Just so we're not confused: Alexander H Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America said on 3/21/1861:

[UTFO]

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the [African] is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day." (Alexander, H, Stephens, March 21, 1861)

"African" used in place of the Spanish word for black

My professor at IU who taught Civil War was a big "states rights" guy, and I remember reading this back then and appreciating for maybe the first time just how stupid this man was.

 

[Noodle]

Do you have an opinion as to what motivated the professor to take the position he did (besides being stupid)? Just curious. Not trying to put you on the spot.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Do you have an opinion as to what motivated the professor to take the position he did (besides being stupid)? Just curious. Not trying to put you on the spot.

Not speaking for the prof or UTFO, but history says the specific “state right” that prompted secession was a “state right” to permit/protect slavery.

A prior issue that threatened secession was the federal government‘s implementation of a tariff, threatening the price/profits of the South’s agricultural products.

But Grant got it right In his autobiography:

“In the case of the war between the states, it would have been the exact truth if the south had said, “We do not want to live with you northern people any longer; we know our institution of slavery is obnoxious to you, and, as you were growing numerically stronger than we, it may have some time in the future be endangered. So long as you permitted us to control the government, and with the aid of a few friends at the north to enact laws constituting your section a guard against the escape of our property, we were willing to live with you. You’ve been submissive to our rule heretofore; but it looks now as if you do not intend to continue to do so, and we will remain in the union no longer.“ Instead of this, the seceding states cried lustily, “let us alone; you have no constitutional power to interfere with us.“ Newspapers and people at the north reiterated the cry. Individuals might ignore the constitution; but the nation itself must not only obey it, but must enforce the strictest construction of that instrument; the construction put upon it by the Southerners themselves.”

So, once again, the grand design of the left and the right to argue for one or the other, turns out to be wrong. Both were true. The south wanted slavery, and they used states rights as an argument to try and maintain it.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Not speaking for the prof or UTFO, but history says the specific “state right” that prompted secession was a “state right” to permit/protect slavery.

A prior issue that threatened secession was the federal government‘s implementation of a tariff, threatening the price/profits of the South’s agricultural products.

But Grant got it right In his autobiography:

“In the case of the war between the states, it would have been the exact truth if the south had said, “We do not want to live with you northern people any longer; we know our institution of slavery is obnoxious to you, and, as you were growing numerically stronger than we, it may have some time in the future be endangered. So long as you permitted us to control the government, and with the aid of a few friends at the north to enact laws constituting your section a guard against the escape of our property, we were willing to live with you. You’ve been submissive to our rule heretofore; but it looks now as if you do not intend to continue to do so, and we will remain in the union no longer.“ Instead of this, the seceding states cried lustily, “let us alone; you have no constitutional power to interfere with us.“ Newspapers and people at the north reiterated the cry. Individuals might ignore the constitution; but the nation itself must not only obey it, but must enforce the strictest construction of that instrument; the construction put upon it by the Southerners themselves.”

So, once again, the grand design of the left and the right to argue for one or the other, turns out to be wrong. Both were true. The south wanted slavery, and they used states rights as an argument to try and maintain it.

Incredible that you can offer a quote and then misinterpret it so badly in the same post.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Incredible that you can offer a quote and then misinterpret it so badly in the same post.

Tell me how I misinterpreted it? (With the understanding, of course, that in the same pages Grant talks about how the Original founders would have never suggested that any of the 13 colonies could not have seceded, but would have oppose secession over slavery-or in his exact words - “ they surely would have resisted secession could they have lived to see the shape it assumed.“)

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Tell me how I misinterpreted it? (With the understanding, of course, that in the same pages Grant talks about how the Original founders would have never suggested that any of the 13 colonies could not have seceded, but would have oppose secession over slavery-or in his exact words - “ they surely would have resisted secession could they have lived to see the shape it assumed.“)

The part where you try to make it a "both are right" kind of thing. Misinterpret was the wrong word. I should have said misapply.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

State's rights was just a convenient excuse. The very people who touted state's rights were the same people who demanded the Fugitive Slave Act. That Act did nothing to enhance the rights of northern states.

 

[walkerman]

State's rights was just a convenient excuse. The very people who touted state's rights were the same people who demanded the Fugitive Slave Act. That Act did nothing to enhance the rights of northern states.

Agree. This 1850 act was a compromise to quiet the threats of secession by the south and forced northern citizens to assist in the capture of runaways. The only states right that mattered to the south was continuing slavery.

 

[JBT Assoc]

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the [African] is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day." (Alexander, H, Stephens, March 21, 1861)

"African" used in place of the Spanish word for black

My professor at IU who taught Civil War was a big "states rights" guy, and I remember reading this back then and appreciating for maybe the first time just how stupid this man was.

Aounds Eerily familiar! What was Prof’s name?