Since the founding of the United States, federations have existed in a modern form. William H. Ricker defines federations as political organizations whose activities are divided between the central and regional governments so that each government’s final decision is founded on some activity. Moreover, Federalism embodies that integration process of getting to the federation. During the 1960s, emphasis was placed on racist confrontation to protection by federal civil rights and how they expanded to incorporate fierce antagonism to a complete federal act. The oppositions eventually resulted in enacting the 1964 Civil Rights Act that purposed to prohibit racial discrimination in public accommodation places, by private employers, and in federal funds reception. However, while objections to states’ rights enforcement and enactment of federal Civil rights laws might have gained limited traction after 1964, they did not mean racist confrontation to protection ceased. Therefore, Federalism becomes a process where freedom is destroyed rather than encouraged.
Arguments Against the 1964 Civil Rights Act
Two principal arguments arose from the enactment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. One, the act would impermissibly limit employers and business owners’ liberty rights to decide who to associate with. Two, through the bill, an effort was constituted to establish oppressive federal control form over the internal affairs of the states. Quoting from Senator Norris Cotton, Logan shows that “from what the Founding Fathers learned…history that a central government enforced Civil rights all too soon was associated with oppressive tyrannies.” That was the primary reason federal civil rights protection was not a proper field for Federal legislation.
Matters like labor-union membership or employment discrimination alongside every form of inequity associated with the minority groups in the U.S. were best subjected to the local level or the State via public opinion force. Moreover, the resulting direct contradiction to the Bill of Rights’ intent and spirit would trigger individual freedom of choice and liberty destruction from the almost limitless Federal Government control extension over businesses and individuals. Based on the claims by Civil Rights Act’s opponents, Ricker summarized the perspective of several progressives by arguing that Federalism had everything to do with promoting racism and nothing to do with safeguarding liberty. In his explanation, Ricker shows that many exponents that persistently aligned with states’ rights had their employment of the doctrine veiled first by slavery defense then Civil tyranny. The said doctrine was made to make much of what looked like freedom resemble federalism features.
From the explanation, it appears that Federalism associates more with the destruction of rather than encouraging freedom. By not mincing words, Ricker further explained that anyone who approved Southern white racists equally approved Federalism in the U.S. As such, by disapproving racism, anyone should disapprove of features associated with Federalism. The understanding can be exemplified by the two 1994 liberal law professors who argued that Federalism lacked any normative principle worthy of protecting, and it was more than an American neurosis. To date, though to a limited extent, the established understanding of the relationship between Federalism and racism remains progressive in the U.S.
Southern resentment was associated with voting laws among the areas of continued federal oversight. In 1965, the Voting Rights Act mandated, among other things, that certain history long racial discrimination voting jurisdictions, primarily located in the South, sought federal courts or Justice Department approval before implementing new voting limitations. From 1965 onwards, Congress reauthorized the requirement by the federal courts for pre-approval four times by overwhelming majorities. The latest encounter where Congress reauthorized such a requirement was in 2006 where the House of Representatives passed the measure by 393 to 33 votes while the Senate passed the measure with 98 to 0 votes. In 2013, in the Shelby County, Alabama-Holder case, the conservative supreme court struck down the pre-approval requirement for the federal courts by a 5-4 majority vote. Throughout the history of the U.S., it was the first time the decision by the conservative supreme court showed the federal court violated the American Constitution when certain states were treated differently than others.
With the 2013 conservative supreme court ruling, more voting restriction measure floodgates were opened, with the states dominated by Republicans enacting similar measures. Through the measures, new regulations and laws have been enacted purposed to have the effect of discouraging more African-Americans, minority groups, and poor people from voting. Ostensibly, the measures intend to incorporate new requirements for voter identification, handle unproven voter fraud, voter purge statutes, and stricter voter registration regulations. Going back to the Civil War, Shelby County was the only restatement where arguments by the federalists were deployed in ways that firmly maintained systematic racial injustice and inequality in the U.S. The restatement in Shelby County‘s leading Republican-dominated states echoes Ricker’s explanation that Federalism only serves to promote racism, which translates to the destruction of freedom.
The constitutional amendments after the post-Civil War and the 1960s comprehensive enactment of federal Civil rights laws served to protect the monitories against Federalism. However, with the fugitive enslaved issue throughout the nineteenth century, the Trump administration clarified that while federal governments pursue specific policies, it does not mean they serve to protect the minority groups. At times, the use of such policies is the case of federal governments utilizing force to limit the rights of the disadvantaged and vulnerable populations by restricting their abilities. Further, Federalism is considered the use of governments to pursue discriminatory, harmful, and misguided policies.
Power and Influence due to Federalism
The evolution of federal authority in the 1960s was both democratic and functional and associated with incompetence and anti-democratic support for political safeguards. The success of most Southern states was achieved through state governmental institutions, widespread protests, and federal representation to resist direct federal orders. The success of such states served to prove that national institutions were not at the center of the American government. The constant reaffirmations made by the federal courts alongside the willingness by the central government had insignificant influence in how the governments used, particularly in the South, forced to discriminate against the African-Americans. Despite the willingness by the presidents to intercede strictly where the federal administrations allowed, the entire issue of black rights was subject to the willingness by the federal states to end the oppression. Further, despite the constitution providing for equal rights for all, the liberty of the African-Americans was dependent on compliance by the federal states on the national policy.
As such, the protests and the call for Civil rights were long overdue due to the resistance by the Southern states. As Ricker argues, Federalism and its process became the fundamental pillar where the federal governments prevented the realization of freedom for the African-Americans between the 1950 and the 1970s. Thus, the federal states’ power and influence, specifically those in the South, became the veil in the employed doctrine that facilitated the states first to defend slavery then Civil tyranny. Through power and influence that came with Federalism, it was possible, and though to a limited extent, it remains impossible for the blacks to have equality in the country. The African-Americans’ rights, resulting in freedom, to a great extent, remain restricted by the respective federal governments throughout the country.
The Function of Federalism in Slavery
Federalism as a political safeguard was subject to progress; however, the progress was both halting and slow. Relative to the Civil Rights Movements, the pace federal governments worked with played no significant role in realizing the call for changes by the African-Americans. Based on Morton Grodzins, the problem associated with the blacks was of de jure segregation in the Southern states. Not only was Federalism responsible for giving the Southern states the power to create the problem, but it was also responsible for the slow-paced actions the states took in responding to the protests. Moreover, according to Grodzins, the sheer force employed in persecuting African-Americans in their movements for Civil rights was also facilitated by Federalism. From a different perspective, Grodzins also associated Federalism with the drive that led the blacks in Midwestern and Northern cities to become a critical voting bloc.
Through the voting bloc, these Africans had the power to push non-Southern elected officials and presidents towards reforms. Conclusively, Grodzins stated that despite the integration of African-Americans everywhere in many places and the law, the integration would be short-lived. Through the employment of the possibilities afforded federal states by Federalism, it would be possible to overcome the barriers previously supported by federal systems. Reflecting the sentiments by Grodzins, the privileges afforded the black in the 1960s and the 1970s would soon lose their power. At the same time, the federal governments employ federalism features to provide essential services. Soon after and up to date, prejudice against African-Americans remains, with Caucasians being privileged over their black counterparts in every field. That remains the reason why to date, the number of African-American representatives in the Senate and House of Representatives remains relatively low compared to that of Whites.
Incompetent and Undemocratic States
The inability by the Southern states to safeguard the blacks and their supporters was evident in the violence associated with incompetent and undemocratic federal states. Due to Federalism, there were general concerns on how competent the federal governments were in the 1950s. The governments were deeply gerrymandered to favor the Caucasians over their black counterparts, both in urban and rural interests. Based on Michael Klarman, federal states refused to provide the necessary demanded protection and services despite that being their responsibility for citizens turning to governments for relief and action. Moreover, the failure by the Southern states to confront racism and associated violence strongly reinforced doubts on state government fairness and competence.
In the 1950s, specifically between 1955 and 1958-59, the U.S. recorded several racism-oriented incidents. Courtesy of the 1954 case between Brown and the Board of Education, the Southern states encountered a violent epidemic against Civil rights proponents and African-Americans. The violence, in many instances, was Southern government-supported and was unprosecuted, unpunished, and unopposed. Between the mentioned years, due to Federalism, there were 225 anti-Civil rights violence, 44 beatings, 29 firearm assaults, and six killings, while 210 racial intimidation incidents were recorded from threats to Klan rallies. Moreover, between 1955 and 1958, there were 90 damaged homes in the South due to anti-Civil rights-related violence, 60 explosives comprising of 15 gunfire, and eight arson-related explosives with 70 cities and towns threatened. A familiar sight constituted riots and associated Civil rights protests.
Furthermore, the violent acts often went unpunished and unprosecuted. A famous all-white jury acquitted Emmett Till murderers, and such was not the case. In a span of three years, 1955-1957, juries in the Southern states freed white defendants with only one Civil rights case not publicized. Southern law enforcement bodies did not indict the perpetrators most of the time. The failures and violence in the Southern states and the inabilities by the governments to respond appropriately became clear pointers the governments were failing in their fundamental duty to protect citizens’ rights and maintain law and order.
While federalism dates to the foundation of the U.S., it has been central in empowering federal governments both in the past and the present to deny and destroy freedom. Specific to the African-American community in the country, the Whites in the Southern states employed the features of Federalism in keeping slavery while defending Civil tyranny. Seeking to answer whether Federalism plays a role in destroying or encouraging freedom, the essay has shown a relationship between Federalism and how the Southern government has discriminated against black in U.S. history. The essay has shown that while oppression and denial of fundamental rights, in aspects like voting, was affected by Federalism, the same routine is being practiced among minority groups in the country. Hence, the answer proves that indeed Federalism has been employed, particularly by federal states, to discriminate and oppress blacks in the U.S. and, as such, agree with the sentiments by William Ricker.
Bibliography
Carlos, Ball, A. Principles Matter: The Constitution, Progressives, and the Trump Era. 2021. Oxford University Press.
Fleming, James E., and Jacob T. Levy. Federalism and Subsidiarity. 2014.
Logan Everett Sawyer, The Return of Constitutional Federalism, 91 Denv. U. L. Rev. 221 2014.
Michael j. Klarman, from Jim Crow to Civil Rights: The Supreme Court and The Struggle for Racial Equality 2004 424-25.
Morton Grodzins, The American System: A New View of Government in the United States 254 1966 (Daniel J. Elazar ed).
Riker, William Harrison. The Theory of Political Coalitions. Westport (Conn.): Greenwood Press, 1984.
Schwinn, Steven D. “”Shelby County V. Holder”: What It Means for the Voting Rights Act”. 2013. Social Education. 77, no. 5: 243-246.
Wilson, Paul E.. “Seech on Brown V. Board of Education, May 1, 1981”. University of Kansas Law Review. 30, no. 1.