not so golden arches

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

If by "States' Rights" you mean the State's belief it in the right to legalize the ownership of another human being, then sure, it was about States' Rights. Check out what Texas had to say in their declaration:

"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."

And check out what the Vice President of the Confederacy had to say. He, I would assume, had a clear idea of what the war was about:

"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution […] The general opinion of the men of that day [Revolutionary Period] was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution [slavery] would be evanescent and pass away […] Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its 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."

You sound like my father-in-law. Not only does he spout this "It was about States' Rights because few Southern whites owned slaves!" stuff, during our last visit he also earnestly explained to me how slaves "didn't have it all that bad."

the whole thing about states rights being the cause celebre' is bs. i've read a ton of history from a variety of sources about that whole war, and the various causes.
it was NOT about states rights. if they were so damned worried about state soveriegnty, why did they try so hard to alter californias decision to be a free state in their constitution??
oh, i know...because the south wanted to expand slavery. they'd already started making arrangements to hire their slaves out in the mines.
then there was texas, that was going to be divided into five states, in order to have five slaves states, instead of just the one. more senators you see.
the south as a slave holding entity was determined to keep their slavery, as well as their bloc of power.
matter of fact, they even starting broaching the subject of the southern states changing the u.s. constitution to give them permanent control of the house. no joke, that happened!
the house is based on population..so of course the north was outpacing them on seats; so they had to at least maintain an even keel in the senate. the only way to do that is to keep an even number of states slave and free, hence the trouble with california.

so, if they were fans of states doing their thing....why were they giving cali such a fit? and kansas?

[Danzig]

and regarding the csa constitution...it was quite similar to our counstitution...but it very explicitly stated that slavery would remain, and even made it illegal to ever mention changing that! of course, these were the same politicians who made it a rule that slavery was not to be brought up in the House, a rule John Quincy Adams took great delight in breaking.