• blahsay@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I always thought the war was over states rights, specifically the right to keep slaves, but generally too?

    • LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      They specifically mention the right to keep slaves in their succession.

      The southern states wanted to enforce their laws on the northern states.

      “States rights” is a modern reframing of the story.

      • blahsay@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Interesting! I just had a look at the NC ordinance of succession and they definitely mention slavery and enshrine slaves as property but it’s all the way down in section 9 a long with a bunch of other rights.

        Weirdly there’s actually a section banning the import of any more ‘negros’ (white slaves ok presumably?).

        I’m not completely convinced of your point. Did the people of the time consider states rights the issue?

        • blahsay@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh wow I just read the Mississippi ordinance of succession and that one is all about slavery 😂.

          The bit about negroes toiling under the sun was wild.

          Well I’m pretty convinced for at least some states it was completely about slavery. Maybe not a blanket statement though given there’s differences.