Another interesting note I bring into the states rights argument is that the south wanted to force the north to send back escaped people and were actually sending people into the north to kidnap black people, many of whom were never born slaves.

So yeah the north wanted the right to gives rights to the people in it, and the south thought that didn't apply to black people.

And "limited government". Limited to do what?

To own slaves I guess.

the biggest gotcha is asking back

"the state's rights to do what?"

Marx sent a letter to Lincoln, and Lincoln's staff responded via Ambassador Adams. It's a really interesting moment in history that's been buried by US Red Scare ideology.

from wiki on Adams:

Part of his duties included corresponding with British civilians, including Karl Marx and the International Workingmen's Association.[7] Adams and his son, Henry Adams, who served as his private secretary

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm

Didn't he edit a newspaper? I suppos having takes was kind of his job.

The word “heritage” is a disgusting one these days, thanks conservatives fascists

well, i think the idea is generally that Americans like issues to be decided at a state level rather than federally due to general "small government" principles, like they can trust their state level government to be more specifically beholden to their interests. this is usually in a right wing context, but not always, like famously California has much stricter environmental regulations than the rest of the country.

It's the 10th amendment. All other 9 amendments and many thereafter are in relation to human rights.

And states rights and human rights can actually go hand in hand, as seen by state legislatures that have passed assisted suicide, same-sex marriage, and legal cannabis laws. It has also been used to ensure electors cast their vote for the nominee or candidate who received the most votes from the people.

Unfortunately it's also been co-opted as a racist, misogynist dog whistle.

I tend to consider him right in basically all his criticisms, misguided in formulating the solutions.

Presumably he ran into the trouble a lot of generous, intelligent, and honest people have, they assume everyone is basically like them other than circumstance and stress.

And, obviously you can trust a fellow socialist to run the vanguard states, right?

They get it. Heirarchy bad, racism bad, sexism bad, he's been over this!

Or perhaps he was simply, like everyone, merely a product of his time. The workers of his day were barely literate, every state other than America and France (depending on what exact year we're talking) were absolute monarchies, etc etc etc.

"We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror."