Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Anti-federalism and 1960's Segregation

  1. #1

    Anti-federalism and 1960's Segregation

    Even though I've been a proponent of anti-federalism for some time, I've never seriously considered how states' rights/anti-federalism would have dealt with segregation in the South during the 60's

    The federal government stepped in to allow African-Americans to attend public universities and high schools. In my opinion (and I assume, the opinion of most here), breaking down the oppressive, racist prohibitions on integrated schools was a good thing.

    I generally favor local people making local decisions. However, these states were denying certain citizens the ability to attend certain schools based solely on the fact of their skin color.

    Could integration have been accomplished without the feds stepping in?

    Note: I'm not looking to have debate on whether public schools should exist at all



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    The problem wasn`t really segregation of schools, blacks were not necessarily dying to hang around whites either. The problem was that black schools were getting very very little funds. Taking care of funding would have solved that issue with much less social turmoil.

    Intervention of the federal government sounds nice in this case, but they actually did it primarily to increase their power over states, rather than of any conviction for justice or whatever. Any intervention that had the support of the public opinion would have been useful to them for this purpose wether just or not.

    Also it is doubtful that such conditions as there were would have endured for so long were it not for prior federal interventions and the local resentment and spite they created and actually cemented such unhealthy stances by making them into a matter of local pride and identity.

    Certainly you will agree that the whole civil war and reconstruction thing did little for racial relations in the south. Rather it poisoned them for a long time.
    Last edited by sailor; 05-26-2009 at 12:33 PM.

  4. #3
    You change things locally. Don't like how it is somewhere, you either move or work to change it there. Some things would happen quicker, some things would happen slower, but in the long run we'd all be better off.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by ChaosControl View Post
    You change things locally. Don't like how it is somewhere, you either move or work to change it there. Some things would happen quicker, some things would happen slower, but in the long run we'd all be better off.
    So it is okay for certain towns to deny rights?

    We're talking about gaining access to a public, government-funded institution. These African-Americans paid taxes to build the superior white schools too. Why couldn't they attend them?

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by DeadheadForPaul View Post
    So it is okay for certain towns to deny rights?

    We're talking about gaining access to a public, government-funded institution. These African-Americans paid taxes to build the superior white schools too. Why couldn't they attend them?
    I'm not saying it was right. I'm saying you have to fight it at he local level. If you use the federal government to fight it, you invite them in to regulate any and all behavior within the state and give up any and all rights the state and local community once had. It only takes one open door to let someone into a house.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by DeadheadForPaul View Post
    So it is okay for certain towns to deny rights?

    We're talking about gaining access to a public, government-funded institution. These African-Americans paid taxes to build the superior white schools too. Why couldn't they attend them?
    As soon as we start talking about a system where there is any amount of coercive government the waters begin to muddy. It is impossible to find 100% consistency within any such arrangement. Generally decentralised system will produce better results, but not always and for all issues. Same as a constitutional republic will generaly produce better results than a dictatorship, but not always and for all issues. Stil, the more fragmented, decentralised and limited coercive power the better (generally). But if you are looking for total internal consistency then the anwser is neither federalism nor states rights but anarchy.



Similar Threads

  1. Books on anti federalists,anti federalism
    By NationalAnarchist in forum Books & Literature
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-06-2013, 08:25 AM
  2. Which is best? Federalism or Anti-Federalism?
    By John F Kennedy III in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 03-28-2012, 07:05 PM
  3. Help: 2 Challenges to Anti-Federalism
    By DeadheadForPaul in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-01-2010, 02:47 PM
  4. Anti-Federalism insurgence starting up big ?
    By Juan McCain in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-19-2010, 09:37 AM
  5. Issue: Personal Liberty: Anti-Federalism
    By DavyDuke17 in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-08-2007, 01:12 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •