3 ms·
Segregation would still probably be legal in many parts of the country if the federal government hadn't put the states in their place Segregation would still p
by crusso 13y ago
Segregation would still probably be legal in many parts of the country if the federal government hadn't put the states in their place
Segregation would still probably exist without the feds stepping in therefore let's spend trillions of dollars a year driving our economy into the dirt.
Then on the other side, you have the Dred Scott Decision, the Fugitive Slave Act and many other Federal moves that prolonged slavery in this country. Would it not have been for the northern states and churches, the Federal Government would have been able to keep slavery itself in place.
Bottom line is that we want to maximize freedom for individuals and small group decision making wherever possible. Larger entities should only step in when individuals or small groups can't work it out for themselves.
- tptacek 13y agoThe federal government decisions that prolonged slavery were animated by the interests of states that would without a strong central government still have slavery, and impacted mostly those states, so I'm not sure that helps your argument much.
- crusso 13y agoSo now you're falling back on "interests" of the states when the actions of the Federal government are the ones we have on hard record. I could just as easily counter Rayiner's contention that the Feds were responsible for ending Segregation by saying that the interests of the states, localities, and citizenry were the actual force behind the end of Segregation.
- pfedor 13y agoYou actually think that these states would still have slavery? To this day, thirty years after the last country in the world (Mauritania) abolished it?
- tptacek 13y agoSegregation would still be de-jure lawful in Alabama, in the same way that sodomy laws were still technically enforceable in Texas until struck down by SCOTUS.