--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But, your arguments really didn't support that. > Take states rights, for > example. Historically, it originated with the > Southern apologist school of > history arguing that the Civil war was fought over > states rights. There > are a myriad of reasons why this is a smokescreen. > Recently it was point > out, I think by Gautam but I won't swear by it, that > the South supported > the most overwhelming pre-war abridgement of states > rights by the federal > government: the Fugitive Slave Act. During the > argument over segregation, > the segregationists relied heavily on States rights. > One of the main > apologists for segregation later admitted it was not > a question of states > right. Given this, it is very > reasonable to be suspicious when "states rights" is > brought up in American > political discussions. Thus, this doesn't qualify > as a knee jerk reaction.
Hi Dan. I did make the point about the Fugitive Slave Act. To be totally fair to the "state's rights" argument, however, the concept of "state's rights" is central to the American constitional structure and probably one of the most important elements in the success of the American experiment. I think it's an entirely legitimate argument, and started out that way in real tensions based on legitimate principles between the Democratic-Republicans (in favor of state's rights, as a first approximation) and the Federalists (in favor of a strong federal government). The problem with the "state's rights" argument isn't that it is invalid on its face, or that everyone making that argument was doing it for convenience sake - it's that, starting in the early 1800s, it was co-opted by pro-slavery forces, which would eventually become the dominant voice using the "state's rights" argument. But one of the strongest arguments used against the Fugitive Slave Act was, of course...state's rights. So while I think it was fair to look with suspicion at people who made the claim that they were important in the 1950s, or even the 1970s, I don't think it would be fair to do so today. Had the claim of state's rights _always_ been about race, it would be, but it didn't start out that way - it was perverted by people who were using a legitimate argument for illegitimate purposes. ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
