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?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people. – 10th Amendment
The right to secede is not expressly prohibited to the states. Thus, under the plain meaning of the 10th Amendment, the states retain the right to secede. The right to prevent secession is not delegated to the United States. In fact, the Constitutional Convention considered and rejected a provision that would have authorized the use of Union force against a recalcitrant state. As such, not happy with US Federal Government (for a host of reasons – largesse of the US Federal Government, tariffs, etc – matters not the reason), the Confederate States exercised their states’ rights and seceded from the Union. The acts of secession were approved by state legislatures, then ratified by conventions whose delegates were elected by the people of those states. Lincoln’s interpretation of the constitution was different and he went to war to preserve the Union.
With regard to both houses being held by Southern Democrats, just because a party holds both houses of Congress, doesn’t mean the party can do what it wants. Ask the Democrats and Bill Clinton or the Republicans and George Bush when both concurrently held all three branches of government simultaneously.
You are correct is pointing out the hypocrisy of the CSA in their constitution with regard to states’ rights and the dealing of slavery in other non-slave states. It ranks up there with Lincoln’s hypocrisy over slavery…..not giving two hoots in hell about it until the issue could be used to achieve his political goals. There are no purists on either side of the issue.
I want to reiterate, my arguments are not in favor of slavery ( I think it is abhorrent). I believe it was a secondary issue at the time with the primary issue being the constitutionality of the states being able to secede from the Union and form a new government.
The word "expressly" is not found in the 10th. Many Federal powers are implied, not explicitly granted. For example, the power to raise land and sea forces implies the power to raise an air force. Likewise, the power to admit new states resides in Congress, which implies the power to dissolve those bonds also lies with the representatives of all the states in Congress.
Thus, we have a conflict between the interpretation of the 10th A. by the South, and Article 4, Sec. 3 by the North. When there is a conflict of Constitutional interpretation, there is an arbiter provided for. Unilaterally disavowing the authority of the Constitution is not provided for. Military rebellion is right out, unless all legal pathways have been exhausted and compliance unbearable for human liberty.
I believe it was a secondary issue at the time with the primary issue being the constitutionality of the states being able to secede from the Union and form a new government.
That's a circular argument. You are saying the South seceded because they were being denied the "right" to secede. Why would they want to secede? Because they weren't being let to secede. Circular. Post hoc ergo prompter hoc.
There was a deeper motivation at work. The motivation underlies every facet of the growing tension between the North and South. It was there in the compromises that were incorporated in the Constitution. It comes down to preserving and expanding the economic model on which the South was based. They attempted secession to preserve slavery.
In fact, the Constitutional Convention considered and rejected a provision that would have authorized the use of Union force against a recalcitrant state.
There is a provision to use force on a "recalcitrant" state when that state employs force. It is called the Suppression of Insurrection. It is found in Article I.
As such, not happy with US Federal Government (for a host of reasons – largesse of the US Federal Government, tariffs, etc – matters not the reason), the Confederate States exercised their states’ rights and seceded from the Union.
Of course it matters what reason. For example, tariffs. If a state may withdraw at will, unilaterally, over a disagreement of the use of an enumerated Federal power, that renders that power useless. It belies the Constitution being the Supreme Law. Calhoun's Nullification theory was discredited thirty years before the CW.
There is an inbuilt remedy for the States which feel their "rights" have been impinged upon, namely Article III, Sec. 2. They have recourse to the Supreme Court. Instead, the Confederacy chose military assault on a Federal fort, thus filling the definition of an insurrection.
As it was to pass, the question of the legality of secession was determined after the war by a USSC of quite different make up than the Taney court of Dred Scott fame. They determined that unilateral secession was not legal.
But the power to admit a state to the Union is a power delegated to the United States, specifically the Congress. Once in the power to approve the splitting of stated or combining of states is also a power reserved to Congress. The power to approve or disapprove the changing of a states border by a fraction of an inch is also reserved to Congress. Implied in all of this is the power to approve a state leaving altogether.
The power to take any action that has a negative impact on the other states are also denied to the states. They cannot lay imports on the goods of other states, cannot enter into leagues against them cannot declare war against them or refuse to recognize their public acts. They cannot deny citizens of one state the rights their own citizens have. They cannot refuse to extradite fugitives. Given these kinds of actions are denied the states, then by implication unilateral secession and the negative impact it had on the remaining states is a power denied as well.