Comments by "Walter Bailey" (@walterbailey2950) on "Debunking the myth of the Lost Cause: A lie embedded in American history - Karen L. Cox" video.

@patrickcleburneuczjsxpmp9558 The expansion of slavery into new territories most definitely was disputed by northern leaders however. Then of course during the war the federal government claimed the right to abolish slavery everywhere
2
Hey key difference between the United States and Canada is that you never pronounced your allegiance to the unitary state of Great Britain and we did creating a loose federation of separate sovereign states not one single sovereignty like Queen Elizabeth and her realm. Between the ratification of our constitution and our Civil War there were several fights over whether the sovereignty of the states would be maintained including over tariffs and the alien and sedition acts, which had nothing to do with slavery. True federalism is not part of any myth lost cause or otherwise. It was the founding principle of our government until it was destroyed by the Lincoln government
2
What about the other issues over which the states claimed their rights had been violated including the alien and sedition acts and the so-called tariff of abominations of the 1820s?
1
Another description for states rights is federalism the original founding principle of the American government the idea that sovereignty resides in the states and the federal government is not supreme in its authority over everything but only over the powers that are delegated to it by the states in the constitution.
1
Well that kind of begs the question though because in order to tax do you have to keep the states in the union. If they leave you can’t tax them. So the war was undeniably about preventing states from leaving the union.
1
@sbnwnc That omits the question of whether secession was a legal right based on compact theory of government in the constitution and all other reasons for secession, all other rights of the states. Yours is an impoverished explanation that proposes to erase them all from history.
1
@CosmoShidan Did what “entail representation?” US V Cruikshank was a case where the supreme court ruled after the Civil War that the second amendment didn’t necessarily protect an individual right of firearms possession. So if a white mob wanted to attack them blacks could be disarmed and left defenseless unless the states chose to step in. The federal government couldn’t help them. The Virginia resolutions were James Madison‘s response to the federal alien and sedition acts an attempt to abrogate the first amendment which had absolutely nothing to do with slavery but was an unconstitutional usurpation of power by the federal government that trampled upon the rights of the states and of the people.
1
@CosmoShidan The CSA didn’t have that “excuse?” So if the 10th amendment says certain powers are reserved to the states but the federal government acts without any authority stated in the constitution with the support of a majority of states that can’t be defeated by the minority whose rights are violated and forcibly takes away rights supposed to be protected by the 10th amendment, how can the minority of states’ be adequately represented? The American revolutionaries objected to precisely this kind of exertion of arbitrary power over all things as a means of voiding any true representation. Representation without power sharing is meaningless. And states cannot be adequately represented if tyranny of the majority can be used to abrogate constitutional protections of the minority allowing the majority to unilaterally void the rights of the minority at any time without regard to said constitutional protections. Doing so also denies the sovereign authority of each individual state to be supreme within its reserved powers.
1