Large Scale Central

Reaffirming States' Rights

General Discussion
#21
mike omalley said:
Yes, it does--the 14th and 15th amendments are pretty unambiguous on this point

Tillman’s comment came more than 50 years after the Civil War. Roosevelt invited Booker Washington to the White house in I think 1908. State’s Rights was constantly invoked in the 1950s and 60s to save legal segregation.

here’s the heritage of the “national state’s Right’s party”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_States’_Rights_Party


What does the XIV (Congress) and XV (Slavery) Amendment have to do with States’ rights?

#22

Have you actually read the amendments? They have everything to do with citizenship and state vs federal rights. Here is the quote from the 14th amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Notice this: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

It sets up federal citizenship as pre-eminent and establishes that states may not infringe a right established by federal citizenship. It was widely ignored, under the glorious banner of “state’s rights” to disenfranchise black Americans in the 1890s through the 1960s, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964

The 15th amendment provides that race and color cannot be used as the basis for limiting a citizen’s voting rights: again, under the glorious banner of “state’s rights” this amendment was ignored until the 60s.

State’s rights, as I said earlier, has mostly been used as a cloak to pretty up racist motives

#23

I see your point mike, but neither Amendment nullifies the IX or X Amendments.

Quote:
. . Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

#24
mike omalley said:
Please read my post again--I said "mostly" and "almost always."

Take a look at the record and it’s really clear–states’ rights arguments have overwhelmingly been the pet theory of segregationists and slaveholders. It’s an ugly record. In the early 20th century, men like Ben Tillman, the governor of/Senator from South Carolina could get up an openly assert the state’s right to prevent black people from voting in direct contradiction of the 14th amendment.

Here’s a famous quote from Tillman:

"Reacting to news that Booker T. Washington had dined at the White House with President Theodore Roosevelt and his family, Tillman predicted, “The action of President Roosevelt in entertaining that nigger will necessitate our killing a thousand niggers in the South before they will learn their place again.”

Tillman was all about S. Carolina’s sovereign right to determine who gets to vote.

Speaking for myself, I’m generally highly suspicious of state’s right arguments for exactly that reason.


Like I said, Mike, it is the Democrats who are responsible for the Jim Crow laws that did the most to keep the colored folks down on the plantation after 1865. Ben Tillman of whom you spoke, was a life-long South Carolina Democrat. What a fine history the Democrats have.

#25

I never claimed otherwise and you’ll get no argument from me on that point. The democrats did not become the party of anti-racism till the 1940s. State’s rights, on the other hand, was still being waved as a mask for racism into the present.

#26
mike omalley said:
I never claimed otherwise and you'll get no argument from me on that point. The democrats did not become the party of anti-racism till the 1940s. State's rights, on the other hand, was still being waved as a mask for racism into the present.
Hmmmm, I thought that George Wallace, the Gub'nor of Alabama, was a Democrat. As was Algore's father. You might want to rethink those dates, Mike.
#27

What about Democrat Robert Byrd? The black community continues to support Democrats 93% in the last election, but what are the Dems doing for them? For how many decades does the black community continue to vote Democrat, and they are still complaining (maybe rightly so). How often does one have to beat their head against the wall before it sinks in?

#28

Ahh, yes, the Grand Poobah of the KKK, how could I have forgotten him?

#29

I will happily admit that the Democrats are the party of white supremacy from their founding in the 1820s through the 1890s. After that it gets more complicated. The Democratic Party increasingly becomes, in the north, the party of labor and immigrants, and it begins to lose its commitment to racism.

African Americans joined the Democratic party starting in the 30s, when Roosevelt ( a Democrat) began making significant gestures towards Civil Rights. By that time (the 30s) the Democratic Party had changed significantly. In the northeast, it had become much more closely identified with the idea of racial equality. By the end of WWII, it was hard to find an African American Republican, because of measures like the Fair Employment Practices Act. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_8802) African Americans abandoned the Republican Party, which had been indifferent to their rights since 1890, and joined the Democrats

At the same time, the South remained in the grip of a different Democratic Party, the “dixiecrat” party of men like Wallace. When Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 he said “The Democratic Party has just lost the South for a generation.” Southern Democrats continued to support segregation well into the 1980s, but they also began defecting to the Republicans as Johnson had predicted.

Ronald Regan signaled his support for “State’s Rights,” and the remaining southern Democrats who had clung like barnacles to racial segregation switched to–the Republican Party, which welcomed them with open arms. Since the 80s, it has become increasingly difficult to find white democrats in the South. Interesting, no?

What has been consistent is the connection between “state’s rights” and racial bigotry. It was used by Democrats to screen racism, and then when the Dems abandoned racial segregation as a policy the Republicans picked up the State’s Rights mantra. Most famously, Ronald Reagan gave a speech defending state’s rights in Neshoba, Miss., a few miles from the site where three civil rights workers were murdered , in which he claimed his support for the doctrine of States rights–exactly the doctrine the murderers had used in their defense

The history of the Democratic Party’s support for white supremacy is a shameful one, but what’s perhaps even more shameful is how when the Democrats dropped it, the Republicans picked it up

As to Robert Byrd and the klan, "In his latest autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a member because he “was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision — a jejune and immature outlook — seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions.”[10] Byrd also said, in 2005, “I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times… and I don’t mind apologizing over and over again. I can’t erase what happened.”

But I’m not from West Virginia and if you’ve ever been there you will notice right away that there are very few African Americans in WV. He’s good at delivering pork.

What has the Democratic Party done for black Americans? Well just two examples, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights act–look them up. They’re the most important pieces of Civil Rights legislation since Reconstruction and they ended the legacy of disenfranchisement. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964)

Unlike David, I’m inclined to believe that black Americans are perfectly capable of judging what’s in their best interests

#30

Mike,

Can you give background support to your statement? - “The history of the Democratic Party’s support for white supremacy is a shameful one, but what’s perhaps even more shameful is how when the Democrats dropped it, the Republicans picked it up”

My question is what is the evidence the Republicans picked “it” (white supremacy) up?

Just my observation, but in this part of the World, Republicans accepted black Americans as equals and some black Americans have not taken or understood that reponsibility. Those black Americans that understood it have prospered. Those that didn’t understand the responsibility are still Democrats or understand it and are exploiting other black Americans that can’t or don’t understand it. Welcome to politics in Illinois and the world of community organizers.

#31

Here are the voting stats for the The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, July 2, 1964)

Vote totals

Totals are in “Yea-Nay” format:

* The original House version: 290-130   (69%-31%)
* The Senate version: 73-27   (73%-27%)
* The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126   (70%-30%)

By party

The original House version:

* Democratic Party: 152-96   (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34   (80%-20%)

The Senate version:

* Democratic Party: 46-21   (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6   (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

* Democratic Party: 153-91   (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35   (80%-20%)

By party and region

Note : “Southern”, as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. “Northern” refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

* Southern Democrats: 7-87   (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10   (0%-100%)

* Northern Democrats: 145-9   (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24   (85%-15%)

The Senate version:

* Southern Democrats: 1-20   (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1   (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1   (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5   (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)
#32

Trying to analyze politics in this part of the World. It seems that of the people that I know or have a good suspicion of their political affiliation or leanings, break down this way. Democrats get paid by tax dollars or aspire to be paid by tax dollars, while Republicans work for private enterprises and aspire to own their own businesses, unless they can live off of grants and then they are Democrats.

#33

I’ll have to ignore the part of your post that says all the good black people are republican and all the bad black people are democrats. It’s just your opinion and you’ve got no specific evidence for it other than your opinion so there’s no effective response I can make.

But the idea that the Republican Party has picked up the flag of white supremacy is really well supported by the historical record.

Joe Crespino, a native of miss. and a historian at Emory in Atlanta, makes this argument in In Search of Another Country: Mississippi and the Conservative Counterrevolution, if you want to read a book about it. There are a lot of other sources that say the same thing.

But it was described by Nixon as the “southern strategy”–that Republicans could pick off southern whites angry about Civil Rights. Pat Buchanan talks about it exactly this way.

I could go on but it would take a while and in the end I don’t think it would change anybody’s view. My initial point I’d stick to: State’s Rights was and is MOSTLY a cover for white supremacy. Steve’s buddy, Randy Weaver, was a white supremacist and a big believer in, yes, state’s rights. The argument for a strong federal government–the argument expressed in the 14th and 15th amendments–was advanced in the context of using federal power to assure citizenship rights to black people. The State’s rights argument was born resisting that idea, way back in 1789

You could make a state’s rights argument that was NOT a cover for white supremacy, and people have. I’m just argiuing that historically, it has mostly been about race

#34

Did you read my post about the one example of the Democrats voting record against civil rights for blacks? If you research this a little bit further, you will see that it has been the Dems that have been trying to “keep Negros on the plantation” e.g. gun rights, marriage certificates, civil rights, welfare programs, etc.

#35

David, your example proves my point exactly, so I saw no need to respond to it

#36
mike omalley said:
But the idea that the Republican Party has picked up the flag of white supremacy is really well supported by the historical record.

You could make a state’s rights argument that was NOT a cover for white supremacy, and people have. I’m just argiuing that historically, it has mostly been about race


Wow! Who in the World would pay attention to anyone you quoted. That is really off the wall.