----- Original Message ----- From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 5:23 PM Subject: Re:L3 Bitter Mellons, Gin and Tonic, and a an Un- reasonable view.
> --- 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. But, it didn't hold any sway with the folks who used States Rights to argue for slavery. Your comments on early earnest disagreements on the relative strength of the federal government is consistent with my understanding of the history of that time. Wanting to favor state power more than national power isn't inherently racist, it was indeed tainted by over 100 years of being used in the service of racism. That's fair enough. >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. But, what I've noticed is that folks who argue one way or the other now don't speak of "States Rights." After those words being used as code words for so many years, folks who suggest that the states are the best place to handle X don't call upon states rights as their reason. They might make an argument that would classified as an honest states rights argument, but stay away from words that have such a strong connotation after being hijacked for so many years. In addition, I don't see it as an argument of inherent principal in many/most cases; but as a pragmatic argument. The same people who argue things should be handled at the state level for X tend to support uniform federal standards on Y. This can best be seen by liberals starting to endorse states rights for things like medical marijuana and pollution regulations. The conservatives, who usually have argued for less federal government control, have taken the other side. I'm not saying that its all hypocrisy, BTW. Pragmatism is not the same as hypocrisy. It may be best that practical questions guide how the nation solves the issue of doing things more at a national or local level. Dan M. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
