The State's Right to What?

"What was the civil war about?"

"It was about state's rights."

"The state's right to do what?"

"..."

"I'm sorry. What was that?"

"..."

"You don't have an answer?"

My hypothetical debate opponent is now trying to conjure an answer. Try using this line of argument yourself to see how many people can give you an answer.

The state's right to do what? It's the obvious next question. If southern states were willing to go to war over state's rights, there must have been specific rights at issue, something that set them off, something they felt the Federal government was taking away from them.

Even as silence drains the room of energy, I'll bet everyone is thinking the same answer: slavery. It's not too hard to find support for that thought. Try this on:

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

This also turns out to be problematic for the state's rights argument. More about that in a moment.

The quote is from the confederate constitution, specifically, Section 9, Article 4. It lays bare something the state's rights argument deftly avoids. The existence of the Confederate States of America meant the continuation of slavery. Once the blood of northern youths was spilled in opposition, any victory that excluded abolition was a hollow victory.

But why is this problematic for the state's rights view? I have to thank historian James Loewen in his recent Salon interview for drawing my attention to this. The confederacy denied its own states the right to decide against slavery.