I misspoke on that. I wasn’t thinking in the context of modern America but rather America leading up to and including the civil war. I wanted to correct the notion that in the lead up to the civil war, states rights only ever meant slavery. That was not true probably until the 1840s, by the time of Bleeding Kansas it was apparent. But yes, after that it meant other things that I was not thinking about, and should have phrased it differently.
Lee Atwater isn’t synonymous with the Republican party, you can’t even make the argument realistically the GHWB even followed Atwater’s positions on that stuff. Nor is one Republican strategist the same thing as “the whole party branding itself the party of intolerance.” Now I don’t doubt Democrats have branded it the party of intolerance, but you’ll need a lot more from the most tired Lee Atwater quote in history to say a whole political party has “branded itself” anything.
Okay, sure, before the abolitionist movement gained full throat, yes, there were economic interests included in the term, interests based on an agrarian economy that depended on cheap labor - but not necessarily slaves, since that economy persisted for generations after the end of slavery. But slavery was still at its heart, and was still the reason there even had to be a discussion about states’ rights under the Constitution in the first place.
If the GOP *didn’t *do what Atwater admitted it was doing, it would be interesting to learn where the departures were. I hope there is more to it than the presence of a few non-white non-male opportunists who have used the party for career advancement as much as it has used them for PR.
It’s pretty tendentious to claim that the GOP has not made an effort to appeal to racist sympathies. I’m going for accuracy here, though: the effort was global rather than regional, the effort in its economic incarnations didn’t come from the Nixon campaign, and the effort didn’t really do anything in the South that wasn’t going to happen anyway.
There are several issues today that could be characterized as States’ Rights, i.e. a dispute between some states and the federal government which could be subject to the 10th Amendment. But the term is never applied to them. In fact, most of the advocates of States’ Rights side with the federal government on them.
One such is Physician Assisted Suicide. When Oregon passed this back in the 90s, virtually the entire leadership in Washington, both in Congress and in the Clinton administration, opposed it. At the time, and probably even today, you’d have had to search long and hard to find a States’ Rights advocate who was in favor of the idea.
Others are medical marijuana and same-sex marriage. Any States’ Rights advocates oppose DOMA on that basis? I don’t think so.
What Atwater says is to get Southern votes before 1968 all you had to do was run a racist campaign. After 1968 racist campaigns hurt you, so you had to campaign on actual issues such as busing and taxes. The idea that what he says is an admission of any type of southern strategy is crazy.
If you look at the actual election results after 1968 they tell a different story than the southern strategy myth. The 1972 election was a landslide for Nixon in the north as well as the south. Jimmy Carter did very well in the south in 1976. Reagan won landslides in the north as well as the south. Bush won the entire south, the entire southwest and the entire mountain region, as well as most of the rust belt and midatlantic area. Clinton split the south with Bush and Dole. The South went heavily for Bush, but Obama won 2 and three Southern states in his election. The Southern Senators were split evenly between parties until 1994. Until 1994 Democrats in the house had either a majority or an even split in every southern state except Florida.
The truth is that as the salience of the race issue weakened Republicans grew stronger in the south until they finally gained control in the 1990’s because of voter disgust with Bill Clinton.
Atwater was, albeit a bit clumsily, explaining the concept of the dog-whistle. Since 1968, to appeal to racist voters, you can no longer be overt about it, you simply have to change the language you use. But the language is still understood by its intended target audience.
No one has ever claimed that all Southern states are always won by the most racist campaign, with no other factors involved, so I’m glad you agree. The explanation was not necessary. The claim, a strongly evidenced one, is that the Republicans made the conscious decision to appeal to a strong demographic that the Democrats had repudiated, and have unabashedly benefited from it electorally since. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
Several of the answers seem to join racism and support of slavery. The United States was a generally racist society divided on the slavery question. All (probably safe to say “Most”) of those condemining slavery and the buying and selling of human beings did not necessarily embrace blacks as their moral, intellectual or spiritual equals. Among others, Lincoln at some time supported the mass emigration of blacks from the North American continent, believing that whites and blacks could not live together as equal partners in society.
For most of its history, America has been a virulently racist society in law as well as in fact. Those who have fought for equal rightsd and opportunities for peoples of diverse races and origins have dones so mostly against overwhelming odds.
Pretty good summary, but IMHO the issue of tariffs wasn’t really separate from slavery.
The tariffs favored the manufacturing states (or kept American money in America instead of flowing over to Britain, depending on your sectional politics), but the Southern states certainly could have become manufacturing states. They preferred to preserve their “peculiar institution” and oppose the tariffs instead. Nullification, and later complaints about tariffs, were mostly about wanting to preserve the Southern economy (which meant “slavery” to all concerned).
Slavery aside, why would they want to do that? They have the soil and the climate that is conducive to raising cotton, tobacco, and other crops. Nobody says to hell with their natural advantage to produce something else for the sake of producing something else.
If you have a gold mine on your property, would you abandon it to cobble shoes?
ETA: Nobody likes massive radical change for anything. It was easy for northern states to protest slavery because it didn’t affect them one whit if all of the slaves were freed. For the south, it would have meant an upheaval of their way of life. Most people are generally happy, and even if they aren’t, the mild misery that they are certain about is better than an unknown. I don’t think the south behaved any differently than any other similarly situated people would have behaved.