Wednesday, September 12, 2007
9/12/07
Professor Weber is arguing that the institution of slavery caused the Civil War. In one of our previous discussions someone mentioned states' rights as being the cause of the Civil War. Aren't those two really the same thing? I mean, the ability to have slavery was a right that the Southern states wanted to keep.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
In some ways they are the same thing but I think the "States Rights Argument" goes deeper than that.
Yes the right to keep slavery was a right they were trying to defend and keep, but Southerners knew slavery was morally wrong, or they would not have tried to justify it in the ways that they did. I don't think that many southerners would have come right out and said they were fighting to keep slavery. They say they were protecting their way of life, which we know meant slavery, but they saw it as part of a bigger picture.
The romanticized (sp?) depeictions of southern plantation life was an ideal they were also trying to protect. They wanted to keep there "dream" ideal situtation going.
So, yes you can argue that fighting for state's rights was fighting for slavery, but hindsight gives you that perspective. In the historical context they believed they were fighting for more than just slavery.
Slaves and states right were part and parcel, yes. The idea of states right itself are still very important even if this ideal was carry the evil of slavary. Think of today, who should decide if gays can marry, the federal gov or the states? Who has the right in the end?
Post a Comment