States rights exist in the United States, regardless of if its been used for good or ill. The United States is a federation, and States Rights ARE a thing. States Rights are also used for professional licenses and insurance regulations, jumping to slavery is absurdism.
with the setup of the US, i wouldnt consider that states rights are a thing - the union is only a set of things that the union government womt do. thats nothing to say that the states are allowed to do it
> "Slavery and States' Rights" was a speech given by former Confederate States Army general Joseph Wheeler on July 31, 1894. The speech deals with the American Civil War and is considered to be a "Lost Cause" view of the war's causation. It is generally understood to argue that the United States (the Union) was to blame for the war, and downplays slavery as a cause.
It is absurdism. It is dismissing the 10th amendment because the argument was also used for slavery. No one is thinking that states rights wasn't an argument used for slavery. But this is arguing vegetarianism is evil because hitler was.
I argue it isn’t absurdism when the evidence is clear that the idea of state rights is continuing to be used to subjugate in direct conflict with democracy, versus the actual collective and agreed upon belief of deferring to states rights and putting power closer to the governance of those states.
Historically, it was slavery. Now it’s immigration, reproductive rights, etc. History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes. It’s always about control exceeding genuine governance. Maybe that'll change, but until evidence and outcomes demonstrate otherwise, "the purpose of the system is what it does."
History is written by the victors, and the fight never ends. Yesterday's Lost Cause remains just that until current affairs once more brings forth the need for a rebirth of old ideas. Big fan of cannabis legalization? Hop on the State's Rights bus. Don't think that one size fits all? Welcome to the State's Rights bus. Don't think that just because a psychopath is sitting in the highest Federal office, that the rest of the U.S. is obligated to help him? Welcome to the State's Rights bus. Don't think the Feds should be able to universally obliterate women's sovereignty to their own body? Hopefully welcome to the State's Rights bus until such time as we can get something back in play on the Federal level.
It's a disservice to associate a fundamental characteristic of our structure of government with one particularly egregiously unpopular use of it, or to wholesale dismiss it because it tends to be associated with things a lot of people find unpopular. That's rather the point. Arizona or New Mexico can tell off Nevada, who can tell off Utah, or Maryland that how they (Utah/Maryland) do things doesn't fly here.
If you've never been a State hopper, it doesn't quite click, but once you've traveled the U.S. and lived in several different regions for long enough periods of time, it clicks. Not all States are the same, and that's okay.
Allowing states to regulate subscriptions is different than slavery.
In particular, states shouldn’t have the right to restrict travel. If the slaves had free travel they would just leave for northern states. If people are able to leave to other states (even if it means rebuilding their life), plenty of bad state laws are OK because those affected will do so.
The 14th amendment says no state shall deprive you of your life or liberty, not a minimum of one state, should you have have the funds and will to move there.
Could I not make the same argument against you for authoritarian central state rule bullshit? Maybe in some European countries it might actually work alright in their current political climates. But how can you look at the US right now and be like "Yes, we need more centralized and powerful government despite the federal government already wielding far more power than ever before or ever imagined in the past." We have literal centuries full of lessons on why strong authoritarian governments are trash and inevitably result in oppression, corruption, internal conflict, and war.
