I do not have ancestors involved in the War. The site was pointed out to me by a friend, we thought the conversation over a new constituition highly interesting. It seemed to him that the idea of two more states passing this nonsense into a new convention was making things more urgent, and he asked my opinion on the matter. I came to read and discuss and think it all over.

I think now, even were an actual convention called, the likelihood of a convention of modern political "dogmatists" (if there is such a word) run by paid lobbyists ever coming to agreement on a single document to actually be presented to the states for ratification as our "New Constitution", is so unlikely as to almost all but impossible, so we have little to fear. It is political theater only, and cynical campaign fodder for the masses, but makes for interesting discussion nonetheless.

I mean to get back to david, though, and defend my idea that prohibition, which was passed during the lifetime of the same soldiers who sacrificed everything supposedly for states rights, was indeed a contemporary example, even if long after the War itself.

If your entire region is devasted by war, almost every family across the south losing members, seeing their homes and towns and farms in ruins for this "principle", with 100s of thousands of southern young men lost forever, their photos still venerated on the walls of houses, with maimed soldiers still living among them, and Confederate veterans still leading in their society, with statues to the men of States Rights going up with the money of the True Believers paying for these all monuments, (while at the exact same time these belivers and veterans were going to the polls to vote for federalism) is revealing to me.

Confederat veterans and the States Rights true belivers voted for and even lead the federal movement to coerce other states to accept prohibition against their will. It shows that "states rights" as a principle, IN THEIR OWN LIFETIMES, was not the highest principle of their lives, as has been portrayed. even before the war, southern states had no qualms about forcing northern states to bow to the federal law and allow slave chasers into their territory. "States rights" advocates demanded that the federal law be upheld in states that opposed this law and they held that federal law trumped any state or local laws when it came to escaped slaves, so clearly both before and after the War "states rights" was issue oriented, and not a "principle" to lay ones life down for.

Law is coersion. To demand that federal laws be enforced is coersion, with the threat of physical force behind it, if the law is not met. Physical force means sheriffs, or agents of the law acting to make a person comply. If sheriffs cannot, or will not, muster the necessary force to apply the law, military threats or agents like the modern FBI or national guard can be used to see the laws are enforced. this was clear before the war and this is exactly waht the south expected, and demanded, from the north over the fugitive slave laws. They seceded because the thought federal power was NOT being applied against the states stronly enough, not because they thought the federal power was too dominating.

The south, prior to the war, demanded federal law be enforced. They cited the lack of federal enforcement against northern states as a reason for their secession. How exactly does one secede over "states rights" while demanding simultaneously that the federal government impose it's will and laws on northern states, to coerce laws on the northern states those laws the south approved? They seceded not over states rights, but on the idea that federal power was not being applied in a manner they thought fair to their interests, in my opinion, and in their own declarations of secession.

They conveniently invoked "states rights" as it applied to slaves they held in bondage, while invoking federal power as it applied to escaped slaves. Therefore it is a pure cherry-pick and not a 'principle'. They may have been right about "unfairness", but to claim they were fighting for a principle of the rights of states not to be coerced by federal power is simply a myth.

This thread is getting very unweildy. I truly meant to quit Frank, until your invitation to comment further. I'll try to stop now, again, but it is like needing just one more smoke after swearing off, and I hope am able to do so this time, but to quote you: I need some help!