Growing up in the South, I was fed this idea of "states' rights" as the justification of the Civil War. I no longer believe it was the reason the South seceded - I now believe the Confederacy was created to preserve the institution of slavery - but it occurred to me that I'm not sure what "states' rights" would even mean in this context. I had assumed it meant that the Southern states that seceded just didn't want the North in their business, but that seems kind of vague. It occurred to me that it could mean the state's individual right to secede. I believe the best way to proceed in a debate is to understand the other side, and in this case, I'm not sure what the crux of the other side's argument is.
The key question here when somebody says the civil war was about states’ rights is “states’ rights to do what?” The answer is their right to keep slaves.
Some will argue with this, saying the South had a strong ideological commitment to local government against the overreach of federal law. This is easily rebutted by the Fugitive Slave Act. Southern politicians passed this law to use the federal government to enshrine slaveholders rights, even when slaves fled to states that did not recognize people as property. Didn’t hear the South worrying about states’ rights and federal overreach then.
Alternatively, you can read the declarations of secession that South Carolina, Mississippi, and Georgia ratified at the start of the Civil War. They’re all pretty focused on their “right” to slavery, but I think the most damning line is the second sentence of Mississippi’s declaration:
“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery–the greatest material interest in the world.”
In the 1850’s America was still under the spell of manifest destiny. Many men wanted the country to grow as much as possible and to hell with the consequences and they charged ahead and grew the country.
In previous decades, the Louisiana territories, California, and the Oregon territories were acquired. In the 1850’s, America basically started a war with Mexico and stole Texas from Mexico. Settlers were moving into Minnesota, Kansas and Nebraska in such numbers that they would become states.
This created a conundrum with the new territories as people moved west and States were admitted into the Union. Should they be slave or free?
Since the beginning of the republic, half the senators were slave and half were free. The two sides had to compromise and respect each other’s rights.
Previous agreements stated that all the new territories would be free. However that was an existential threat to the institution of slavery. So, Southern senators demanded those agreements be broken and that new states be slave.
Northern states obviously didn’t agree to that. So the compromise crafted was the idea that each state will vote for itself whether to have slavery. This was called “popularity sovereignty” or “states rights”
If you look at Kansas, many free men moved there and it would have become free. So Senator Atchikson from Missouri saw the threat to slavery and organised thousands of bandits called “boarder ruffians” to break up the democratic elections, stuff the ballots, and murder abolitionists. They rigged the election and put a slave government in place. This was a proxy war and a prelude to the Civil War and is known as Bleeding Kansas. It was caused by the compromise to let a previous free territory vote on slavery for itself.
Senator Charles Sumner gave a long speech describing in detail the full story. It is an interesting speech if you want to read a northerner perspectives on the topic of states rights. The speech is called The Crime Against Kansas and is easy to find online. Sumner was beaten nearly to death by a Southern Congressman who was offended by the speech.
When it came time to getting men to fight in the Civil War, men needed a reason. There was a lot of propaganda on both sides.
For most Northerners “Free the slaves” was not worth dying for. But “Preserve the Union” and “Down with traitors” was compelling.
For Southerners, poor whites were worse off with slavery. So “protect the rich man’s slave property” didn’t work. But “States Rights” against the “nigger loving” Yankee men in DC did resound.
Hi, there are some extensive posts talking about this question of states rights; you might be interested in checking out this section of the FAQ as a starting point