A retired Tennessee law enforcement officer was held in jail for more than a month this fall after police arrested him over a Facebook post of a meme related to the September assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
Prosecutors eventually dropped the criminal charge brought against Larry Bushart, but his stint behind bars came to exemplify the country’s tense political and legal climate following the tragedy, when conservatives sought to stymie public discourse about the late controversial figure that it saw as objectionable.
Now, Bushart is suing over his incarceration.
But that wouldn’t work for say heroin.
If your state says heroin is legal and the fed says it’s illegal, you can’t really leave your state and still legally be in possession of it.
I guess you could claim you own a person in a red state but once they leave, you no longer own them?
Wasn’t that the red states’ whole complaint? That their slaves shouldn’t be considered free men once they leave?
So in conclusion, the whole states rights argument doesn’t work because what they actually wanted was to have their state’s laws apply across the country.
And this doesn’t even talk about the moral issues which imo and most people’s opinion should override the above logic anyway.
That was an actual issue in America, nice of you to point that out for me and it’s also why drug prohibition was federalized.
Correct, that was their property right claim. It’s nonsensical but quite a lot of wars are over nonsensical shit.
No one said it worked, they fought and lost a war about it but that doesn’t actually make it not their argument nor does it imply we shouldn’t teach that property rights across state lines were the cause of the civil war, not in particular slavery as slavery was never outlawed and people were still considered property until well into the 1900s.
Nuance is sometimes difficult to deal with but that doesn’t mean we should pare away inconvenient truths.
Morality is subjective and therefore difficult to argue which is why they fought it as a property rights issue instead.
Everyone knows that owning other people is a topic with such significant moral subjectivity, so talking about racially justified ownership of other humans really emphasizes the need to have a nuanced perspective on property ownership.
Think about how you sound.
No one is saying slavery wasn’t involved, it clearly was.
No one is saying racism is a good thing.
What I am saying is that the federal government but it’s own explanation did not get involved because of racism or slavery but rather state sovereignity and succession.
Slavery may have been their reason for seceding, it isn’t however the framework of their disagreement with the federal government not the reason the federal government got involved. So to say it wasn’t about states rights is straight up, flat out wrong.
I can’t help not notice you didn’t provide any evidence for your claim that “no one cared about states rights” or that it states rights were solely a post war conjuring.
You’re wrong, call me a racist I don’t care since I know you’re wrong and simply attacking me on a personal level says you’re emotionally involved to the point you’re willing to ignore actual facts in favor of feelings.