How to respond to states-rights argument.

[brandon]

So I have been debating back and forth with one of my friends. She has extreme-left views, and I think she is also somewhat naive as to what she is actually supporting. Anyway, I recently made the states rights argument (I forget in what context.)

Her reply was that if we respected state's rights we would have not been able to end slavery.

This is a very tough argument to go against. Any ideas?

[nullvalu]

Is she aware that the Civil War was NOT fought over slavery?

[brandon]

Is she aware that the Civil War was NOT fought over slavery?


Most likely not, but I think I need a better counter argument then that.

Is there anything at all in the constitution that gave the federal government power to override the states on the issue of slavery?

[10thAmendmentMan]

So I have been debating back and forth with one of my friends. She has extreme-left views, and I think she is also somewhat naive as to what she is actually supporting. Anyway, I recently made the states rights argument (I forget in what context.)

Her reply was that if we respected state's rights we would have not been able to end slavery.

This is a very tough argument to go against. Any ideas?

We would not have been able to end slavery as quickly. States' rights would require that change come from a bottom-up education and rational debate approach rather than top-down edicts. I have no doubt that we would be rid of slavery today and still have the 13th Amendment even if we had maintained respect for states' rights.

[nullvalu]

Most likely not, but I think I need a better counter argument then that.

I know, but a little history lesson wouldn't hurt. Most people (including myself until recently) think the civil war was fought over one issue, slavery.. but that's so wrong..

[brandon]

I know, but a little history lesson wouldn't hurt. Most people (including myself until recently) think the civil war was fought over one issue, slavery.. but that's so wrong..

Yea, I think I could use a little history lesson on this issue as well. I am not as well-researched as I should be. I'll look into it tonight.

[Vonhayek7]

The Constitution looks at all individuals with the same rights. The proper language was already there to make women's right to vote and slavery unconstitutional, but it was abused and misinterpreted by wealthy politicians. An amendment was needed to clarify this.

Regarding her welfare programs if she has hesitation about that, the states could set higher taxes to pay for their budget and plans. This is how it was supposed to be, but now everything is ruled under a federal level. Whether the states could keep affording it, would be left to their own state's consequences instead of everyone in the nation with the same plan. I'm sure the states with the lowest regulation and state taxes would have the most prosperity, but that's a more economical argument than legal one.

[ARealConservative]

Mention we are the only civilized nation that had to fight a war to end slavery.

Ask if she would support going to war with China or Saudi Arabia because of their human rights violations. When she says no, ask why the Civil War was acceptable.


Of course if she is willing to go to war with China or Saudi Arabia, then the debate ends because she is completely unreachable for the Ron Paul message.

[runderwo]

We would not have been able to end slavery as quickly. States' rights would require that change come from a bottom-up education and rational debate approach rather than top-down edicts. I have no doubt that we would be rid of slavery today and still have the 13th Amendment even if we had maintained respect for states' rights.

It should have been ended by constitutional amendment rather than a war and executive order. And in the end, it was. The war and executive order were completely unnecessary.

[Joey Wahoo]

Of course. Slavery could be ended exactly as it was ended--by a constitutional amendment.

For example, if the issue of abortion is returned to the states, that doesn't prevent the people (through the states) from amending the constitution to make abortion illegal everywhere--or legal everywhere, for that matter.

As Ron Paul often points out, the federal government shouldn't go where it has no constitutional authority to go. If the people want to grant the federal government constitutional authority it doesn't presently have, then the process is to amend the constitution--as we have often done in the past.

[Vonhayek7]

Technology and incentives would have been the more sound approach.

[maverickdy]

didn't you watch the patriot?

black slaves loved their masters and even god worshipped them. darn mel gibson for contradicting wide spread beliefs.

seriously though, "all men are created equal" the southern states needed clarification on the issue. was it a states right to allow slavery? no... state laws can't contradict federal laws like if the u.s. prohibits alcohol again, certain states can't say "DRINK HERE!" the fact of the matter is is that slavery was illegal to begin with and the amendment shouldn't have been needed but southern states couldn't get it through their heads that equal means equal. also, slavery wasn't the key issue to the civil war. that's just junk they feed you in grade school.

[kalami]

There were states that ended slavery before the federal government made it nation-wide, or at least tried. Slavery was officially done, but ex-slaves still lived in slave like conditions. They would buy land using loans from a bank. Unable to pay off those loans went into debt. Lost their land and spent the rest of their lives working that land, now owned by the bank, to pay off thier debt.

And using the federal government as some liberator of the people's of "oppressive" states is to do so in spite of the federal government upholding the constitutionality of segregation.

[Original_Intent]

She is making a false logical argument.

Since slavery was ended by disregarding states rights

DOES NOT EQUAL

States rights HAD to be disregarded to end slavery.

[Joey Wahoo]

Maverick, you do have your history mangled. The consitution specifically authorized slavery and it existed in every state. Many states subsequently prohibited it, as they had the right to do. The language you quote, of course, is from the Declaration of Independence.

In any event, the correct procedure for elimination of slavery within the US was by constitutional amendment. In the meantime, those states who didn't want it to exist within their borders had the right under the 10th amendment to exclude it.

Without states rights, arguably slavery would have been legal everywhere until 1866.

[Joey Wahoo]

Slavery was not ended by disregarding states rights. Y'all are confusing the emancipation proclamation, which was a military act limited in force only to disloyal slaveowners behind confederate lines (leaving enslaved all the slaves of those not supporting the CSA or within areas occupied by the USA), with the 13th amendment--which ended the practice of slavery in the US. Slavery was not extinguished by the civil war, but rather by the 13th amendment (of course that amendment might not have passed absent the civil war and reconstruction--a whole 'nuther subject)

[Original_Intent]

She is making a false logical argument.

Since slavery was ended by disregarding states rights

DOES NOT EQUAL

States rights HAD to be disregarded to end slavery.


Is she against the Iraq war?

Tell her that since the Iraq war got rid of Saddam Hussein, does that mean that invading other countries who are led by dictators is therefore correct in principle?

[Cjays]

This is a very tough argument to go against. Any ideas?
Ask her why we have States to begin with if there's no point in States' rights.

[thomaspaine23]

Yea, I think I could use a little history lesson on this issue as well. I am not as well-researched as I should be. I'll look into it tonight.

This will open up a can of worms, you will find out alot of stuff you thought is actually incorrect.

Example:

The emancipation proclamation did NOT end slavery in the US. It only "applied" to states in "rebellion " against the USA. Thus Maryland which had not seceeded and was a slave owning state still had slaves.

Before secession the south was paying 90-95% of all the federal taxes, while 80-85% of Federal spending was in the north.

The republicans came to power on a platform to double these same tax rates
(which they did) at which point the south started to seceed.

In every other country slavery was resolved peacefully.

Lincoln imprisoned over 10,000 people in the NORTH who did not want the civil war, shut down newspapers in the north who were against the war, and placed the chief justice of the SUPREME COURT under house arrest.

I recommend :

When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession
by Charles Adams

if you want to learn about what was going on. It includes politcal cartoons from the times, and reports from both the north,south and european observers.

[noxagol]

Using a Constitutional amendment is the correct way to go about it because it must go to the states to become ratified. It would not have worked then because half the states were slave states and you need three fourths to ratify.

However, they probably would have gotten rid of it on their own when they realized that they did not need it IF the north dominated federal government did not have such insane tariffs to protect northern industry which SEVERELY hurt the south economically.

[Cue-Ball]

I've personally found that the best way to get through to people about states rights is the following:

Lets say you're talking to a left-leaning, liberal type. Ask them how they would like it if all of their laws were decided on by the good people of Texas or Arkansas.

Whenever you have one group of people trying to force their beliefs on another group that doesn't agree, you have tension and divisiveness. That's what has happened in this country. Nobody from Texas wants someone from New York legislating them, and nobody from New York wants someone from Texas legislating them. So, no matter who is victorious you are guaranteed to tick off half of the country. When you leave these matters to the state or, even better, to the localities then you allow people to govern themselves more directly. This lets communities set their own standards, so long as they don't infringe on the constitutional rights of their citizens, as it should be.