement in the Holocaust erased and forgotten, but I can't do that.

Neither can the American right and the South deny the meaning of the Civil War.

[Greed and Death]

I disapprove of segregation and slavery, ergo I find the concept of states' "rights" downright distasteful.

How so?

Because once something is used to justify something bad that something becomes bad as well. Never mind that slavery and segregation had amendments just for them.

[Liberated Duloc]

I agree with OP.

To all the people saying the Civil War was about slavery, look at some of Lincoln's early speeches and the congress debates at the beginning of the war.

[Greed and Death]

No it wasn't....

I like a statement by Winston Churchill; "war, is written by the victors". Since the US won the civil war, they have manipulated the history, and have changed it to look like the US was the good guy. I remember in elementary school, they talked about how the Civil War was about slavery, which corrupted the actual meaning of the war to young ones, who always thought that it was indeed about slavery. But, it wasn't, and it continue to be a huge debate today.

Check my links.

One does not get to rewrite history to fit their liking. I would like France' involvement in the Holocaust erased and forgotten, but I can't do that.

Neither can you.

If you won the war you could rewrite history to anything you please.

[Islamic State of UKIP]

State's rights is a bunk argument. You should give the states power in certain areas and should still be able to superseded by federal laws. In America the problem is you give states too broad of an array of powers to use. The more conservative states have an incredibly liberal interpretation of the Constitution and think anything not explicitly says is their right. This creates issues because the states think they can break federal law simply because the Constitution, which is entirely made of compromises, doesn't say "Texas can't have slaves" which is utterly stupid and creates issues

It does now, though. Also, technically, anything it does not expressly give the federal government permission for is a state right.
Those who say that it is a guideline rather than a legal document are out of their minds, and clearly have no idea what a contract is. It's a legal document, thus, it is to be followed by those who agreed to it. These parties continue to do so, and so, the document is still in full theoretical force.

Whether it is observed in practice is to be seen, and it's largely ignored in a wide number of cases.

It isn't a legal document. It was written by terrorists.

[Olerand]

Check my links.

One does not get to rewrite history to fit their liking. I would like France' involvement in the Holocaust erased and forgotten, but I can't do that.

Neither can you.

If you won the war you could rewrite history to anything you please.

But we didn't. Neither did the South. So we can't.

[Greed and Death]

If you won the war you could rewrite history to anything you please.

But I didn't. Neither did the South. So we can't.

Unless we have another civil war.

[Hindenburgia]

State's rights is a bunk argument. You should give the states power in certain areas and should still be able to superseded by federal laws. In America the problem is you give states too broad of an array of powers to use. The more conservative states have an incredibly liberal interpretation of the Constitution and think anything not explicitly says is their right. This creates issues because the states think they can break federal law simply because the Constitution, which is entirely made of compromises, doesn't say "Texas can't have slaves" which is utterly stupid and creates issues

It does now, though. Also, technically, anything it does not expressly give the federal government permission for is a state right.
Those who say that it is a guideline rather than a legal document are out of their minds, and clearly have no idea what a contract is. It's a legal document, thus, it is to be followed by those who agreed to it. These parties continue to do so, and so, the document is still in full theoretical force.

Whether it is observed in practice is to be seen, and it's largely ignored in a wide number of cases.

To cut in here for a moment, I would like to point out one of your words there - "expressly". Generally, the divide is over exactly that sort of word - after all, what, precisely, constitutes "expressly" giving a power? Many of the powers granted by the Constitution are very, very broad, such as "regulate[ing] interstate commerce" - does that mean regulating any commerce that occurs between states, or regulating all commerce that may be between states?

[Olerand]

But I didn't. Neither did the South. So we can't.

Unless we have another civil war.

Sure. If the South wins this time around, it can paint its fight as some sort of "liberty-quest" and not a crusade against the Blacks/homosexuals/foreigners, what have you.

[Twilight Imperium]

But, it wasn't, and it continue to be a huge debate today.

A bunch of CSA wannabes yelling on the Internet does not a debate make, let alone a huge one.