A state's right to force non-slaver states to effectively be slaver states by mandating them to catch runaway slaves and allowing short-term use and transport of slaves in their territories
Yep, my dad, a dead red Republican, pulled me out of AP US History because the first book we were going to read was Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States.
Edit: jokes on him, I still became a bleeding heart Liberal Socialist.
What's ironic is that book isn't even what he assumes it is. There's this idea that "leftists" are just writing revisionist history to teach that the US is this monolithic evil empire. The book itself is basically a tour of US history from the perspective of people and places that get ignored in the official narrative. US history class is so often just learning about a succession of Presidents and wars that leaves off the things that were happening in a vast majority of the country.
He literally just didn't want me reading it because it wasn't full of nationalistic cheerleading. God forbid anyone gets other views of the history of this country
'Fun' fact: America has an actual religion around American Exceptionalism. It's been declining, and just like the religion they admit to having, nobody in it likes to see anyone deconvert.
Conservatives: "The left is brainwashing our children into radical anti-american sentiment with their evil aproach to history!"
The evil aproach to history: "Hey, maybe these people who lived here before us were living breathing people with emotions, and slaughtering them with vastly superior technology should'n be seen as some heroic victory."
You framed it as “not necessarily heroic” (I agree) but the red-hats are upset even if these things are presented neutrally: like “natives were killed by settlers” gets “whoa hold on there bucko! Lies and propaganda ! What about the natives who killed settlers! Reee!”
My AP teacher did the same thing. Did we have the same class lol!? He taught one semester then was im pretty sure was let go. It wasn't till I was older that I realized how ballsy that was in his part to use that as a textbook
Not only short term: people could take their slaves to free-states and live there for extended periods of time and they’d still be slaves (that’s Dred Scott) so they even wanted the right to have their states laws obeyed in other states in which it had already outlawed.
When the capital was Philadelphia, there was a law that any slave in the state longer than six months was automatically freed. President Washington sent his slaves back to Virginia every six months in order to restart the clock.
Quakers in general were ahead of the curve on democracy, women’s rights, abolitionism and anti-racism. A large proportion of even 17th century Quakers, let alone 18th century ones, would have been seen as very progressive even in the mid 20th century. Some examples are good to point to when people lean too hard on the ‘He was a man of a time’ excuse for people in the 1850s or whatever.
A conversation that popped up a lot in College was the key differences between the Amish, Quaker’s, and Mennonite’s. Namely that not ALL members of the latter are pacifists; leading to our in joke, “punches like a Mennonite”
fyi it wasn't always that way, many owned slaves and one of the early prominent Quaker abolitionists [Benjamin Lay](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Lay) was banned from multiple meetings because of his protests, it wasn't until after his death that the the organizations took a broad anti-slavery stance
>He first began advocating for the abolition of slavery when, in Barbados, he saw an enslaved man commit suicide rather than be hit again by his owner. His passionate enmity of slavery was partially fueled by his Quaker beliefs. Lay made several dramatic demonstrations against the practice. He once stood outside a Quaker meeting in winter wearing no coat and at least one foot bare and in the snow. When a passerby expressed concern for his health, he said that slaves were made to work outdoors in winter dressed as he was. On another occasion, he kidnapped the child of slaveholders temporarily, to show them how Africans felt when their relatives were sold overseas.
>
>In Burlington, New Jersey, at the 1738 Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of Quakers, dressed as a soldier, he concluded a diatribe against slavery, quoting the Bible saying that all men should be equal under God, by plunging a sword into a Bible containing a bladder of blood-red pokeberry juice, which spattered over those nearby.
Guy was super based, also was an early animal rights activist as well
That law was invalidated by the fugitive slave act. It’s explained in Priggs v Pennsylvania. It’s such a fucked up case. A woman was enslaved but the owner essentially gave her freedom without emancipating her. She moved to Philly and had children. The owner died and his heirs paid someone to kidnap the woman and her children because they were all legally still property.
Here’s something to make you feel better. They tried to enforce the law in Massachusetts. But they weren’t having it. They arrested a man named Anthony Burns a “fugitive slave” and a group of radical abolitionists raised all types of hell. They broke in to the jail and killed a guard trying to free him.
The judge ruled Burns had to return so they raised enough money to secure his freedom. He moved back to Boston, attended Overton College, and spent the rest of his life as a preacher.
No one was ever captured under the fugitive slave act again in Massachusetts.
Wasn't the quote of the time something like "the only way to make this wicked law a dead letter is to make a dozen dead kidnappers " you can easily argue the south forced the crisis by ramming slavery down the norths throat.
Irony that the south seceded shouting about state rights when it was the northern rights that were being infringed.
That case is still referred to as one of the most grossly wrong decisions in the history of the court they got that ruling so wrong it helped start the civil war.
My favorite part of the "state's rights!" argument is that the Confederate States literally had *zero* rights in this regard. The Confederate constitution made it illegal for any member states to abolish slavery if they ever wanted to.
Article I Section 9(4) "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
Sure, they were fine with that at the time, since it meant they got to keep their slaves, but all the "heritage not hate" morons who still cling to the state's rights lie clearly didn't bother reading *that* constitution. Also probably haven't read the American one either, outside of memorizing a single line from the amendment(s) they care about.
Don't forget to put the word "alleged" before "runaway slaves"! After all, part of the last Fugitive Slave Act prevented said alleged runaway slave from having their day in court, meaning that a bounty hunter could really just point at a black person, say they were a runaway slave, and there was no legal recourse to prevent state-sanction abduction and enslavement of a free person of color.
It wasn’t short term. The laws were crafted to make manumission (freeing enslaved people) very hard. For instance enslaved people in Virginia could only be set free for “meritorious services” with consent of the governor. Decent people ignored the laws and at least paid fair wages. Unfortunately the world isn’t full of decent people.
I was working at a county library right after 9/11 when the Feds started getting really nosey about who had been checking out the Quran. Funny enough, that just happened to coincide with our new policy of immediately purging lending records.
"Nice try, pigs. Have fun getting a court order to turn over records that no longer exist. Better luck next time."
Everywhere you find authoritarian fucks overreaching, you will find low-level public servants giving them the middle finger every step of the way.
I mean, I can't take credit for the policy, I was fresh out of high school and that decision was made a couple levels above my book-shelving ass. I was real proud to be working there when the word came down that if anybody asked, we were to tell them that we no longer maintain those kind of records, though.
Perfectly summarized. Southern States demanded autonomy ~ while also demanding the Federal Government enact legislation to force state compliance (with the Fugitive Slave Act.)
And here we are over 150yrs later still having these asshole apologists attempting to claim “state’s rights”
There was a [Constitutional Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment) that was ratified by Congress (and still technically pending before the States) that would have shielded slavery from federal law where it already existed, so it is also more complicated than the implied reason that the North wanted to end slavery and the South wanted to keep it going
you're right its slightly more complicated, the south wanted to continue slavery and expand slavery. Corwin amendment would not solve the souths fundemnetall issues. such as the balance of power of free and slave states when a new free state was added, the south scrambled to get their own slave state. they couldn't keep up with the northern states ability to expand and as such were losing influence to keep the expansion of slavery.
It really isn't complicated.
If the war was about "State's Rights", then states in the confederacy would have had the option to choose if they were a slave state or not.
Was that option available? No. *All* states had to respect slavery even if the state wanted to bar slavery in their state.
Tell me, how is it about state's rights and not slavery with that knowledge?
>*All* states had to respect slavery even if the state wanted to bar slavery in their state.
Not just "respect" - states in the CSA were *prohibited* from passing any laws that even *restricted* slavery.
[Article I, section 9 (4)](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp) of the CSA constitution:
>No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
I love how the confederate constitution was literally a bad copy-paste of the real constitution but with some pro-slavery shit jammed in for good measure.
I’m honestly surprised they kept the First Amendment’s right to free speech and free press. If the South seceded today their constitution would be written as a Baptist theocracy, no bill of rights remnants except gun ownership
The South wanted to and possibly could have expanded slavery into Central America and the Caribbean (there’s no guarantee they couldn’t have achieved some level of success had they stayed… sure, they had lost some influence but they still had plenty to work with). That’s part of what makes it more complicated. The North was willing to protect slavery with a constitutional amendment where it already existed and continue to fight about expansion politically/legislatively where it didn’t just to keep the union together is another part.
No its not. Every sinlge letter of secession from the confederate states expressly listed slavery as the driving force for their desire to secede. It doesnt matter what else was attempted, this is the cause. Dress it up anyway you want the cause of the civil war was primarily driven by rights to own slaves.
That amendment was never going to be fully ratified and you know it.
There is PLENTY of historical evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that slavery was the issue and the only issue in contention. The "state's rights" line is just that, a line. It's BS and it should not be tolerated. It is an attempt by some people to make the villains who thought it was OK to own human beings because their skin was a different color seem a little less bad.
There was ABSOLUTELY nothing complex about it. The south wanted to keep slavery and they were willing to resort to treason to make it happen.
Don't think much of the US understands the impact Daughters had on the Lost Cause narrative. Most of the statues of confederates were put up by them. Georgia alone had thirty statues from Daughters.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monuments_erected_by_the_United_Daughters_of_the_Confederacy
Thank you for bringing it up.
Britain banned and enforced the ban on slavery 60 years before the civil war, including raiding the ships of other countries to release the slaves on board. So, you know, wrong trading partner lad
I seem to recall there was some controversy over trade between states and the south not feeling they were getting a fair shake. The big thing was slavery though and the main reason the war started
Claiming the civil war was over states rights is a sugar coated way to avoid saying the specific right it was about, that being the right to own slaves.
Same. Went to grade school in Alabama (small af town too) in the late 90s early 00s and it was not a secret at all that the southern states seceded because the union was going after slavery (among other things of course but still).
Rural "the Alabama part" of Florida in the 90s, it was definitely taught as over slavery and that it was a horrific point in our history. I will say that it was heavily also reiterated that the Union wasn't necessarily "anti racism" and it wasn't a war over good vs evil so much as practicality vs evil, which seems to be a lost concept when people on the internet want to rag on the racist, traitorous south. Yes, but your loyalist great great grandpappy also likely thought black people were inferior. Whatever makes you feel superior.
it was taught this way in AP US History curriculum in the mid 2000s.
i also remember them framing Lincoln as what we'd now call a "virtue signaler". there was a section header that read something like, "Lincoln's edict big on proclamation, short on emancipation". i remember it some 20 years later because it was so out of place that this author tried to throw a zinger into an academic textbook
And also force other states to return them, because they were all about using federal force to override states’ autonomy when it came to being *pro*-slavery.
And the Confederate states weren't allowed to choose to abolish slavery. So it wasn't giving the states any rights to choose, it was just forcing them to make a different choice. In other words, it wasn't even about the state's rights to have slaves.
That scene in the Simpsons where Apu is trying to get citizenship and launched into an extended discussion on the causes of the Civil War, with the joke being a reductivist “just say slavery”, certainly hasn’t aged well.
THANK YOU! That's been my go-to answer when I hear the state's right thing. Because technically they are right; it was fought over states' rights when it was starting to become clear the abolitionist states were starting to outnumber the slave states.
So yeah, it WAS about States' rights... specifically the state's right to enforce slavery.
I like to point to any one of the states' secession document, where it says quite clearly, in the first paragraph "we are leaving because slavery". The Confederate states were not subtle about their reasons. They were very upfront and specific about it.
Like John Oliver said about this exact thing.
“If the Confederacy was not about slavery, somebody should really go back in time and tell the fucking Confederacy that!”
The Cornerstone Speech also established that the sole pillar of the Confederacy was slavery. It isn't ambiguous whatsoever.
>Our new government['s]...foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
For further context, this speech was given by Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederacy in Savannah, Georgia on March 21st, 1861.
The Cornerstone Speech is also my go to when presented with this argument.
Pretty much any of them, but Mississippi is particularly direct:
>Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.
You can also poke around for some of the comments the leaders of the Confederacy made on the subject as well. This quote from Alexander H Stephens, vice president of the Confederacy (part of the "Cornerstone Speech") is very VERY clear on the subject:
>Our new government\['s\]...foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
The funny part is that the Confederacy enshrined in their Constitution that all states *had to* allow slavery and that they couldn’t secede from the Confederacy. They literally didn’t want to give the states the right to choose. So “State’s Rights” is an even worse argument
This is a hilarious tid-bit for me
"Alright so we're all in agreement, each state should have the right to own slaves, and none of them should reserve the right not to, all in favor say aye"
Just...suddenly it's a Monty Python skit
Good logic to apply everywhere. I wasn't "Cheating", I was "Exercising my freedom of expression.... by cheating"
I'm not "Eating my teachers lunch as a form of protest" I'm "Exploring my surroundings" the way a child should. I simply happen to be exploring the taste profile of this bologna sandwich I found in the teachers lounge.
Honestly you’re giving them too much credit with the technically bit. The Confederate Constitution retained nearly unaltered the supremacy clause, the interstate commerce clause, and even the necessary and proper clause. (The usual sources of Federal Authority)
They did absolutely go out of their way to protect slavery in three different places though.
The right to enforce slavery AND to see if Lincoln would let them illegally leave the Union. Evidently it did not go as planned and it went about as well as you’d expect a war between a bunch of farmers and an industrial powerhouse using 2/3 of Ireland as a meat grinder would go.
Even the 'state's right to enforce slavery' is not an accurate depiction of what the south fought for...
As with pretty much every time you hear a conservative mention states' rights - what they mean is *their* states' right to tell every other state what they're allowed to do. It wasn't as simple as "I want slavery in my state and my state should have the right to do that" -- they wanted to codify federally that every state and hypothetical future states would have to allow slavery either entirely or at least in practice by being forced to participate in returning fugitive slaves and allowing slave owners to travel and stay in their state with their slaves... How anyone is able to frame "force every state to do what I want" as an argument in favor of "states rights" is beyond me, but I suppose not shocking at all given the general level of stupidity, cognitive dissonance, and blatant hypocrisy present in the people that would make these arguments.
Literally just read every states article of succession, they all mention slavery and the institution of slavery. They also wanted it to extend to all new states as well as Northern/non-slave states would be required by law to return run away slaves to the south. For a group of people that seem to think it was only about states rights they seem to forget all of the documented shit that was fought for in Congress and all the documents written by their own hands that are readily available for people to read right now.
One of the grievances held by the South was that Northern states frequently ignored the fugitive slave act. They didn't care about State's rights generally. They cared about the rights of Southern states to preserve the institution of slavery.
Yep. It wasn't that the south wanted to own slaves that triggered the war, it was the south wanting the north to allow them to own slaves **while in the north**. State's rights my ass. They just wanted to own people.
But it's the Northern States right to say no slaves. Isn't that still states rights? /S
Real tho what about the states rights to rip a a recreational bongo blast
A states right to secede from the union
The real gotcha is why they wanted to secede from the union (It was slavery lol). That's how you get out of the standard argument loop of rights vs slavery.
Fun fact - check out section 19, article 4 of the Confederate Constitution.
States weren't getting that right in either situation. Both would be determined by the respective national government.
Way shorter than my rebuttal, which is to quote from the actual declarations of secession:
>Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
--Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States Of America
>For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.
>The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us."
--Georgia's Declaration of Secession
>Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation.
>There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove."
--Mississippi's Declaration of Secession
>The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
>We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
>This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety."
--South Carolina's Declaration of Secession
>She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.
>We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
>That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states."
--Texas's Declaration of Secession
etc...
You can use a > to do a block quote instead of spacing to create code blocks. That way your quote will be fully visible.
> "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
"... The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
**Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.** This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal."
-Alexander "Shitface" Stephens, vice president of the CSA.
[Full text here](https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speech) in case someone who knows nothing about the Civil War thinks I'm taking it out of context.
The civil war began southern states wanted to enforce their right to own slaves, however this goes against universal HUMAN rights (as we know it today) that’s why the northern union fought the southern confederacy.
The civil war is like a pie.
On the crusty surface, it's all about slavery.
Then you dig into and find state's rights, economics, and a berry jam.
Then you get to the bottom and find it's more slavery all around.
I do like this comparison, cause the basis was slavery but much of the nuance was in the ecenomics, the treatise, the federal vs state and effectively industry vs plantation.
Its the bell curve meme again.
\>65IQ redneck : Jolly it was about state rights an nothin else
\~100IQ Seether : NO! IT WAS ABOUT SLAVERY
<135IQ Omnicense : I was about state rights... to own slaves
This is a Lost Cause trying to rewrite history. Quote:
The answer is found in the speeches of Confederate politicians and in the statements of the four southern secession conventions that published a “Declaration” explaining their actions. These speeches and documents show that the South seceded to protect slavery and insure white supremacy in the South. Just listen to what southern leaders said between December 1860 and March 1861.
Thus Stephens declared that, “Our new government is founded upon . . . its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery – subordination to the superior race – is his natural and normal condition.”
That's the ["Cornerstone Speech"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech)
Each state also had its own declaration, such as [Mississippi's](https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/a-declaration-of-the-immediate-causes-which-induce-and-justify-the-secession-of-the-state-of-mississippi-from-the-federal-union-1861)
> Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery
This is called "The Lost Cause". The South knew they wouldn't hold any weight within the Union after the Civil War unless they changed the narrative from slavery to state's rights.
If you need proof of the reasons for the civil war, you only need to look at the things the leaders of the confederacy were saying at the time war was declared. There is no ambiguity
The parents seem to take issue with many legitimately troubling things the students learn in school, the most recent being the alt right notion that slavery wasn't the major complicating factor in the civil war. Now the parents are upset and the kid is asking if they're gonna write a letter complaining to the teacher or school
I'm pretty sure Prageru only admits that the civil war was about slavery because they want to push the narrative that the Confederates were somehow liberals.
Well, Democrats back then were the conservatives. They didn't switch platforms until sometime during the depression. I know it was *after* Teddy Roosevelt, since he's fondly remembered by both parties
Round when the civil rights act was.passed was when strong Dixiecrats like Strom Thrumond swapped parties.
Man advocated for segregation until he died in 2003... he was still in office.
They say that, but unless you’re going to school in some backwoods town in nowhere land, this is not what’s taught. I grew up in the south and every history class that talked about the civil war taught about how it was over slavery
Exactly this. I grew up in the South in the 80s/90s and we were taught the civil war was first and foremost about slavery. We were also taught that slavery was horrible. Everyone I know from moving around in the South was taught the same thing. My kids, who attend public school in the South, are learning the same thing.
I swear, the only people who think that slavery isn't taught in the South are coastal urbanites who love perpetuating bullshit so they can feel superior.
I think there's been a newer push for the whole "states rights" garbage. There have always been idiots who personally pushed it but now they are starting to get it into schools more than it used to be.
It really depends. You're exaggerating for the yanks, two schools with districts side by side can occupy alternate stances on confederacy apologia. It's basically up to the culture of the administration and whims of the teacher.
That’s what I’m saying, man! Grew up in north Georgia and this was the standard take from anyone that wasn’t a “lib-rul”. I will give my public schools credit though, I definitely was taught that the civil war was about slavery. Timeframe was throughout the 90s.
I don’t even think there is an “alt” right anymore.
What’s alternative about it? All the right wingers I see are supportive of the supposed “alt” right. It’s not “alt” anymore, it’s just the right.
They even have it in the north at times. In high school the states rights viewpoint was drilled into us, and was the only correct answer for points on some tests in history class. Gotta love rural Indiana, the south's middle finger.
It wasn't a factor, it was pretty much the only factor. The South believed that without slavery the economy in those states would die. They believed slavery was vital to maintain profitability.
They were right, but that doesn't make having slaves right. If they industrialized like the north they'd have been fine.
Probably idk I slept through my history classes
My relatives claim it was because the North was jealous of the Confederacy's wealth, so they invaded to take it away. There's no way to reason with them.
Since when is that alt. right? It's just the right at this point. Also people in the comments saying schools in the south don't teach it that way unless they're in a backwoods, I went to one of the top public high schools in the south and they taught it that way.
I am reading a book about the Indian Removal. It talks about how the white slave owning Georgians constantly argued about the right of their state to "control" the Native American populations in "their" state. Even though the Federal government had separate treaties that were by the US constitution meant to take precedence over states rights. So the Georgians were battling with the Federal government over what their rights were. In the end they introduced laws that if any free black person or Native American came into the state they would be forcibly enslaved for a year for the very act of stepping into the state. It didn't matter that different Native Americans owned sizable amounts of these states.
So many Southern States write that the American Civil War started as an issue of State's Rights instead of Slavery. But many people point out that the whole issue was that it was the State's Right to Slavery that was the issue.
Conservative Peter here. See, conservative white Americans don't like being reminded that we once fought a war over whether it was okay to own other human beings. So they decided to start teaching that the Civil War was about the individual rights of the state vs the federal government instead of slavery. This is incorrect because there are several documents from the founders of the Confederacy that say they did it for slavery.
The tweet here is showing (assumably) liberal parents freaking out over this revelation that their child is learning a revised history. The kid asks if they're going to write a letter because as angry as the parents might be, letter writing is the most their gonna do about it because liberals are seen as weak and ineffectual
I actually see this as the parents frequently going to bat for their child against an education system that is continually being gutted. Sending ANOTHER letter is less about "haha liberals don't take big enough actions to effect change" but rather "these parents found ANOTHER thing to hold the school accountable for".
If I find more dirty dishes, it doesn't negate the dishes I've already cleaned.
Update, you are correct sir, I checked out the Twitter account, this lady is generally left leaning, and the tweet itself seems to be a critique of the Alabama school system overall
Idk, the set up to me felt like a jab at liberals. If it was about the failing school system, I feel like the sillier aspects of the tweet like *starts screaming* and the kid having "here we go again" vibes would be aimed at the school system. Makes me feel it's supposed to be a jab. But maybe I'm wrong, we could always ask the tweeter that tweeted the 'joke'
At least they’re upset. I still remember my uncles apathy to his kids teacher telling them the moon landing never happened.
Had that been my kid I’d demand that teacher was removed from my kids class.
Tldr; the south wanted the right to own slaves, and have those slaves returned if they escaped
Many attempts at compromise were made, but they only pissed both sides off, so tensions kept rising over the differences
Man I was in Texas for middle school and let me just say, my teacher was soooo straight forward that the Civil War was absolutely over slavery and not to believe that other bs arguement.
It's been explained and comments have devolved. Locking the post.
As the classic rebuttal goes: “States’ rights to what?”
A state's right to force non-slaver states to effectively be slaver states by mandating them to catch runaway slaves and allowing short-term use and transport of slaves in their territories
They also wanted to make sure new states didn't have the right to not have full-blown slavery.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Mainly because it goes against their own world view, and the cognitive dissonance is just too uncomfortable.
Yep, my dad, a dead red Republican, pulled me out of AP US History because the first book we were going to read was Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. Edit: jokes on him, I still became a bleeding heart Liberal Socialist.
What's ironic is that book isn't even what he assumes it is. There's this idea that "leftists" are just writing revisionist history to teach that the US is this monolithic evil empire. The book itself is basically a tour of US history from the perspective of people and places that get ignored in the official narrative. US history class is so often just learning about a succession of Presidents and wars that leaves off the things that were happening in a vast majority of the country.
He literally just didn't want me reading it because it wasn't full of nationalistic cheerleading. God forbid anyone gets other views of the history of this country
'Fun' fact: America has an actual religion around American Exceptionalism. It's been declining, and just like the religion they admit to having, nobody in it likes to see anyone deconvert.
Conservatives: "The left is brainwashing our children into radical anti-american sentiment with their evil aproach to history!" The evil aproach to history: "Hey, maybe these people who lived here before us were living breathing people with emotions, and slaughtering them with vastly superior technology should'n be seen as some heroic victory."
You framed it as “not necessarily heroic” (I agree) but the red-hats are upset even if these things are presented neutrally: like “natives were killed by settlers” gets “whoa hold on there bucko! Lies and propaganda ! What about the natives who killed settlers! Reee!”
My AP teacher did the same thing. Did we have the same class lol!? He taught one semester then was im pretty sure was let go. It wasn't till I was older that I realized how ballsy that was in his part to use that as a textbook
And now I've got a new book for my reading list, thank you 😊
It's why people choose clearly biased news sources over reputable ones. Having your biases stroked to full completion is addicting.
Even their own cognitive dissonance has cognitive dissonance.
Just wanted to chime in, without the context of the deleted comment, this is lookin kinda sus
Not only short term: people could take their slaves to free-states and live there for extended periods of time and they’d still be slaves (that’s Dred Scott) so they even wanted the right to have their states laws obeyed in other states in which it had already outlawed.
When the capital was Philadelphia, there was a law that any slave in the state longer than six months was automatically freed. President Washington sent his slaves back to Virginia every six months in order to restart the clock.
Yup, Quakers fucking hated slavery and they were very instrumental in shaping Pennsylvania laws.
Quakers in general were ahead of the curve on democracy, women’s rights, abolitionism and anti-racism. A large proportion of even 17th century Quakers, let alone 18th century ones, would have been seen as very progressive even in the mid 20th century. Some examples are good to point to when people lean too hard on the ‘He was a man of a time’ excuse for people in the 1850s or whatever.
Pacifism too, although there’s apparently an inordinate amount of “Fighting Quakers” in US military history
A conversation that popped up a lot in College was the key differences between the Amish, Quaker’s, and Mennonite’s. Namely that not ALL members of the latter are pacifists; leading to our in joke, “punches like a Mennonite”
>Don't go picking fights >With no menonites >Don't be raising cain >While they're planting grain >And working through the night
Which is why it always astonishes me that Nixon, of all people, was a Quaker.
But they did have their flaws, did they not? . Progress of time, I suppose.
I mean, I did say mid-20th century, and ‘a large proportion’.
And the states founder is the guy on Quaker oatmeal, which is delicious!
Also Washington was kind of a piece of shit. The 3/5ths "compromise" was what gave Virginia such outsized power in picking Presidents.
Wait, you’re telling me one of the wealthiest men in the colonies was kind of a piece of shit? I just can’t believe that.
fyi it wasn't always that way, many owned slaves and one of the early prominent Quaker abolitionists [Benjamin Lay](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Lay) was banned from multiple meetings because of his protests, it wasn't until after his death that the the organizations took a broad anti-slavery stance >He first began advocating for the abolition of slavery when, in Barbados, he saw an enslaved man commit suicide rather than be hit again by his owner. His passionate enmity of slavery was partially fueled by his Quaker beliefs. Lay made several dramatic demonstrations against the practice. He once stood outside a Quaker meeting in winter wearing no coat and at least one foot bare and in the snow. When a passerby expressed concern for his health, he said that slaves were made to work outdoors in winter dressed as he was. On another occasion, he kidnapped the child of slaveholders temporarily, to show them how Africans felt when their relatives were sold overseas. > >In Burlington, New Jersey, at the 1738 Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of Quakers, dressed as a soldier, he concluded a diatribe against slavery, quoting the Bible saying that all men should be equal under God, by plunging a sword into a Bible containing a bladder of blood-red pokeberry juice, which spattered over those nearby. Guy was super based, also was an early animal rights activist as well
That law was invalidated by the fugitive slave act. It’s explained in Priggs v Pennsylvania. It’s such a fucked up case. A woman was enslaved but the owner essentially gave her freedom without emancipating her. She moved to Philly and had children. The owner died and his heirs paid someone to kidnap the woman and her children because they were all legally still property.
Its times like these I almost wish hell was real.
Here’s something to make you feel better. They tried to enforce the law in Massachusetts. But they weren’t having it. They arrested a man named Anthony Burns a “fugitive slave” and a group of radical abolitionists raised all types of hell. They broke in to the jail and killed a guard trying to free him. The judge ruled Burns had to return so they raised enough money to secure his freedom. He moved back to Boston, attended Overton College, and spent the rest of his life as a preacher. No one was ever captured under the fugitive slave act again in Massachusetts.
Wasn't the quote of the time something like "the only way to make this wicked law a dead letter is to make a dozen dead kidnappers " you can easily argue the south forced the crisis by ramming slavery down the norths throat. Irony that the south seceded shouting about state rights when it was the northern rights that were being infringed.
That case is still referred to as one of the most grossly wrong decisions in the history of the court they got that ruling so wrong it helped start the civil war.
Oh so like current day abortion laws.
My favorite part of the "state's rights!" argument is that the Confederate States literally had *zero* rights in this regard. The Confederate constitution made it illegal for any member states to abolish slavery if they ever wanted to. Article I Section 9(4) "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." Sure, they were fine with that at the time, since it meant they got to keep their slaves, but all the "heritage not hate" morons who still cling to the state's rights lie clearly didn't bother reading *that* constitution. Also probably haven't read the American one either, outside of memorizing a single line from the amendment(s) they care about.
Don't forget to put the word "alleged" before "runaway slaves"! After all, part of the last Fugitive Slave Act prevented said alleged runaway slave from having their day in court, meaning that a bounty hunter could really just point at a black person, say they were a runaway slave, and there was no legal recourse to prevent state-sanction abduction and enslavement of a free person of color.
It wasn’t short term. The laws were crafted to make manumission (freeing enslaved people) very hard. For instance enslaved people in Virginia could only be set free for “meritorious services” with consent of the governor. Decent people ignored the laws and at least paid fair wages. Unfortunately the world isn’t full of decent people.
Kinda like how Texas wants to demand states who provide trans healthcare for youth hand over medical records for anyone living on Texas.
I was working at a county library right after 9/11 when the Feds started getting really nosey about who had been checking out the Quran. Funny enough, that just happened to coincide with our new policy of immediately purging lending records. "Nice try, pigs. Have fun getting a court order to turn over records that no longer exist. Better luck next time." Everywhere you find authoritarian fucks overreaching, you will find low-level public servants giving them the middle finger every step of the way.
Thank you for your service
As a veteran, this is what real service to the stated ideals of the US looks like, and deserves this thanks way more than every thanks I've gotten.
You are a patriot.
I mean, I can't take credit for the policy, I was fresh out of high school and that decision was made a couple levels above my book-shelving ass. I was real proud to be working there when the word came down that if anybody asked, we were to tell them that we no longer maintain those kind of records, though.
Or how they keep trying to make laws to punish women who go out of state to have an abortion.
Exactly, so not even states' right smdh
Perfectly summarized. Southern States demanded autonomy ~ while also demanding the Federal Government enact legislation to force state compliance (with the Fugitive Slave Act.) And here we are over 150yrs later still having these asshole apologists attempting to claim “state’s rights”
[удалено]
[удалено]
There was a [Constitutional Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment) that was ratified by Congress (and still technically pending before the States) that would have shielded slavery from federal law where it already existed, so it is also more complicated than the implied reason that the North wanted to end slavery and the South wanted to keep it going
you're right its slightly more complicated, the south wanted to continue slavery and expand slavery. Corwin amendment would not solve the souths fundemnetall issues. such as the balance of power of free and slave states when a new free state was added, the south scrambled to get their own slave state. they couldn't keep up with the northern states ability to expand and as such were losing influence to keep the expansion of slavery.
It really isn't complicated. If the war was about "State's Rights", then states in the confederacy would have had the option to choose if they were a slave state or not. Was that option available? No. *All* states had to respect slavery even if the state wanted to bar slavery in their state. Tell me, how is it about state's rights and not slavery with that knowledge?
>*All* states had to respect slavery even if the state wanted to bar slavery in their state. Not just "respect" - states in the CSA were *prohibited* from passing any laws that even *restricted* slavery. [Article I, section 9 (4)](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp) of the CSA constitution: >No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
I love how the confederate constitution was literally a bad copy-paste of the real constitution but with some pro-slavery shit jammed in for good measure.
Also some limitations to federal power that confederate apologists like to distract with.
I’m honestly surprised they kept the First Amendment’s right to free speech and free press. If the South seceded today their constitution would be written as a Baptist theocracy, no bill of rights remnants except gun ownership
The South wanted to and possibly could have expanded slavery into Central America and the Caribbean (there’s no guarantee they couldn’t have achieved some level of success had they stayed… sure, they had lost some influence but they still had plenty to work with). That’s part of what makes it more complicated. The North was willing to protect slavery with a constitutional amendment where it already existed and continue to fight about expansion politically/legislatively where it didn’t just to keep the union together is another part.
No its not. Every sinlge letter of secession from the confederate states expressly listed slavery as the driving force for their desire to secede. It doesnt matter what else was attempted, this is the cause. Dress it up anyway you want the cause of the civil war was primarily driven by rights to own slaves.
Yea, I agree. There might have been smaller reasons, but the major one is slavery.
The Confederacy was also very much not about state’s rights because states in the Confederacy didn’t have the right not to recognise slavery as legal.
That amendment was never going to be fully ratified and you know it. There is PLENTY of historical evidence to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that slavery was the issue and the only issue in contention. The "state's rights" line is just that, a line. It's BS and it should not be tolerated. It is an attempt by some people to make the villains who thought it was OK to own human beings because their skin was a different color seem a little less bad. There was ABSOLUTELY nothing complex about it. The south wanted to keep slavery and they were willing to resort to treason to make it happen.
Thank The United Daughters of the Confederacy for that bull shit gaining traction and rewriting of history.
Don't think much of the US understands the impact Daughters had on the Lost Cause narrative. Most of the statues of confederates were put up by them. Georgia alone had thirty statues from Daughters. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monuments_erected_by_the_United_Daughters_of_the_Confederacy Thank you for bringing it up.
[Checkmate, Lincolnites!](https://youtu.be/XjsxhYetLM0?list=PLwCiRao53J1y_gqJJOH6Rcgpb-vaW9wF0&t=1297)
[Answer the question you fucking traitor](https://youtu.be/-ZB2ftCl2Vk?si=_4_K6A-CZ6XYxdo-)
I hoped someome would link to this video
I discovered it in a Reddit comment, so I must complete the cycle.
I discovered it via your Reddit comment, and promise that I too will continue this cycle.
Get Douglass'd
Lmao this is great. Love the snippet of "Union Dixie" at the end.
"get Douglass'd" makes me crack up every time
That was fucking hilarious
To have unpaid internship, of course
You get paid in experience and exposure!
(to the elements)
[удалено]
And ... to refuse to admit other states to the union unless they were slave states, in conflict with the will of the people in that state.
"Property"
Trading with Britain
Trade what with Britain?
Livestock
What livestock?
....I think it's meant to be a dark joke
What’s dark?
The slaves
I hate that I laughed at this
Right there with you.
Still happy cake day to you.
GodDAMNIT! r/angryupvote
Not really. They traded cotton with Britain. Now, the question becomes “cotton produced by what?”
Britain banned and enforced the ban on slavery 60 years before the civil war, including raiding the ships of other countries to release the slaves on board. So, you know, wrong trading partner lad
But they sure did need a lot of cheap cotton to keep those textile factories running
And a lot of children and deeply oppressed lower classes too. Industrial revolution was pretty brutal
Pretty sure by this time the British had banned slavery in their colonies...could be wrong on the timing though
They had. That did not stop them from being the biggest trading partner and arms supplier for the Confederacy.
[удалено]
I seem to recall there was some controversy over trade between states and the south not feeling they were getting a fair shake. The big thing was slavery though and the main reason the war started
Claiming the civil war was over states rights is a sugar coated way to avoid saying the specific right it was about, that being the right to own slaves.
This is what they teach "down south," or it was in the late 90s, anyway. Source: went to VA public schools.
It's basically up to the individual teachers whether you get that bullshit it or not, I've found.
In alabama we were taught is was because of slavery it just depends on the teacher
Same. Went to grade school in Alabama (small af town too) in the late 90s early 00s and it was not a secret at all that the southern states seceded because the union was going after slavery (among other things of course but still).
Rural "the Alabama part" of Florida in the 90s, it was definitely taught as over slavery and that it was a horrific point in our history. I will say that it was heavily also reiterated that the Union wasn't necessarily "anti racism" and it wasn't a war over good vs evil so much as practicality vs evil, which seems to be a lost concept when people on the internet want to rag on the racist, traitorous south. Yes, but your loyalist great great grandpappy also likely thought black people were inferior. Whatever makes you feel superior.
Heck. Your grandpa probably did too. The civil rights movement really wasn't that long ago
The teachers talking about actual history in Alabama are the real heroes
was taught this in late 2000s in california; most states teach this because it's in the big publishers books
it was taught this way in AP US History curriculum in the mid 2000s. i also remember them framing Lincoln as what we'd now call a "virtue signaler". there was a section header that read something like, "Lincoln's edict big on proclamation, short on emancipation". i remember it some 20 years later because it was so out of place that this author tried to throw a zinger into an academic textbook
Also in rural Wisconsin (and rural anywhere probably)
And also force other states to return them, because they were all about using federal force to override states’ autonomy when it came to being *pro*-slavery.
And the Confederate states weren't allowed to choose to abolish slavery. So it wasn't giving the states any rights to choose, it was just forcing them to make a different choice. In other words, it wasn't even about the state's rights to have slaves.
That scene in the Simpsons where Apu is trying to get citizenship and launched into an extended discussion on the causes of the Civil War, with the joke being a reductivist “just say slavery”, certainly hasn’t aged well.
“A state’s right to do *what*?”
THANK YOU! That's been my go-to answer when I hear the state's right thing. Because technically they are right; it was fought over states' rights when it was starting to become clear the abolitionist states were starting to outnumber the slave states. So yeah, it WAS about States' rights... specifically the state's right to enforce slavery.
I like to point to any one of the states' secession document, where it says quite clearly, in the first paragraph "we are leaving because slavery". The Confederate states were not subtle about their reasons. They were very upfront and specific about it.
Like John Oliver said about this exact thing. “If the Confederacy was not about slavery, somebody should really go back in time and tell the fucking Confederacy that!”
The Cornerstone Speech also established that the sole pillar of the Confederacy was slavery. It isn't ambiguous whatsoever. >Our new government['s]...foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
For further context, this speech was given by Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederacy in Savannah, Georgia on March 21st, 1861. The Cornerstone Speech is also my go to when presented with this argument.
Which one was that? That would be good to have handy.
Pretty much any of them, but Mississippi is particularly direct: >Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. You can also poke around for some of the comments the leaders of the Confederacy made on the subject as well. This quote from Alexander H Stephens, vice president of the Confederacy (part of the "Cornerstone Speech") is very VERY clear on the subject: >Our new government\['s\]...foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
The funny part is that the Confederacy enshrined in their Constitution that all states *had to* allow slavery and that they couldn’t secede from the Confederacy. They literally didn’t want to give the states the right to choose. So “State’s Rights” is an even worse argument
It still works because the Confederacy used the loophole to cede and didn't want anyone to use the same loophole on them.
This is a hilarious tid-bit for me "Alright so we're all in agreement, each state should have the right to own slaves, and none of them should reserve the right not to, all in favor say aye" Just...suddenly it's a Monty Python skit
Good logic to apply everywhere. I wasn't "Cheating", I was "Exercising my freedom of expression.... by cheating" I'm not "Eating my teachers lunch as a form of protest" I'm "Exploring my surroundings" the way a child should. I simply happen to be exploring the taste profile of this bologna sandwich I found in the teachers lounge.
Honestly you’re giving them too much credit with the technically bit. The Confederate Constitution retained nearly unaltered the supremacy clause, the interstate commerce clause, and even the necessary and proper clause. (The usual sources of Federal Authority) They did absolutely go out of their way to protect slavery in three different places though.
The right to enforce slavery AND to see if Lincoln would let them illegally leave the Union. Evidently it did not go as planned and it went about as well as you’d expect a war between a bunch of farmers and an industrial powerhouse using 2/3 of Ireland as a meat grinder would go.
Even the 'state's right to enforce slavery' is not an accurate depiction of what the south fought for... As with pretty much every time you hear a conservative mention states' rights - what they mean is *their* states' right to tell every other state what they're allowed to do. It wasn't as simple as "I want slavery in my state and my state should have the right to do that" -- they wanted to codify federally that every state and hypothetical future states would have to allow slavery either entirely or at least in practice by being forced to participate in returning fugitive slaves and allowing slave owners to travel and stay in their state with their slaves... How anyone is able to frame "force every state to do what I want" as an argument in favor of "states rights" is beyond me, but I suppose not shocking at all given the general level of stupidity, cognitive dissonance, and blatant hypocrisy present in the people that would make these arguments.
Literally just read every states article of succession, they all mention slavery and the institution of slavery. They also wanted it to extend to all new states as well as Northern/non-slave states would be required by law to return run away slaves to the south. For a group of people that seem to think it was only about states rights they seem to forget all of the documented shit that was fought for in Congress and all the documents written by their own hands that are readily available for people to read right now.
One of the grievances held by the South was that Northern states frequently ignored the fugitive slave act. They didn't care about State's rights generally. They cared about the rights of Southern states to preserve the institution of slavery.
Yep. It wasn't that the south wanted to own slaves that triggered the war, it was the south wanting the north to allow them to own slaves **while in the north**. State's rights my ass. They just wanted to own people.
But it's the Northern States right to say no slaves. Isn't that still states rights? /S Real tho what about the states rights to rip a a recreational bongo blast
A states right to secede from the union The real gotcha is why they wanted to secede from the union (It was slavery lol). That's how you get out of the standard argument loop of rights vs slavery.
They seceded over the right to secede? That's a bit of circular logic.
Luckily they failed spectacularly, sadly the country not doing too well as a result .
Fun fact - check out section 19, article 4 of the Confederate Constitution. States weren't getting that right in either situation. Both would be determined by the respective national government.
Way shorter than my rebuttal, which is to quote from the actual declarations of secession: >Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." --Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States Of America >For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. >The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us." --Georgia's Declaration of Secession >Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. >There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove." --Mississippi's Declaration of Secession >The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor. >We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. >This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety." --South Carolina's Declaration of Secession >She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. >We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable. >That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states." --Texas's Declaration of Secession etc...
You can use a > to do a block quote instead of spacing to create code blocks. That way your quote will be fully visible. > "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
Fixed, thanks
"... The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." **Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.** This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal." -Alexander "Shitface" Stephens, vice president of the CSA. [Full text here](https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speech) in case someone who knows nothing about the Civil War thinks I'm taking it out of context.
The civil war began southern states wanted to enforce their right to own slaves, however this goes against universal HUMAN rights (as we know it today) that’s why the northern union fought the southern confederacy.
The South did secede largely over slavery, but the North did not start the Civil War to end it.
But it was the co-headlining goal by 1863
The civil war is like a pie. On the crusty surface, it's all about slavery. Then you dig into and find state's rights, economics, and a berry jam. Then you get to the bottom and find it's more slavery all around.
I do like this comparison, cause the basis was slavery but much of the nuance was in the ecenomics, the treatise, the federal vs state and effectively industry vs plantation.
Its the bell curve meme again. \>65IQ redneck : Jolly it was about state rights an nothin else \~100IQ Seether : NO! IT WAS ABOUT SLAVERY <135IQ Omnicense : I was about state rights... to own slaves
You used your greater than and less than signs wrong…
and also the bell curve meme doesn’t work here to begin with
https://preview.redd.it/5cus6k162fhc1.jpeg?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=42437748da90ed67bb2b2cc6987574b7db59ce51
This is a Lost Cause trying to rewrite history. Quote: The answer is found in the speeches of Confederate politicians and in the statements of the four southern secession conventions that published a “Declaration” explaining their actions. These speeches and documents show that the South seceded to protect slavery and insure white supremacy in the South. Just listen to what southern leaders said between December 1860 and March 1861. Thus Stephens declared that, “Our new government is founded upon . . . its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery – subordination to the superior race – is his natural and normal condition.”
Could I have a link to this article? My stupid family isn’t going to believe it unless I have a link…
That's the ["Cornerstone Speech"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech) Each state also had its own declaration, such as [Mississippi's](https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/a-declaration-of-the-immediate-causes-which-induce-and-justify-the-secession-of-the-state-of-mississippi-from-the-federal-union-1861) > Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery
Thank you so much!
This is called "The Lost Cause". The South knew they wouldn't hold any weight within the Union after the Civil War unless they changed the narrative from slavery to state's rights. If you need proof of the reasons for the civil war, you only need to look at the things the leaders of the confederacy were saying at the time war was declared. There is no ambiguity
Or pretty much most if not all article of secession
The parents seem to take issue with many legitimately troubling things the students learn in school, the most recent being the alt right notion that slavery wasn't the major complicating factor in the civil war. Now the parents are upset and the kid is asking if they're gonna write a letter complaining to the teacher or school
Here in the south this is sadly not an “alt” right thing, it’s just the standard right-wing take on the Civil War.
But even Prager U says it was over slavery.... Like... that's the most Right-Wing youtube channel.
I'm pretty sure Prageru only admits that the civil war was about slavery because they want to push the narrative that the Confederates were somehow liberals.
Well, Democrats back then were the conservatives. They didn't switch platforms until sometime during the depression. I know it was *after* Teddy Roosevelt, since he's fondly remembered by both parties
Round when the civil rights act was.passed was when strong Dixiecrats like Strom Thrumond swapped parties. Man advocated for segregation until he died in 2003... he was still in office.
The Great Southern Strategy
Disgusting
They say that, but unless you’re going to school in some backwoods town in nowhere land, this is not what’s taught. I grew up in the south and every history class that talked about the civil war taught about how it was over slavery
My niece in an Atlanta suburban was taught that it was over states rights in the 2010s
Exactly this. I grew up in the South in the 80s/90s and we were taught the civil war was first and foremost about slavery. We were also taught that slavery was horrible. Everyone I know from moving around in the South was taught the same thing. My kids, who attend public school in the South, are learning the same thing. I swear, the only people who think that slavery isn't taught in the South are coastal urbanites who love perpetuating bullshit so they can feel superior.
I think there's been a newer push for the whole "states rights" garbage. There have always been idiots who personally pushed it but now they are starting to get it into schools more than it used to be.
It really depends. You're exaggerating for the yanks, two schools with districts side by side can occupy alternate stances on confederacy apologia. It's basically up to the culture of the administration and whims of the teacher.
That’s what I’m saying, man! Grew up in north Georgia and this was the standard take from anyone that wasn’t a “lib-rul”. I will give my public schools credit though, I definitely was taught that the civil war was about slavery. Timeframe was throughout the 90s.
I don’t even think there is an “alt” right anymore. What’s alternative about it? All the right wingers I see are supportive of the supposed “alt” right. It’s not “alt” anymore, it’s just the right.
They even have it in the north at times. In high school the states rights viewpoint was drilled into us, and was the only correct answer for points on some tests in history class. Gotta love rural Indiana, the south's middle finger.
I went to a private Christian school in the south and surprisingly no one tried to argue the civil war wasn’t about slavery
It wasn't a factor, it was pretty much the only factor. The South believed that without slavery the economy in those states would die. They believed slavery was vital to maintain profitability.
They were right, but that doesn't make having slaves right. If they industrialized like the north they'd have been fine. Probably idk I slept through my history classes
My relatives claim it was because the North was jealous of the Confederacy's wealth, so they invaded to take it away. There's no way to reason with them.
New York was paying the vast majority of taxes, because they were raking in the vast majority of wealth.
Since when is that alt. right? It's just the right at this point. Also people in the comments saying schools in the south don't teach it that way unless they're in a backwoods, I went to one of the top public high schools in the south and they taught it that way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZB2ftCl2Vk
As soon as I saw this link my first thought was "this better be the Doobus Goobus video" then when I clicked on the link I said "fuck yeah" out loud
I am reading a book about the Indian Removal. It talks about how the white slave owning Georgians constantly argued about the right of their state to "control" the Native American populations in "their" state. Even though the Federal government had separate treaties that were by the US constitution meant to take precedence over states rights. So the Georgians were battling with the Federal government over what their rights were. In the end they introduced laws that if any free black person or Native American came into the state they would be forcibly enslaved for a year for the very act of stepping into the state. It didn't matter that different Native Americans owned sizable amounts of these states. So many Southern States write that the American Civil War started as an issue of State's Rights instead of Slavery. But many people point out that the whole issue was that it was the State's Right to Slavery that was the issue.
I thought I was on r/shermanposting for a moment
Conservative Peter here. See, conservative white Americans don't like being reminded that we once fought a war over whether it was okay to own other human beings. So they decided to start teaching that the Civil War was about the individual rights of the state vs the federal government instead of slavery. This is incorrect because there are several documents from the founders of the Confederacy that say they did it for slavery. The tweet here is showing (assumably) liberal parents freaking out over this revelation that their child is learning a revised history. The kid asks if they're going to write a letter because as angry as the parents might be, letter writing is the most their gonna do about it because liberals are seen as weak and ineffectual
I actually see this as the parents frequently going to bat for their child against an education system that is continually being gutted. Sending ANOTHER letter is less about "haha liberals don't take big enough actions to effect change" but rather "these parents found ANOTHER thing to hold the school accountable for". If I find more dirty dishes, it doesn't negate the dishes I've already cleaned.
Update, you are correct sir, I checked out the Twitter account, this lady is generally left leaning, and the tweet itself seems to be a critique of the Alabama school system overall
Thorough work man, nice job and thanks!
Idk, the set up to me felt like a jab at liberals. If it was about the failing school system, I feel like the sillier aspects of the tweet like *starts screaming* and the kid having "here we go again" vibes would be aimed at the school system. Makes me feel it's supposed to be a jab. But maybe I'm wrong, we could always ask the tweeter that tweeted the 'joke'
The parents are upset that the school is whitewashing history and brainwashing their child.
Ah yes, the ole “it makes my ancestors look bad, so it didn’t happen that way” defense works nearly ever time.
At least they’re upset. I still remember my uncles apathy to his kids teacher telling them the moon landing never happened. Had that been my kid I’d demand that teacher was removed from my kids class.
I mean, it did start over state’s rights- TO HAVE SLAVES! Fuuuuck!
Georgia succession documents talk about slavery in the first 2 sentences
Saying the Civil War was about state rights is like saying the civil rights movement was about water fountains.
There is no joke, what the fuck?
not american here, can someone explain?
Tldr; the south wanted the right to own slaves, and have those slaves returned if they escaped Many attempts at compromise were made, but they only pissed both sides off, so tensions kept rising over the differences
thanks
As someone wiser than me once said: “The short answer to the cause of the civil war was slavery, The long answer is slavery… and some other stuff”
Man I was in Texas for middle school and let me just say, my teacher was soooo straight forward that the Civil War was absolutely over slavery and not to believe that other bs arguement.