Because Black Democratic voters still existed in the South. White Southern voters in Congressional elections still voted mostly Republican, but there was still a sizable amount still voting Democratic (Like 25-45%) to where they, combined with solid Democratic Black voters could help carry Democrats to wins. Before 1992 there were no majority-Black districts in the South, so most Black voters were still split into majority White districts where they made up a sizable minority of the population.

@@sterlingw.8821 But what about statewide elections? What about state legislatures in the South before 2010?

@@rolandserna7805 Well the state legislatures had the same scenario occurring, especially since those elections were less nationalized before 2010. Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and North Carolina were Southern states with Democratic legislatures in 2008-09. Mind you also the majority of those seats were made up of Black Democrats (With the exception of Arkansas). Also many uncontested seats in many lesser known legislative rural district elections, many not voting the more down-ballot you go, and Republicans not realizing until the 2000s they needed to center more on state legislatures, are contributing factors to what kept these legislatures Democrat. Plus the fact that while Democrats were scorned at the national level by White Southerners, Local and state Democrats were typically a lot more Conservative and supportive of Segregation than national Democrats, and as such it was easier to separate yourself For statewide elections it also proves the point. If you look at the majority of Southern Elections, you’ll find that in states where Black (overwhelmingly Democratic) voters made up 15-40% at those times(which were mostly Southern States), they were the ones to help carry Democrats statewide. Again, there are always exceptions, it’s not like this is the rule for every election because every election is different, but this is often how it panned out for many Southern Democratic wins. An example is the 1992 Presidential election in Louisiana. White Southern Voters did vote primarily Republican, there were just enough and who didn’t, plus Black voters to carry Democrats to victory

You know the Southern Strategy was not done in a single night, but the thing is, the Democratic Party is always been a Party who pro Working Class, Democratic Party lost the South after the White working class thinks that the Dem already abandoned Them and too much focus on Civil Rights Issues

@Ben - that’s because this whole thing is largely a myth with kernels of truth.

1. No one is claiming 1966 is a magic moment. This video made the claim that this was a long drawn out process. The claim is not that the party's "switched", it's simply that that Movement-Conservatives took over the GOP at roughly the same time the New Left took over the Democratic party.. and this consolidation was caused mainly by the social upheaval wrought from questions over Civil Rights, the Vietnam War, and the Hippie Movement.. If you really want to claim that the GOP didn't systematically capitalize on White backlash around culture war issues that had previously not been part of either party's National platform, i don't know what to tell you. There was very little partisan polarization in 1952 and Eisenhower could have ran for either party.. he chose the GOP for parity's sake because the Dems had controlled the executive branch for so long. He also ran against a guy who was perceived as a Liberal relative to the politics of the 50s. Eisenhower was not even close to a Movement-Conservative.. he largely accepted the New Deal liberal Keynesian consensus, or whatever you want to call the over-arching American macro-economic philosophy of the post-war era. You can't divorce the GOP's 1952 success in the South from Eisenhower's coattails and popularity as an individual. He was also the further Right candidate by-default at a time of great unity, at least among white people. 4. Correct. The New Deal was *the* major factor in Black voters leaving the GOP. Voters in the 30s, 40, 50s, 60s, 70s were well aware of the distinction between the local state parties and the National parties. Blacks in the south would gladly vote against George Wallace but in favor of Kennedy.. because the GOP, as you said, were not giving Blacks any material reasons to vote for them outside of the vague allusion to the tradition of Lincoln. Neither party was bending over backwards to appeal to black people; Black people's interests were simply not part of the national Party platforms during this era from the end of Reconstruction until the dawn of the 60s. There was a bi-partisan agreement that black people were, more or less, second-class citizens.. The Civil Rights Movement upends this status quo; and Black issues become part of the mainstream national debate for the first time since Reconstruction. It was not inevitable that the Democrats would become the more socially liberal party and base their identity around the New Left.. There were liberals in both parties, but Democrats ended up being the driving force behind the passage of the Civil Rights Act because they happened to be in power.. and that, in addition to the New Deal, led to Democrats being perceived as the party that represents the interests of Black people. Richard Nixon could have beaten Kennedy and been the one to sign the Civil Rights Act.. both Nixon and Kennedy made allusions to hiring Black people as part of their White House Staff.. and Nixon arguably ran to the left of Kennedy on foreign policy. Years later, Nixon would end up gobbling up the reactionary "silent majority" vote as he appealed to those who resented Hippies and the like.. but by then, he was simply seizing the opportunity that was staring him in the face. Once LBJ and the Dems got credit for integration, it was inevitable that the Southern conservatives would be mobilizing against it in some fashion.. the Wallace campaigns were a threat to Nixon, but he was able to use it to his advantage in the sense that he could triangulate Wallace's most extreme views and come across as pragmatic and reasonable. I think our focus though is too much on the politicians themselves and not enough on the actions of the voter base. Whether or not a politician remained a Democrat or became a Republican was not necessarily reflection of their ideology at this time.. To this day, there are Northeast Republicans who run in local elections in New York and Mass. as liberals who oppose the platform of the national GOP.. we've already established the division between the state and national Democrats was the norm during this era. How long Group X "stayed with the Democrats" is less relevant to what group X campaigns on and what their stated ideological platform was, what issues are on the table, and what their opponents are running on at any given time. The New Deal and the Civil Rights Act were both hugely significant factors that led to black voters voting over 90% Democrat. I'd say you are correct in your claim that the 60s represented the end of an era where party affiliation was determined mainly by geography.. But i would say that Geography was replaced by culture war-Ideology as the main determinant of Party affiliation, not class. I would argue that the partisan divide was already a class divide *because of the New Deal*, and the 60s caused political polarization to be less defined by class/geography and more defined by ideology surrounding "culture war" issues. The Culture War replaced the Class war while simultaneously, both parties became supporters of a new Neo-Liberal corporate status quo as a response to the Second Red Scare and the popularity of the Conservative movement .. Once Truman replaced Henry Wallace as the successor to FDR, there was no relevant distinction between the two major parties in terms of policy.. both Parties embraced imperialism, the formation of a powerful and unaccountable National Security State whop answers to no one, and both parties were the parties of "Big Business" and Cold Warriors... If Henry Wallace became President, there would be an actual ideological divide along Party lines, but Truman's term marked the beginning of the end of the New Dealers controlling the Democratic Party. By the time we get to Jimmy Carter, any argument that the Democrats and Republican divide is a class divide is completely gone. The Democrats become the party of young professionals and the managerial class while the Hard Hat Riots represented the White-working-class identifying more with Nixon and Republicans. The GOP had never stopped being the party of big business, but social conservatism and austerity economics had not previously been their platform (in the earlier days of industrialization, it was seen as a contradiction) ... that all changed with Fusionism (Frank Meyer and others) as a philosophy in right-wing think tanks.. Right wing think-tanks married social conservatism with "Big Business" ethos in the mid-20th century.. this was the dawn of what we recognize as Reagan-type conservatism being the understood identity of the GOP. (The Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, National Review etc.... )

@@waynetables6414 I am on my phone so I cannot go point by point, but to begin with I would contend that class was the primary political divide between 1952-1992, with culture dominating especially after 2000. The reason why I don't take it back further is the Civil War legacy voting. The reason Ike is more relavant is because most of his gains in the South are concentrated with the 48 Thurmond vote. Lastly, failing to consider who is voting for each party when, ignores motivations for backing select issues. ex. Jackson supported hard money to cut on speculation, WJB opposed it bc inflation helps debtors. Both were catering to the same base 60 years apart. Understanding why their needs changed is a critical piece as well. I will come back to the rest later.

@@David-fm6go I think both arguments are correct and we're just talking about the scale to which certain factors had on voting patterns. Like I said, it cannot be understated the impact the New Deal had on voting patterns, primarily of black people.. it is absolutely correct that it was about class in that regard. If we use a metaphor of a boxer knocking out an opponent, the New Deal was a left hook that got the opponent groggy and on the ropes and the Civil Rights Act was the knock-out blow. I think that's what the numbers reflect. And I think class and culture both played a huge role in voting patterns 1952-1992, if you're claim is that class was the bigger determining factor, I don't disagree, based of the legacy of the New Deal.. but as you know, it's a nuanced and multi-faceted situation.

@@waynetables6414 The Republicans dominated with well to do voters generally throughout its history. However, for obvious reasons it did not do as well with wealthier voters in the South between 1854-1948, and it did worse than average with secular wealthy voters after 1992. While most of these secular rich voters are in the North, we are seeing that doesn't apply so much now (Atlanta Suburbs, NOVA, Some of the Texas Suburbs have shifted heavily Democratic in the last ten years). The period between 1854-1948, was dominated by Civil War Legacy and the wealthy was divided by region, but outside of the South, there was a clear dynamic of the wealthy being more Republican and the working class more Democratic (or Greenback/Populist etc). The period between 1952-1992 saw this fall by the wayside, Republicans dominated suburbs across the country, regardless of region. The Civil Rights issues were a catalyst yes, but it would not have mattered so much if not for the underlying divide on economic/class issues. The Low country (late suburban) and plantation belt Democrats were out of place in the Democratic Party going back to WJB and this underscores what I said earlier about a need to understand how the Whigs collapsed, to understand the realignment of the mid 20th century. Many of these "conservative Democrats", their antecedents did not join the party with Jackson, they joined just before or just after the Civil War. Many of them had been fixtures of the "Bourbon era" and fought back against the Populist Party and later the Bryan movement, by the New Deal era they were clearly an unnecessary appendage, not a core piece of the base. This is where the trade issue comes in as well. For the longest time northern industrialists supported protectionism while Southern planters did not. This divide meant that also that planters could find common cause with poor Jacksonian farmers and likewise industrialists with factor workers. The former could claim to be fighting against the Wall Street Yankees industrialists and railroad tycoons (this is where it overlaps with the Lost Cause by the way, blaming the Civil War on Yankee tariffs), meanwhile the Republicans could spook the factory workers and claim that Democrats wanted to deindustrialize the country through free trade. After the New Deal, trade is no longer an issue and there is a consensus on this, meanwhile the factory workers are becoming unionized and so the wealthy in both regions see more in common with each other for the first time since the 1840s. I am very dubious about these narratives that downplay the divides between the parties, engage in back projection, or otherwise dismiss the details when it comes to both the late 1800s and to the mid 20th century consensus. Sure there was a lot of people that "voted as they had shot", but there is no way anyone can say this line "there weren't many real divides in a x historical era" without engaging in backwards projecting modernist bias onto the past. Academia today completely rejects protectionism and nationalism, meanwhile the left and liberals cannot fathom a time when government was seen primarily as a tool to oppress and the elites and upper middle class were in fact largely on the right, while those "ignorant racist hicks" were the only base in town for anything that wasn't in the tank for Wall Street. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that a party dynamic that pitted economic nationalism against classical liberalism (with a frequent populist flair) is often dismissed as "well there weren't many divides between the parties". This applies to the post New Deal era as well. Some of the most militant opponents of the New Deal, were elected from the Upper East Side of NYC (Bruce Barton), the lower Hudson Valley (Lewis K. Rockefeller), the Rochester area (James Wadsworth, the relative of a Union Civil War General killed at Wilderness) and the Southern Tier (Dan Reed-favored restrictions on voting, not on a race based justification but on an old Whig/Federalist basis, which in the south was defacto race based for obvious reasons). This was in the late 1930s and 1940s. By the 1970s, all of these districts either had liberal Republicans in them or Democrats. Sure the parties had two wings to them, and yet most of the "Progressive Republicans" were out in the West, not in the Northeast or Midwest, which is where some of TR's biggest adversaries within the party were from (Marcus Hanna - Ohio, Nelson Aldrich - RI, James Wadsworth again - NY), including the guy who kicked TR upstairs to VP to get rid of him only to end up with him as President. At the same time, even while FDR had problems with some prominent Southern politicians in his parties, others loyally backed the New Deal, including the virulent racist Theodore Bilbo. You also had bonafide progressives getting elected from the South, including not only LBJ, but also Estes Kefauver, Ralph Yarborough and so on. There are some liberals who use the party flip narrative as means indentitarian self righteousness, a kind of inverse Lost Cause. A means to say that "my people were always liberals, its just those evil conservatives came and hijacked our party". They also watch plays like Hamilton and get a very sanitized view of Hamilton's beliefs to the point of coming away thinking he was some liberal champion of immigrants against the reactionary slave holder Jefferson and then they draw a straight line throughout history where they are always the "Good guys" and their tribal opponents are always the "bad guys". Hamilton was not a liberal. He was a conservative nationalist, who was dismissive of the lower classes, suspicious of immigrants, favored an authoritarian police state, and had no problem with established religion or with his slave holding allies the Pinckney's. In fact, the coastal slave holding counties and the slave merchants that supported them, probably leaned Federalist because the Federalists supported a standing navy to protect their lanes of commerce from pirates. Just like many of the river based plantations supported the Whigs for the river improvements, while the costal ones tended to support the Nullifiers and later the Democrats because of the trade issue. Just like Republicans have often been the vehicle for business subsidization, protestant moral crusading and for nativism since its inception. Back projection is a dangerous thing in history and likewise for handwaving away divides in historical periods because they aren't the same divides as we have today or comport to our modern understandings of such. We need to do better at teaching what groups wanted at a given time, how they desired these problems to be resolved and who they supported to get it done, as well as who they saw as their enemies, since negative integration is a powerful force in history and politics. If you use the standard of who was most conservative based on how that is understood today, you end up contorting history. If you instead go based on who had the backing of center centers of power and powerful groups, as well as what their relative power was regionally and within the context of the nation as a whole, you get a much clearer and historically accurate picture using these broader understandings that are less reliant on specific policy positions. Furthermore, for most of history, political positions are motivated by self/special interests, which then in turn get justified after the fact through contrived ideological justifications. Therefore, starting with ideologically hard coded understandings of politics when examining history makes absolutely no sense, since it defies even modern political reality, much less that of 100 years ago. The plantation elite were certainly going to be the faction on the right in most any period of history, within the confines of the South. However, for a long period of time these people were on the outs nationally and were primarily concerned with maintaining the racial status quo post Civil War, and their Northern counterparts just "burned down their region and pushed tariffs to their detriment". Thus the peculiar institution indirectly breeds a peculiar political alliance of necessity. However, in the North, especially once Reconstruction fails, the Republicans are the party most dominated by the tycoons and robber barons and save for a short period of moderation in the 1880s, most opposition to their power was channeled either through the Democrats or various third parties that later joined the Democrats. The Democrats were thus the liberal (though obviously more classical liberal than modern liberal), opposition to the nationalist elite nationally and outside the South (were such a nationalist elite did not really exist), with a rather obvious blind spot on their "liberalism" when it comes to race but that is a given in this period.

@@David-fm6go Hey this is great, i'll respond in detail tomorrow.. but to clarify one thing for now.. when i said something along the lines of "there was no remarkable divide between the two parties in, say, 1960 for example.. I'm not making a statement about the voter bases or the tradition of the parties at that point in time, i'm referring to the national party platforms at the Presidential level, I should have made that clear.. obviously the coalitions within those parties and the reasons those coalitions vote for those parties is a separate issue. Saying there was a "consensus" is a relative term. Obviously "consensus" doesn't mean the parties had zero partisan disagreements.. but I called 1945ish to the early 60s, for example, a consensus when compared to other points in U.S. history.

This sentiment is stated in spirit at the end of the video by one of the commentators around 8:06

Both of those wings would have got kicked out of the party. I believe you can have a realistic Ring of The Party who's going to say that maybe these ideas that we are champion or not realistic

I'd say the democrats still have a sizeable conservative wing

@@notsoawesomeone Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema is not a sizeable conservative wing

@@rolandserna7805 plus those two are only tolerated by their party because they are necessary. Those states won’t go for non moderates

@@rolandserna7805 there's a lot more than just them buddy

Conservatives today would be more accurately referred to as “Classic Liberals” in keeping with the type of liberalism of the Founding Fathers. Those which are referred to in America as “liberals” today would be more accurately called “Leftists” or Marxists.

I'm assuming you mean "liberal" from an economic standpoint. The Vietnam War and the ensuing Reaganomics (which continues in it's revised forms today) put an end to the New Deal era. That has caused an increasing gap between the rich and the poor.

Baby boomers ruined the country

Thank you!

You mean the 1920"s Danny?

I thought Kentucky was a swing state for a long time?

Yes

Yes, but my point was that Republicans were able to win there

Dukakis didn’t build crap, It was actually Mondale that did it. Dukakis was a bumbling idiot that had no business getting anything near a presidential nomination

I don't know if that is the case with Dukakis.

That was the case with George McGovern, not Mike Dukakis. When McGovern ran, the Dems built a coalition of college educated white professionals and minorities.

Yes it is, although for a better look at that is recognizing the GOP's direct efforts to court the white south. For example, the bring up Reagan launching his presidential campaign in Mississippi. An interesting fact about that is his speech was very close to where several civil rights advocates were killed during the Civil rights movement, and how his rhetoric popularized a lot of incredibly racist stereotypes, fundamentalist Christianity, and other points directly appealing to those who opposed the Civil rights movement.

“The southern strategy” is a bullshit catch all term that is misused to say “the gop ram racist campaigns.” Go look in 1968 newspapers as I did and you’ll largely find it referring to Nixon attempting to keep Reagan from winning the gop nomination, not anything to do with race and Humphrey. “The Southern strategy” is an excuse for “we got our asses kicked and rather than admit we lost, we’ll just call the winners racist.” That’s all it ever was.

@@dontwantpeopletoknowmyreal386 This is absolute bullshit. I guess you're talking about the words "states rights," which Democrats amazingly rediscovered when it came to Covid. Hmm....let's see what Reagan said in that speech beyond two words: "Today, and I know from our own experience in California when we reformed welfare, I know that one of the great tragedies of welfare in America today, and I don't believe stereotype after what we did, of people in need who are there simply because they prefer to be there. We found the overwhelming majority would like nothing better than to be out, with jobs for the future, and out here in the society with the rest of us. The trouble is, again, that bureaucracy has them so economically trapped that there is no way they can get away. And they're trapped because that bureaucracy needs them as a clientele to preserve the jobs of the bureaucrats themselves." So wait....before a 90% white audience he says he DOES NOT BELIEVE THE WELFARE STEREOTYPE - and says people DO NOT WANT TO BE THERE but are trapped there by the bureacracy. WHOA!!! White Reagan before large white audience debunks the old "blacks on welfare" stereotype. Definitely playing to racism doing that - I mean maybe in Bizarro world but for sure doing that. Furthermore he said EXACTLY what he meant by states rights, and it's the same thing that got him in hot water in his own party in 1976 when he gave the dollar figure of $90 billion where the FEDS should give the money to the STATES to use as the STATES saw fit (makes sense - he was, after all, a state governor). "I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level. And I believe that we've distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended in the constitution to that federal establishment. And if I do get the job I'm looking for, I'm going to devote myself to trying to reorder those priorities and to restore to the states and local communities those functions which properly belong there." It is a leap of preposterous proportions to deduce "well, he means not having feds watch over civil rights. Puh-leeze. To jump to the idea Reagan approved the Klan or whatever else here (like the Councils of Conservative Citizens) is ludicrous. He explicitly denounced that stuff and still gets tarred with it. Fact is Reagan carried 40 states - I'm sure that states rights speech heard only by the local audience (it simply was not a central point of his campaign) and only blown out of proportion because Carter got desperate in October - I'm sure a speech in Mississippi is why Reagan carried MASSACHUSETTS in November, aren't you? Jeez.

The Southern Strategy in it's most specific form was what Nixon did in 68, though hampered by the presence of Wallace. It was actually different from the approach taken by Goldwater, who alienated traditional Republican votes even in the South and Midwest. In NC for instance, Goldwater did better in Eastern NC than Nixon in 60 but got destroyed in the Piedmont cities and western NC saw massive declines. Nixon ran as a more traditional Republican and used issues like busing and crime that appealed to traditional Republican suburbs in the North but also to many working class whites in the North and opened the door to Southerners to vote Republican as the "lesser of two evils" compared to Humphrey. Wallace was a deep South rejection of this approach and he coined the refrain "there is not a dimes worth a difference between the two parties". This strategy worked and Nixon swept the Midwest, West and outer South and actually won NC by dominating the west and Piedmont while Wallace and Humphrey spit the east. The Southern Strategy called for enforcement of the Voting Rights Act as a tool to force white Southerners to became Republicans. Kevin Phillips is the greatest articulator of the Southern Strategy in his book "Emerging Republican Majority", which I strongly suggest reading. Phillips said that if blacks were allowed to vote in large numbers, they would take over the local Democratic Parties and cause an exodus of whites to the Republicans, whereas if they slow walked voting rights, Southerners woukd settle back into the Democratic good ole boy network. Ironically this happened for about twenty years thanks to Watergate, Wallace rejoining the Democrats, Jimmy Carter and the voting dominance of the New Deal Generation. This is why I hate the narrative of "the parties flipped in 1964", sure the Southern Strategy was real, but it was a calculated strategy by a business party to get the South to vote for a business agenda. The positions of the parties on economic matters had generally settled into the current patterns decades before, and while culture dictates voting patterns, economics dictates policy.

@@David-fm6go David - this is one of the best assessments of the historical reality that I've ever read. "Southern strategy" has become a flash word for "Democrats jumped parties and became Republicans and the GOP is racist." It's not that there aren't a few elements of truth - but it's a self-serving narrative. "The parties flipped in 1964" is absolute bullshit, and you rightly note - as has been explained elsewhere - that PART of the jump had zip to do with race and everything to do with the South moving from a more agrarian society (and thus Democrats) to a more business society (and thus Republicans). I'm always amused by the people who will tell me parrot-like about how "Nixon appealed to racism in the South" and then I show them the actual map where Nixon finished THIRD in the Deep South in MS and AL, etc. It's not that there wasn't a Southern strategy but the first part of it was to batton down the hatches and not have the South bolt to Reagan in the delegate selections (which were MOSTLY NOT primaries in 1968). Yes, Strom Thurmond jumped parties - but Nixon was seen on TV in the South campaigning with Edward Brooke, a black Senator from MA, too. The Democrats made this worse in 1972 when they instituted a quota system for their delegate processes in the primaries that was laugahble and pissed off everyone from Wallace to Richard Daley. Good overall assessment.

Why did he oppose it? And are you aware he favored the CRAs of both 57 and 60? The world is not as simple as this video pretends.

@@Maestrohbill Barry Goldwater did it off of libertarian grounds he didn't believe that the state should be told what to do when it comes to civil rights. That is one of his sins

@@attiepollard7847 He did it on the basis of private property and btw - there is a YT video with he and McGovern on here from 1986 discussing that and Barry saying SCOTUS ruled he was wrong. It wasn’t some imaginary “sin,” he disagreed with a point on it. This video is - as is typical - about 1% fact and 99% bullshit where inconvenient truths are omitted. For example, the video claims that in 66, Ark elected their first GOP governor in a century. The important part -not mentioned - is that the Republican was integrationist Rockefeller beating segregationist Johnson, the Democrat. I’m sure this was a complete accident, right? Or omitting the reality the GOP broke the Solid South in 1952 when Ike and Nixon carried TN, VA, FL and TX and then in 56 added KY, LA and WV. I’m sure those major oversights were honest mistakes and not propaganda. Fact is this purports to be history but is nothing but revisionism. There are kernels of truth but mostly myth.

@@Maestrohbill private property or whatever it was politically stupid to oppose the civil Rights law that was being championed by Lyndon Johnson. The Republican Party could have actually had a new set of extra black votes for the suburbs in the near future and maybe a handful of Republican Mayors would have kept their seats in the major Urban cities.

@@attiepollard7847 There is a difference between voting for a piece of legislation and being against the concept of the legislation. A person can vote against the Inflation Reduction Act because basic economics tells them that it won't help inflation - but still be opposed to inflation. A person CAN vote against a Civil Rights bill and still be in favor of the concept of Civil Rights. The GOP was never going to benefit from it, although in essence I'm with you in that it would have been better for Goldwater to have voted "for" it both for his legacy and his party. Goldwater, who was part Jewish and part Protestant and who was ahead of the curve on a number of rights issues is unfairly tarnished with "but he didn't vote for this", although he made his choice. Whether it was political calculation or sincere opposition doesn't matter at this point.

Political party colors were not really used until 1976 and 1980 and they were inconsistent and which color was used to Republicans and which was for Democrats until 2000 when they solidified as red and blue and its best to use modern colors so people understand what's going on.

@@ender3960 If you're going to use the maps and colours currently associated with liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican today then it is misleading not to tell the viewers that these colour schemes weren't the standard in the time that you are discussing. Particularly when you shade them, add noise or filters to age them as if they were the maps presented to people like the film reels and newspapers of the time. Terribly misleading.

@@seanwebb605 stfu ur British

@@politisk_prins Learn to spell.

States rights to do what exactly?

@@bt3743 to not levy taxes on grits duuh

lol

A state’s “right” to... own people as property.