14 Comments
founding
Dec 5, 2022Liked by Kevin M. Levin

When I read the phrase "states' rights," my ears hear nails on a chalkboard. *cringe*

Expand full comment

Surely everyone who has enough interest in the ACW to know about "States' rights" and have an opinion on the cause is also aware of the Fugitive Slave Act. So when they say the war was about SR, are they just lying or can they actually believe it when they're aware of pretty conclusive evidence to the contrary? Is there any way of telling?

Another question: do you consider the myth of SR as the Confederate cause owes anything significant to the governors of Georgia and North Carolina asserting during the war that it was in order to justify their defying the Confederate government?

Expand full comment
author

I think there are plenty of sources that one can go to that still push this Lost Cause nonsense. It's especially appealing for people who are already inclined to embrace such an interpretation.

To your second question, I don't know and I haven't given it much thought. It's an interesting suggestion, but I still think the postwar turnaround on this issue ought to be given more weight.

Expand full comment

So glad this was addressed. One of my biggest pet peeves when dealing with the Civil War is this mythologized view of the Confederacy as some supposedly enlightened states' rights oriented government, when they were very much willing to use the powers of the state to provide privileges to slave-owning aristocracy. One need only look at the infamous Twenty Slave Law the Confederacy instituted in 1862 to see they were perfectly willing to privilege the very people that created the reasons for the war in the first place.

Expand full comment
author

Hi Conor,

If you are interested, I highly recommend John Sacher's book, Confederate Conscription and the Struggle for Southern Soldiers (LSU Press). Best single volume on this subject.

Expand full comment

Spot on, once again!

Expand full comment
author

Thanks, Michael.

Expand full comment

Right on.

I'm working with a collection of public meeting resolutions from the slave states in December '60 and January '61 that stated the opinions of local/ordinary people on the nature of the crisis and proposed courses of action.

What has been striking is the utter consistency among those meetings that both recommended secession and recommended against it on one issue--violations of the Fugitive Slave Act. Almost every single meeting resolution mentions it as the chief (and only) complaint.

It helps in understanding the intertwined logic of "Constitutional issues" and "slavery" so that you can't say that it's one, or another in a mutually exclusive way. Goes like this: The Fugitive Slave Act enshrined and/or enhanced the Constitutional right of slaveholders to the return of escapees. Personal liberty laws are a direct violation of that Constitutional right. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the free states are conscientiously denying our constitutional rights. Now that Republicans have captured the Presidency, they will continue to flaunt our Constitutional rights with the backing of the Federal government. How can we be in union with them?

Following this logic opens up room for conversations about the political ideologies of a fragile nationhood in a dangerous world; the cultural assumptions about what they termed political fanaticism and its potential results; and deep, deep, (and utterly false) opinions on race and racial tendencies.

So much more rewarding than just saying "States Rights to do what? Hmmmmmmmm?"

Expand full comment
author

The Fugitive Slave Act was also critical in convincing Northerners to begin to take notice of and stand up to the "slaveocracy." I highly recommend John L. Brooke's recent book, "There Is A North": Fugitive Slaves, Political Crisis, and Cultural Transformation in the Coming of the Civil War (UMass Press).

Expand full comment
Dec 4, 2022Liked by Kevin M. Levin

Oh, thanks for the tip. I must have that book.

Yeah, one thing I'm trying to press at the museum (where no-one else seems to comprehend this) is that free state citizens were not passive observers of all this.

Expand full comment

Great post. There is also the example of the fugitive slave law which allowed slave states to impose their will across free states. The South was not interested in the states rights of the Northern states.

Expand full comment
author

Right. I mentioned this in the post. Thanks for the comment, Steve.

Expand full comment

Oops , sorry about that. Any chance we can see comments from the web site?

Expand full comment
author

No worries. If you can post a comment, you should be able to see the other comments in the thread.

Expand full comment