I often read blogs, articles, news “reports” and the like – where the commentator refers to the current 10th Amendment Movement with a comment like Hugh Holub in the Tucson Citizen:
“The Civil War was about the right of states to allow slavery. The Union won and slavery was outlawed.”
Obviously, the southern states wanted slavery, but in reading the original “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union” – one would find the ideas of nullification and states rights vs centralization to be the leading issue:
an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. [Emphasis Added]
Or how about Mississippi:
“[the North] has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.”
From this it seems quite obvious to me that the Civil War WAS about nullification and states rights – the northern states were utilizing them and the slavers in the South wanted central power to force their way on the whole country.
Totally opposite of how the mainstream mouthpieces would have us believe.
Latest posts by Michael Boldin (see all)
- Unconstitutional: All Federal Gun Control - May 25, 2016
- Under the Constitution, Should the NSA Exist? - May 19, 2016
- Resistance and Jury Nullification: Twin Pillars of Liberty - May 16, 2016