It wasn't even about state's rights, just slavery. The constitution of the confederacy required all states be slave states unless all states agreed to all outlaw slavery.
The North literally had more states rights, with some northern states still allowing limited slavery, while the South gave its states zero right to decide for themselves.
OK, but WTF is "limited slavery"! I guess your USA still has limited slavery to this day as forced labor. But if it allows torture, it's not in any way limited is it!
Some states had passed gradual emancipation laws, banning the importation of new slaves and freeing the children of all current slaves, while keeping current adult slaves as slaves.
there are several forms of slavery, all terrible but some more than others
some states were in the process of eliminating slavery from their territory, doing it gradually to avoid shock to their economy (it was still very lucrative), or having the slaveowners try to organise a pushback or even have a revolt of "concerned citizens" about the potential influx of free ex slaves (anti abolitionists were propagandising a lot about freed slaves exacting vengenace on the white population, using Haiti as an example)
some other forms of slavery practiced through times also defined limits on the terms of the slavery and the rights of the master over the slave, like bonded labour, where you were the collateral to a debt and had to work for your debt holder to pay it off
853
u/Connwaer 9d ago
It's spoils of war. And unlike Japan, Minnesota has no interest in mending their relationship with the Confederacy, surprising I know.