• ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zipEnglish
      18·
      3 days ago

      It was explicitly NOT about states’ rights. The Confederacy hated states’ rights. They were the ones pissed they couldn’t enforce their shitty laws in the North. They prevented any of their member states from ever outlawing slavery.

      That line isn’t just a cutesy way of hiding the ugly part behind the technical truth, it’s a flat out lie.

    • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.worldEnglish
      23·
      3 days ago

      They why did the confederate state’s formal declarations of succession say that slavery was the reason they were succeeding?

    • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
      6·
      2 days ago

      Article I Section 9(4) of the Confederate constitution:

      No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

      Yeah, they specifically restricted state’s rights.

    • chaogomu@lemmy.worldEnglish
      13·
      3 days ago

      Technically it was over a state’s rights to ban slavery.

      The slavers really hated that and wanted to expand as much as possible.

    • 800XL@lemmy.world
      9·
      3 days ago

      Remember when Republicans did shit recently in the name of “state’s rights” to hate and then when states that didn’t want Trump’s bulashit said “oh let’s pass our own laws to undo his cuntery” Republicans and Trump said these states had to follow federal law?

      Ra damn Trump and Republicans are hypocrites.

    • plyth@feddit.orgEnglish
      117·
      3 days ago

      But then, why the segregation, also in the north and in the army?

      How could it turn out that free workers were cheaper than slaves?

      Farmers who needed labor for a few days, weeks, or months found the use of hired labor decidedly cheaper and more efficient economically

      https://www.jstor.org/stable/213510

      The war was against slavery, only to transform it into other, more efficient, means of control.