I’m a little confused about what states in US are. Are they more like their own countries united in alliance, or are they districts of one country?
The American Civil War was fought over slavery, not independence in terms of foreign policy.
While the Southern states were ultimately fighting for slavery as an institution, the question the war was trying to answer wasn’t whether states can have slavery; it’s whether states can secede. If the North was willing to accept secession (which would’ve been a massive mistake don’t get me wrong) the war wouldn’t have happened. The Southern proposition that made the North go to war was, at least to my shallow understanding, “I’ll make my own Union with blackjack and (slave) hookers”, not “I wanna keep owning slaves”.
The Southern proposition that made the North go to war was, at least to my shallow understanding, “I’ll make my own Union with blackjack and (slave) hookers”, not “I wanna keep owning slaves”.
It was “I’ll make my own Union with slaves.” Explicitly. It was written into the secession documents of every single Confederate state, clearly and in no uncertain terms, that the reason for secession was specifically to maintain and defend the institution of slavery. Period, end of.
Yeah obviously. I think I made that clear enough. I mean I put “slave” right there.
The American Civil war began with a Confederate attack on Fort Sumter. At the same time it was never established that you can opt out of the US, that’s generally not how countries work.
The Confederacy would not have happened if it wasn’t for fears of abolishing slavery.
Lincoln’s election provoked South Carolina’s legislature to call a state convention to consider secession. South Carolina had done more than any other state to advance the notion that a state had the right to nullify federal laws and even secede. On December 20, 1860, the convention unanimously voted to secede and adopted a secession declaration. It argued for states’ rights for slave owners but complained about states’ rights in the North in the form of resistance to the federal Fugitive Slave Act, claiming that Northern states were not fulfilling their obligations to assist in the return of fugitive slaves.
It was “states rights for me but not for thee”.
The constitution doesn’t cover if states can leave the union. Until the civil war this was an unresolved question. We now know definitively that you de facto can’t, at least not without permission of the federal government.
Yes, and a counter to the argument that the Union was inviolable versus states joining voluntarily. It might be convenient to only look at one aspect of a matter, but that only holds so long as the view agrees with the outcome you would like to happen.
The arguments around states, federalism, The Union (it wasn’t called the union for no reason): they matter. And it might be that you might find a limited interpretation around what actually happened during that time inconvenient in the future.
Why were the slave-owning states the only ones “rising concerns” around “federalism”? A curious coincidence indeed
Because they wanted to leave the union so they could carry on being slaving assholes.
Your point is obvious and dumb
