Tweet
Those of you who have known my positions here on Apolyton, know that I am weary of states' rights arguments. But I don't think I fully, clearly explained why I don't support stronger states' rights.
White Southerners' states' rights arguments have historically been merely a facade in attempts to preserve white supremacy -- this is my opinion, based on my perceptions on what I have read and learned.
1) Republicans in the immediate years before the Civil War wanted to restrict slavery to where it alredy existed.
Southern leaders argued to maintain strong states' rights in order to prevent federal government from becoming too powerful.
2) During the 1890's, the Republican national convention platform included a statement declaring that the political and racial violence of the Southern states injusticely disfranchised black citizens.
Southern leaders argued to maintain states' rights in order to prevent federal government authorities from "corrupting" the voting process.
3) During the 20th century civil rights movement, the federal government, under pressure from mass-organized protests, moved towards giving black citizens back their civil rights and towards equality.
Southern leaders argued for states' rights in order to prevent the federal government from trampling over state constitutions.
The above three historical examples show how everytime there was an attempt to give blacks equality, white Southerners would get all hot-headed, and huff and puff about states' rights.
Not all white southerners argued for states' rights to preserve white supremacy in their respective state, and instead, those people argued for more legitimate, respectable reasons.
But given the historical evidence in how many other white Southerners argued for states' rights, I have the opinion that states' rights has been nothing more but a facade in order to preserve white supremacy.
White Southerners' states' rights arguments have historically been merely a facade in attempts to preserve white supremacy -- this is my opinion, based on my perceptions on what I have read and learned.
1) Republicans in the immediate years before the Civil War wanted to restrict slavery to where it alredy existed.
Southern leaders argued to maintain strong states' rights in order to prevent federal government from becoming too powerful.
2) During the 1890's, the Republican national convention platform included a statement declaring that the political and racial violence of the Southern states injusticely disfranchised black citizens.
Southern leaders argued to maintain states' rights in order to prevent federal government authorities from "corrupting" the voting process.
3) During the 20th century civil rights movement, the federal government, under pressure from mass-organized protests, moved towards giving black citizens back their civil rights and towards equality.
Southern leaders argued for states' rights in order to prevent the federal government from trampling over state constitutions.
The above three historical examples show how everytime there was an attempt to give blacks equality, white Southerners would get all hot-headed, and huff and puff about states' rights.
Not all white southerners argued for states' rights to preserve white supremacy in their respective state, and instead, those people argued for more legitimate, respectable reasons.
But given the historical evidence in how many other white Southerners argued for states' rights, I have the opinion that states' rights has been nothing more but a facade in order to preserve white supremacy.
We're one country dammit! It's stupid to keep using old historical borders. I think there should be an elimination of states and a complete reorganization of the way our country is defined; internally.
.
Comment