I mean, the first president of the confederacy literally said it was about states rights to decide whether or not to have slavery. And from what I understand the confederacy was more centralized than the Union. So it wasn’t about “muh small govnment”. These dipshits just wanted to own other people.

Fun fact: the slavers who would form the Confederacy were the self-styled conservatives (but in actuality reactionaries, much like today’s crop) of the time. From Lincoln’s speech at Cooper Union:

But you say you are conservative—eminently conservative—while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by “our fathers who framed the Government under which we live”; while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the “gur-reat pur-rinciple” that “if one man would enslave another, no third man should object”, fantastically called “Popular Sovereignty”; but never a man among you is in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of “our fathers who framed the Government under which we live”. Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge of destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations.

Human action can be modified to some extent, but human nature cannot be changed. There is a judgment and a feeling against slavery in this nation, which cast at least a million and a half of votes. You cannot destroy that judgment and feeling—that sentiment—by breaking up the political organization which rallies around it. You can scarcely scatter and disperse an army which has been formed into order in the face of your heaviest fire; but if you could, how much would you gain by forcing the sentiment which created it out of the peaceful channel of the ballot-box, into some other channel?

If I wanna go read these documents, does anyone know what these documents might have been called? Would they be called like articles of secession for each state?

Edit: it looks like it might be ordinances of sucession, or ordinance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinance_of_Secession?wprov=sfla1

I need to look at it more but I’m absurdly sleep deprived and have a limited attention span to begin with. I’d appreciate any thoughts or knowledge on the subject anyone might wish to share :)

It’s literally in the articles of secession that the confederacy states drafted

States Rights … to do what?

https://youtu.be/-ZB2ftCl2Vk