text:
States' rights
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see States' rights (disambiguation).
In American political discourse, states' rights are political powers held for the state governments rather than the federal government according to the United States Constitution, reflecting especially the enumerated powers of Congress and the Tenth Amendment. The enumerated powers that are listed in the Constitution include exclusive federal powers, as well as concurrent powers that are shared with the states, and all of those powers are contrasted with the reserved powers—also called states' rights—that only the states possess.[1][2]
Contents
[hide]
1 Background
2 Text
3 Controversy to 1865
3.1 Alien and Sedition Acts
3.2 Nullification Crisis of 1832
3.3 Civil War
3.3.1 Southern arguments
3.3.2 Northern arguments
3.3.3 Texas v. White
4 Since the Civil War
4.1 In case law
4.2 Later progressive era and World War II
4.3 Civil rights movement
5 Contemporary debates
6 10th Amendment Resolutions
7 States' rights and the Rehnquist Court
8 States' rights as code word
9 See also
10 Notes
11 References
12 Further reading
13 External links
Background[edit]
The balance of federal powers and those powers held by the states as defined in the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution was first addressed in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). The Court's decision by Chief Justice John Marshall asserted that the laws adopted by the federal government, when exercising its constitutional powers, are generally paramount over any conflicting laws adopted by state governments. After McCulloch, the primary legal issues in this area concerned the scope of Congress' constitutional powers, and whether the states possess certain powers to the exclusion of the federal government, even if the Constitution does not explicitly limit them to the states.[3][4]
Text[edit]
The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution states:
“ This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. (Emphasis added.) ”
In The Federalist Papers, ratification proponent Alexander Hamilton explained the limitations this clause placed on the proposed federal government, describing that acts of the federal government were binding on the states and the people therein only if the act was in pursuance of constitutionally granted powers, and juxtaposing acts which exceeded those bounds as "void and of no force":
“ But it will not follow from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. ”
Controversy to 1865[edit]
In the period between the American Revolution and the ratification of the United States Constitution, the states had united under a much weaker federal government and a much stronger state and local government, pursuant to the Articles of Confederation. The Articles gave the central government very little, if any, authority to overrule individual state actions. The Constitution subsequently strengthened the central government, authorizing it to exercise powers deemed necessary to exercise its authority, with an ambiguous boundary between the two co-existing levels of government. In the event of any conflict between state and federal law, the Constitution resolved the conflict[3] via the Supremacy Clause of Article VI in favor of the federal government, which declares federal law the "supreme Law of the Land" and provides that "the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." However, the Supremacy Clause only applies if the federal government is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers, as noted by the phrase "in pursuance thereof" in the actual text of the Supremacy Clause itself (see above).
Alien and Sedition Acts[edit]
When the Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison secretly wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which provide a classic statement in support of states' rights and called on state legislatures to nullify unconstitutional federal laws. (The other states, however, did not follow suit and several rejected the notion that states could nullify federal law.) According to this theory, the federal union is a voluntary association of states, and if the central government goes too far each state has the right to nullify that law. As Jefferson said in the Kentucky Resolutions:
Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party....each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which became part of the Principles of '98, along with the supporting Report of 1800 by Madison, became final documents of Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party.[5] Gutzman argued that Governor Edmund Randolph designed the protest in the name of moderation.[6] Gutzman argues that in 1798, Madison espoused states' rights to defeat national legislation that he maintained was a threat to republicanism. During 1831–33, the South Carolina Nullifiers quoted Madison in their defense of states' rights. But Madison feared that the growing support for this doctrine would undermine the union and argued that by ratifying the Constitution states had transferred their sovereignty to the federal government.[7]
The most vociferous supporters of states' rights, such as John Randolph of Roanoke, were called "Old Republicans" into the 1820s and 1830s.[8]
Tate (2011) undertook a literary criticism of a major book by John Taylor of Caroline, New Views of the Constitution of the United States. Tate argues it is structured as a forensic historiography modeled on the techniques of 18th-century Whig lawyers. Taylor believed that evidence from American history gave proof of state sovereignty within the union, against the arguments of nationalists such as U.S. Chief Justice John Marshall.[9]
Another states' rights dispute occurred over the War of 1812. At the Hartford Convention of 1814–15, New England Federalists voiced opposition to President Madison's war, and discussed secession from the Union. In the end they stopped short of calls for secession, but when their report appeared at the same time as news of the great American victory at the Battle of New Orleans, the Federalists were politically ruined.[10]
Nullification Crisis of 1832[edit]
One major and continuous strain on the union, from roughly 1820 through the Civil War, was the issue of trade and tariffs. Heavily dependent upon international trade, the almost entirely agricultural and export-oriented South imported most of its manufactured goods from Europe or obtained them from the North. The North, by contrast, had a growing domestic industrial economy that viewed foreign trade as competition. Trade barriers, especially protective tariffs, were viewed as harmful to the Southern economy, which depended on exports.
In 1828, the Congress passed protective tariffs to benefit trade in the northern states, but that were detrimental to the South. Southerners vocally expressed their tariff opposition in documents such as the South Carolina Exposition and Protest in 1828, written in response to the "Tariff of Abominations." Exposition and Protest was the work of South Carolina senator and former vice president John C. Calhoun, formerly an advocate of protective tariffs and internal improvements at federal expense.
South Carolina's Nullification Ordinance declared that both the tariff of 1828 and the tariff of 1832 were null and void within the state borders of South Carolina. This action initiated the Nullification Crisis. Passed by a state convention on November 24, 1832, it led, on December 10, to President Andrew Jackson's proclamation against South Carolina, which sent a naval flotilla and a threat of sending federal troops to enforce the tariffs; Jackson authorized this under color of national authority, claiming in his 1832 Proclamation Regarding Nullification that "our social compact in express terms declares, that the laws of the United States, its Constitution, and treaties made under it, are the supreme law of the land" and for greater caution adds, "that the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Civil War[edit]
Over the following decades, another central dispute over states' rights moved to the forefront. The issue of slavery polarized the union, with the Jeffersonian principles often being used by both sides—anti-slavery Northerners, and Southern slaveholders and secessionists—in debates that ultimately led to the American Civil War. Supporters of slavery often argued that one of the rights of the states was the protection of slave property wherever it went, a position endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1857 Dred Scott decision. In contrast, opponents of slavery argued that the non-slave-states' rights were violated both by that decision and by the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. Exactly which—and whose—states' rights were the casus belli in the Civil War remain in controversy.
Southern arguments[edit]
A major Southern argument in the 1850s was that banning slavery in the territories discriminated against states that allowed slavery, making them second-class states. In 1857 the Supreme Court sided with the states' rights supporters, declaring in Dred Scott v. Sandford that Congress had no authority to regulate slavery in the territories.[11]
Jefferson Davis used the following argument in favor of the equal rights of states:
Resolved, That the union of these States rests on the equality of rights and privileges among its members, and that it is especially the duty of the Senate, which represents the States in their sovereign capacity, to resist all attempts to discriminate either in relation to person or property, so as, in the Territories—which are the common possession of the United States—to give advantages to the citizens of one State which are not equally secured to those of every other State.[12]
Southern states sometimes argued against 'states rights'. For example, Texas challenged some northern states having the right to protect fugitive slaves.[13]
Economists such as Thomas DiLorenzo and Charles Adams argue that the Southern secession and the ensuing conflict was much more of a fiscal quarrel than a war over slavery. Northern-inspired tariffs benefited Northern interests but were detrimental to Southern interests and were destroying the economy in the South.[14] These tariffs would be less subject to states rights' arguments.
Northern arguments[edit]
The historian James McPherson[15] noted that Southerners were inconsistent on the states' rights issue, and that Northern states tried to protect the rights of their states against the South during the Gag Rule and fugitive slave law controversies.
The historian William H. Freehling[16] noted that the South's argument for a state's right to secede was different from Thomas Jefferson's, in that Jefferson based such a right on the unalienable equal rights of man. The South's version of such a right was modified to be consistent with slavery, and with the South's blend of democracy and authoritarianism.[16] Historian Henry Brooks Adams explains that the anti-slavery North took a consistent and principled stand on states' rights against federal encroachment throughout its history, while the Southern states, whenever they saw an opportunity to expand slavery and the reach of the slave power, often conveniently forgot the principle of states' rights—and fought in favor of federal centralization:
Between the slave power and states' rights there was no necessary connection. The slave power, when in control, was a centralizing influence, and all the most considerable encroachments on states' rights were its acts. The acquisition and admission of Louisiana; the Embargo; the War of 1812; the annexation of Texas "by joint resolution" [rather than treaty]; the war with Mexico, declared by the mere announcement of President Polk; the Fugitive Slave Law; the Dred Scott decision—all triumphs of the slave power—did far more than either tariffs or internal improvements, which in their origin were also southern measures, to destroy the very memory of states' rights as they existed in 1789. Whenever a question arose of extending or protecting slavery, the slaveholders became friends of centralized power, and used that dangerous weapon with a kind of frenzy. Slavery in fact required centralization in order to maintain and protect itself, but it required to control the centralized machine; it needed despotic principles of government, but it needed them exclusively for its own use. Thus, in truth, states' rights were the protection of the free states, and as a matter of fact, during the domination of the slave power, Massachusetts appealed to this protecting principle as often and almost as loudly as South Carolina.[17]
Sinha[18] and Richards[19] both argue that the south only used states' rights when they disagreed with a policy. Examples given are a states' right to engage in slavery or to suppress freedom of speech. They argue that it was instead the result of the increasing cognitive dissonance in the minds of Northerners and (some) Southern non-slaveowners between the ideals that the United States was founded upon and identified itself as standing for, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights, and the reality that the slave-power represented, as what they describe as an anti-democratic, counter-republican, oligarchic, despotic, authoritarian, if not totalitarian, movement for ownership of human beings as the personal chattels of the slaver. As this cognitive dissonance increased, the people of the Northern states, and the Northern states themselves, became increasingly inclined to resist the encroachments of the slave power upon their states' rights and encroachments of the slave power by and upon the federal government of the United States. The slave power, having failed to maintain its dominance of the federal government through democratic means, sought other means of maintaining its dominance of the federal government, by means of military aggression, by right of force and coercion, and thus, the Civil War occurred.
Texas v. White[edit]
In Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) the Supreme Court ruled that Texas had remained a state ever since it first joined the Union, despite claims to have joined the Confederate States of America; the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null" under the constitution.[20]
Since the Civil War[edit]
A series of Supreme Court decisions developed the state action constraint on the Equal Protection Clause. The state action theory weakened the effect of the Equal Protection Clause against state governments, in that the clause was held not to apply to unequal protection of the laws caused in part by complete lack of state action in specific cases, even if state actions in other instances form an overall pattern of segregation and other discrimination. The separate but equal theory further weakened the effect of the Equal Protection Clause against state governments.
In case law[edit]
With United States v. Cruikshank (1876), a case which arose out of the Colfax Massacre of blacks contesting the results of a Reconstruction era election, the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply to the First Amendment or Second Amendment to state governments in respect to their own citizens, only to acts of the federal government. In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore fully applicable to states and local governments.[citation needed]
Furthermore, United States v. Harris (1883) held that the Equal Protection Clause did not apply to an 1883 prison lynching on the basis that the Fourteenth Amendment applied only to state acts, not to individual criminal actions.
In the Civil Rights Cases (1883), the Supreme Court allowed segregation by striking down the Civil Rights Act of 1875, a statute that prohibited racial discrimination in public accommodation. It again held that the Equal Protection Clause applied only to acts done by states, not to those done by private individuals, and as the Civil Rights Act of 1875 applied to private establishments, the Court said, it exceeded congressional enforcement power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Later progressive era and World War II[edit]
By the beginning of the 20th century, greater cooperation began to develop between the state and federal governments and the federal government began to accumulate more power. Early in this period, a federal income tax was imposed, first during the Civil War as a war measure and then permanently with the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913. Before this, the states played a larger role in government.
States' rights were affected by the fundamental alteration of the federal government resulting from the Seventeenth Amendment, depriving state governments of an avenue of control over the federal government via the representation of each state's legislature in the U.S. Senate. This change has been described by legal critics as the loss of a check and balance on the federal government by the states.[21]
Following the Great Depression, the New Deal and then World War II saw further growth in the authority and responsibilities of the federal government. The case of Wickard v. Filburn allowed the federal government to enforce the Agricultural Adjustment Act, providing subsidies to farmers for limiting their crop yields, arguing agriculture affected interstate commerce and came under the jurisdiction of the Commerce Clause even when a farmer grew his crops not to be sold, but for his own private use.
After World War II, President Harry Truman supported a civil rights bill and desegregated the military. The reaction was a split in the Democratic Party that led to the formation of the "States' Rights Democratic Party"—better known as the Dixiecrats—led by Strom Thurmond. Thurmond ran as the States' Rights candidate for President in the 1948 election, losing to Truman.
Civil rights movement[edit]
During the 1950s and 1960s, the Civil Rights Movement was confronted by the proponents in the Southern states of racial segregation and Jim Crow laws who denounced federal interference in these state-level laws as an assault on states' rights.
Though Brown v. Board of Education (1954) overruled the Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) decision, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments were largely inactive in the South until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 21)[22] and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Several states passed Interposition Resolutions to declare that the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown usurped states' rights.
There was also opposition by states' rights advocates to voting rights at Edmund Pettus Bridge, which was part of the Selma to Montgomery marches, that resulted in the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Contemporary debates[edit]
In 1964, the issue of fair housing in California involved the boundary between state laws and federalism. California Proposition 14 overturned the Rumsford Fair Housing Act in California and allowed discrimination in any type of housing sale or rental.[23] Martin Luther King, Jr. and others saw this as a backlash against civil rights. Actor Ronald Reagan gained popularity by supporting Proposition 14, and was later elected governor of California.[24] The U.S. Supreme Court's Reitman v. Mulkey decision overturned Proposition 14 in 1967 in favor of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Conservative historians Thomas E. Woods, Jr. and Kevin R. C. Gutzman argue that when politicians come to power they exercise all the power they can get, in the process trampling states' rights.[25] Gutzman argues that the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions of 1798 by Jefferson and Madison were not only responses to immediate threats but were legitimate responses based on the long-standing principles of states' rights and strict adherence to the Constitution.[26]
Another concern is the fact that on more than one occasion, the federal government has threatened to withhold highway funds from states which did not pass certain articles of legislation. Any state which lost highway funding for any extended period would face financial impoverishment, infrastructure collapse or both. Although the first such action (the enactment of a national speed limit) was directly related to highways and done in the face of a fuel shortage, most subsequent actions have had little or nothing to do with highways and have not been done in the face of any compelling national crisis. An example of this would be the federally mandated drinking age of 21, upheld in South Dakota v. Dole. Critics of such actions feel that when the federal government does this they upset the traditional balance between the states and the federal government.
More recently, the issue of states' rights has come to a head when the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) recommended that Congress and the Department of Defense implement sweeping changes to the National Guard by consolidating some Guard installations and closing others. These recommendations in 2005 drew strong criticism from many states, and several states sued the federal government on the basis that Congress and the Pentagon would be violating states' rights should they force the realignment and closure of Guard bases without the prior approval of the governors from the affected states. After Pennsylvania won a federal lawsuit to block the deactivation of the 111th Fighter Wing of the Pennsylvania Air National Guard, defense and Congressional leaders chose to try to settle the remaining BRAC lawsuits out of court, reaching compromises with the plaintiff states.[27]
Current states' rights issues include the death penalty, assisted suicide, same-sex marriage, gun control, and cannabis, the last of which is in direct violation of federal law. In Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government, permitting the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to arrest medical marijuana patients and caregivers. In Gonzales v. Oregon, the Supreme Court ruled the practice of physician-assisted suicide in Oregon is legal. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court ruled that states could not withhold recognition to same-sex marriages. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the United States Supreme Court ruled that gun ownership is an individual right under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the District of Columbia could not completely ban gun ownership by law-abiding private citizens. Two years later, the court ruled that the Heller decision applied to states and territories via the Second and 14th Amendments in McDonald v. Chicago, stating that states, territories and political divisions thereof, could not impose total bans on gun ownership by law-abiding citizens.
These concerns have led to a movement sometimes called the State Sovereignty movement or "10th Amendment Sovereignty Movement".[28]
Some, such as former representative Ron Paul (R-TX), have proposed repealing the 17th Amendment of the United States Constitution.[29]
10th Amendment Resolutions[edit]
In 2009–2010 thirty-eight states introduced resolutions to reaffirm the principles of sovereignty under the Constitution and the 10th Amendment; 14 states have passed the resolutions. These non-binding resolutions, often called "state sovereignty resolutions" do not carry the force of law. Instead, they are intended to be a statement to demand that the federal government halt its practices of assuming powers and imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution.[4]
States' rights and the Rehnquist Court[edit]
The Supreme Court's University of Alabama v. Garrett (2001)[30] and Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents (2000)[31] decisions allowed states to use a rational basis review for discrimination against the aged and disabled, arguing that these types of discrimination were rationally related to a legitimate state interest, and that no "razorlike precision" was needed." The Supreme Court's United States v. Morrison (2000)[32] decision limited the ability of rape victims to sue their attackers in federal court. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist explained that "States historically have been sovereign" in the area of law enforcement, which in the Court's opinion required narrow interpretations of the Commerce Clause and Fourteenth Amendment.
Kimel, Garrett and Morrison indicated that the Court's previous decisions in favor of enumerated powers and limits on Congressional power over the states, such as United States v. Lopez (1995), Seminole Tribe v. Florida (1996) and City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) were more than one time flukes. In the past, Congress relied on the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause for passing civil rights bills, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[22]
Lopez limited the Commerce Clause to things that directly affect interstate commerce, which excludes issues like gun control laws, hate crimes, and other crimes that affect commerce but are not directly related to commerce. Seminole reinforced the "sovereign immunity of states" doctrine, which makes it difficult to sue states for many things, especially civil rights violations. The Flores "congruence and proportionality" requirement prevents Congress from going too far in requiring states to comply with the Equal Protection Clause, which replaced the ratchet theory advanced in Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966). The ratchet theory held that Congress could ratchet up civil rights beyond what the Court had recognized, but that Congress could not ratchet down judicially recognized rights. An important precedent for Morrison was United States v. Harris (1883), which ruled that the Equal Protection Clause did not apply to a prison lynching because the state action doctrine applies Equal Protection only to state action, not private criminal acts. Since the ratchet principle was replaced with the "congruence and proportionality" principle by Flores, it was easier to revive older precedents for preventing Congress from going beyond what Court interpretations would allow. Critics such as Associate Justice John Paul Stevens accused the Court of judicial activism (i.e., interpreting law to reach a desired conclusion).
The tide against federal power in the Rehnquist court was stopped in the case of Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), in which the court upheld the federal power to prohibit medicinal use of cannabis even if states have permitted it. Rehnquist himself was a dissenter in the Raich case.
States' rights as code word[edit]
Since the 1940s, the term "states' rights" has often been considered a loaded term because of its use in opposition to federally mandated racial desegregation and more recently, same-sex marriage.[33][34]
During the heyday of the civil rights movement, defenders of segregation[33][35] used the term "states' rights" as a code word—in what is now referred to as dog-whistle politics—political messaging that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup.[36][37][38] In 1948 it was the official name of the "Dixiecrat" party led by white supremacist presidential candidate Strom Thurmond.[39][40] Democratic governor George Wallace of Alabama, who famously declared in his inaugural address in 1963, "Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever!"—later remarked that he should have said, "States' rights now! States' rights tomorrow! States' rights forever!"[41] Wallace, however, claimed that segregation was but one issue symbolic of a larger struggle for states' rights; in that view, which some historians dispute, his replacement of segregation with states' rights would be more of a clarification than a euphemism.[41]
In 2010, Texas governor Rick Perry's use of the expression "states' rights", to some, was reminiscent of "an earlier era when it was a rallying cry against civil rights."[42] During an interview with The Dallas Morning News, Perry made it clear that he supports the end of segregation, including passage of the Civil Rights Act. Texas president of the NAACP Gary Bledsoe stated that he understood that Perry wasn't speaking of "states' rights" in a racial context; but others still felt offended by the term because of its past misuse.[42]
See also[edit]
American Civil War portal
Origins of the American Civil War
Bibliography of the American Civil War
Federalism in the United States
New Federalism
Compact theory
Rule according to higher law
Local government
Subsidiarity
Notes[edit]
Jump up ^ Gardbaum, Stephen. "Congress's Power to Pre-Empt the States", Pepperdine Law Review, Vol. 33, p. 39 (2005).
Jump up ^ Bardes, Barbara et al. American Government and Politics Today: The Essentials (Cengage Learning, 2008).
^ Jump up to: a b "The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net".
^ Jump up to: a b Orbach, Callahan & Lindemmen, "Arming States' Rights: Federalism, Private Lawmakers, and the Battering Ram Strategy," Arizona Law Review (2010)
Jump up ^ Kevin R. C. Gutzman, James Madison and the Making of America (2012) pp. 274–76
Jump up ^ Kevin R. C. Gutzman, "Edmund Randolph and Virginia Constitutionalism," Review of Politics, (Summer 2004), Vol. 66 Issue 3, pp. 469–97
Jump up ^ Kevin R. Gutzman, "A troublesome legacy: James Madison and "The principles of '98'," Journal of the Early Republic (Winter 1995), Vol. 15 Issue 4, pp. 569–89
Jump up ^ Norman K Risjord, The Old Republicans: Southern Conservatism in the Age of Jefferson (1965)
Jump up ^ Adam Tate, "A Historiography of States' Rights: John Taylor of Caroline's New Views of the Constitution," Southern Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the South (2011) Vol. 18 Issue 1, p. 10–28
Jump up ^ James M Banner, To the Hartford Convention: the Federalists and the origins of party politics in Massachusetts, 1789–1815 (1970)
Jump up ^ John Mack Faragher, Mari Jo Buhle, Daniel Czitrom Out of Many: A History of the American people (2005) p. 376
Jump up ^ Jefferson Davis' Resolutions on the Relations of States, Senate Chamber, U.S. Capitol, February 2, 1860, from The Papers of Jefferson Davis, Volume 6, pp. 273–76. Transcribed from the Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 1st Session, pp. 658–59.
Jump up ^ "Confederate States of America – A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union". Yale Law School. March 1845. Retrieved 1 July 2015.
Jump up ^ Oliver, Charles (April 1, 2012). "Analysis: Exploring the roots of The Civil War". Reason. Retrieved April 1, 2012.
Jump up ^ James McPherson, This Mighty Scourge, pp. 3–9. Speaking of alternative explanations for secession, McPherson writes (p.7), "While one or more of these interpretations remain popular among the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other Southern heritage groups, few professional historians now subscribe to them. Of all these interpretations, the state's-rights argument is perhaps the weakest. It fails to ask the question, state's rights for what purpose? State's rights, or sovereignty, was always more a means than an end, an instrument to achieve a certain goal more than a principle.
^ Jump up to: a b William H. Freehling, The Road to Disunion: Secessionists Triumphant, 1854–1861
Jump up ^ Adams, Henry (1882). John Randolph (1st ed.). Boston, MA, USA: Houghton Mifflin and Co. OCLC 3942444. Retrieved 2009-07-26.
Jump up ^ Sinha, Manisha (2000). The Counter-Revolution of Slavery: Politics and Ideology in Antebellum South Carolina. Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA: University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0-8078-2571-6. OCLC 44075847. Retrieved 2009-03-14.
Jump up ^ Richards, Leonard L. (2000). The Slave Power: The Free North and Southern Domination. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA: LSU Press. ISBN 978-0-8071-2600-4. OCLC 43641070.
Jump up ^ Murray pp. 155–59.
Jump up ^ Bybee, Jay S. (1997). "Ulysses at the Mast: Democracy, Federalism, and the Sirens' Song of the Seventeenth Amendment". Northwestern University Law Review. Chicago, IL: Northwestern University Law Review. 91: 505.
^ Jump up to: a b "Civil Rights Act of 1964 - CRA - Title VII - Equal Employment Opportunities - 42 US Code Chapter 21 - findUSlaw". finduslaw.com.
Jump up ^ Skelton, George (May 7, 2014) "Thank you, Donald Sterling, for reminding us how far we've come" Los Angeles Times
Jump up ^ Pillar of Fire, Taylor Branch, p. 242
Jump up ^ Thomas E. Woods, Jr. and Kevin R. C. Gutzman, Who Killed the Constitution?: The Federal Government Vs. American Liberty from World War I to Barack Obama (Random House Digital, 2009) p. 201
Jump up ^ K. R. Constantine Gutzman, "The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions Reconsidered: 'An Appeal to the Real Laws of Our Country'," Journal of Southern History (Aug 2000), Vol. 66 Issue 3, pp. 473–96
Jump up ^ "Judge Rules Favorably in Pennsylvania BRAC Suit (Associated Press, 26 August)".
Jump up ^ Johnston, Kirk. "States' Rights Is Rallying Cry for Lawmakers" The New York Times March 16, 2010
Jump up ^ Johnson, Keith (April 2, 2012). "Analysis: Anti-Washington Ire Kindles an Old Debate". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved April 2, 2012.
Jump up ^ "Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama et al. v. Garrett et al., U.S. Supreme Court, decided February 21, 2001".
Jump up ^ "Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, U.S. Supreme court, decided January 11, 2000".
Jump up ^ "United States v. Morrison". LII / Legal Information Institute.
^ Jump up to: a b Greenberg, David (November 20, 2007), "Dog-Whistling Dixie: When Reagan said "states' rights," he was talking about race", Slate, retrieved February 5, 2016
Jump up ^ Herbert, Bob (October 6, 2005). "Impossible, Ridiculous, Repugnant". The New York Times.
Jump up ^ White, D. Jonathan (2009). "States' Rights". Encyclopedia of Alabama. Retrieved 2010-09-09. After the Civil War and Reconstruction, Alabama, along with other southern states, used states' rights arguments to restore a system of white supremacy and racial segregation. ... The term still appears on occasion in political speech, in some cases as code language indicating support of discriminatory practices or outright racism; as a result, its use is often met with skepticism or suspicion by the public at large.
Jump up ^ Haney López, Ian (2014). Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-19-996427-7.
Jump up ^ Full Show: Ian Haney López on the Dog Whistle Politics of Race, Part I. Moyers & Company, February 28, 2014.
Jump up ^ Yao, Kevin (November 9, 2015). "A Coded Political Mantra". Berkeley Political Review: UC Berkeley's Only Nonpartisan Political Magazine. Retrieved February 5, 2016.
Jump up ^ Lichtman, Allan J. (2008). White Protestant Nation: The Rise of the American Conservative Movement. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press. p. 165. ISBN 0-87113-984-7.
Jump up ^ Bass, Jack; Thompson, Marilyn W. (2006). Strom: The Complicated Personal and Political Life of Strom Thurmond. New York: PublicAffairs. p. 102. ISBN 1-58648-392-7.
^ Jump up to: a b Carter, Dan T. From George Wallace to Newt Gingrich: Race in the Conservative Counterrevolution, 1963–1994. p. 1.
^ Jump up to: a b Slater, Wayne (November 19, 2010). "Analysis: Perry's 'states' rights' battle cry evokes history that could damage his message". The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved November 21, 2010.
References[edit]
Althouse, Anne (October 2001). "Why Talking About "States' Rights" Cannot Avoid the Need for Normative Federalism Analysis: A Response to Professors Baker and Young". Duke Law Journal. 51 (1): 363. Retrieved 2 December 2011.
Baker, Lynn A.; Young, Ernest A. (October 2001). "Federalism and the Double Standard of Judicial Review". Duke Law Journal. 51 (1): 75. Retrieved 2 December 2011. , which argues at 143–49: "To many, [the notion of states' rights] stands for an anachronistic (and immoral) preference for the race-based denial of essential individual rights....".
Farber, Daniel A., "States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776–1876" Constitutional Commentary, Vol. 18, 2001
Kirk, Russell K., Randolph of Roanoke: A Study in Conservative Thought (1951)
Gutzman, Kevin R. C. James Madison and the Making of America (2012)
Gutzman, Kevin R. C. "A troublesome legacy: James Madison and "The principles of '98'," Journal of the Early Republic (Winter 1995), Vol. 15 Issue 4, pp. 569–89
Gutzman, Kevin R. C. "The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions Reconsidered: 'An Appeal to the Real Laws of Our Country'," Journal of Southern History (Aug 2000), Vol. 66 Issue 3, pp 473–96
McDonald, Forrest, States' Rights and the Union: Imperium in Imperio, 1776–1876 (2002)
Murray, Robert Bruce. Legal Cases of the Civil War (2003) ISBN 0-8117-0059-3
Risjord, Norman K., The Old Republicans: Southern Conservatism in the Age of Jefferson (1965)
Sinha, Manisha, "Revolution or Counterrevolution?: The Political Ideology of Secession in Antebellum South Carolina" Civil War History, Vol. 46, 2000 in JSTOR
Sinha, Manisha (2000). The Counterrevolution of Slavery: Politics and Ideology in Antebellum South Carolina. University of North Carolina Press. p. 362. ISBN 0-8078-2571-9.
Orbach, Barak Y., et al. "Arming States' Rights: Federalism, Private Lawmakers, and the Battering Ram Strategy," Arizona Law Review, vol. 52, 2010
Further reading[edit]
Sotirios A. Barber, The Fallacies of States' Rights. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013.
Jefferson Davis, "The Doctrine of State Rights" (1890). The North American Review, Vol. 150, No. 399, pp. 205–219.
Frederick D. Drake, ed. States' Rights and American Federalism: A Documentary History (1999)
James J. Kilpatrick. The Sovereign States: Notes of a Citizen of Virginia Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1957.
External links[edit]
Wikiquote has quotations related to: States' rights
Tenth Amendment Center Federalism and States Rights in the U.S.
States' Rights in Encyclopedia Virginia
A copy of transcript of Florida's 1957 Interposition Resolution, made available for public use by the State Archives of Florida
Missouri Sovereignty Project "Institutionalizing" the 10th Amendment into the populace and political fabrics of Missouri.
[hide]
v
t
e
American Civil War
[show]
Origins
Origins
Issues
Timeline leading to the War
Antebellum era
Bleeding Kansas
Border states
Compromise of 1850
Dred Scott v. Sandford
Lincoln-Douglas debates
Missouri Compromise
Popular sovereignty
Secession
States' rights
President Lincoln's 75,000 volunteers
Slavery
African Americans
Cornerstone Speech
Emancipation Proclamation
Fugitive slave laws
Plantations in the American South
Slave Power
Slavery in the United States
Treatment of slaves in the United States
Uncle Tom's Cabin
Abolitionism
Susan B. Anthony
John Brown
Frederick Douglass
William Lloyd Garrison
Elijah Parish Lovejoy
J. Sella Martin
Lysander Spooner
George Luther Stearns
Thaddeus Stevens
Charles Sumner
Harriet Tubman
Underground Railroad
[show]
Combatants
Theaters
Campaigns
Battles
States
Combatants
Union (USA)
Army
Navy
Marine Corps
Revenue Cutter Service
Confederacy (CSA)
Army
Navy
Marine Corps
Theaters
Eastern
Western
Lower Seaboard
Trans-Mississippi
Pacific Coast
Union naval blockade
Major Campaigns
Anaconda Plan
Blockade runners
New Mexico
Jackson's Valley
Peninsula
Northern Virginia
Maryland
Stones River
Vicksburg
Tullahoma
Gettysburg
Morgan's Raid
Bristoe
Knoxville
Red River
Overland
Atlanta
Valley 1864
Bermuda Hundred
Richmond-Petersburg
Franklin–Nashville
Price's Raid
Sherman's March
Carolinas
Appomattox
Major battles
Fort Sumter
1st Bull Run
Wilson's Creek
Fort Donelson
Pea Ridge
Hampton Roads
Shiloh
New Orleans
Corinth
Seven Pines
Seven Days
2nd Bull Run
Antietam
Perryville
Fredericksburg
Stones River
Chancellorsville
Gettysburg
Vicksburg
Chickamauga
Chattanooga
Wilderness
Fort Pillow
Spotsylvania
Cold Harbor
Atlanta
Mobile Bay
Franklin
Nashville
Five Forks
Involvement (by
state or territory)
AL
AK
AR
AZ
CA
CO
CT
DC
DE
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
[show]
Leaders
Confederate
Military
R. H. Anderson
Beauregard
Bragg
Buchanan
Cooper
Early
Ewell
Forrest
Gorgas
Hill
Hood
Jackson
A. S. Johnston
J. E. Johnston
Lee
Longstreet
Morgan
Mosby
Price
Semmes
E. K. Smith
Stuart
Taylor
Wheeler
Civilian
Benjamin
Bocock
Breckinridge
Davis
Hunter
Mallory
Memminger
Seddon
Stephens
Union
Military
Anderson
Buell
Burnside
Butler
Du Pont
Farragut
Foote
Frémont
Grant
Halleck
Hooker
Hunt
McClellan
McDowell
Meade
Meigs
Ord
Pope
D. D. Porter
Rosecrans
Scott
Sheridan
Sherman
Thomas
Civilian
Adams
Chase
Ericsson
Hamlin
Lincoln
Pinkerton
Seward
Stanton
Stevens
Wade
Welles
[show]
Aftermath
U.S. Constitution
Reconstruction amendments
13th Amendment
14th Amendment
15th Amendment
Reconstruction
Alabama Claims
Brooks–Baxter War
Carpetbaggers
Colfax Riot of 1873
Eufaula Riot of 1874
Freedmen's Bureau
Freedman's Savings Bank
Impeachment of Andrew Johnson
Kirk-Holden War
Knights of the White Camelia
Ku Klux Klan
Memphis Riot of 1866
Meridian Riot of 1871
New Orleans Riot of 1866
Pulaski (Tennessee) Riot of 1867
Reconstruction acts
Habeas Corpus Act 1867
Enforcement Act of 1870
Enforcement Act of February 1871
Enforcement Act of April 1871
Reconstruction treaties
Indian Council at Fort Smith
Red Shirts
Redeemers
Confederate refugees
Confederados
Scalawags
South Carolina riots of 1876
Southern Claims Commission
Homestead acts
Southern Homestead Act of 1866
Timber Culture Act of 1873
White League
post-Reconstruction
Commemoration
Centennial
Civil War Discovery Trail
Civil War Roundtables
Civil War Trails Program
Civil War Trust
Confederate History Month
Confederate monuments and memorials
Historical reenactment
Robert E. Lee Day
Disenfranchisement
Black Codes
Jim Crow
Lost Cause mythology
Modern display of the Confederate flag
Sons of Confederate Veterans
Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War
Southern Historical Society
United Daughters of the Confederacy
Monuments and memorials
Union
List of Union Civil War monuments and memorials
List of memorials to the Grand Army of the Republic
Memorials to Abraham Lincoln
Confederate
List of Confederate monuments and memorials
Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials
List of memorials to Robert E. Lee
List of memorials to Jefferson Davis
Annapolis
Roger B. Taney Monument
Baltimore
Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument
Confederate Women's Monument
Roger B. Taney Monument
Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson Monument
Durham, North Carolina
Robert E. Lee Monument
New Orleans
Battle of Liberty Place Monument
Jefferson Davis Monument
General Beauregard Equestrian Statue
Robert E. Lee Monument
Cemeteries
Confederate Memorial Day
Ladies' memorial associations
U.S. Memorial Day
U.S. national cemeteries
Veterans
1913 Gettysburg Reunion
Confederate Veteran
Grand Army of the Republic
Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the U.S.
Old soldiers' homes
Southern Cross of Honor
United Confederate Veterans
[show]
Related topics
Related topics
Military
Arms
Campaign Medal
Cavalry
Confederate Home Guard
Confederate railroads
Confederate Revolving Cannon
Field artillery
Medal of Honor recipients
Medicine
Leadership
Naval battles
Official Records
Partisan rangers
POW camps
Rations
Signal Corps
Turning point
Union corps badges
U.S. Balloon Corps
U.S. Home Guard
U.S. Military Railroad
Political
Committee on the Conduct of the War
Confederate States Presidential Election of 1861
Confiscation Act of 1861
Confiscation Act of 1862
Copperheads
Emancipation Proclamation
Habeas Corpus Act of 1863
Hampton Roads Conference
National Union Party
Radical Republicans
Trent Affair
Union leagues
U.S. Presidential Election of 1864
War Democrats
Other topics
Bibliography
Confederate war finance
Confederate States dollar
Espionage
Confederate Secret Service
Great Revival of 1863
Music
Naming the war
Native Americans
Cherokee
Choctaw
New York City Gold Hoax of 1864
New York City Riot of 1863
Photographers
Richmond Riot of 1863
Sexuality
Supreme Court cases
Tokens
U.S. Sanitary Commission
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=States%27_rights&oldid=837222455"
Categories:
States' rights
Federalism in the United States
Legal history of the United States
Political history of the United States
Hidden categories:
All articles with unsourced statements
Articles with unsourced statements from March 2016
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
In other projects
Wikiquote
Languages
فارسی
Français
עברית
Latina
日本語
Simple English
Edit links
This page was last edited on 19 April 2018, at 13:52.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

values:
/wiki/States%27_rights_(disambiguation)
mw-disambig
States' rights (disambiguation)

values:
note
hatnote navigation-not-searchable

values:
/wiki/Political_power
mw-redirect
Political power

values:
/wiki/Enumerated_powers
mw-redirect
Enumerated powers

values: Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: width: 20px; vertical-align: top; border: none; color: #B2B7F2; font-size: 40px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-weight: bold; line-height: .6em; text-align: left; padding: 10px 10px;

values: vertical-align: top; border: none; padding: 4px 10px;

values: width: 20px; vertical-align: bottom; border: none; color: #B2B7F2; font-size: 40px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-weight: bold; line-height: .6em; text-align: right; padding: 10px 10px;

values: margin:auto; border-collapse: collapse; border: none; background-color: transparent; width: auto;

values: Article Six of the United States Constitution

values: Edit section: Nullification Crisis of 1832

values:
/wiki/Nullification_Ordinance
mw-redirect
Nullification Ordinance

values:
/wiki/Tariff_of_1828
mw-redirect
Tariff of 1828

values:
/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Law
mw-redirect
Fugitive Slave Law

values:
/wiki/Henry_Brooks_Adams
mw-redirect
Henry Brooks Adams

values:
/wiki/Slave_power
mw-redirect
Slave power

values:
/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sanford
mw-redirect
Dred Scott v. Sanford

values:
/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Massachusetts
mw-redirect
Commonwealth of Massachusetts

values: List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 74

values:
/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States
mw-redirect
Constitution of the United States

values:
/wiki/United_States_state
mw-redirect
United States state

values:
/wiki/Colfax_Massacre
mw-redirect
Colfax Massacre

values: Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: First Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (March 2016)

values:
noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact
white-space:nowrap;

values: Edit section: Later progressive era and World War II

values: Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values:
/wiki/Checks_and_balances
mw-redirect
Checks and balances

values:
/wiki/Harry_Truman
mw-redirect
Harry Truman

values:
/wiki/Democratic_Party_(U.S.)
mw-redirect
Democratic Party (U.S.)

values: United States presidential election, 1948

values:
/wiki/Civil_Rights_Movement
mw-redirect
Civil Rights Movement

values:
/wiki/Jim_Crow_law
mw-redirect
Jim Crow law

values:
/wiki/California_Proposition_14_(1963)
mw-redirect
California Proposition 14 (1963)

values:
/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.
mw-redirect
Martin Luther King, Jr.

values:
/wiki/Drinking_age
mw-redirect
Drinking age

values:
/wiki/United_States_National_Guard
mw-redirect
United States National Guard

values:
/wiki/Death_penalty
mw-redirect
Death penalty

values: Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction

values:
/wiki/Physician-assisted_suicide
mw-redirect
Physician-assisted suicide

values: Second Amendment of the United States Constitution

values: Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution

values:
/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago
mw-redirect
McDonald v. Chicago

values: Edit section: 10th Amendment Resolutions

values: Edit section: States' rights and the Rehnquist Court

values: Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett

values:
/wiki/William_H._Rehnquist
mw-redirect
William H. Rehnquist

values:
/wiki/Seminole_Tribe_v._Florida
mw-redirect
Seminole Tribe v. Florida

values: Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

values: Edit section: States' rights as code word

values:
/wiki/White_supremacist
mw-redirect
White supremacist

values: display:table-cell;padding:0.2em 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em;vertical-align:middle

values: margin:0.5em 0 0.5em 1em;border:solid #aaa 1px

values:
nofollow
external text
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1696012

values:
/wiki/Boston,_Massachusetts
mw-redirect
Boston, Massachusetts

values:
/wiki/United_States_of_America
mw-redirect
United States of America

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/oclc/3942444

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/oclc/44075847

values:
/wiki/Baton_Rouge
mw-redirect
Baton Rouge

values:
/wiki/State_of_Louisiana
mw-redirect
State of Louisiana

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/oclc/43641070

values:
/wiki/Henry_Regnery_Company
mw-redirect
Henry Regnery Company

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com

values: Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War

values: History of the United States (1789–1849)

values:
/wiki/Lincoln-Douglas_debates
mw-redirect
Lincoln-Douglas debates

values: Popular sovereignty in the United States

values: Military history of African Americans in the American Civil War

values: Treatment of slaves in the United States

values: nowraplinks collapsible collapsed navbox-subgroup

values: Eastern Theater of the American Civil War

values: Western Theater of the American Civil War

values: Lower Seaboard Theater of the American Civil War

values: Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War

values: Pacific Coast Theater of the American Civil War

values: Blockade runners of the American Civil War

values: Territory of Arizona (Confederate States)

values: Washington, D.C., in the American Civil War

values: New Mexico Territory in the American Civil War

values: North Carolina in the American Civil War

values: Indian Territory in the American Civil War

values: South Carolina in the American Civil War

values:
/wiki/Benjamin_Butler_(politician)
mw-redirect
Benjamin Butler (politician)

values: Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

values:
/wiki/Reconstruction_Era
mw-redirect
Reconstruction Era

values:
/wiki/Kirk-Holden_war
mw-redirect
Kirk-Holden war

values:
/wiki/New_Orleans_riot
mw-redirect
New Orleans riot

values:
/wiki/First_Enforcement_Act_of_1871
mw-redirect
First Enforcement Act of 1871

values:
/wiki/Second_Enforcement_Act_of_1871
mw-redirect
Second Enforcement Act of 1871

values: South Carolina civil disturbances of 1876

values: List of Confederate monuments and memorials

values: Disenfranchisement after the Reconstruction Era

values: List of Union Civil War monuments and memorials

values: List of memorials to the Grand Army of the Republic

values: Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials

values: Roger B. Taney Monument (Annapolis, Maryland)

values: Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument

values: Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee Monument

values: Robert E. Lee Monument (Durham, North Carolina)

values: Robert E. Lee Monument (New Orleans, Louisiana)

values: Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States

values:
Related_topics
font-size:114%;margin:0 4em
hlist hlist-separated

values: List of weapons in the American Civil War

values: Confederate railroads in the American Civil War

values: Field artillery in the American Civil War

values: List of American Civil War Medal of Honor recipients

values: Military leadership in the American Civil War

values: Official Records of the American Civil War

values: United States Congress Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War

values: Confederate States presidential election, 1861

values:
/wiki/Habeas_Corpus_Suspension_Act_1863
mw-redirect
Habeas Corpus Suspension Act 1863

values: United States presidential election, 1864

values:
/wiki/War_Democrats
mw-redirect
War Democrats

values: Native Americans in the American Civil War

values: Supreme Court cases of the American Civil War

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible expanded navbox-inner

values: Category:Federalism in the United States

values: Category:Legal history of the United States

values: Category:Political history of the United States

values: Category:All articles with unsourced statements

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from March 2016

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/States%27_rights
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values: portal navigation p-wikibase-otherprojects p-wikibase-otherprojects-label

values: حقوق ایالات – Persian

values: זכויות המדינות בארצות הברית – Hebrew

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-States_rights rootpage-States_rights skin-vector action-view