Auntie Ovipositor wrote: The Civil War wasn't about states' rights generally, it was about one specific states' right: that of owning other human beings.The Civil War was primarily the result of the politics of the power of the slave holding class beginning to founder on the shoals of the circumstances connected with the nation's growth and the 'overdue bill' that had hovered over the nation's existence since an inception that had put off the fundamental rift that existed between the nation's stated values and goals in re human rights and the need to include political entities (colonies/states) that had economies based in slavery. The North was torn throughout as their reliance on slavery was never the same as that found in the South while they politically and economically hooked into Southern slavery with 'reservations,' let's say. In the end, as new states were added the South felt that they needed ongoing concessions that would allow the spread of slavery as a way to bulwark against the degradation of their share of the nation's power structure. There was a need to maintain congressional seats beholden to slave-owning power. Had the South and those beholden to the nation's various political and legal conceits aimed at smoothing over the above-noted 'overdue bill' been willing to allow the addition of non-slaveholding states without concomitant demands of some sort of balance in the growth of 'slave states' it is likely no war would have occurred. This means, of course, that slavery was not dying of its own bloat and evil, but was instead seen as a fundamental necessity in the South and a growth product for the then foreseeable future (indeed, after the war quashed any need to continue to cowtow politically to the South by adding a slave state each time a non-slave state came online, the feds abandoned the project of 'equality' in the South pretty quickly and allowed business-as-usual to strangle Reconstruction).States' Rights is just one of various post-bellum conceits used to try to isolate individual human rights based in egalitarianism away from the conversation of how we try to deal with federal- and state-level rights. It is a clumsy and odious sleight of hand that only works because powerful people profit from ignoring the equal protection clause. If the play of ignoring the equal protection clause gets removed from the Jenga pile family of defenses to which 'States' Rights' belongs, those arguments don't bear much weight and you have longstanding cultural/political/legal practices that get swept aside in a single motion based on con law, i.e., the recent SC decision in re gay marriage. Once you decide that a group of people are human and deserve protection, there is no state right to protect, really, as such is clearly superseded by the EP clause.

gjp wrote:ldopa\_chicago wrote:The Civil War was not started over the right to own slaves. That part came later.I don't know. The Cornerstone Address was given a few weeks prior to the start of the war and VP of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, stated pretty clearly why the South was succeeding.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.also, go to this page and command-f (or whatever it is on windows machines) the word slave.the it wasn't about slavery confederate apologists are demonstrably wrong.

While it is true that the North has a sordid history of segregation and racist nonsense, it is much more tempered by greater access and freedom for blacks than was found in the South. Race is in many ways about controlling relationships and the power that is derived from association. Isolate and exploit, especially the labor of people of color. The regime and legacies of oppressive controls over relationships, etc., is notably more complete and prevalent in the South.The 'agitation' that the South felt at having the feds tell them how the bounds of their labor arrangements were to be drawn is a central root connecting that legacy of 'states rights' and anti-federal power into the modern day conservative bent which nourishes itself on anti-civil rights, anti-voting rights, anti-affirmative action, and just about any thing else that might help minorities as a way to rally support for anti-tax initiatives. Many have talked themselves into believing they are standing up for broad and deep-running veins of liberty. The whole country has been 'southernized' in this way.It wasn't just blacks that came North during the 'Great Migrations' of the World War eras.The South had untold numbers of instances wherein Southerners were against 'The South,' as it were. Fuck 'The South.' I can say that while living in Southern lands and noting horrendous Northern injustices were race is concerned.

Gramsci wrote:phpBB [media]So, the Civil War was About Slavery...Anyone else think dude looks like a Nazi from an Indiana Jones movie?

phpBB [media]So, the Civil War was About Slavery...

˜One of our attorneys is a Jew : Kayla Moore s proof that Roy Moore is no anti-SemiteGetting ready to watch this statement catapult Roy Moore to a win in Alabama today.

Lock the thread.