For those who think the Civil war was fought over states rights. What rights did the southern states want in?

Question

1860 besides the right to secede. The Federal government was not nearly as intrusive in the 1800's as it is today.

I am looking for specifics rights or laws or issues. What federal law about slavery??

I think most wars are about power and money but I am willing to listen to other points of view if anyone has facts and details.

Answer 1

The Civil War isn't something that just sprung up overnight. The first issue that started the crisis over state's rights was the issue of nullification. The South felt that individual states should have the power to nullify federal laws that they disagreed with. The nullification crisis occured during the presidency of Andrew Jackson and came to ahead over the Tariff of 1828. The South lost the battle over nullification, and began to feel that their interests were not being represented by the government.

The abolitionist movement became increasingly important and influential in the North during the 1830s and 1840s, which increased the South's feeling of alienation. They began to feel that the government would not leave them alone and let them tend to their own lives, but was planning on interfering and running everything. Less government was very important back then, and too much government interference in day to day activities was not at all desired.

Immediately were following were a number of crises concerning new states being admitted into the own, upsetting the delicate balance between slave and non slave states.

With the election of Lincoln in 1861, they felt that they had lost any chance of being allowed to go their own way and live out their lives in the culture and society they had created.

However, all of this feeling was over 30 years in the making, and their concern over state's rights was quite a valid concern for that time period.

Answer 2

States' rights is the most commonly used reason (apart from slavery) given for the secession of the Southern states, but I believe it is misleading. It had more to do with the fact that after the election of 1860, the South felt they had lost political power. The South was against pork-barrel spending for internal improvements (most of which were for canals in the North), against laws limiting or prohibiting slavery in the territories (lots of fights in Congress over this one, look them up, it's a whole seperate question), and against tariffs on imported goods (the South imported most industrial products, European things tended to be a little cheaper than those made in the North so Southerners bought European goods, the North did not apprecite this and sought to impose a protective tariff).

With the election of Lincoln without a single Southern state voting for him (he wasn't even on the ballot in most Southern states), the people of the South felt, I believe correctly, that the federal government no longer represented them. Along with the president, the North controlled Congress, giving them the ability to pass laws that the South opposed, such as the above-mentioned items. Looking back on the revolutionary heritage of Jefferson, Southern politicians deemed that they had the right to leave a voluntary union they had entered into. They also pointed out that the founding fathers had approved of overthrowing a government when it was no longer representative of the people. THAT is why the South seceeded.

Answer 3

As a history teacher it is often annoying to me when people fall prey to the fallacy of anachronism. They project present prejudices on the rhetoric of the past.

If you cursorily read the statements of the Southern leaders who called the Northern businesses and people oppressive, you can draw the conclusion that John C. Calhoun, Jefferson Davis, and the rest were neo-classical liberals who wanted to be left alone by an intrusive and unjust government run by Northerners.

This is the RHETORIC, not the reality. When you read historical documents you must be careful to filter out the bias of the author. This is especially true of political speeches. You have to look beyond the rhetoric to see what they were really defending with their actions. By and large, they were defending the right to own slaves.

Next question, why were they so wedded to the idea of owning slaves?
Simple, money. Their entire economy was based on the production of raw materials, namely cotton, tobacco, and rice. Usually, those engaged in production of the raw materials come out very badly in an exchange with those who purchase the raw materials and make finished goods. Yet, these plantation owners had a very opulent lifestyle. How did they manage this? By exploiting the workers who actually did the farming. The plantation system could only exist where slavery, or later sharecropping (which was essentially the same thing), existed.

Abolitionists in the North, by calling for the end of slavery, were threatening the very existence and economic viability of the plantation system. Those at the top of that system would, and did, fight to the death to preserve it.

Hope this helps,
Good luck!

Answer 4

State rights is the common answer, but there's reasoning behind it. The South's economy was largely labor intensive, while the North was more industrialized. The plantation owners benefited greatly by having free labor.

There was also taxation. The North needed more railroads and for expansion, the South didn't. More attention was being paid for the needs of the North than the South, hence the representation of needs.

The federal government wanted to impose upon the states laws and taxation that the South didn't benefit from, and therefore the South wanted to secede from the Union.

The rich also wanted power and to protect their wealth. The South instituted a draft and would force any and all males to war.

Answer 5

i think of you have have been given some solid factors, yet interior the top, the Civil conflict replaced into fought over state's rights to self-decision. Slavery replaced into the nice and cozy-button situation of the day, and used as a rallying element. The North could no longer have cared much less with regards to the slaves -- as evidenced via the Dred Scott decision of 1857, whilst the appropriate court docket of usa declared that blacks have been inferior and had no rights that is respected. Economically, having the South secede from Union could weaken the Union, and get rid of the tarrifs and taxes that have been amassed interior the South with the sale of agricultural products to England and Europe. Jefferson's Kentucky Resolutions had defined the thought any powers no longer specially assigned to the federal government have been consequently the jurisdiction of the states, and that the form replaced into basically an contract between states, no longer an overriding ruling authority. The Southern states felt that the situation of slavery replaced into the jurisdiction of the states, and if those "rights" have been abolished, it made the federal government a techniques greater advantageous than it replaced into meant to be. Slavery replaced into additionally an argument interior the enlargement of usa interior the West. California, whilst it utilized to connect the union, replaced right into a non-slavery section with the aid of fact of previous treaties with Mexico -- as much as that element, the coverage of the U.S. replaced into to basically admit states the two balanced between slavery and non-slavery. California replaced right into a huge non-slave state -- which pushed the admittance of various states that have been slave states, lots to the dismay of Northern abolitionists.

Answer 6

It was the right to make their own laws according to the Constitution -- Amendment X

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Since the Constitution at that time did not prohibit slavery, the states felt that federal laws put into effect regarding slavery violated that amendment.

BTW: I must admit to finding your phrasing of the question rather insulting. By answering it, one must almost admit to being pro-slavery.

EDIT: Laws include Missouri Compromise, 1821; Compromise of 1850, Kansas-Nebraska Act, 1854.

Answer 7

The right to be left alone by an oppressive government that had taken on a romanticist world view.

I agree we are worse off now than we have been in our history. We need less government in our lives and more freedom to pursue our dreams for ourselves and our families.

Answer 8

Less government