thehunter said:
That's a fair question and I appreciate it being asked.
Since there's some credibility challenges here to the idea that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, I'll note that I first heard this position from a Democrat professor who taught overseas about 20 years ago. This isn't a position that is held along partisan lines or just in the south either (the prof was from New Jersey), and it shouldn't be dismissed easily.
As to the question at-hand, the issues of states' rights aren't just a cheap copout like pi guy proposes but has its roots in the 1787 conference in which many of the founders debated providing stronger powers to the federal government. This gave us compromises like the bicarmeral Congress to address concerns from larger states that they'd be ruled by a minority (the House of Reps) and the smaller states' issue with being overpowered by larger states like VA and NY at the time (the Senate). It also led to the 3/5ths voting rule to stop slave states from getting ghost districts (like California is now with illegals, incidentally), and the Bill of Rights as a written and explicit restraint on federal power over states and individuals.
Fast-forward a generation, and aside from the north threatening succession during the War of 1812 due to President Monroe's actions which harmed commerce with the UK out of Boston, we had the Nullification Crisis of 1830 because some states didn't like...wait for it...tariffs! Yes, Andrew Jackson's tariffs from a few years earlier had sparked another debate about what rights a state had to balk at perceived federal government overreach (Gavin Newsom, eat your cold-blooded heart out!). There's a great summary of this event here: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/nullification-crisis
Suffice to say, the first eighty years of US history (known as the first turning) were an era where multiple areas of the country debated and often fought over what exactly the relationship between the federal government and states were to be. By the 1860s when the Civil War had broken out, slavery was used as a propaganda tool on both sides (Lincoln needed it as much as southern leaders to have a moral cause to justify families sending their boys to die in the most brutal war to-date in US history). At the heart of the war though was the simmering issue of Washington's control over local affairs (which is a universal complaint today, especially when one's opponent is in office).
I'm not an American, either by birth or by passport, but have strong connections with the country through immediate family and proximity throughout my life. It's a rich and fascinating history and it pains me to see that the government-run school system has allowed millions like pi guy boldly proclaim a misrepresented and oversimplified version of the country's past as though it were reality. The truth is, as is often the case, far more fascinating and complex.
|
Except, as I said, the state's wrote the reason down for why they were seceding - and they explicitly said slavery.
A major reason, this wasn't about the state's rights:
Those states were demanding free states return run away slaves.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/fugitive-slave-act#:~:text=Passed%20on%20September%2018%2C%201850,returning%2C%20and%20trying%20escaped%20slaves.
And again, "You can certainly argue that other factors might have contributed", but the states at the time made it pretty clear that slavery was their primary issue.
thehunter said:
I was speaking to the original post I responded to, not to the collective chatter that has happened recently here. If you were ever in a proper debate though (eg Oxford), you'd be called out for ad hominum for presuming upon my motives and that you're entitled to a reply.
I don't mind disagreeing with you, but up your game!
|
Where did I presume your motives?
And no, I'm not entitled to your reply. But it tells us whether or not you're actually interested in having a conversation or not.
I'm not sure where you think I posted an ad hominem.
Last edited by the-pi-guy - on 13 June 2025
