The Truth about the Dixiecrats What they were about.

National Review ^ | Dec 16,2002 | Dave Kopel

[Republic of Texas]

The rights of people to work, to be protected, ect... were already covered by the Constitution, we did not need new, more intrusive laws. As usual, if Government simply enforced the Constitution, we would all be better off.

[Illbay]

But to the contrary, the Dixiecrat concerns about a police state appear to have existed solely in the context for federal efforts to secure civil rights for black people.

Spot on.

Just as, a couple of generations earlier, "states' rights" was used as a fig-leaf when it came to the right of a state to secede from the Union (and steal Federal terrritory and facilities along with it), but was completely ignored when it came to the Fugitive Slave Law.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

Most of the things that happened weren't because of state law or Jim Crow laws. The laws that were there were there because they were the will of the local people.

[Illbay]

Can YOU come up with an example of a "segregationist" in the Republican party? I have to tell you, I cannot.

[Red Jones]

so glad that National Review provided clarity on this issue. It is so obnoxious to hear the mainstream media characterize these dixiecrats. Unfortunately, not more than 200,000 people will read NR's article, but the many millions will have their minds made up by propaganda. How long can our nation endure this type of propaganda and bad faith in our national conversation?

[philosofy123]

Do you really think that the people in South Carolina could not find any one in the whole State to represent them better than this retarded racist fossil? The problem is money. If he can prevent any one from running as a Republican, and Democrat would choose some leftist piece of s##t, then the public has no choice but to vote for the best of two evils. ‘

Sorry for being upset, I am just having one of these days.

[dirtboy]

Most of the things that happened weren't because of state law or Jim Crow laws. The laws that were there were there because they were the will of the local people.

So friggin what? It still is not right for a government at ANY level to provide for legal discrimination against ANYONE based on race. If a restaraunt does not want to serve minorities, that is their business (and others have the right to peaceable protest and ask others to withhold their business). That is how things are supposed to work. But government cannot legally create two classes of citizen based upon race.

[hchutch]

And a generation before THAT (1830s and 1840s), it probably would have been used to excuse religious persecution.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Only if you equate powers and rights. I do not.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

What are you getting upset about. I said we agree. The state should not make laws separating races or classes of people for any reason. My whole point is that a lot of the segregation that took place wasn't because there was a law forcing segregation. That's all.

[dirtboy]

Rothbard was a IDIOT with that letter. Once again, with feeling, from the intial post:

But to the contrary, the Dixiecrat concerns about a police state appear to have existed solely in the context for federal efforts to secure civil rights for black people...States' rights were not a legitimate constitutional basis for states to violate the constitutional rights of their citizens.

I will take the reasoned libertarianism of Kopel over Rothbard's blinders any day of the week.

[Republic of Texas]

That is a bad situation. If the people of SC cared about having better representation, they would probably do something about it.

[dirtboy]

Only if you equate powers and rights. I do not.

Power is equal to rights, force and will. You cannot separate them.

[CyberCowboy777]

States' rights were not a legitimate constitutional basis for states to violate the constitutional rights of their citizens.

True

[dirtboy]

My whole point is that a lot of the segregation that took place wasn't because there was a law forcing segregation.

Well, then, quit mentioning law, the 10th Amendment and SCOTUS decisions.

[FourtySeven]

Radical African-American activists and Dim-Dems feed at the same "woe is me" trough and they both need an enslaved population to multiply.

Bingo!

[SteveTuck]

Segregationists back then, as they are today, were Democrats.

The South was a one-party region from Reconstruction to the 1970s. The Democrats that supported segregation were conservative.

[philosofy123]

Back to my initial supposition. The State of South Carolina is then either all stupid or racist?

[OWK]

Cool screen name.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Again....this was typical Rothbard, always trying to "burrow from within." In the 1950s, he was supporting Adlai Stevenson and even appearing at Democratic meetings for that purpose!