No, because since his state (South Carolina) favored slavery and the rights that the "Bill Of Rights," state. So why would he and his state want to be against it? So my recently stated answer is, NO.
John C. Calhoun
Yes, states' rights is an important issue to this day. You can see the tension between the federal government and state governments with the move to legalize marijuana at the state level.
Many people in the north wanted no part of slavery anywhere in the country. Southerners wanted slavery because they thought it helped production of crops etc. There are contrasting beliefs. Abraham Lincoln was from the North and a proponent of Federal rights and powers to limit slavery. The southern states wanted strong state powers and rights and weaker federal powers and rights. Slavery was a States Right issue and the federal government should not interfere. The northern states wanted the exact opposite, strong federal powers and rights and weaker state powers and rights. The right of the Federal government to abolish Slavery should trump any so-called States Rights. So the southern states voted to secede from or leave the United States also know as the Union. The US Civil War was thus started.
One issue that was very important to the constitutional delegates involved how strong the Federal government should be. Another crucial issue was how to determine the number of representatives each state would have in the Legislature.
state rights over the issue of withdrawal from the union and the issue of slavery
Slavery. "State's Rights" is code language for "We want to own people of color".
There are two main issue of the time and those were "State Rights" and "the moral issue of Slavery"... but they are pretty much interconnected because states believed they had a right to make its own laws dealing with slavery and the federal government had no rights in dealing with this issue within the state.
It was a Northern State that was pro slavery and anti Confederacy. It did not view the civil war as a slave issue. It considered the civil war a states rights issue.
the issue of slavery became important again in 1850. At that time, california requested to join the union as a free state.
The compromise of 1850
Slavery was a states rights issue. The essential problem was if a state had the right to allow slavery when the federal government states it is illegal. We are still arguing the issue today. For Lincoln it was an issue of keeping the union together. Slavery wasn't so much the cause but a emotional and political response of where the power of the federal government stops and the state begins.
Slavery became a larger issue in light of the Civil War starting to begin. However, slavery did not start the Civil War. That came about through many different issues with the economy and state's rights. Slavery was the straw to break the camel's back really.
The issue of state's rights is still debated by historians and polititians today. The issue of slavery however is not a factor. Slavery was abolished in the US when the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution was adopted.
The essential question was a states rights question about if the federal government had the right to outlaw slavery or if it was a state issue. Even today, we are still having the same discussion concerning state rights. It isn't over slavery, but over other issues like abortion. The subject has changed, but not the argument over federal/ state rights.
Not really. The main issue was State's Rights. That is, a state's right to govern themselves over the federal government. Slavery was a key issue, but not the sole cause. A series of laws unpopular with southern states caused them to get fed up and secede; starting with South Carolina and many others following suit.
Slavery was the straw that broke the camel's back. It 'pushed the envelope' of the already heated issue of State's Rights- The South held State's Rights (such as choosing whether or not to allow slavery) above national unity, so they succeeded from the union.