Great post, SS. Great.
No, I don't think the real reason was something in the middle. The "right" that the states hoped to secure was the right to own human beings.
Why slave holding states in the Union? Pragmatism. I did not say the reason claimed by the North was abolition, I said the cause of the Civil War was abolition. The cause of the war in the Pacific in WW2 was OIL, for example. Yes, the US entered because we were attacked at PH, but the REASON for the war was the japanese feeling they had to have the oil in the NEI or cease to be able to survive (without giving up China). No slavery, no civil war, it's just that simple.
Did anyone in the south ever claim it was their right as a State to leave? Yes, certainly. Did they claim it was their right as a State to determine if they could own slaves, even should the Federal government at some point in the future make it illegal as a "State's right?" I'm sure. That doesn't mean "State's Rights" was the cause of the war, that's an abstract argument relating to the proximal cause of the grievance, slavery.
I'm fine with State's rights, but linking that modern cause to the Civil War is not only wrong, but it hurts State's Rights argument NOW since it paints anyone in favor of State's Rights as really being some kind of would-be slave holder. C'mon, you can see that sort of undertone in press coverage, can;t you?
|