The "states' rights" in question was the right to compel free states to uphold the institution of slavery, specifically by returning people who had escaped slavery back the slavers in their slavery-loving slave states.
There is a point where you essentially just become a share cropper again. When all the homes cost 600k and 6.5% interest (paying 39,000 a year just in interest). In CA they withhold about 37% of your check for state workers due to mandatory contributions. This means entry level workers most likely make around min wage or less after they charge you for parking.
The 1861 Morill Tarrif returned tariffs back to the rate they were at 4 years prior when northern state republicans held the house. The claim that the Morill Tariff created a constitutional crisis is absolute nonsense. Southern democratic states proposed allowing individual states to set their own tariffs which makes zero sense because every importer will simply choose the state with the lowest tariff. This insane demand was simply a pretense to cry foul and secede when they didn't get it.
Actually the Vice President of the Confederate States (Alexander H. Stephens) said so explicitly in what is known as the Cornerstone Speech (https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speech). After the Civil War, this racist was elected the Governor of Georgia and they still have a state park named for him in Crawfordville Georgia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_H._Stephens
The same people I meet that argue for "State's rights" are also the same people that "conveniently" forget Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
One part in particular was that the government couldn’t impair “the right of property in negro slaves” to owners. So yeah, their Bill of rights was specific to ensuring they can own a minority though they avoided the word 'slavery' in the article. After all, they liked to claim the issue was right to property, not right to people, but no real difference.
I grew up in Illinois, but moved down to Georgia about 10 years ago. I’ve run into several coworkers who still explicitly believe that it was about state rights. I inevitably follow that up with the fact that Georgia’s declaration of succession from the Union explicitly mentioned slavery as a primary reason. After the mandatory Google search to prove it to them, it shuts them up pretty damn quick lol
It WAS about the only state right there was any disagreement on: the right to own slaves. There weren't any other matters addressed by the Missouri compromise.
But, hey, maybe I'm missing all the non slavery bills proposed by the coincidentally slave states that were opposed by the North? Give us a list, MFs
Frankly, the founding myth of USA is just that; a myth. There was no "moral" reason to secede, it's always about money & the fat cats not wanting to pay. "No taxation without representation"? Bitch, the f***ing constituent countries of the British landmass didn't have a seat in London, why the f*** would a colony, especially one that was paying for protection from the latest French war! The tea party bit? Legit imports made smuggling unprofitable, the barons didn't like that, so engineered riot.
There was also the Whiskey Rebellion that happened in the US when taxes were set on spirits, and it ended in violence, not dissimilar to what England tried to do
Pretty much the rich people didn't want to pay taxes. So they started a war and made a big deal about it being a just cause. Sounds familiar doesn't it.
Soul-destroying, faith-in-humanity-shattering'ly so. I used to think like Charlie Chaplin did; that technology and it's ability to spread information like incriminating photos & video would motivate people to call out corruption and kick it to the rubbish-heap. Instead, misinformation & outright fabrication are the norm, & the morons who can't block out the truth out went to their nice little neo-fascist echo chamber TV channels and twit-ridden "X" pages then swallowed it all like static-whores.
It’s funny because outside the USA if the class studies the American Civil War the sentence “It was because of slavery” it’s the first one you hear and remember.
That's the thing. Most of those itdjits only insist on that point so belligerently because it lets them avoid talking about how they are a fucking racist.
To be fair, that guy knew that he was dealing with a lose/lose situation. If he said "against slavery," he'd be hit with a barrage of questions that would tear apart his worldview. Like every true fanatic, he fled from the dangers posed by inconvenient facts and logic.
The ignorant person: "The Civil War was about slavery." The enthusiastic novice: "The Civil War stemmed from a large confluence of factors, including regional differences, industrialization, immigration, states rights, expansion, and slavery." The expert: "The Civil War was about slavery."
I think a lot about what it would've felt like at the time. Slavery was ESSENTIAL to the national economy and abolitionists must have gotten a LOT of pushback about "wanting to destroy the country" or something for thinking slavery should stop.
i mean obviously our country didn't collapse when we abolished slavery, so you're right, but at the time it would have been difficult to make that case.
Exactly. Slavery made rich slave owners wealthier, but the presence of slave labor devalued the labor of the working class, keeping wages low & stunting economic growth for everyone in the country, except for the rich. Now, the rich exploit inmates & immigrants for cheap labor, devaluing the working class once again. It's better for society, as a whole, to not be greedy, racist assholes but it just keeps happening.
To a degree yes (the classic example of Northern mills weaving Southern cotton). But the Northern states, both because of free labor and industrialization were far more economically robust and diversified than in the South. Cash crop/resource economies are notoriously fragile, and the Civil War demonstrated that. Slavery was a big part of the national economy, but it wasn't essential. As Shelby Foote put it, the US fought the Civil War with one hand tied behind its back.
You're absolutely correct of course, but it's easy to make these observations in hindsight. I just feel like, if I were alive and posting on facebook at the time, I'd be hamstrung in the economical side of the debate.
You're asking if parts of the country that still have people who call the Civil War "The War of Northern Aggression" might differ in their teaching of the events surrounding said war?
Not Red states; slave states. The two aren't the same. The big issues were a) free states were supposed to cooperate and return escaped slaves per some of the compromise agreements preceding the civil war, and b) new states couldn't choose to allow slavery north of the Mason Dixon Line. I believe there was also a complaint that southern states were overtaxed according to them because slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person, which was 3/5ths too much in the southern opinion.
It was actually the idea of the slave states to count a slave as 3/5th of a person, so that the slave states would have greater representation than free states in the electoral college. The complaint of over-taxation of the south is a myth spawned by willful disinformation. The south was largely poor and paid less taxes than free states. The wealthy, who owned slaves & whose use of slaves devalued labor, thus keeping the south poor, paid high taxes reflective of their incomes.
Yes, but what I'm saying is that in the Confederacy Constitution they made it illegal to outlaw slavery. So the whole "we're joining the Confederacy our states can have more freedoms and less federal control is at best a weak argument.
I'm not even arguing that the union was altruistic in this. Seems they freed the slaves more to disrupt the southern economy than any equity reasons. Just making the point that "it was for states rights" is at best a very simplistic white washing of it.
If you read the Confederate Constitution, it clearly says that no state may inact any law restricting slavery or offering sanctuary for slaves. So it isn't even about states' rights; it's about codifying slavery into the Constitution so states have no right to end slavery.
It was both. Same as usual, rules for me and not for thee. They wanted to take state's rights away from the non-slave states while keeping state's rights themselves. Pure hypocrisy, as always.
They even wrote the Confederate constitution so that states specifically did *not* have the right to abolish slavery. It wasn't about rights as any sort of principle whatsoever.
I know it wasn't about "states' rights" as a principal. It was about *their* states having the rights they wanted while taking rights away from non-slave states. They did frame the first half as if they cared about states' rights on principle, but that was of course just hypocritical bullshit.
But they also took rights away from 'their' states -- the right to convert from a slave state to a free state. That's the point I was getting at. It wasn't about keeping rights for themselves -- it was always just about keeping slavery and racism intact.
For the South, it was mostly about a states right to continue the practice of slavery but for the NORTH, it was actually about a states right (or lack thereof) to secede from the union. People like to pretend it was only about ONE thing and ONE thing only, but that's just foolish. The north (largely) wanted slavery to end, but their end all be all reason for the war was to prevent secession.
For the South, it wasn't even about a State's right to decide whether or not to practice slavery. The Confederate constitution MANDATED that every member State (including any future annexed States or territories) allow slavery.
They were fighting to mandate slavery at a federal level. States' Rights my ass.
This this this! If it was about states rights they wouldn't have mandated slavery be legal. They had no more rights to decide one way or the other. Period. End of story.
Yes, but there were 13(?) separate declarations. Each state had a different one, with different wording. I didn't find any reference to a single unified declaration, but then I'm not really a civil war buff, so I freely admit I might have missed something here. I'm wondering which one of the 13 OP is referring to, assuming there is actually no unified declaration.
There were eleven states that seceded from the union. Only four wrote Declarations of Secession that detailed their reasons for seceding (Texas, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Georgia). All four of them list slavery explicitly as a primary factor.
Also, the meme says “declarations”. I would assume he meant all four.
“The Cornerstone Speech” given by the Vice President of the Confederacy also makes their position on the matter pretty clear. In it, VP Alexander Stephens states in clear language that the confederacy was founded on the belief that black people are not equal to white people and that slavery is the cornerstone upon which the confederacy was built.
Again, I concur. I wasn't arguing that it wasn't a factor, the history of the debates over the issue of secession at the time make it very clear that it was. I was interested in the specific claim of it being mentioned in the documents. Mind you, I really didn't know and was curious if OP's claim was accurate. The civil war is of little interest to me, and my knowledge of it is limited.
Concur. Yes, the 1st four states DID mention slavery. Several sources noted that the other nine didn't, but I only read through Arkansas's carefully, so that's the only one I can positively say didn't mention it. Frankly I didn't know any of this until I decided to fact check OP, I just wanted to see if they were correct. On a scale of 1-10 I would give OP a 5 for accuracy, as the issue is a lot more complicated than I thought when I started reading about it.
It really isn’t all that complicated, you just have to look in different areas to find it. Slavery was the cause of the war. While Arkansas declaration didn’t mention it (which I stated already, 7 states didn’t mention it in their declarations) the Arkansas Secession Convention adopted ordinances in their second meeting that stated the main reason was "hostility to the institution of African slavery" from the Union. Also mentioned as a reason was the union’s support for "equality with negroes".
I guess my reading comprehension isn't up to snuff. Perhaps you would do me the favor of pointing out the references to slavery in the Arkansas declaration of secession. https://www.nytimes.com/1861/06/08/archives/the-secession-of-arkansas.html I've read it over carefully several times now, and can't find the reference. Mind you, I'm not arguing that it was not a factor, just that I can't find the reference in the actual document as per your claim.
It's time for California to separate. There's no point to them paying for everyone elses expenses when the fed won't even give them disaster relief if needed.
The constitution is dead. Accept it and realize your state is about to become a slave state unless you get the fuck out. They're going to come for you either way, might as well give yourselves a chance to fight.
Its ok, start the process, it will be long. Those who dont want to go can relocate and be with their countrymen. Id also like to welcome southern Nevada to join as well. We can and should seriously form our own coastal country. Time to fucking leave.
Yup. If a local majority of people in Easter WA/OR don't want to go with the majority, then borders are sacrosanct and they either respect democracy or pack up and leave. But also if the newly forming country needs parts of an existing state, let's redraw borders while we're at it.
I'ma be real here CA would have roving gangs of partisans fighting each other and robbing people just like we did during the Civil War. Southern CA and Tulare County wanted to join the South and volunteers had to come down from up north to occupy them. But the north wasn't solid either. The San Jose Fire Station flew a Secessionist flag. Some dudes from Stockton made a raiding party to steal from "Union men" in San Joaquin county and beyond. There's enough red counties that there'd be guerillas
I'm not real confident in our chances against a narcissist sociopath dictator with nukes, (and probably chemical and bioweapons they don't advertise) and the world's largest military budget, air force, navy (we have a very long coast!).
Technically it would be a separation and then application process as far as I understand it, but hey, we declared a wing of a hospital to be Dutch territory just to preserve a royal lineage... So... Shouldn't be too difficult to make happen.
It's the premise of several of Richard Morgan's sci-fi books. The west coast Rim States and the east coast North Atlantic Union (with EU? I think) curving around the Confederated Republic, aka "Jesusland"
They can go right ahead, a lot of people would celebrate it happening. At least until it collapses into a puppet state controlled by China or Russia anyway.
Clearly you've neglected your history studies. Why is Korea divided? What happened in Vietnam? How come the violence in the middle east just won't end? The answers all point to larger countries installing puppets and manipulating them for a tactical or economic advantage. Since the newly-independent California would be scrambling to stabilize its economy and defend itself, it would be all too easy for other nations to install puppets in it and exploit it to their advantage.
California is the world's 5th largest economy. The only problem with seceding would be dumbshit republicans using the Russian playbook and invading because they need to "save them". Also, what you're saying is hilariously shallow.
... ? If California separates they will inevitably form trade relations with Canada and become a major economic powerhouse. Not that they aren't already, but the US is totally leeching off them.
so your take is "take the economic value of california, separate it from the rest of the country and embrace it. fuck the people outside california. is that your point?
California has been talking about seceding since I was a kid lol...not to mention the peeps who want it to break up into 2 or three smaller states. I don't think it is likely to happen.
California, as well as texas, are regulars with the scede threat. Heres the problem. The states are eternally bound to the union as all the federal gov has to do is tell them “ok but you take your portion of the debt with you” and it stops all further discussion as the debt is so large it is unobtainable to pay it off immediately, as the debtors are under no obligation to give the scedee (is that a word?) a credit line.
Yeah it's not like the US paid their 'debt' in "back taxes" after they successfully kicked the British out. Besides, they've been paying far more in taxes than they get back in federal funding, right? (not counting subsidies to Silicon Valley that went directly to companies). That seems like it'd eliminate most of the debt.
Shirking debt to other countries is not how you would want to start off in the world as a fledgling country. Remember that debt is not to the US, but to countries like france and other allies. That would not set a good precident for their relationships.
What?? Not even close. It comes from the fact that if it’s own country would be one of the largest economies in the world and politically is constantly being hampered in progressive reforms. Since the early 90s in my memory it’s been floated as an idea. Almost every region or state has its own idea of succession
Yeah look at the date 2016 when they were heightening the left v blue narrative making Californians seem not American. But it doesn’t mean they invented it or it’s strickly a Russian troll thing. Like “the thin blue line” was heightened and exaggerated by Russian trolls but it’s been a mantra for decades before then
We don't want our new name to have any attachment to "Amerika". "Cascadia" has been in the shared consciousness since 1972. . The "Yes California" movement, also known as "Calexit," was founded in 2015.
I’m in Idaho…cut us off. Seriously, cut our asses off! Our Senators and both congressmen (yes men) vote against our interest. We are not a politically sophisticated state. Our people understand the physical earth, not the political world. And now we got the angry red hats coming from CA and AZ. They suck. All the hate with zero knowledge of our tough as nails state. Literally driving with cyber trucks in Idaho winters. Dumb asses everyone of them
mksu
The "states' rights" in question was the right to compel free states to uphold the institution of slavery, specifically by returning people who had escaped slavery back the slavers in their slavery-loving slave states.
Amomani
Yeah they were such big supporters of states rights they demanded the fugitive slave act stripping non slave states of huge amounts of sovereignty.
PenguinNamedWobbles
There is a point where you essentially just become a share cropper again. When all the homes cost 600k and 6.5% interest (paying 39,000 a year just in interest). In CA they withhold about 37% of your check for state workers due to mandatory contributions. This means entry level workers most likely make around min wage or less after they charge you for parking.
Sonicschilidogs
They can't read.
Killerwolf601
We burned Atlanta once. We will burn it again if necessary!
Svartsinn
The 1861 Morill Tarrif returned tariffs back to the rate they were at 4 years prior when northern state republicans held the house. The claim that the Morill Tariff created a constitutional crisis is absolute nonsense. Southern democratic states proposed allowing individual states to set their own tariffs which makes zero sense because every importer will simply choose the state with the lowest tariff. This insane demand was simply a pretense to cry foul and secede when they didn't get it.
idrinkcheapbeer
The Cornerstone Speech is right there for everyone to read.
RichardPenne
Actually the Vice President of the Confederate States (Alexander H. Stephens) said so explicitly in what is known as the Cornerstone Speech (https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speech). After the Civil War, this racist was elected the Governor of Georgia and they still have a state park named for him in Crawfordville Georgia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_H._Stephens
33WhiskeyTX
The Texas one is awful. Every point is about Slavery, except on about the Indians and Mexicans being a problem.
QueefSlurper6372
Bold of you to assume they can read
devasto
The same people I meet that argue for "State's rights" are also the same people that "conveniently" forget Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
MightyUrto
Fun fact: people who say it wasn't about slavery have never read anything about the Civil War or its causes.
VictusVonGuyver
One part in particular was that the government couldn’t impair “the right of property in negro slaves” to owners. So yeah, their Bill of rights was specific to ensuring they can own a minority though they avoided the word 'slavery' in the article. After all, they liked to claim the issue was right to property, not right to people, but no real difference.
PerpetualExhaustion
I grew up in Illinois, but moved down to Georgia about 10 years ago. I’ve run into several coworkers who still explicitly believe that it was about state rights. I inevitably follow that up with the fact that Georgia’s declaration of succession from the Union explicitly mentioned slavery as a primary reason. After the mandatory Google search to prove it to them, it shuts them up pretty damn quick lol
emu314159127001
It WAS about the only state right there was any disagreement on: the right to own slaves. There weren't any other matters addressed by the Missouri compromise.
But, hey, maybe I'm missing all the non slavery bills proposed by the coincidentally slave states that were opposed by the North? Give us a list, MFs
Ink41d0
Frankly, the founding myth of USA is just that; a myth. There was no "moral" reason to secede, it's always about money & the fat cats not wanting to pay. "No taxation without representation"? Bitch, the f***ing constituent countries of the British landmass didn't have a seat in London, why the f*** would a colony, especially one that was paying for protection from the latest French war! The tea party bit? Legit imports made smuggling unprofitable, the barons didn't like that, so engineered riot.
AnonymousSourceOfGenitals
There was also the Whiskey Rebellion that happened in the US when taxes were set on spirits, and it ended in violence, not dissimilar to what England tried to do
OdinYggd
Pretty much the rich people didn't want to pay taxes. So they started a war and made a big deal about it being a just cause. Sounds familiar doesn't it.
Ink41d0
Soul-destroying, faith-in-humanity-shattering'ly so. I used to think like Charlie Chaplin did; that technology and it's ability to spread information like incriminating photos & video would motivate people to call out corruption and kick it to the rubbish-heap. Instead, misinformation & outright fabrication are the norm, & the morons who can't block out the truth out went to their nice little neo-fascist echo chamber TV channels and twit-ridden "X" pages then swallowed it all like static-whores.
lonelyrangerofthedreams
It’s funny because outside the USA if the class studies the American Civil War the sentence “It was because of slavery” it’s the first one you hear and remember.
RenegadeSci
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/south-carolina-declaration-of-secession-1860
PileOfWalthers
They don’t care one fucking bit when you show them they’re wrong.
Throwawayaccountnumbernegativethree
That's the thing. Most of those itdjits only insist on that point so belligerently because it lets them avoid talking about how they are a fucking racist.
The701
ArkoneAxon
To be fair, that guy knew that he was dealing with a lose/lose situation. If he said "against slavery," he'd be hit with a barrage of questions that would tear apart his worldview. Like every true fanatic, he fled from the dangers posed by inconvenient facts and logic.
Mack1986
I think all but one secessionist states made slavery their primary point in the opening paragraph. The outlier state waited till the second
ChorizoPig
South Carolina, the first state to secede, mentioned slavery 18 times in their articles of secession IIRC. Doesn't't leave much doubt.
8647taco
Texas I believe
Renza0
states rights to what?
bourbonandbaddecisions
Read the Texas articles of secession. They are particularly blunt and horrific. From the Texas state archive: http://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html
AuthGaeuvyen
As if they could read
Tigersterne
The joke is:
The ignorant person: "The Civil War was about slavery."
The enthusiastic novice: "The Civil War stemmed from a large confluence of factors, including regional differences, industrialization, immigration, states rights, expansion, and slavery."
The expert: "The Civil War was about slavery."
flamingflamingo
I think a lot about what it would've felt like at the time. Slavery was ESSENTIAL to the national economy and abolitionists must have gotten a LOT of pushback about "wanting to destroy the country" or something for thinking slavery should stop.
Arbitrarynamehere
It's a fallacy to believe any economy is reliant on slave labor. It's hard to sell goods to a population with no money after all
flamingflamingo
i mean obviously our country didn't collapse when we abolished slavery, so you're right, but at the time it would have been difficult to make that case.
Arbitrarynamehere
Economists of the day were pointing this out
NunyaBNess1
Exactly. Slavery made rich slave owners wealthier, but the presence of slave labor devalued the labor of the working class, keeping wages low & stunting economic growth for everyone in the country, except for the rich. Now, the rich exploit inmates & immigrants for cheap labor, devaluing the working class once again. It's better for society, as a whole, to not be greedy, racist assholes but it just keeps happening.
Tigersterne
To a degree yes (the classic example of Northern mills weaving Southern cotton). But the Northern states, both because of free labor and industrialization were far more economically robust and diversified than in the South. Cash crop/resource economies are notoriously fragile, and the Civil War demonstrated that. Slavery was a big part of the national economy, but it wasn't essential. As Shelby Foote put it, the US fought the Civil War with one hand tied behind its back.
flamingflamingo
You're absolutely correct of course, but it's easy to make these observations in hindsight. I just feel like, if I were alive and posting on facebook at the time, I'd be hamstrung in the economical side of the debate.
WeatherWiz
It was about states rights. They just forget to finish the sentence: “It was about states rights to have slavery”
NotSomoneElse68
They were actually >against< States' Rights. Specially, the Northern States right to return runaway slaves.
[deleted]
[deleted]
necrojoe
You're asking if parts of the country that still have people who call the Civil War "The War of Northern Aggression" might differ in their teaching of the events surrounding said war?
greenfox311
Not really
[deleted]
[deleted]
pandaman1982
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy
Nellisir
Not Red states; slave states. The two aren't the same. The big issues were a) free states were supposed to cooperate and return escaped slaves per some of the compromise agreements preceding the civil war, and b) new states couldn't choose to allow slavery north of the Mason Dixon Line.
I believe there was also a complaint that southern states were overtaxed according to them because slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person, which was 3/5ths too much in the southern opinion.
NunyaBNess1
It was actually the idea of the slave states to count a slave as 3/5th of a person, so that the slave states would have greater representation than free states in the electoral college. The complaint of over-taxation of the south is a myth spawned by willful disinformation. The south was largely poor and paid less taxes than free states. The wealthy, who owned slaves & whose use of slaves devalued labor, thus keeping the south poor, paid high taxes reflective of their incomes.
AnyRandomBob
They mandated slavery be legal in the Confederacy. It wasn't about states rights to chose the way they wanted. Period. End of story.
[deleted]
[deleted]
AnyRandomBob
Yes, but what I'm saying is that in the Confederacy Constitution they made it illegal to outlaw slavery. So the whole "we're joining the Confederacy our states can have more freedoms and less federal control is at best a weak argument.
I'm not even arguing that the union was altruistic in this. Seems they freed the slaves more to disrupt the southern economy than any equity reasons. Just making the point that "it was for states rights" is at best a very simplistic white washing of it.
adjacentengels
If you read the Confederate Constitution, it clearly says that no state may inact any law restricting slavery or offering sanctuary for slaves. So it isn't even about states' rights; it's about codifying slavery into the Constitution so states have no right to end slavery.
talinuva
Correction: It was about removing other states' right to offer sanctuary to runaways.
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
It was both. Same as usual, rules for me and not for thee. They wanted to take state's rights away from the non-slave states while keeping state's rights themselves. Pure hypocrisy, as always.
Gogoglovitch
They even wrote the Confederate constitution so that states specifically did *not* have the right to abolish slavery. It wasn't about rights as any sort of principle whatsoever.
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
I know it wasn't about "states' rights" as a principal. It was about *their* states having the rights they wanted while taking rights away from non-slave states. They did frame the first half as if they cared about states' rights on principle, but that was of course just hypocritical bullshit.
Gogoglovitch
But they also took rights away from 'their' states -- the right to convert from a slave state to a free state. That's the point I was getting at. It wasn't about keeping rights for themselves -- it was always just about keeping slavery and racism intact.
wiltsjunk
They don't read though.
Tenugui
A state's right to what? /s
Faguss
https://imgur.com/HlJNoIF
idrinkcheapbeer
https://youtu.be/0KLCCCuZWvg
SteveBestFriendAndTrustedColleague
For the South, it was mostly about a states right to continue the practice of slavery but for the NORTH, it was actually about a states right (or lack thereof) to secede from the union. People like to pretend it was only about ONE thing and ONE thing only, but that's just foolish. The north (largely) wanted slavery to end, but their end all be all reason for the war was to prevent secession.
LoudBirb
For the South, it wasn't even about a State's right to decide whether or not to practice slavery. The Confederate constitution MANDATED that every member State (including any future annexed States or territories) allow slavery.
They were fighting to mandate slavery at a federal level. States' Rights my ass.
AnyRandomBob
This this this! If it was about states rights they wouldn't have mandated slavery be legal. They had no more rights to decide one way or the other. Period. End of story.
RenegadeSci
https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/south-carolina-declaration-of-secession-1860
BeaverOnFire
agonarch
They were still allowed to do that, this is from after the civil war, so what they were after was considered -worse- than this.
LiterallyAWizard
Wasn't this a mom selling her kids cuz she couldn't afford to feed them in the Great Depression?
Taishosama
"To own and sale property!" An excuse I heard from a Confederate coworker. He and his brother looked very inbred.
VeganFeministFlatEarther
To own and sell what property? /s
Sturdycrotch
My favorite statement, especially when you can immediately hit them with the facts like in Goobus Doobus' video:
https://youtu.be/-ZB2ftCl2Vk?si=QRl_pg-GkjbyUMyE
LeopardprintLarry
Get ‘im Douglas
ChazzK
nowcanyouanswerthequestionyoufuckingtraitorSTATE'SRIGHTSTODOWHAT
PutItInNeutral
Except states in the confederacy did NOT have the right to be a free state.
3Davideo
That's the point the post is making...
Hyzenthlay021
Which declaration of secession ?
TheMoonBnuuy
declaring they're leaving the union
Hyzenthlay021
Yes, but there were 13(?) separate declarations. Each state had a different one, with different wording. I didn't find any reference to a single unified declaration, but then I'm not really a civil war buff, so I freely admit I might have missed something here. I'm wondering which one of the 13 OP is referring to, assuming there is actually no unified declaration.
keeperofthebean
There were eleven states that seceded from the union. Only four wrote Declarations of Secession that detailed their reasons for seceding (Texas, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Georgia). All four of them list slavery explicitly as a primary factor.
Also, the meme says “declarations”. I would assume he meant all four.
keeperofthebean
“The Cornerstone Speech” given by the Vice President of the Confederacy also makes their position on the matter pretty clear. In it, VP Alexander Stephens states in clear language that the confederacy was founded on the belief that black people are not equal to white people and that slavery is the cornerstone upon which the confederacy was built.
Hyzenthlay021
Again, I concur. I wasn't arguing that it wasn't a factor, the history of the debates over the issue of secession at the time make it very clear that it was. I was interested in the specific claim of it being mentioned in the documents. Mind you, I really didn't know and was curious if OP's claim was accurate. The civil war is of little interest to me, and my knowledge of it is limited.
Hyzenthlay021
Concur. Yes, the 1st four states DID mention slavery. Several sources noted that the other nine didn't, but I only read through Arkansas's carefully, so that's the only one I can positively say didn't mention it. Frankly I didn't know any of this until I decided to fact check OP, I just wanted to see if they were correct. On a scale of 1-10 I would give OP a 5 for accuracy, as the issue is a lot more complicated than I thought when I started reading about it.
keeperofthebean
It really isn’t all that complicated, you just have to look in different areas to find it. Slavery was the cause of the war. While Arkansas declaration didn’t mention it (which I stated already, 7 states didn’t mention it in their declarations) the Arkansas Secession Convention adopted ordinances in their second meeting that stated the main reason was "hostility to the institution of African slavery" from the Union. Also mentioned as a reason was the union’s support for "equality with negroes".
TheMoonBnuuy
All of them.
Hyzenthlay021
I guess my reading comprehension isn't up to snuff. Perhaps you would do me the favor of pointing out the references to slavery in the Arkansas declaration of secession. https://www.nytimes.com/1861/06/08/archives/the-secession-of-arkansas.html I've read it over carefully several times now, and can't find the reference. Mind you, I'm not arguing that it was not a factor, just that I can't find the reference in the actual document as per your claim.
Johnsky
It's time for California to separate. There's no point to them paying for everyone elses expenses when the fed won't even give them disaster relief if needed.
RevolutionOnHerLips
I haven't lived on the west coast for over 20 years now but if they did try to separate from this nightmare I'd try my hardest to get there again.
Raeilgunne
never lived there, would be packed up in a U-Haul westbound within 6 hours.
veedubfreak
Hey now, Colorado helps
SaintSleepyWeasel
Yes but you're surrounded by morons. Sorry.
gimpyfloyd6
Yes but if we did the would come after us. because leveing the union is unconstitutional and suddenly they would care about the constitution.
Johnsky
The constitution is dead. Accept it and realize your state is about to become a slave state unless you get the fuck out. They're going to come for you either way, might as well give yourselves a chance to fight.
Drew442
I agree ita time for us to leave, our states leaders need to start pursuing this right now
MoonBoots92
Please take MN too
dissonantcognition
NH too?
Comet260
CA, OR, WA and HI should leave together.
freemab
Have you been to the eastern parts of WA and OR? They don’t want to leave.
Drew442
Its ok, start the process, it will be long. Those who dont want to go can relocate and be with their countrymen. Id also like to welcome southern Nevada to join as well. We can and should seriously form our own coastal country. Time to fucking leave.
Margrave9000
Yup. If a local majority of people in Easter WA/OR don't want to go with the majority, then borders are sacrosanct and they either respect democracy or pack up and leave. But also if the newly forming country needs parts of an existing state, let's redraw borders while we're at it.
freemab
Many want to join Idaho already.
DoctorWookie
Some of us do. More than I'd thought. Not enough, but it's a start.
MorrighanWolf
Can just get rid of the nazi trash.
SuperFerret
Hawaii should be its own kingdom again.
Phantomzero17
I'ma be real here CA would have roving gangs of partisans fighting each other and robbing people just like we did during the Civil War. Southern CA and Tulare County wanted to join the South and volunteers had to come down from up north to occupy them. But the north wasn't solid either. The San Jose Fire Station flew a Secessionist flag. Some dudes from Stockton made a raiding party to steal from "Union men" in San Joaquin county and beyond. There's enough red counties that there'd be guerillas
MotherEffinSatan
Civil War (2024) was a prophecy
battery1979
You think the cheeto would let that happen before burning it to the ground?
hyperchondriac
I'm not real confident in our chances against a narcissist sociopath dictator with nukes, (and probably chemical and bioweapons they don't advertise) and the world's largest military budget, air force, navy (we have a very long coast!).
Monkeynutsjoe
Take the rest of the West Coast with you too, leave the US with no pacific shipping at all.
servingmytimeinusersub
NY would be on the same page. But the distance doesn't help
Pulsifer
Secede to Canada.
Johnsky
Technically it would be a separation and then application process as far as I understand it, but hey, we declared a wing of a hospital to be Dutch territory just to preserve a royal lineage... So... Shouldn't be too difficult to make happen.
TheCryptid
Imagine both coasts seceding and the red states are literally boxed in and cut off from the rest of the world
Pulsifer
It's the premise of several of Richard Morgan's sci-fi books. The west coast Rim States and the east coast North Atlantic Union (with EU? I think) curving around the Confederated Republic, aka "Jesusland"
squirrelgirl86
Literally my version of the American dream at this point is Canada taking over Maine. Please? Brothers?
Johnsky
We don't do the whole empire conquest thing. But if maine were to separate and apply, I'm confident we could work out something fair to all parties.
TheCryptid
Im canadian and I would welcome blue states becoming Canadian provinces. The era of the canucks
squirrelgirl86
Well the thing with Maine is we're pretty half and half, unfortunately. :(
TheCryptid
mmmmm then we may need to split Maine and take the better half
squirrelgirl86
This would be somewhat annoying geographically, as is the southern half that's more liberal
ilovetraveler
All the blue states should seceed. We're the ones paying for everything.
BonelessBones
Can Vermont join, too? We are pretty far away, though..
TheobromineAddict
If we keep our taxes that currently support red states, will we have enough cash to fund a reasonable military? (It's about $800 billion / year.)
redbear1999
California secedes from the union because the south is full of dumb shits.
TheBeastlyBeauty
West coast + North East, but trade NH for Minnesota.
OdinYggd
They can go right ahead, a lot of people would celebrate it happening. At least until it collapses into a puppet state controlled by China or Russia anyway.
ThoseRulesArentReal
Or invaded by aliens. There’s no evidence or connection to why that would happen
OdinYggd
Clearly you've neglected your history studies. Why is Korea divided? What happened in Vietnam? How come the violence in the middle east just won't end? The answers all point to larger countries installing puppets and manipulating them for a tactical or economic advantage. Since the newly-independent California would be scrambling to stabilize its economy and defend itself, it would be all too easy for other nations to install puppets in it and exploit it to their advantage.
AshenRaine
California is the world's 5th largest economy. The only problem with seceding would be dumbshit republicans using the Russian playbook and invading because they need to "save them". Also, what you're saying is hilariously shallow.
BeastofKnowledge
Just as the ancient prophecies foretold.
Circosys
Oh look! Arizona Bay!
elvianempire
hokay
Denvercoder09
So. Here's the Earth.
RickTheMarshallSelke
Two Alaskas?
IMakeLotsOfReferencesAndRemakes
Is this that "Jpeg video" I hear so much about?
Johnsky
... It's called FLASH
Fantelroy
AHHH, SAVIOUR OF THE UNIVERSE!
Johnsky
I was more of a fan of captain power.
PlacentaEaters
But I am le tired
Johnsky
Ok, well, have a nap... Zen fire ze missilez!
WoofWoof21
And Russias like
AAAAAH MOTHERLAND!!!!
Johnsky
And Canadas like ; what's going on eh?
chiefrunswithscissors
https://media0.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPWE1NzM3M2U1dmtrbmM3dTgxZTA1NWY5ZGZ5YzZxMzRuNXpveWVjZjZ6OWg1czhjcyZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/26AHNCbyrYgpQ1naw/200w.webp
Drew442
Alaska is on its own. They made their choice
redditturnedagainstus
Maybe, but there's two Alaskas now too, so we got that going for us, which is nice.
Johnsky
I hope they enjoy apologizing.
TheCryptid
As a canadian I propose we merge with the blue states separating from the US
CuileannDhu
And give Alberta to the US
zqwzzle
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesusland_map
TheCryptid
deal
Johnsky
Lol. Can you imagine Canada becoming the entire US eastern and western coastlines with the US being an impoverished long flat prairie in the middle.
idrinkcheapbeer
is it really your ethos to abandon half a population who feels the same way you do?
Johnsky
... ? If California separates they will inevitably form trade relations with Canada and become a major economic powerhouse. Not that they aren't already, but the US is totally leeching off them.
idrinkcheapbeer
are you not a californian? is california not part of the usa? are you espousing the belief that california should break off and form their own thing?
Johnsky
I'm Canadian pal.
idrinkcheapbeer
so your take is "take the economic value of california, separate it from the rest of the country and embrace it. fuck the people outside california. is that your point?
JaneDoe2023
Yes, now you're getting it.
Froggie243
That's the thread, yes
ThatsJustWhatWeCallPillowTalkBaby
California has been talking about seceding since I was a kid lol...not to mention the peeps who want it to break up into 2 or three smaller states. I don't think it is likely to happen.
Johnsky
The US is scuttling itself, you don't think California won't detach before it sinks them with it?
myfirstandlastpostever
Anyone read William Gibson recently? Sure this is a sub point in his Bridge novels.
ThatsJustWhatWeCallPillowTalkBaby
Can't wait for the cybernetic dolphins and first in line to get some canine teeth grafted into my jaw. Fuckkit, embrace it.
thebogusman101
California, as well as texas, are regulars with the scede threat. Heres the problem. The states are eternally bound to the union as all the federal gov has to do is tell them “ok but you take your portion of the debt with you” and it stops all further discussion as the debt is so large it is unobtainable to pay it off immediately, as the debtors are under no obligation to give the scedee (is that a word?) a credit line.
Johnsky
Whose to say California even acknowledges their debt? Seems like they would just shirk that.
Ivain
Yeah it's not like the US paid their 'debt' in "back taxes" after they successfully kicked the British out. Besides, they've been paying far more in taxes than they get back in federal funding, right? (not counting subsidies to Silicon Valley that went directly to companies). That seems like it'd eliminate most of the debt.
thebogusman101
Shirking debt to other countries is not how you would want to start off in the world as a fledgling country. Remember that debt is not to the US, but to countries like france and other allies. That would not set a good precident for their relationships.
ImprovizoR
California seceding is a Russian narrative. So you're either a Russian troll, or an idiot who fell for their propaganda.
Froggie243
Lol no
ImprovizoR
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41853131
JaneDoe2023
I'm not a troll, and had the idea that it's time to separate the country several years ago. Maybe I am an idiot, but it's not all Russian propaganda.
ThoseRulesArentReal
What?? Not even close. It comes from the fact that if it’s own country would be one of the largest economies in the world and politically is constantly being hampered in progressive reforms. Since the early 90s in my memory it’s been floated as an idea. Almost every region or state has its own idea of succession
ImprovizoR
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41853131
ThoseRulesArentReal
Yeah look at the date 2016 when they were heightening the left v blue narrative making Californians seem not American. But it doesn’t mean they invented it or it’s strickly a Russian troll thing. Like “the thin blue line” was heightened and exaggerated by Russian trolls but it’s been a mantra for decades before then
AshenRaine
I've literally never heard that. Ever.
ImprovizoR
Well, that must mean it never happened! Except: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-41853131
SuperFerret
California has floated secession for a long ass time. Texas too.
freemab
Automatic Noodle. Read it.
rossimus
Can Oregon and Washington come too?
ChickenLord666
Yes. Let’s make the left coast our own country. Let’s give Nevada the choice to join also.
SaintSleepyWeasel
Absolutely we love you second floor neighbors.
MoonBoots92
Pleeeeease include MN.
CoffeeMakesMeTwitchy
I'm hoping for that. Doesn't sound easy
Kreviathan
One step closer to Fallout's California Republic
Johnsky
Hurry the hell up with the two headed bear!
stonetemplefox05
We could call it "the American Pacific"
TheobromineAddict
We don't want our new name to have any attachment to "Amerika". "Cascadia" has been in the shared consciousness since 1972. . The "Yes California" movement, also known as "Calexit," was founded in 2015.
stonetemplefox05
You know what? YOU'RE OUT! What do you think about THAT?!
TheobromineAddict
Relief.
Johnsky
Canada would happily establish free trade with Cascadia.
TruthSlap
Please include BC. I'm tired of being beholden to French speakers and Albertans
Johnsky
Honestly, now is not the best time to be alienating the quebecois.
Whenthepiecesaresmalltaketwo
I’m in Idaho…cut us off. Seriously, cut our asses off! Our Senators and both congressmen (yes men) vote against our interest. We are not a politically sophisticated state. Our people understand the physical earth, not the political world. And now we got the angry red hats coming from CA and AZ. They suck. All the hate with zero knowledge of our tough as nails state. Literally driving with cyber trucks in Idaho winters. Dumb asses everyone of them
PlanckEraWasMyBestEra
I'm in Utah and agree. But also let me get out of here first.
belatedboring
Should, cut off all the Pacific ports and canada can toll them.
WeHaventMet
Washingtonian here. I'm all for the United States of Cascadia.
Hooffartedyeahhh
Same!
WoodORama
Can Minnesota be a satellite republic?
tEMPuSER632
I wouldn't mind if we applied for membership with Canada,
StarfishSex
Canada checking in, if you get your buddies (WA, OR, CA) we will definitely take you.
tEMPuSER632
❤️
darthnerdus6236
The US can even take Alberta.
Johnsky
Hey woah, we are a democracy... I concur. That's 2 of 2. Proceed.