Correct, state's rights are not inherently opposed to Civil Rights; however, they were absolutely used that way during the southern strategy. Many southern states used the "state's rights" idea to defend the use of Jim Crow policies and segregation throughout the South during those times (similar to how it was used in the South's attempts to not have to give up slaves), just as the "state's rights" argument is also being used today to push against individual rights like abortion or gender-affirming procedures within many Republican states.
But yes, you're right that states' rights are not inherently opposed to civil rights, such as the Fugitive Slave Act, in which it was vehemently opposed by Northern States, and supported by the South. Yet, at the same time, the South pushed for their states' right to choose to preserve slavery when the Northern abolitionists wanted to abolish it nationally (which it eventually was, luckily). It can obviously be used both ways, you just have to look at the context.
Lastly, the party switch isn't a theory, it's literally just normal US history. It's how we got changes like this:Näytä kuva
I literally already explained the brief history of the party switch in my last comment, which I will repeat, since you seem to have overlooked it:
"In the early 1900s, both the Republican and Democrat Parties were not that different from each other, and it was common for politicians to flip flop between the two, until after the Great Depression, when the southern Democrat's more Liberal president FDR passed the New Deal to help pull us out of our bad situation, which prompted the northern Republicans to take a more conservative approach to separate their ideologies. This escalated until the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s, when Democrat president LBJ passed the Civil Rights Acts. This caused the racial tensions within the Democratic Party to snap, in which the pro-Civil Rights voters/politicians staye… Lue lisää
Ole ensimmäinen, joka vastaa tähän kommentti .