In the Article V movement, we don’t use the term “states rights”. After Reconstruction ended in 1876 the South used “states rights” to impose segregation and Jim Crow laws on their black citizens. In 1948 Strom Thurmond ran as a segregationist on the States Rights ticket, and won South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. To my ears, “states rights” still means segregation and Jim Crow.
Federalism is a more general, and neutral, term, and it’s what we use. But there is no denying that states rights are an aspect of federalism, and if our movement succeeds the rights of the States will be enhanced. That’s a good thing. We want power taken from the globalists and returned to the nation. We want power taken from the federal government and returned to the States. We want power taken from the States and returned to local government. We want power returned to the people.
To which the left responds, “What about Alabama?” White Republicans have a lock on the State government of Alabama. There are very few white Democrats, and very few black Republicans, and the party system is more or less racial. If Alabama was left on its own, would its black citizens be somehow disadvantaged yet again? Can we trust the whites of Alabama, who run the government, to be fair with their black citizens?
This is the question people in California ask themselves. There’s a prejudice against whites from the Deep South, which we’ll get to see in the Sessions hearings. It’s the reason there is not a national consensus in favor of federalism. In this Age of Trump, federalism looks tempting to Californians. But what about Alabama? Can it be trusted?
To which I respond, Please see Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, a highly popular black Republican. What the Republicans of Alabama need to do is find themselves another Tim Scott, and put him in the Senate to replace Sessions. Then maybe we’ll get federalism, and states rights to boot.