Honest question: Can a legitimate case be made that states' rights was a serious concern of the CSA, or was the predominant concern really just slavery.
A few links, quotes and thoughts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War#Causes_of_secession
'Both North and South assumed that if slavery could not expand it would wither and die.'
'Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said[12] that slavery was the chief cause of secession[13] in his Cornerstone Speech shortly before the war. After Confederate defeat, Stephens became one of the most ardent defenders of the Lost Cause.[14] There was a striking contrast[13][15] between Stephens' post-war states' rights assertion that slavery did not cause secession[14] and his pre-war Cornerstone Speech. Confederate President Jefferson Davis also switched from saying the war was caused by slavery to saying that states' rights was the cause.'
Adding territory. Would it be slave or free, affecting balance in federal government?
'There was the polarizing effect of slavery that split the largest religious denominations (the Methodist, Baptist and Presbyterian churches)[32] and controversy caused by the worst cruelties of slavery (whippings, mutilations and families split apart). The fact that seven immigrants out of eight settled in the North, plus the fact that twice as many whites left the South for the North as vice versa, contributed to the South's defensive-aggressive political behavior.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights
Tuesday, August 11
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Yes, with the exception that the CSA had confederation-level guarantee of the legality of slavery. [1]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Constitution
An argument can be made, but the reverse is more than likely.
Recognizing the futility of arguing their case via a "Slavery is good" meme, they fell to trying to make a different case appealing to the American love of the right to self-determination. We see the same occurring often in present-day debates: "States' rights" is cover, a covering-up, of other motivations with one which appears more universal; rather than protection for the highly abstract idea of "state's rights," the protection was of other things which were threatened.
But to be a broad-minded as possible we should link other issues w/ the slavery issue, since "States' Rights" served as cover in a general sense. For instance the right to follow one's own traditions, etc., entered the debate; however those traditions had as one base the existence of slavery.
It is interesting to view the reverse as well, i.e., that Lincoln and others began by arguing for U.S. unity but later fell to highlighting very strongly the slavery issue as a rallying, universal meme for freedom.
I would say however that though slavery, and all it allowed, was probably the most motivating factor for the South, the North's biggest concern was the national unity issue.
It may be worth while disentangling the motivation of the educated elite from the masses, as well. Did Robert E. Lee's pained realization that he was a Virginian first, and an American second, really occur on the same level as a Boston Irish or a Virginian Scotch-Irish's political thinking?
States Rights is at best the preservation of the experimental model of government. It served to severely weaken slavery (when northern states refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law), it provided competing modes for regulating contract-enforced miscegenation, and now fulfills a similar role wrt homosexuality.
Britain, IIRC, simply eminent domained the slaves.* Buying off the powerful rarely is emotionally satisfying, but it lead to a solution both quicker and more peaceful.
[* Interestingly, some modern day "conservatives" would have opposed this, as the slave would turned over to a private owner -- himself -- as opposed to a local government. cf. the Kelo controversy ]
great stuff, guys. thanks!
Post a Comment