Mousethief: Please feel free to upgrade.

Banjer: Sourdough has a good thought, but here's a series of genuine facts.

In 1850, Southern congressman opposed the admission of California as a "free" state, even though that's what the Californians wanted. The Southern stand was AGAINST states' rights and FOR slavery.

In the early 1850's, several northern states wished to nullify the Fugitive Slave Law; the South demanded that the Fed use all its power to compel obedience. Again, the South stood against States' Rights and for slavery.

When it was Kansas' turn to seek admission, armed Southrons camped there to ensure a "slave" majority in the state constitutional convention. AGAINST states rights; for slavery.

Election of 1860: get real. Douglas was the states' rights man. He called it popular sovereignty. He only carried some border states. Breckenridge (aka Breckinridge) was the slavery candidate, demanding slavery in the territories regardless of the feelings of the people there. AGAINST states rights; for SLAVERY.

Or why is the big bone of contention the Fugitive SLAVE Law, not the Fugitive STATES RIGHTS Law??

Sorry for warping this thread. Not sorry for citing the above unimpeachable facts. Can you name a state's right other than the right to own slaves that was ever in jeopardy??

C.C.