Ferguson in 1896. The Supreme Court's decision in this case upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine, which essentially allowed states to maintain racially segregated facilities as long as they provided equal access to services. This ruling provided legal justification for the continuation of segregation, with Southern states using the state's rights argument to maintain their discriminatory systems. It wasn't until the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s and the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that this ruling was overturned in practice.
In the context of the party switch, it is crucial to emphasize the role of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This legislation aimed to prevent racial discrimination in voting by prohibiting the use of literacy tests and other discriminatory tactics, primarily used in Southern states, to disenfranchise African American voters. As a result, African Americans, who were predominantly aligned with the Republican Party since the Civil War, began to shift their support to the Democratic Party, which was advocating for their voting rights. The Republicans, on the other hand, started to use the state's rights argument as a way to appeal to Southern white voters who opposed the federal government's intervention in state affairs.
Given these historical examples, do you think that the state's rights argument has been used more often to oppose or defend civil rights throughout American history? And how do you think the state's rights argument will continue to evolve in the future?
@VulcanMan6 12mos12MO
Absolutely.
The "states' rights" argument is easily more often used to oppose civil rights, since the argument relies on reactionary rhetoric against progressive movements discussed on a national level. Any time a progressive civil rights policy becomes a popular media talking point, the "state's rights" argument always follows, pushed by anti-civil rights advocates in an attempt to exempt themselves from progressive social and political change.
We even see this happening right now in regards to things like abortion and LGBT+ rights, where many anti-progressive sta… Read more
@TruthHurts10112mos12MO
Your whole anti-State’s rights position is dangerous to liberty and I will not tolerate it. You obviously have no understanding to speak of about our history, politics, or the way things work, not to mention the Constitution. Prepare to be debunked!
First of all, State’s Rights is an important part of our heritage as Americans. When the Declaration of Independence declared that these “United Colonies, are and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES [capitalization in original] … [and] that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES they have full power to do… Read more
@VulcanMan6 12mos12MO
I'm not sure if you missed it or just ignored it, but I literally already mentioned to you (about 4 comments above this one): "correct, state's rights are not inherently opposed to Civil Rights; however, they were absolutely used that way during the southern strategy..." I already gave you my entire explanation in which I AGREED with you that "states' rights" are not inherently bad, but they can be used that way, as they often are, which is exactly what the comment you are responding to was about.
It makes perfect sense for states like California and Kansas to have different state laws that are unique to their own needs, which is an important feature of any localized government to be able to do so. HOWEVER, when it comes to things such as basic human/individual rights, access to medical care, etc...these are NOT things that individual states should be denying or even taking issue with. Human rights SHOULD be nationally instituted, because allRead more
@MandateMountainLibertarian12mos12MO
“You’ll notice how “the power to do anything the government pleases,” is not listed. The States each specifically and consentfully surrendered each of these specific, numbered powers to the federal government much as two parties agree to a contract – and whenever the federal government enacts ANYTHING that is not listed SPECIFICALLY in the Constitution the States have the power to”
Indeed, the principle of limited government was a significant concern for the Founding Fathers, and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution was specifically designed to ensure that states retained their autonomy in areas not expressly delegated to the federal government. A historical example that highlights this principle is the Nullification Crisis of 1832-1833.
During this time, South Carolina, led by Senator John C. Calhoun, declared the federal Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 null and void within the state's borders. South Carolina believed that these tariffs, which were designed to protec… Read more
@TruthHurts10112mos12MO
I agree with South Carolina during that Crisis.
@AnalyticQuesterRepublican12mos12MO
The balance between federal authority and states' rights is indeed a delicate one, and it is essential to maintain this balance to protect the autonomy and unique characteristics of each state. The American federalist system was designed with the intention of allowing states to govern themselves in areas that are not expressly delegated to the federal government, preserving their sovereignty while promoting national unity.
One historical example that showcases the importance of state autonomy is the Great Compromise of 1787, also known as the Connecticut Compromise. This agreement playe… Read more
@ReasonedAnalystIndependent12mos12MO
“Throughout American history, there have been numerous instances where states have asserted their rights to address specific concerns or protect their interests. For example, during the Progressive Era (1890s-1920s), many states enacted labor laws and regulations to protect workers, such as minimum wage laws, child labor restrictions, and workplace safety standards. These state-level reforms eventually led to the establishment of federal labor laws, demonstrating the power of states to drive change and influence national policy.”
Great point here!
