View Single Post
  #103  
Old 30 June 2015, 10:58 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,687
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
The problem is that "States' Rights" is an argument that's almost exclusively only used when the person does not have a scientific, social, or other valid argument for why something should be decided by the state
Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post
It may be that the highest profile uses of states' rights arguments are also unscientific or lack logical support, but as I mentioned iin another thread where mouse made the same sweeping statement, the argument itself is used by people all over the political spectrum, and often for very good reasons.
The issue is somewhere in between. The critical difference is that "states' rights" is not an argument all by itself. Someone using that argument generally has a specific right or rights they feel belong to the state. In the case of euthanasia, Oregon feels that the right to determine how a person may die is a right of the state. The South was fighting for the rights of states. Foremost of these rights was the right to own slaves and the right to compel Northern states to return escaped slaves.

So the issue is not whether someone is claiming "states' rights" as their argument, but what specific right they are fighting for. Southern apologists are trying to pretend that "states' rights" was an end unto itself or that the right to own slaves was well down an innumerable list of rights.

ETA: Also ignored is the blood of the Native Americans who treasure was the new territories.
Reply With Quote