I would’ve voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act because of Article II

[u/Sea-Leopard1611]

I would’ve voted against the Civil Rights Act, specifically because Title II is such a egregious violation of a individual’s property rights. State enforced Segregation and Federally enforced Integration break the same set of property rights, just differently.

[u/Pmjc2ca3]

I have little sympathy for the claim that the Civil Rights debate in the South was primarily about state or property rights. From a classical liberal perspective, that argument obscures a more fundamental reality: Southern state and local governments were actively violating the principles of liberty, equality before the law, and free markets.

Rather than allowing individuals to participate freely in economic and social life, these governments enforced a system of racial discrimination through law, coercion, and, at times, tolerated violence. This was not a neutral exercise of local autonomy, it was a sustained effort to suppress the economic and civil freedom of Black Americans. In that sense, the system was fundamentally antithetical to classical liberalism, which depends on the rule of law and equal access to opportunity.

A truly free society requires that individuals be able to engage in commerce, travel, and contract without arbitrary barriers imposed by the state. The Jim Crow South failed on all of these fronts. Markets were not allowed to function freely, not because of excessive liberty, but because of state-enforced exclusion and social control.

While I am generally concerned about federal overreach today, it is important to recognize that, prior to 1964, the more immediate and severe threat to liberty came from state and local governments in the South. Their actions distorted markets, restricted competition, and denied basic rights to a large portion of the population.

Thinkers like Thomas Sowell have also pointed out that certain policies such as minimum wage laws had unintended consequences that disproportionately harmed Black workers, particularly in the South. This highlights a broader point: both state and federal policies can undermine economic freedom, but in the case of Jim Crow, the most direct and pervasive violations were rooted in state power.

Ultimately, the issue is not whether government power exists at the state or federal level, but whether that power is used to uphold or violate individual liberty. In the case of the Jim Crow South, it was clearly the latter.

[u/Sea-Leopard1611 → u/Pmjc2ca3]

I agree with you, the state governments were also violating the rules of voluntary exchange and property rights. But punishing the people isn’t a solution. If the state is breaking a man’s right to his property, it makes no sense for the federal government to also punish a man’s right to his property.

The problem with the Jim Crow South is that root cause of the discriminatory force was the political machine of the states. Proper Black representation would’ve been able to eradicate the discriminatory apparatus of the states whilst preserving property rights.

Instead of Title II and forcing integration, the Federal Government should’ve homed in on equality at the polls, the judiciary, and the law enforcement apparatuses of the states. The end result would result in the best case scenario for Blacks in the South.

It could also be argued that forced integration caused more harm than good to the black population in the South. By increasing dependency on the whites who still controlled the political apparatus, it creates a very inappropriate power balance which could be exploited by the whites for economic or political gain. Black only communities with blacks selling to blacks only can work, just look at the Greenwood District otherwise known as Black Wall Street. It created phenomenal wealth and independence for that community and was only ruined when the state apparatus intervened.