If the Civil War was about States’ Rights, Isn’t Making Abortion a State Issue Letting the Losers Win?

Right Wing Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds

This morning reading Allison Gaines’ Why The Supreme Court is Starting to remind You of the Dred Scot Case I was once again reminded of the hypocrisy that is the right wing. My husband reminds me regularly that calling out their hypocrisy is meaningless because they don’t care, but I found this particular instance even more egregious than some previous ones.

First, to discuss this, let me acknowledge there is no doubt that the primary cause of the Civil War was the Confederacy’s attempt to perpetuate slavery. But the same people who try to whitewash the rebellion and claim the Confederate Battle Flag is about their history always try to couch the war in terms of states’ rights.

Of course, if you ask”The state’s right to what?” the answer, usually mumbled if you get one at all, is the state’s right to enslave people.

Just for a moment though, let’s indulge their delusion that the Civil War was about states’ rights.

Jefferson Davis and his fellow treasonists declared themselves a sovereign nation so that each individual state could make laws regarding human beings that other states found grossly offensive.

They wanted not just to be able to enslave people, but also to make it so that people who had been taken to places where slavery was illegal (as in the Dred Scot case) and thus freed, could be kidnapped and forced back into slavery.

And it wasn’t just slavery to pay off debts. It was chattel slavery, meaning your descendants would be just as imprisoned as you were.

They mounted a meager offense and tried to prove by force of might that God was on their side.

She wasn’t.

The United States with a stronger economy and freed Black men fighting to stay that way and simply superior might forced the Confederacy to surrender after just about four years.

It was bloody and ugly and scarred this country forever. But the Confederacy lost.

Which means, if we accept their deceptive claim that the war was about states’ rights, the United States proved that the federal government has the power to create laws which override any desires of lesser governments at the state level.

In short, we showed that states’ rights are NOT as important as federal laws which protect human beings.

And that has been the law of the land for 157 years.

Until the Supreme Court majority started drafting an opinion to overturn Roe V Wade. In writing his draft opinion for the court, old white guy Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito decided to metaphorically rewrite the conditions of Lee’s surrender and let the Confederacy win.

Rather than agreeing that the federal government needed to protect its people, as Ms. Gaines so eloquently points out, Alito whines that abortion is a hard issue and it should be given to the states to decide.

Following the Republican playbook of lying about history, he claims, “For the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitution, each state was permitted to address this issue with the views of its citizens.”

Alito further alleges that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds in issuing the 1973 Roe v Wade decision. Rather than addressing the racist and classist implications of a state-by-state system of laws, Alito hands victory to the Confederacy.

While treason may be a strong word to use given that the actual government of the Confederacy hasn’t existed in 157 years, what other term applies to those who hand over a nation to its defeated foe?

Read the full Supreme Court’s majority opinion here.

For theme music, listen to Anti-Flag here

--

--

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Lucinda Gunnin

Lucinda Gunnin

Lucinda Gunnin is a commercial property manager and author in the suburbs of Philadelphia. She’s a news junky, sushi addict, and geek extraordinaire.