He’s right though, the core issue was state vs federal sovereignty over internal matters which apart from slavery (yes, the biggest issue) also included tariffs and infrastructure investment (oh how times don’t change)
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.
Alexander H. Stephens, VP
An increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution
…
For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This is lost cause propaganda. The confederacy split because of slavery first, every thing was a later justification. The first usage of the term “states rights” wasn’t until after the war was over.
Not that bringing this up in isolation to other facts isn’t propaganda, an encroachment onto the rights of the state of South Carolina was their stated reason for seccession.
Were the rights they were upset over racist? Absolutely. Were they contradictory? Well, it calls out the fugitive slave act explicitly, so in my opinion, another yes.
They were always racist pieces of shit. However! The states’ rights argument has been there since the near beginning. A right to support a horrific tragedy, but still, let’s be factual in our contempt. There really is no need to embellish when the evidence is already that damning.
He’s right though, the core issue was state vs federal sovereignty over internal matters which apart from slavery (yes, the biggest issue) also included tariffs and infrastructure investment (oh how times don’t change)
When you frame it that way you make it sound like slavery was not the most pressing factor on everyone’s mind.
If this was unintentional, go read either speeches from the time or the declarations of succession from the southern states.
If only we’d let Sherman burn it all down, maybe the world wouldn’t be so shitty now.
Slight correction: secession, not succession.
That is all. Good work.
I literally said slavery was the biggest issue, but good to see you read straight past that
This is lost cause propaganda. The confederacy split because of slavery first, every thing was a later justification. The first usage of the term “states rights” wasn’t until after the war was over.
Not that bringing this up in isolation to other facts isn’t propaganda, an encroachment onto the rights of the state of South Carolina was their stated reason for seccession.
Were the rights they were upset over racist? Absolutely. Were they contradictory? Well, it calls out the fugitive slave act explicitly, so in my opinion, another yes.
They were always racist pieces of shit. However! The states’ rights argument has been there since the near beginning. A right to support a horrific tragedy, but still, let’s be factual in our contempt. There really is no need to embellish when the evidence is already that damning.
He was not. The confederates said exactly why the started the war in their declarations and it was, in fact, slavery.
There was no formal declaration of war, what declarations are you referring to?
Different person, but I would assume that they meant each of the state’s declarations of secession. Which, yeah, didn’t really mince words.
These? https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
I agree they are clear and don’t mince words. They are centered on state vs federal government rights due to:
Unless your state wanted the right not to have slavery, the Confederacy wouldn’t allow that