Comments on: Point: “State’s Rights” A Misnomer

By: John222

John222 — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 14:42:27 +0000

When the Union decided that the States did not have the right to secede, the freedom to associate was infringed. However moral the cause, the method used was an illegal violation of natural rights.

According to census data of the time (1860), less than 400,000 people owned nearly 4 million slaves out of a total population of roughly 30 million. Educating people that their “property” was actually a living, breathing, thinking individual would have taken longer, but would have resulted in far less loss of life and a much smoother integration void of the resentment that is still harbored today.

Not all Southerners were racist, nor did most of them own slaves. The ones that did own slaves purchased them legally and largely in slave markets of the North.

By: The Liberty Papers »Blog Archive » CounterPoint: Yes, Virginia, States Really Do Have Rights

Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:32:04 +0000

[...] Michael O. Powell: No one can cure culture, and that is the biggest contributor to prejudice. Nevertheless, I would… [...]

By: Michael O. Powell

Michael O. Powell — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 03:43:17 +0000

No one can cure culture, and that is the biggest contributor to prejudice.

Nevertheless, I would hardly call liberating people from enforced servitude “forcing citizens to associate and enter into contracts against their will.” I think the forcing to associate happened on the part of the slaveholders themselves.

By: John222

John222 — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 02:41:00 +0000

I agree with you that “State’s Rights” is a misnomer. States don’t have rights, individuals do. Better would be to say, “The interest of the State in protecting the rights of it’s citizens”.

Based on this piece alone, I fail to see how you reached that conclusion. You bring up the War of Northern Aggression and seem to defend the idea of the State forcing citizens to associate and enter into contracts against their will, and then decry the injustice of the state prohibiting the citizens from ingesting certain things.

Racism seems to be the common theme, but that will never be cured through the use of force or the threat thereof, that only causes it to go into hiding and fester. Education and exposure to the harsh light of reason are the only cure, if there truly be one.

By: Procopius

Procopius — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:30:58 +0000

“If it hadn’t been for slavery, racism and the South, the “state’s rights” argument may have more standing validity.”

^Logic……..void.
——————————————-
“This isn’t simply a historical, theoretical argument either. States are still today violating individual rights, with the federal government acting as an intervening force of justice. Arizona’s immigration law, SB 1070, which effectively legislated racial profiling and declared war on undocumented workers who are critical to the American economy, is being set upon by the Obama administration’s Justice Department”

^This “point” is chock full of fail.
———————————————-
“In American history, “state’s rights” has been a flag that has often been waved by populist demagogues while “individual rights” has been waved by judges and executives with a better grasp of the law.”

^The old “state’s rights…populist demagogue” comparison is a little worn after four or five decades (or more) of use.
———————————————–
“‘State’s rights’ is a misnomer which is usually used to defend defiance of settled law.”

^There is nothing prima facie wrong with “defiance of settled law.”