• LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    They specifically mention the right to keep slaves in their succession.

    The southern states wanted to enforce their laws on the northern states.

    “States rights” is a modern reframing of the story.

    • blahsay@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Interesting! I just had a look at the NC ordinance of succession and they definitely mention slavery and enshrine slaves as property but it’s all the way down in section 9 a long with a bunch of other rights.

      Weirdly there’s actually a section banning the import of any more ‘negros’ (white slaves ok presumably?).

      I’m not completely convinced of your point. Did the people of the time consider states rights the issue?

      • blahsay@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Oh wow I just read the Mississippi ordinance of succession and that one is all about slavery 😂.

        The bit about negroes toiling under the sun was wild.

        Well I’m pretty convinced for at least some states it was completely about slavery. Maybe not a blanket statement though given there’s differences.