The General Lee loses it's flag???

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Amaya**

Lynata wrote:
Amaya wrote:This was a result of the draft. Look at the numbers for the Gulf War and War on Terror if they're available.
What was a result of the draft? That black people are more likely to die on the front lines?

I'm not argueing that it got better.

Blacks do not typically volunteer to serve in the infantry as they are joining the military typically for economic reasons and not out of the desire to see combat.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:
What war are we focusing on in this debate portion? Vietnam or OIF/OEF?

It should be OIF/OEF

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I can't find anything more recent than a 1997 report on it right now.

**Jihadin**

Agreed. OIF/OEF needs to be the focus. Bringing up the past as an example doesn't correlate with today military.

edit
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/who-serves-in-the-us-military-the-demographics-of-enlisted-troops-and-officers

This is a bit current

**Lynata**

Amaya wrote:Blacks do not typically volunteer to serve in the infantry as they are joining the military typically for economic reasons and not out of the desire to see combat.

Ah, so you're saying that by this draft, the (white) officers just assigned them to the infantry, and that this is why there was a higher percentage than respective to the population?

[edit]

Jihadin wrote:Agreed. OIF/OEF needs to be the focus. Bringing up the past as an example doesn't correlate with today military.

My bad, I just saw the "Prior to the Gulf War it was suggested that minorities (particularly blacks) were being sent to go die which is a blatant lie" line and thought that was worth talking about, considering the data.

**CT GAMER**

The concept of the "poverty draft" is well documented, studied and debated.

The biggest opponents to it are The Heritage Foundation. Umm, yeah...

According to a 2007 Associated Press analysis, "nearly three-fourths of [U.S. troops] killed in Iraq came from towns where the per capita income was below the national average. More than half came from towns where the percentage of people living in poverty topped the national average.

**Amaya**

Lynata wrote:
Amaya wrote:Blacks do not typically volunteer to serve in the infantry as they are joining the military typically for economic reasons and not out of the desire to see combat.
Ah, so you're saying that by this draft, the (white) officers just assigned them to the infantry, and that this is why there was a higher percentage than respective to the population?

[edit]

Jihadin wrote:Agreed. OIF/OEF needs to be the focus. Bringing up the past as an example doesn't correlate with today military.
My bad, I just saw the "Prior to the Gulf War it was suggested that minorities (particularly blacks) were being sent to go die which is a blatant lie" line and thought that was worth talking about, considering the data.

You misinterpreted my post. I meant that it was expected going into the Gulf War that there would be a lot of minority deaths.

Vietnam is an entirely other story and certainly featured a higher black casualty rate.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

CT GAMER wrote:
The concept of the "poverty draft" is well documented, studied and debated.

The biggest opponents to it are The Heritage Foundation. Umm, yeah...

According to a 2007 Associated Press analysis, "nearly three-fourths of [U.S. troops] killed in Iraq came from towns where the per capita income was below the national average. More than half came from towns where the percentage of people living in poverty topped the national average.

Where is the raw data for this? All I can find is a racial, gender, rank, and age breakdown.

**sebster**

Anpu42 wrote:
The Civil was over States Rights.

It was over the concern slave holding states had that the Federal Government was sooner or later going to tell them they couldn't keep people enslaved anymore.

The US Government was telling the States what they had to do.

It's a myth that the slave holding states weren't trying to tell the Northern states what to do. Ever heard of the Fugitive Slaves act of 1850? That was a lovely piece of law passed by the Federal Government that said slaves who had escaped into free states had to be returned. It was the slave states using Federal power to tell the free states what they could do.

In fact, the South had long dominated Federal politics, and used that dominance to dictate policy on all kinds of matters, not least of which was slavery. It was only with the North growing beyond the South that the South began to fear its position of power, and from there its ability to own slaves.

I bet you if you asked any one under the age of 30 what the Civil War was over, there answer would be Slavery and they would only be partly right. This in the since that the State Right they were fighting over was Slavery. If you told them that part they would look at you like you had no idea what you were talking about.

Basically there's three stages to learning about the causes of the Civil War. There's the first, simple stage, where you say 'it was over slavery' and that's it. Then there's the second stage where you say 'actually it was more complicated than that'. Then there's the third stage where you realise 'but ultimately everything led back to slavery'.

As far as the General Lee losing its Flag, they might as well name it the Mcullen and put the Union Flag on it and change the site of the Dukes to Ohio.

They should call it the Dukes of the Upper West Side. It could be Prius, and have the flag of the UN on it. And they could drive at reasonable speeds through heavily trafficked areas, while aiding local police authorities in the issues they have with local parking enforcement and restaurants exceeding their properly designated al fresco areas.

**Jihadin**

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/who-serves-in-the-us-military-the-demographics-of-enlisted-troops-and-officers

**CT GAMER**

Jihadin wrote:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/who-serves-in-the-us-military-the-demographics-of-enlisted-troops-and-officers

Yeah, I already mentioned the heritage foundation a few posts prior. About as biased a source as you can find and heavily refuted on all fronts...

**Anpu42**

Lynata wrote:
Amaya wrote:The percentage of whites in the infantry is higher than the national population average.
I'm not sure on current numbers, but I know that this wasn't the case during the Vietnam War.

Amaya wrote:How you can be racist if you don't even think races exist?
The latter is what his logic tells him, the former is how society raised him?
You know, you can feel something first, even though in the next moment you may be ashamed of yourself for doing so. I think that is what he's trying to express, and I think I understand it.

That is pretty much it.

My Grandfather was a Racist and he admitted it. I think he believed in segregation more than he was superior, at least that’s what I want to believe. He was also a conservative, which is what influenced me more than most things. My dad is also somewhat.

I also feel that most things like this whole General Lee thing is Stupid. I don’t know of a single person who watch the show who look at the General Lee and though “What a Racist thing” or even thought about slavery as a good thing. We watched it for two things, car chases, Roscoe, Flash, Daisy Dukes and Arrows with Dynamite taped to them, it there was a good story that made it even better.

**sebster**

rubiksnoob wrote:
Having been born and lived in the South for my whole life, I have to say, the majority of people I know that fly the confederate flag are not racists or white-supremacists, just good-ole-fashioned rednecks. Unless you happen to be a deer or six pack of cheap beer, they're harmless.

I think we need to recognise the difference in motivation between 'feth you I do what I want' and 'white people are the master race'.

**Amaya**

CT GAMER wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/08/who-serves-in-the-us-military-the-demographics-of-enlisted-troops-and-officers

Yeah, I already mentioned the heritage foundation a few posts prior. About as biased a source as you can find and heavily refuted on all fronts...

Where's your raw data though? I have an extremely hard time believing it. I'm pretty sure Jihadin and AustonT were both army infantry...surely they can say who they served with?

**sebster**

Jihadin wrote:
I wonder how many of the soldiers in the CSA were actual slave owners....

edit
grammer

Not many. But that is quite misleading. Many aspired one day to become wealthy enough to own slaves. Others feared change to the social order (afraid of what would happen when the slaves were free, and afraid of what their place was if black people were no longer beneath them). And many, of course, fought out of loyalty to their state.

But why a poor, powerless men join a war has little to do with why rich, powerful men start those wars.

**Amaya**

http://www.defense.gov/news/Dec2005/d20051213mythfact.pdf

/thread

**Jihadin**

http://nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2011/military-recruitment-2010/

Found one with deaths but I disregarded it when I notice Allah Ackbar bar on top the page.

**sebster**

CT GAMER wrote:
Yeah, I already mentioned the heritage foundation a few posts prior. About as biased a source as you can find and heavily refuted on all fronts...

I think there should be an internet rule that posting a Heritage Foundation link means you lose.

**CT GAMER**

Amaya wrote:
http://www.defense.gov/news/Dec2005/d20051213mythfact.pdf

/thread

If only it was that simple.

http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=3412
Military Mirrors Working Class America
New York Times
March 30, 2003
Military Mirrors Working-Class America

By DAVID M. HALBFINGER and STEVEN A. HOLMES
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/30/international/worldspecial/30DEMO.html?pagewanted=print&position=top

As the United States engages in its first major land war in a decade,
the soldiers, sailors, pilots and others who are risking, and now
giving, their lives in Iraq represent a slice of a broad swath of
American society ? but by no means all of it.

***** This is a long article filled with demographic information
comparing the current socio-economic makeup of the US military
compared to earlier periods. It highlights the demographics of the
dead in the current Iraq war (as of the 2003 date of the article) and
makes the assumption that the forces in Iraq reflect the military as a
whole.

-------------------------------------------------

The Iraq War
A snapshot of elements in the demographic profile of the modern U.S. military.

***** This site offers several statistical tables on the demographics
of officers and enlisted personnel.

-------------------------------------------------

http://middleeastinfo.org/article3673.html
Selective service? Demographics of Iraq deaths
Nov. 21, 2003, 10:04PM
By BILL BISHOP (Houston Chronicle)

The U.S. military doesn't publish data on recruits' hometowns. But
several months ago, Robert Cushing, a statistical consultant and a
retired University of Texas sociologist, began tracking the home
counties of those who died in Iraq. Cushing found dramatic differences
in casualty rates between urban and rural areas: The smaller the
county's population, the higher the death rate.

In the politically polarized America of today, there are unmistakably
two planets. There's the planet that watches the war on television and
debates the merits of an $87 billion appropriation, and then there's
the planet that sends its kids to Afghanistan and Iraq -- the planet
of places like Coahoma.

***** This article presents some interesting statistics about the
geographic dimensions of the demographics of those killed in Iraq.

-------------------------------------------------

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030406-casualties01.htm
Boston Globe April 06, 2003
They leave lost hopes, but a duty fulfilled

Joined by loyalty and fate, the stories of American war dead from the
Iraqi campaign paint a picture that is as varied as America itself.
They also offer a snapshot of who fights on the front lines of
America's wars and who, thus far, has made the ultimate sacrifice.

***** This article provides some demographic statistics about the
forces serving in Iraq.

-------------------------------------------------

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm
Casualties in Iraq

***** Look for demographic reports under the Sources heading in the
right hand navigation column.

-------------------------------------------------

http://www.sun-times.com/special_sections/iraq/married.html
Who's really fighting the war

The buildup of American forces in the Gulf could reach 250,000,
roughly one-fifth of the U.S. military. Forces on active duty are
comprised of mostly young men and women, half of whom are between 17
and 24 years old. This is a closer look at who's on enlisted duty.

Representing diversity
There is a higher proportion on blacks in the military than in the
general population of the same ages.

Younger, and married
Nearly half of the enlisted armed forces ages 18 to 44 are married. A
higher portion of men and women are married at a younger age compared
with the civilian population.

***** The graphs in this article provide added information.

-------------------------------------------------

http://www.mfrc-dodqol.org/stat.cfm
Demographics Reports
2002 Demographics Profile of the Military Community

This Demographics Report presents a synthesis of demographic
information describing military members and families in the military
community. This annual report is designed as a reference tool for
professionals who develop policy or deliver programs and services to
military members and families in the Armed Forces.

***** This Web site provides extensive demographic information to help
you explore the socio-economic status of military members and their
families.

**Amaya**

Seriously? There is evidence that blacks are underrepresented in the infantry (the ones most likely to get killed) while whites are over represented and there is no evidence other than your claim (with no data) that supports that the poor are over represented in the military.

Not to put them on the spot, but I'm pretty sure AustonT and Jihadin can provide their own experiences that support that.

Edit: Yes blacks are over represented in the military as a whole, but they are primarily POGs.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Half those links are broken and the other half provide no evidence that the poor are being over represented as casualties.

**Lynata**

Amaya wrote:You misinterpreted my post. I meant that it was expected going into the Gulf War that there would be a lot of minority deaths.

Oooooh. Gotcha. Sorry!

Amaya wrote:Seriously? There is evidence that blacks are underrepresented in the infantry (the ones most likely to get killed) while whites are over represented and there is no evidence other than your claim (with no data) that supports that the poor are over represented in the military.

Whilst googling for those Vietnam numbers I noticed a number of articles talking about the number of black recruits has been dropping heavily over the past two decades - guess that'd explain their current level of representation.

**Jihadin**

Majorty of a infantry company is white. I've only seen single digit numbers in them. Most blacks go into logistical MOS's. You can't really though seperate race by combat deaths due to MOS's. Its what the unit mission is. There is no front lines in Iraq or Afghanistan. Basically everyone had an equal oppurtunity to be opted out. The only race that suffered the most kills were the middle eastern race.

**Melissia**

While I have no personal emotional connection, it seems pointless to remove the flag from it. That's pretty much the thing that identified it.

**jordanis**

LoneLictor wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Political correctness rears its ugly head again

99.9% of people with Confederate Flags are racist nutjobs. The other 0.01% are usually just people who don't know what the flag symbolizes.

That bein' said and all, it's an important part of the show, so I'm conflicted about this.

the confederate flag has nothing to do with racism, its symbol is to stand up to oppression, the north was oppressing the south, and they said enough! i fly a confederate flag, am i a horrible person? no, am i a racist nutjob? not in the slightest.
i think you have your pie chart wrong, 99% of people who fly the Confederate flag view it the way i do, with 1 % being racist nutjobs who dont know what the flag symbolizes, unfortunately, schools teach, incorrectly, that the civil war started over slavery, but in reality, that was a minor issue of the war, and before you rebuttal, go do some homework, you will learn that i am correct.
i am highly offended when people accuse me of being a racist because they do not understand the real message of the flag, its the same message as the tea parties "dont tread on me"

**Khornholio**

Amaya wrote:
Why should the Confederate flag be acceptable and the Nazi one not? They're both equally hateful symbols even if you claim them to be "battle standards".

Ask a Palestinian about the Israeli flag.

It's subjective. There is "Hitler's Jeans' - a Jean store in Seoul with Hitler saluting to the Nazi flag on the sign. Not too mention the various 'uniform bars' in Korea and Japan where you can dress up in WWII uniforms and drink Jinro.

**Frazzled**

Jihadin wrote:
It was a battle standard. It got the negative press when they fired on Fort Sumter.

Fixed your typo.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:
Yes, it was over State's Rights. That doesn't change the fact the Confederates were fighting to keep their slaves as well.

It was over State's rights. However the driving force behind the issue of "state's rights" vs. "federal rights" was slavery.
After all the states started seceding when Lincoln was elected, because he was one of those religious freaks who believed in abolition. Interesting that the Southern states didn't have a problem using federal power to extend the ability to recapture slaves into Northern states prior to the War.

I had family on both sides as well, even found a "group" grave marker where one fell in Tennessee. When I was younger I had Stars and Bars bandannas because I was a teenager about Southern Pride and all the yankees coming to Texas at the time. Later I started thinking about it and looking around at who was left and waiving the flag around. It was just kooks and crackers. I grew up.

Remember boys: Rich Man's War! Poor Man's Fight!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

CT GAMER wrote:
Piston Honda wrote:

If you owned 20 or more slaves you could dodge the draft

That is pretty much still true today isnt it (in principle)?

It was when the draft was on. College was the big ticket out, as was serving in guard units which weren't sent out. Its one reason so many kids went to college.

Text removed.
Reds8n

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:
What war are we focusing on in this debate portion? Vietnam or OIF/OEF?

The ware against static cling!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jordanis wrote:
LoneLictor wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Political correctness rears its ugly head again

99.9% of people with Confederate Flags are racist nutjobs. The other 0.01% are usually just people who don't know what the flag symbolizes.

That bein' said and all, it's an important part of the show, so I'm conflicted about this.

the confederate flag has nothing to do with racism, its symbol is to stand up to oppression, the north was oppressing the south, and they said enough! i fly a confederate flag, am i a horrible person? no, am i a racist nutjob? not in the slightest.
i think you have your pie chart wrong, 99% of people who fly the Confederate flag view it the way i do, with 1 % being racist nutjobs who dont know what the flag symbolizes, unfortunately, schools teach, incorrectly, that the civil war started over slavery, but in reality, that was a minor issue of the war, and before you rebuttal, go do some homework, you will learn that i am correct.
i am highly offended when people accuse me of being a racist because they do not understand the real message of the flag, its the same message as the tea parties "dont tread on me"

Wait, judging by your location, you fly the Stars and Bars in California?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Khornholio wrote:
Amaya wrote:
Why should the Confederate flag be acceptable and the Nazi one not? They're both equally hateful symbols even if you claim them to be "battle standards".

Ask a Palestinian about the Israeli flag.
It's subjective. There is "Hitler's Jeans' - a Jean store in Seoul with Hitler saluting to the Nazi flag on the sign. Not too mention the various 'uniform bars' in Korea and Japan where you can dress up in WWII uniforms and drink Jinro.

Actually if you had Hitler and Stalin dancing in pink TuTus I'd buy that for a dollar.

**Leigen_Zero**

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
LoneLictor wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Political correctness rears its ugly head again

99.9% of people with Confederate Flags are racist nutjobs. The other 0.01% are usually just people who don't know what the flag symbolizes.

That bein' said and all, it's an important part of the show, so I'm conflicted about this.

Actually, you are ignoring the small number of people who show it as a symbol of heritage. I was a reenactor for over 8 years, and I still fight against people who are ignorant of the meaning of the flag and abuse its history for their own ignorant means.

I'd say its about 4% are history buffs/reenactors, 46% are misuse it for racist means, and 46% display their ignorance of its history. The last two categories are interchangeable, of course...

And Pantera fans, which pretty much covers the 4% you missed out in your current figures (although there is a little bit of bleed-through into the latter two categories)

**Melissia**

jordanis wrote:
the confederate flag has nothing to do with racism, its symbol is to stand up to oppression

Also for enslaving black people, because the best way to "stand up to oppression" is by oppressing others to the point of considering them not human beings due to the color of their skin!

Frazzled wrote:
It was over State's rights.

IF that was true, then the confederation would have respected states rights. It didn't, and neither did any of the states that joined it.

Really, the "states rights" thing is just a convenient lie that people try to tell themselves to feel better about their ancestors or whatever. But frankly, given how many of my own LIVING family I dislike (at least 15%), I'm fully willing to admit that my ancestors also probably had some donkey-caves too.

**Easy E**

The Civil War was about State's Rights IF you are a Southern Apologist.

Thanks Shelby Foote and Ken Burns for making such a heinous idea mainstream.

**Frazzled**

Easy E wrote:
The Civil War was about State's Rights IF you are a Southern Apologist.

Thanks Shelby Foote and Ken Burns for making such a heinous idea mainstream.

Thats not a hothouse theory, thats what the states cited when they seceded.

**LordofHats**

Anpu42 wrote:
The Civil was over States Rights. The US Government was telling the States what they had to do. In response many States succeed from the Union, basically telling the Federal Government to “Go to Blazes”. The Confederate Flag was the flag they chose. It is a part of our history and should not be outlawed by those who are ignorant of the Politics of the Times.

I bet you if you asked any one under the age of 30 what the Civil War was over, there answer would be Slavery and they would only be partly right. This in the since that the State Right they were fighting over was Slavery. If you told them that part they would look at you like you had no idea what you were talking about.

Which state rights? Oh right the slavery ones. The Civil War was about slavery. The 'states right' argument is basically the exact same argument because all the rights in question revolved around the right to hold slaves and to take them from one state to another. Except when people bring up that stupid Tariff argument. You know, the tariff pass in 1829 that was repelled by democratic congress' by 1850? Arguing that the Civil War was about States Rights is an obfuscation of the truth and an attempt to play the South as having a more sympathetic cause than it really had. There's abundant documentation about the ideology behind the Civil War and its pretty much pure racism and slavery. States rights was just the key word that been invented in the last 100 years to try and justify (or make more acceptable) the Confederacy's actions.

The South had spent nearly 30 years prior to the Civil War dominating Federal politics. Almost every term, their either controlled Congress or the White House aided by the collapse of the Whigs and the long formation of a new rival party. They lost in 1860 and threw a hissy fit that cost millions of lives. EDIT: The Fugitive Slave Law was one of the most invasive on States Rights at the time, and was passed by a Democratic Congress who bullied a Whig president into signing off on it. If any side can be pointed at for violating state's rights its the south!

That said, the flag is just a flag. Not to mention iconic to one of the most bad ass cars ever.

Amaya wrote:From what I understand hardly any. There were probably several times more slaves forced into fighting than actual slave owners fighting.

This.

Read my Dakkanauts:

Most plantations were owner-operated and the planters themselves often worked in the fields. Of the total southern white population of 8,099,760 in 1860, only 384,000 owned slaves. Of these, 10,780 owned fifty or more. It was calculated that about 88 per cent of America's slave-owners owned twenty slaves or less.

1860 Census Data:

Total number of slaves in the Lower South : 2,312,352 (47% of total population).

Total number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208758 (29% of total population).

Total number of slaves in the Border States: 432,586 (13% of total population).

Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half. The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free Negroes). As for the number of slaves owned by each master, 88% held fewer than twenty, and nearly 50% held fewer than five. (A complete table on slave-owning percentages is given at the bottom of this page.)

For comparison's sake, let it be noted that in the 1950's, only 2% of American families owned corporation stocks equal in value to the 1860 value of a single slave. Thus, slave ownership was much more widespread in the South than corporate investment was in 1950's America.

On a typical plantation (more than 20 slaves) the capital value of the slaves was greater than the capital value of the land and implements.

Confederate enlistment data is incomplete because many records were lost when the South collapsed, but it is possible to estimate, very loosely, the number of men in the Confederate army who came from slave-holding families. For this discussion, click here.

Slavery was profitable, although a large part of the profit was in the increased value of the slaves themselves. With only 30% of the nation's (free) population, the South had 60% of the "wealthiest men." The 1860 per capita income in the South was $3,978; in the North it was $2,040.

Census data can be appealed to in order to determine the extent of slave ownership in each of the states that allowed it in 1860. The figures given here are the percentage of slave-owning families as a fraction of total free households in the state. The data was taken from a census archive site at the University of Virginia

Mississippi: 49%
South Carolina: 46%
Georgia: 37%
Alabama: 35%
Florida: 34%
Louisiana: 29%
Texas: 28%
North Carolina: 28%
Virginia: 26%
Tennessee: 25%
Kentucky: 23%
Arkansas: 20%
Missouri: 13%
Maryland: 12%
Delaware: 3%

In the Lower South (SC, GA, AL, MS, LA, TX, FL -- those states that seceded first), about 36.7% of the white families owned slaves. In the Middle South (VA, NC, TN, AR -- those states that seceded only after Fort Sumter was fired on) the percentage is around 25.3%, and the total for the two combined regions -- which is what most folks think of as the Confederacy -- is 30.8%. In the Border States (DE, MD, KY, MO -- those slave states that did not secede) the percentage of slave-ownership was 15.9%, and the total throughout the slave states was almost exactly 26%.

The vast majority of slave owners in the South only owned between 10 and 5. And contrary to common imagery, most slave owners were actually poor as dirt by contemporary standards. As the above data states, most of their wealth was actually in slaves. No one uses slaves to buy themselves a sports carriage. Very few southern plantations were as splendid as those we sometimes see today. Most of those still standing were actually built during Reconstruction. Share cropping actually produced higher profits than slavery. Go figure.

**Melissia**

Frazzled wrote:
thats what the states cited when they seceded.

Yes, and most despots claim they're working for the good of the people, too.

But neither one is telling the truth.

**Easy E**

Frazzled wrote:
Easy E wrote:
The Civil War was about State's Rights IF you are a Southern Apologist.

Thanks Shelby Foote and Ken Burns for making such a heinous idea mainstream.

Thats not a hothouse theory, thats what the states cited when they seceded.

State's Rights over what potential laws... Slavery related laws.

Plus, after the succession, it's not like the South did much to ensure "State's Rights" in the Confederacy.