[tpaine]

-- Thus, -- Lincoln & the 14th had little/nothing to do with the death of states 'rights'. The loss of these state powers had everything to do with the rise of national political parties that embraced socialist principles at both state and federal levels.

The tenth is full functional, -- but states political regimes refuse to use it to fight the feds.

Actually it did. Read his book that's been discussed in depth around here, The Real Lincoln.

Great arguement, -- 'it did'.
Yes, Lincoln hating ideas are much discussed, but offer little. -- The fact is that federalisation started in earnest in the 1900's.

One of the things that happened with the 14th was that it received a no vote from the Southern states (a right of the state to turn down proposed amendments), which was followed quickly by occupation and another vote to get the 'correct' response. Two northern states were so adamant against the actions of the union that they reversed their votes on the Amendment (New Jersey and one other). The new no votes of the northern states were not counted and their original yes vote was kept

So what? - Doesn't change the facts that the federal government had little power till it stole it in the early 20th century.

[uncbob]

The tenth is full functional, -- but states political regimes refuse to use it to fight the feds.

Most state legislatures are more than happy to grovel for federal funds either directly or with strings attached
That way they don't have to raise state taxes and can shift the blame to Washington

[billbears]

The fact that Johnson himself stated the federal government did not have the power to enforce the 14th without denying the 10th means nothing to you then?