Why were the confederates against federation?

Their loyalty was to their individual states. For instance, Robert E. Lee, offered command of the Union armies at the war's onset, turned it down because he couldn't fight against his home state of Virginia.

Can you tell me about any other rights they were particularly concerned about other than slavery?

You're trying way too hard to be nuanced. Anybody trying to have the debate of "was it slavurhy er states rytes" is always doing so in bad faith. It was both, plainly. People are dissociated from what a confederation even is. If you start talking about the expansion of Federalism during Reconstruction people are puzzled because they can't imagine the govt in anything but it's current gargantuan state, to them it must have always been that way.

The precedent of Nullification

They made the mistake of aligning themselves with Cardassia.

You're not allowed to talk about that goyim. Stay there the FBI is en route

Thank you for your information, user.

Attached: 1649907610119.png (612x468, 364.14K)

I recogonize your sincerity of argument, but OP's original question had nothing to do with reconstruction. He was asking about why the Confederacy was against a strong central government. Slavery had nothing to do with it; the Confederacy never raised a "federal" force, all of their armies were based off of state militias.

That's exactly my point, many look at the CW with a modern lens and they don't understand why or how the rebel states would oppose a Federal force. I point to Reconstruction because that expansion of Federalism is exactly the reason rebel states opposed a strong central govt.

Okay, so they wanted to retain the states' rights, and slavery was a forefront right at hand to defend... But can anyone tell me any other specific rights they had in mind during the struggle to retain states' rights?

...the right to count each owned slave as +1 votes for their master?

Nothing else. Just slavery. It's in all the declarations of secession

Attached: poopflag.jpg (576x298, 37.72K)

If you cant understand the nuance of the precedent to nullify Federal law (a principle which states utilize to this day) and the fact that the precedent was questioned on the grounds of slavery as two separate points then you're beyond help.

the civil war was never about slavery. Owning slaves was a rich man's fancy, they were actually very difficult to care for and many of them would deliberately maim themselves so they didn't have to work. The primary owners of slaves were predominantly jewish.

You're saying they were only trying to retain states' rights for the sake of slavery?

hello fed

Because it's impossible to tax slave labor so wealthy plantation owners were making a killing monopolizing the farmgoods industry while sitting on their asses without having to pay labor costs which hurt the government's income. Had nothing to do with human rights. That's a myth they feed kids in school to make the goverment/lincoln seem more noble than they were. Lincoln himself wrote in publicly published news columns that his intention after the war was to send all freed slave back to the dark continent.

Come to think of it... The FBI wouldn't exist if the Confederates had won; you can't have a Federal Bureau of Investigation if there isn't a federal government.