• @blahsay@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    -16 months ago

    I always thought the war was over states rights, specifically the right to keep slaves, but generally too?

    • @LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch
      link
      fedilink
      English
      36 months ago

      They specifically mention the right to keep slaves in their succession.

      The southern states wanted to enforce their laws on the northern states.

      “States rights” is a modern reframing of the story.

      • @blahsay@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        -16 months ago

        Interesting! I just had a look at the NC ordinance of succession and they definitely mention slavery and enshrine slaves as property but it’s all the way down in section 9 a long with a bunch of other rights.

        Weirdly there’s actually a section banning the import of any more ‘negros’ (white slaves ok presumably?).

        I’m not completely convinced of your point. Did the people of the time consider states rights the issue?

        • @blahsay@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          -16 months ago

          Oh wow I just read the Mississippi ordinance of succession and that one is all about slavery 😂.

          The bit about negroes toiling under the sun was wild.

          Well I’m pretty convinced for at least some states it was completely about slavery. Maybe not a blanket statement though given there’s differences.