State's Rights

The trouble I have with the "States' rights" crowd is when they claim rights for their state that just aren't within the scope of a state to claim. The slavery issue was one example...people now say that the war was about states' rights, not slavery, but the rights claimed by the states in question were primarily the right to own slaves, and the right to secede over that issue and form their own country. The second claim may be debatable, the first certainly is not. No individual or group, no matter how fancy their title or how broad-based their support, can claim the right to enslave another.

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

Lastly, it's a cosmetic issue that doesn't address the question of "what kind of powers can the majority vote in for itself?" In that context, a state government can screw your freedoms as bad, or worse, than the Feds. (Look at California.)

If a gang of corrupt bureaucrats decides to vote themselves the right to regulate my guns and confiscate my money to buy votes with it, I don't feel one bit better because they sit in Nashville and not Washington.
 
Marko, I hope you do realize that there were other issues involved in the secession issue than slavery - import tariffs were one.

But yes, I agree with your point. The Bill of Rights should really be binding on the states - ALL of it.
 
The only sad part is throughout history of any governments, once they have gained power, through whatever means, they do not let go of it so whether the People wish for change or not

Almost always true, but we don't have national alcohol prohibition and we don't have a silly mean-looking weapons ban any more, do we?
 
Reading comprehension

"... the Tenth Amendment does not say that undelegated powers are reserved to the States/people...:


WRONG. As in, not even close. The Tenth Amendment EXPRESSLY states that powers not Constitutionally delegated to the United States or prohibited to the states by it ARE "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


Next up: "...but no State may do anything that the other states don't like."
I suggest you check the Commerce Clause, as well as those powers reserved to the Federal government regarding wars, treaties, tariffs, coining money and raising standing armies...... :rolleyes:
 
tyme, 130 years of caselaw may show some contention over the privelidges and immunities allowed for in the 14th Amendment, but guess what? Without it, the majority of that time would have deprived privelidges and immunities to a lot of people. You find that a little too vague? Guess what? The Constitution is FILLED with vague phrases, to allow for a little wriggle room. Sometimes the courts are exactly the place to find out just what the Nation is ready for.

In the middle of the 19th Century, our nation was severely divided by class. If you weren't of the right class, you simply didn't get the chance to do business the way you wanted, be educated the way you wanted, or vote the way you wanted. The States were more than happy to perpetuate this.

I'm curious why you feel that Brown I was flawed. Were civil rights NOT violated in Topeka KS by the de jure segregation by race? What of the subsequent Cooper v. Aaron (1958), in which the white governor, the white mayor, the local court, the white school board, and the white legislator bitterly opposed complying with the Brown decision, made divisive comments that instigated trouble, and then whined that there was so much dissent that they couldn't comply with the decision?

Until the beginning of the 20th Century, the XIVth Amendment wasn't incorporated as applying to the States. States were denying all manner of rights to individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity, and country of origin, with no recourse for the afflicted persons. Sure, Justin-- you and I wouldn't have been much affected-- we're white males of WASPish origins. But I'll tell you right now that plenty of States would to this day have de facto, if not de jure state-sanctioned discrimination based on immutable qualities, were it not for the 14A.

Yep. This is me: a big ol' redneck civil liberty advocate.
 
people now say that the war was about states' rights, not slavery, but the rights claimed by the states in question were primarily the right to own slaves, and the right to secede over that issue and form their own country.

Do you really think hundreds of thousands of poor southerners that couldn't afford to own slaves even if they wanted to fought and died to allow the rich plantation owners to keep slaves?

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality. "

- Abraham Lincoln 1858

The only interest Lincoln and the other republicans in the north had in the issue of slavery was ensuring that it would be illegal in any new states added to the union. This was not because of their concern of slavery. This was because they hated the "3/5 clause" of the Constitution that allowed every five slaves to account for three persons for the purpose of determining the number of congressional seats in each state. They viewed this as giving the democratic south more power than they deserved based on their population.

As for this so-called "right" to secede, no one in the history of the US up until Lincoln thought that states could not legally withdraw from the union if they desired. None. Lincoln decided that it was "illegal" by executive order.

The Civil War was fought over the power of the federal government to dictate to the states.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slaves, and the colored-race, I do because I believe it helps save the Union."

Abraham Lincoln 1862 <-- More than a YEAR into the war.
 
Do you really think hundreds of thousands of poor southerners that couldn't afford to own slaves even if they wanted to fought and died to allow the rich plantation owners to keep slaves?

I don't see why that's such a stretch.

If the Confederacy wasn't about slavery, why was that one general who proposed letting slaves go into the army to defend the south in exchange for their freedom afterwards disgraced and put down, after the suggestion was personally denied by Jefferson Davis? That's one of the reasons the south lost, by the way.
 
Bad news but blacks *DID* serve in the Confederate Army. Dr. Lewis Stiener, chief inspector of the Unites States Army Sanitary Commission witnessed and reported seeing approximately 3,000 black soldiers among the Confederate Army of Gen. Stonewall Jackson during the occupation of Frederick, Maryland. Captain Arthur L. Fremantle, a British observer, reported seeing black soldiers guarding white Yankee prisoners during the Gettysburg campaign.

One interesting account is that of Charles Lutz of LA, a black Confederate soldier that was captured by the North at Fredericksburg, exchanged during a prisoner swap back to the South, wounded and captured again at Gettysburg and exchanged yet again back to the South.

Another good one is that of ex-slave John F. Harris. He was elected to the House of Representatives and in 1890, spoke out in favor of SB No. 25, "An act for the benefit of the Confederate Monument, now in process of erection on the Capital Square, Jackson, Miss." As part of his support speech, he is quoted as saying:

"When the news came that the South had been invaded; those men went forth to fight for what they believed, and they made no requests for monuments...But they died, and their virtues should be remembered. Sir, I went with them. I too, wore the gray, the same color my master wore. We stayed four long years, and if that war had gone on till now I woud have been there yet...I want to honor those brave men who died for their convictions."


Guess these things were accidently left out of the history books currently taught in schools. BTW, the black soldiers fighting for the South were not placed in segregated units as were those of the North. You know, those segregated units not disbanded until the Korean War 90 years later.
 
http://ngeorgia.com/people/cleburnep.html

One other event affected how he was viewed during and after the war. Stationed at Tunnel Hill, Ga. after the defeat at Chattanooga, Cleburne, leading a group of commissioned officers, proposed drafting Negroes into the Confederate Army in return for their emancipation. He reasoned that in one stroke they could increase the size of the army and eliminate a reason for the Federals to fight. While it is doubtful that the resolve of President Lincoln would have been altered (he was fighting to preserve the Union, not to end slavery), the proposal caused quite a backlash in the south and possibly affected the length of the war. When Jefferson Davis decided to remove Johnston from command during the Battle of Atlanta, he selected John Bell Hood over Pat Cleburne in part because of this proposal.

He was only one of two foreign born officers to attain the rank of major general in the Confederate armed forces.
In a letter to his family in 1861 he wrote, “I am with the South in death, in victory or defeat. I never owned a Negro and care nothing for them, but these people (Confederacy) have been my friends and have stood up to me on all occasions.
(emphasis mine)

Wait, I thought that the war had nothing to do with the slaves. :confused:

It is said the white man cannot perform agricultural labor in the South. The experience of this army during the heat of summer from Bowling Green, Ky., to Tupelo, Miss., is that the white man is healthier when doing reasonable work in the open field than at any other time. It is said an army of negroes cannot be spared from the fields. A sufficient number of slaves is now administering to luxury alone to supply the place of all we need, and we believe it would be better to take half the able bodied men off a plantation than to take the one master mind that economically regulated its operations. Leave some of the skill at home and take some of the muscle to fight with. It is said slaves will not work after they are freed. We think necessity and a wise legislation will compel them to labor for a living. It is said it will cause terrible excitement and some disaffection from our cause. Excitement is far preferable to the apathy which now exists, and disaffection will not be among the fighting men. It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties. We have now briefly proposed a plan which we believe will save our country. It may be imperfect, but in all human probability it would give us our independence. No objection ought to outweigh it which is not weightier than independence. If it is worthy of being put in practice it ought to be mooted quickly before the people, and urged earnestly by every man who believes in its efficacy.

Cleburne tried to get slaves freed and placed into the military so that the south would win. He was passed over for important positions, the proposal was personally denied by Davis, and the south lost.
 
And here's an interesting post I found:

There is no credible proof that more than a handful of blacks fought for the CSA.
Consider:

FRIDAY, February 10, 1865.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SECOND CONGRESS-SECOND SESSION

EMPLOYMENT OF NEGROES AS SOLDIERS

Mr. Wickham, of Virginia, moved the indefinite postponement of the bill. He was opposed to its going to a select committee. If it went to any committee it should go, in the regular channel, to the Committee on Military Affairs. He wished, however, this question of arming and making soldiers of negroes to be now disposed of, finally and forever. He wished it to be decided whether negroes are to be placed upon an equality by the side of our brave soldiers. They would be compelled to. They would have to camp and bivouac together.

Mr. Wickham said that our brave soldiers, who have fought so long and nobly, would not stand to be thus placed side by side with negro soldiers. He was opposed to such a measure. The day that such a bill passed Congress sounds the death knell of this Confederacy. The very moment an order goes forth from the War Department authorizing the arming and organizing of negro soldiers there was an eternal end to this struggle.-(Voice-That's so.)

The question being ordered upon the rejection of the bill, it was lost-ayes 21, noes 53. As this vote was regarded as a kind of test of the sense of the House upon the policy of putting negroes into the army, we append the ayes and noes-the question being the rejection of this bill authorizing the employment of negroes as soldiers:

Ayes-Messrs. Baldwin, Branch, Cruikshank, De Jarnette, Fuller, Garland, Gholson, Gilmer, Lamkin, J. M. Leach, J. T. Leach, McMullin, Miles, Miller, Ramsey, Sexton, Smith, of Alabama, Smith, of North Carolina, Wickham, Witherspoon, Mr. Speaker.

Noes-Messrs. Akin, Anderson, Barksdale, Batson, Bell, Blandford, Boyce, Bradley, H. W. Bruce, Carroll, Chambers, Chilton, Clark, Clopton, Cluskey, Conrad, Conrow, Darden, Dickinson, Dupre, Ewing, Farrow, Foster, Funsten, Gaither, Goode, Gray, Hartridge, Hatcher, Hilton, Holder, Holliday, Johnston, Keeble, Lyon, Pugh, Read, Rogers, Russell, Simpson, J. M. Smith, W. E. Smith, Snead, Swan, Triplett, Villere, Welsh.

If any number of black soldiers had been serving in the ranks of the CSA armies, how did it escape the notice of Congress?

It also escaped the notice of Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee and others:

Page 246, Confederate Veteran, June 1915. Official publication of the United Confederate Veteran, United Daughters of the Confederacy, Sons of Confederate Veterans, and the Confederated Southern Memorial Association.

Gen. Howell Cobb, an unbeliever in this expedient, wrote from Macon, Ga., January 8, 1865: "I think that the proposition is the most pernicious idea that has been suggested since the war began. You cannot make soldiers of slaves or slaves of soldiers. The moment you resort to this your white soldiers are lost to you, and one reason why this proposition is received with favor by some portions of the army is because they hope that when the negro comes in they can retire. You cannot keep white and black troops together, and you cannot trust negroes alone. They won't make soldiers, as they are wanting in every qualification necessary to make one. :

Samuel Clayton, Esq., of Cuthbert, Ga., wrote on January 10, 1865: "All of our male population between sixteen and sixty is in the army. We cannot get men from any other source; they must come from our slaves... The government takes all of our men and exposes them to death. Why can't they take our property? He who values his property more than independence is a poor, sordid wretch."

General Lee, who clearly saw the inevitable unless his forces were strengthened, wrote on January 11, 1865: "I should prefer to rely on our white population; but in view of the preparation of our enemy it is our duty to provide for a continuous war, which, I fear, we cannot accomplish with our present resources. It is the avowed intention of the enemy to convert the able*bodied negro into soldiers and emancipate all. His progress will thus add to his numbers and at the same time destroy slavery in a most pernicious manner to the welfare of our people. Whatever may be the effect of our employing negro troops, it cannot be as mischievous as this. If it ends in subverting slavery, it will be accomplished by ourselves, and we can devise the means of alleviating the evil consequences to both races. I think, therefore, that we must decide whether slavery shall be extinguished by our enemies and the slaves used against us or use them ourselves at the risk of the effects which may be produced upon our soldiers' social institutions. My own opinion is that we should employ tl1em without delay. I believe that with proper regulations they can be made efficient soldiers. They possess the physical qualifications in an eminent degree. Long habits of obedience and subordination, coupled with the moral influence which in our country the white man possesses over the black, furnish an excellent foundation for that discipline which is the best guarantee of military efficiency. We can give them an interest by allowing immediate freedom to all who enlist and freedom at the end of the war to their families. We should not expect slaves to fight for prospective freedom when they can secure it at once by going to the enemy, in whose service they will incur no greater risk than in ours. In conclusion, I can only say that whatever is to be done must be attended to at once."

President Davis on February 21, 1865 expressed himself as follows: "It is now becoming daily more evident to all reflecting persons that we are reduced to choosing whether the negroes shall fight for or against us and that all the arguments as to the positive advantage or disadvantage of employing them are beside the question, which is simply one of relative advantage between having their fighting element in our ranks or those of the enemy."

Would Lee and Davis have had those points of view had there been any number of blacks in ranks?

There is no -credible- evidence of blacks in active rebel service.

"It's pure fantasy,' contends James McPherson, a Princeton historian and one of the nation's leading Civil War scholars. Adds Edwin Bearss, historian emeritus at the National Park Service: 'It's b.s., wishful thinking.' Robert Krick, author of 10 books on the Confederacy, has studied the records of 150,000 Southern soldiers and found fewer than a dozen were black. 'Of course, if I documented 12, someone would start adding zeros,' he says.

"These and other scholars say claims about black rebels derive from unreliable anecdotes, a blurring of soldiers and laborers, and the rapid spread on the Internet of what Mr. McPherson calls 'pseudohistory.' Thousands of blacks did accompany rebel troops -- as servants, cooks, teamsters and musicians. Most were slaves who served involuntarily; until the final days of the war, the Confederacy staunchly refused to enlist black soldiers.

"Some blacks carried guns for their masters and wore spare or cast-off uniforms, which may help explain eyewitness accounts of blacks units. But any blacks who actually fought did so unofficially, either out of personal loyalty or self-defense, many historians say.

"They also bristle at what they see as the disingenuous twist on political correctness fueling the black Confederate fad. 'It's a search for a multicultural Confederacy, a desperate desire to feel better about your ancestors,' says Leslie Rowland, a University of Maryland historian. 'If you suggest that some blacks supported the South, then you can deny that the Confederacy was about slavery and white supremacy.'
"David Blight, an Amherst College historian, likens the trend to bygone notions about happy plantation darkies.' Confederate groups invited devoted ex-slaves to reunions and even won Senate approval in 1923 for a "mammy" monument in Washington (it was never built). Black Confederates, Mr. Blight says, are a new and more palatable way to 'legitimize the Confederacy.'"

-- Wall Street Journal, May 8, 1997

AND:

"There seems to be no evidence that the Negro soldiers authorized by the Confederate Government (March 13, 1865) ever went into battle. This gives rise to the question as to whether or not any Negroes ever fought in the Confederate ranks. It is possible that some of the free Negro companies organized in Louisiana and Tennessee in the early part of the war took part in local engagements; but evidence seems to the contrary. (Authors note: If they did, their action was not authorized by the Confederate Government.) A company of "Creoles," some of whom had Negro blood, may have been accepted in the Confederate service at Mobile. Secretary Seddon conditioned his authorization of the acceptance of the company on the ability of those "Creoles" to be naturally and properly distinguished from Negroes. If persons with Negro Blood served in Confederate ranks as full-fledged soldiers, the per cent of Negro blood was sufficiently low for them to pass as whites."

(Authors note: Henry Clay Warmoth said that many Louisiana mulattoes were in Confederate service but they were "not registered as Negroes." War Politics and Reconstruction, p. 56) p. 160-61, SOUTHERN NEGROES, Wiley

There is -no- credible evidence that even a small number of blacks served as soldiers in the rebel armies.
 
States Rights

My Great GrandPappy fought for states rights beginning in the 37th Georgia Infantry and several battles about and including Atlanta. He was wounded at Franklin, Tenn. Captured and hauled to POW Camp at Camp Chase , Ohio.

He was a 20 year old farm boy when he enlisted and never owned nor his Daddy owned a Negro. His family was rather poor. Now where in the hell are we going from here? There are no states rights since reconstruction and if they were they are on the wane so to speak.
 
FRIDAY, February 10, 1865.

A report written by the north right at the end of the war? Give me a break.

You will never convince me and I'll never convince you. I would suggest that instead of using little clips posted on the internet, you actually do some research on the subject. Don't read only those books you think may agree with your side. Read everything. I have around 100 books on the civil war and of those, you would find it hard to believe that all of them are talking about the same event in history. If you read the pre-1960, "politically correct" era books about the war, specifically those with/by actual participants, you will find that almost everyone agrees the war was not about slavery. Slavery was on the decline both in the US and around the world. With the industrial age, unskilled/slave labor was not cost effective. It would have died within a few decades without the war.

I would also suggest studying the issue of free blacks and their treatment in the north both before and after the war.

An amusing side note: If the war was about slavery, Lincoln could have taken the money spent fighting the war and bought the freedom of every slave in the south and provided them with their own farm land.
 
Often I hear that States or collectives have powers but not rights. I think this is a narrow and strained construction. Are y'all going to tell me that if the US is attacked that we have a power to defend ourselves but no right to defend ourselves?

The way it seems to me, since the Civil War, is that States have rights but not powers. For instance, Virginia has the right to secede, but not the power.
 
This rehashing of the "cause" of the Civil War is boring because it is so shallow.

The Civil War was fought over both slavery and states rights... and individual participants had even more diverse reasons for fighting, including honor, community, money, adventure, diversion, and a myriad of other reasons.

Denying that both slavery and states rights were two of the main causes of the Civil War demonstrates ignorance or willful denial of clear history to pursue a self-gratifying agenda.

<back on topic>

States rights? Isn't that on the Endangered Species List?
 
The way I understand it, the South fought for self-government and constitutional government. The Constitution protected the States' rights including slavery. So let's not overlook that what the South fought for, and the North fought against, was the US Constitution.
 
Notice that there is no mention of the rights of citizens of the United States being protected from acts of law - only "immunities" and "privileges".

Who are citizens of the United States that have immunities and privileges?

Yep, great amendment for certain elected officials, agents, officers or others holding certain positons in or under the Federal government. ;)
 
Back
Top