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?
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.