A reasonable perspective. Except that the only states’ right southern leaders really were concerned about, or that they felt was threatened was the right to own slaves.
“A reasonable perspective. Except that the only states’ right southern leaders really were concerned about, or that they felt was threatened was the right to own slaves.”
That’s overly simplistic. The North had an advantage in both population as a whole (more urban) and as apportioned (3/5ths rule). That led to the North having a veto over the South in Washington. Add to that the contention over slavery and every policy disagreement had ominous overtones.
For example, applied today, the biggest issue for advocating States’ Rights is limiting government. While you can say that overarches much of our current politics, the recent Supreme Cabal decision is evidence that there are more issues at play.
That should have been hashed out 70 years earlier. They Northern states agreed to it back in 1789 when they ratified the Constitution. When the country was young, facing imminent threat of invasion and war with England and needed the agricultural products the South was able to produce with slave labor, it was OK.
Well according to you, you say it was the engine of their economy. What would you feel like if someone decided to say, stop you from using fossil fuels because they thought it was a great moral imperative for you to do so?
Say they had this great moral crises, like, oh, I don't know, "Global Warming" and the only solution is that you have to stop using fossil fuels, but not them of course.
I dunno, if someone wanted to gut the engine of my economic activity, I would be concerned about it. On the other hand, you can let me know when you stop driving cars or heating your home. Electricity? Well that's out too, unless you live up in Hydroelectric Oregon or New York.