Time to break up California and Texas into multiple states.
Or even better combine some states. Loiusiana, Alabama, and Mississippi could be one state.
In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states
61–65 of 65 posts
Re: In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was sanctioned at the federal level for nearly 100 years.
It was never ever sanctioned. It just wasn't not sanctioned.
This is just a tiny nit - but slavery was actually sanctioned at the federal level through the Fugitive Slave Law. This was one of the events that led to the Civil War - since the northern states suddenly had to enforce southern slave laws. Northern states who did not oppose slavery (as long as it was below the mason dixon line) and could coexist with the south suddenly opposed slavery since they were being forced to enforce southern laws.
Re: In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
Knowing the history and the current makeup of the south outside of large metropolitan areas like Atlanta, “states rights” should frighten anyone who is any type of minority.
The nice thing about states rights is that there were actually states to fight it. Think if slavery had been sanctioned on a federal level?
> Think if slavery had been sanctioned on a federal level?
Slavery was sanctioned at the federal level, protected by elements of the Constitution and defended by federal statute, up until after the Civil War.
Ever hear of the Fugitive Slave Act, the Dredd Scott decision,and the 3/5 compromise, among many other things?
Re: In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was sanctioned at the federal level for nearly 100 years.
It was never ever sanctioned. It just wasn't not sanctioned.
> It was never ever sanctioned.
Yeah, it's not like (for instance) the Constitution expressly forbade Congress (despite it's otherwise general power over international trade) from limiting the slave trade until 1808 except by imposing an import duty capped at $10/head.
Or like the Congress passed, and the federal executive enforced, and the federal courts applied laws protecting slaveholders rights over wayward property even if it strayed into free states.
Except, well...
Re: In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
"States' rights" is used as a dogwhistle in the United States for supporting legally protected racial, sexual, and religious discrimination. [edit] In many political circles. In the antebellum era of US history it was used to excuse and defend slavery, and later, Jim Crow laws and segregation. There is a legitimate need for states to protect their rights, but that's not how the phrase has been used historically.
It's also the reason California can pass a net neutrality law. Two sides to every coin.
I'm pretty sure "subjugation of the population through chattel slavery or Jim Crow" and "net neutrality" are on different coins. That can't be your calculation in deciding whether or not to side with the "state's rights" camp.
I am in favor of concentrating power in the hands of the people and have a bias towards local over regional or national. But I won't ignore the reality that many who have pushed for "state's rights" as a term were specifically fighting for the rights of states to oppress minorities. This is why I prefer to express my politics through phrases like "power to the people" and not "power to the states" - when states are undemocratic, they should have no rights.