|View single post by Bama46|
|Posted: Wed Nov 28th, 2007 02:46 am||
"lipstick on the pig"
I have a little broader view of States Rights than this. Consider if you will that when the colonies won their independence from GB, they became Sovereign States. It was states that won independence, not individuals. In an effort to band together they wrote the Articles of Confederation which was a "mutual aid" compact of sorts, but again it was the "Sovereign States" who took this action. States joined together not individuals.
When the AOC was deemed inadequite and the delegates decided to scrap them instead of repairing them our constitution came into being. The document was ratified by the states, not popular vote.
Under the new constitution, the states elected senators, the people elected representatives,and thru the electoral college, a combination elected the president.
the 10th ammendment reserves power not specifically granted to the government to the STATES or the people.
States, under the federal system were strong entities having many powers and the implied right to use their powers.
One of the earliest state/federal dustups was over tarriffs, then central banking, then nullification and finally over slavery. Nullification was over tarriffs not slavery. IMHO tarriff fights were much more common than slavery fights particularly prior to 1850.
That states rights is seen as being synomous with slavery is as foolish as the battleflag is synomous with hatred... 'taint so