States' Rights Are Irrelevant and Possibly Nonexistent

Matt McKeon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
1,096
Reaction score
1,601
In the context of the secession crisis and the Civil War. I'm thinking historically.

In the 1850s, the nation was convulsed over the issue of slavery vs. free labor. This conflict had many flashpoints: the enforcement of the fugitive slave law, filibustering, Bleeding Kansas, the Ostend Manifesto, the list goes on. What it was not convulsed over was federalism. Because no one convulses over federalism, ever.

There has to be a real, tangible reason for people to engage. When some states passed personal liberty laws they weren't doing it in a demonstration of state vs. federal power, they were doing it because they opposed slavery, and wanted to throw a monkey wrench into the machinery. When the slave states were appeased in the Compromise of 1850 by a draconian fugitive slave law, they didn't accept it because they wanted to demonstrate the supremacy of the federal government over the states, they did it to support slavery, and all that means.

People like feeling they are on the right side of the Constitution. Whether they are or not.
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
In the context of the secession crisis and the Civil War. I'm thinking historically.

In the 1850s, the nation was convulsed over the issue of slavery vs. free labor. This conflict had many flashpoints: the enforcement of the fugitive slave law, filibustering, Bleeding Kansas, the Ostend Manifesto, the list goes on. What it was not convulsed over was federalism. Because no one convulses over federalism, ever.

There has to be a real, tangible reason for people to engage. When some states passed personal liberty laws they weren't doing it in a demonstration of state vs. federal power, they were doing it because they opposed slavery, and wanted to throw a monkey wrench into the machinery. When the slave states were appeased in the Compromise of 1850 by a draconian fugitive slave law, they didn't accept it because they wanted to demonstrate the supremacy of the federal government over the states, they did it to support slavery, and all that means.

People like feeling they are on the right side of the Constitution. Whether they are or not.
States rights has a political issue certainly didn't end after the ACW it is certainly very much a relevant issue to this day.
Kirk's Raider's
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,115
Reaction score
4,148
State's rights has its ups and downs. However, a lot of antebellum State's rights were lost after the Civil War.
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
State's rights has its ups and downs. However, a lot of antebellum State's rights were lost after the Civil War.
Such has? Certainly not de facto slavery. Former Governor Joe Brown of Georgia made good money on convict leasing. NBF tried to make money and failed. Certainly not openly defying the 14th Amendment.
Kirk's Raider's
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
In the context of the secession crisis and the Civil War. I'm thinking historically.

In the 1850s, the nation was convulsed over the issue of slavery vs. free labor. This conflict had many flashpoints: the enforcement of the fugitive slave law, filibustering, Bleeding Kansas, the Ostend Manifesto, the list goes on. What it was not convulsed over was federalism. Because no one convulses over federalism, ever.

There has to be a real, tangible reason for people to engage. When some states passed personal liberty laws they weren't doing it in a demonstration of state vs. federal power, they were doing it because they opposed slavery, and wanted to throw a monkey wrench into the machinery. When the slave states were appeased in the Compromise of 1850 by a draconian fugitive slave law, they didn't accept it because they wanted to demonstrate the supremacy of the federal government over the states, they did it to support slavery, and all that means.

People like feeling they are on the right side of the Constitution. Whether they are or not.
In actual legal fact the US Constitution says what five out of nine US Supreme Court judges say it says. So for all intents and purposes only five out of nine folks in funny black ropes opinions really matter.
Kirk's Raider's
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
In the context of the secession crisis and the Civil War. I'm thinking historically.

In the 1850s, the nation was convulsed over the issue of slavery vs. free labor. This conflict had many flashpoints: the enforcement of the fugitive slave law, filibustering, Bleeding Kansas, the Ostend Manifesto, the list goes on. What it was not convulsed over was federalism. Because no one convulses over federalism, ever.

There has to be a real, tangible reason for people to engage. When some states passed personal liberty laws they weren't doing it in a demonstration of state vs. federal power, they were doing it because they opposed slavery, and wanted to throw a monkey wrench into the machinery. When the slave states were appeased in the Compromise of 1850 by a draconian fugitive slave law, they didn't accept it because they wanted to demonstrate the supremacy of the federal government over the states, they did it to support slavery, and all that means.

People like feeling they are on the right side of the Constitution. Whether they are or not.
Actually states rights always mattered. Miscegenation was never outlawed in all states. Black people could always vote in some states. Schools were not segregated in all states. Marijuana was legalized in some states over the past 25 or so odd years. Slavery was outlawed in some states long before the ACW. Some states will not cooperate much with ICE over immigration enforcement.
Some states had legal prostitution and Nevada to a degree still does.
Kirk's Raider's
 

O' Be Joyful

ohio hillbilly
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,491
Reaction score
3,136
In actual legal fact the US Constitution says what five out of nine US Supreme Court judges say it says. So for all intents and purposes only five out of nine folks in funny black ropes opinions really matter.
Kirk's Raider's
At one point, IIRC, there were but 7, so 4-3 . And Congress using its power as a co-equal branch changed the total number to the now traditional 9.
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
At one point, IIRC, there were but 7, so 4-3 . And Congress using its power as a co-equal branch changed the total number to the now traditional 9.
Unless the Democratic Party wins the Presidency and Senate and packs the court then they won't accomplish to much. A big what if.
Kirk's Raider's
 

O' Be Joyful

ohio hillbilly
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,491
Reaction score
3,136
The OP is plainly wrong. I gave examples of states rights.
Kirk's Raider's
Pay attention to the last sentence in the OP it has a deeper meaning if I understood it correctly.

It has been said that the states are the laboratory of the constitution. Except when they are wrong.
 

O' Be Joyful

ohio hillbilly
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,491
Reaction score
3,136
Unless the Democratic Party wins the Presidency and Senate and packs the court then they won't accomplish to much. A big what if.
Kirk's Raider's
That goes w/o saying, as in Elections matter.

Wisconsin, Pennsylvania...Michigan...what if? But I didn't particularly like Bill-ary either and...so here we are.
 

Matt McKeon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
1,096
Reaction score
1,601
Actually states rights always mattered. Miscegenation was never outlawed in all states. Black people could always vote in some states. Schools were not segregated in all states. Marijuana was legalized in some states over the past 25 or so odd years. Slavery was outlawed in some states long before the ACW. Some states will not cooperate much with ICE over immigration enforcement.
Some states had legal prostitution and Nevada to a degree still does.
Kirk's Raider's
I know that the states have jurisdiction over some areas and not others. That's really about powers, not rights, but leave that aside for a moment. The people are concerned with issues you mentioned. They advocate state power when they think that's the road to their goal, and they advocate federal power when they think that's the road.
 

Matt McKeon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
1,096
Reaction score
1,601
The OP is plainly wrong. I gave examples of states rights.
Kirk's Raider's
You gave examples of reserved and concurrent powers. But in the context of antebellum politics, some states were for strong states and a weak federal government, but would turn around and support a strong federal government over the states, depending on if it supported their real goal.
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
I know that the states have jurisdiction over some areas and not others. That's really about powers, not rights, but leave that aside for a moment. The people are concerned with issues you mentioned. They advocate state power when they think that's the road to their goal, and they advocate federal power when they think that's the road.
States have power over what ever they think they can unless the feds put their foot down I.e. Little Rock High Arkansas 1956.
Ultimately it down to how seriously the feds are willing to put their foot down. Sometimes the feds back diwndi.e. the Bundy Ranch in Nevada where the BLM Rangers withdraw in humiliation against right wing Militia.
Kirk's Raider's
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
You gave examples of reserved and concurrent powers. But in the context of antebellum politics, some states were for strong states and a weak federal government, but would turn around and support a strong federal government over the states, depending on if it supported their real goal.
In terms of the FSL that is correct.
State vs federal power is a delicate dance.
On the issue of the 1937 Marijuana Stamp Act the Feds under both Republican and Democratic Party administrations has thrown in the towel.
Kirk's Raider's
 

Matt McKeon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
1,096
Reaction score
1,601
States have power over what ever they think they can unless the feds put their foot down I.e. Little Rock High Arkansas 1956.
Ultimately it down to how seriously the feds are willing to put their foot down. Sometimes the feds back diwndi.e. the Bundy Ranch in Nevada where the BLM Rangers withdraw in humiliation against right wing Militia.
Kirk's Raider's
Was the "massive resistance" to the civil rights movement in the 20th century prompted by a keen interest in states' rights, or the desire to maintain segregation?
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
Was the "massive resistance" to the civil rights movement in the 20th century prompted by a keen interest in states' rights, or the desire to maintain segregation?
Both. The right of a state to oppress a despised minority.
Kirk's Raider's
 
Top