Replies

“The man had a limitlesss ability to deceive himself about his own motivations. That’s why some of us think so little of Old Jeff.

It’s hard to have much respect for Davis and his opinions when he says “I feel that not one drop of the blood shed in this War is on my hands.””

I honestly don’t have an opinion about Davis one way or the other. He very well might have been speaking out of both sides of his mouth on various issues just like Lincoln was. Politicians have a tendency to do that. They haven’t changed too much since the mid-1800s.

From the many things I’ve read on the Civil War, I simply believe it was over state’s rights and not slavery. Even if I discount Davis, et al, and their motives, I can look at Lincoln’s own words and see that slavery was not a major concern of his going into the war and only became a concern when he felt the need to garner public support late in the war from the abolitionists.

From the many things I’ve read on the Civil War, I simply believe it was over state’s rights and not slavery.

States' rights to do what? Set tariffs? The Constitution settled that in Article I, and Andy Jackson further settled it in the 1830's, with both houses of Congress held by Southern Democrats. So, it can't be that.

The right to send slavecatchers into other States and compell them to help return run aways? No, I guess that would be an Anti-States' rights stance.

The right to take "property" in the form of other humans into a State or Territory where possession of Slaves was illegal, yet still retain posession? No, that would seem to be Anti-States' rights as well.

I'm at a loss. What "States' Right" was being violated in 1860?