No. The black issue may be yours, its not mine, but it is the only example of "States Rights" being used, ante or post bellum. I take offense at the term "States Rights" because it is, essentially, a dangerous oxymoron. The concept that a state can have any rights at all flies in the face of the Enlightenment. It resonates to the sound of the "Divine Right of Kings", that is, the ultimate power of the state being derived from God rather than from the governed. "State Sovereignty" is a more appropriate term and is more easily defended against usurpation by another state, federal or otherwise. Furthermore, a "state" is a legal fiction, "persons" and all their categories are a legal fact.
Examples of other "State Rights", include the right of states to recognize the establishment of religion, to require a religious test for public office, to enforce morality and decency, to have militias (which is independent of the individual right to keep and bear arms), etc..
For better or worse, the Southern states voided the Constitution with their secession. The sad result of the Civil War was the 14th. Amendment that enables both the feds and the states to deny or protect rights, in an arbitrary manner, that are guaranteed in the US Constitution. All the eloquent speeches and letters by notable citizens, prior to 1865, fall upon deaf legal and political ears. For instance, the likelihood of a state establishing a religion today is so remote as to be moot. In fact, it's impossible unless your religion is either gun control or abortion.
My main point is that Americans have been claiming all sorts of "Rights" and having their pleas for justice fall upon deaf ears. I believe the better tactic is to question the legitimacy of the power of the state. I know the CA AG, Bill Lockyer, he is a man willing to do anything to be elected governor. His office is full of anti-gun lawyers from San Francisco. However, it is my contention that Lockyer does not have the "power" to arbitrarily deny the residents of CA their 2nd. Amendment "Rights" purely upon the powers of his office alone. As an officer of the state, his powers do not exceed those of the rights of the people.
Therein hangs the peg of my issue with any kind of government rights. If Lockyer was conferred with any "rights", by virtue of his office (as he believes he does), California would be disarmed. Completely.
I cannot argue with your premise. The difference is, the true version of states rights used in the past has our Constitution's blessing and is lawful. Today's phony version is contrary to the constitution and therefore a criminal act.
On this, we do agree.
>>>The black issue may be yours, its not mine.<<<
I must have misunderstood you when you called me a "white boy", and when you wrote,
>>>"The use of the term "States Rights" has been historically used by the states to deny minorities their natural or constitutional rights and not, as some believe, make the federal government mind its own business. Specifically, "States Rights" were used to deny Africans of their Natural rights prior to the Civil War. Second, "States Rights", were used by these same Southern States, to deny freed black slaves their constitutional rights and to enforce such unconstitutional policies as segregation and Jim Crow laws against this minority in those states claiming "States Rights"."<<<
Sorry if I misunderstood you.
>>>The concept that a state can have any rights at all flies in the face of the Enlightenment. It resonates to the sound of the "Divine Right of Kings", that is, the ultimate power of the state being derived from God rather than from the governed.<<<
What does that have to do with anything? The truth is in our history, not in your feelings.
>>>Therein hangs the peg of my issue with any kind of government rights.<<<
That "feeling" may explain your inability to understand the concept of 'states rights'. Let me try it another way...
The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, which could be defined as a weak treaty between the various sovereign states. One of the main objections to the Constitution was the loss of sovereignty by the states. The people of the sovereign states were unwilling to give up certain rights, such as the right to have a republican form of government, the right to maintain their religious heritage, and the right to remain a slave or free state, among others. Of course, as you have insisted, all rights are manifested in the people. But the concept of state rights is in no way contradictory. It merely refers to the rights the people retained at the state level to create powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government. Therefore the wording of the 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
You keep referring to your tyrannical AG, as if tyranny had anything to do with states rights. States Rights have to conditions: they must be empowered by the people, and they must not be prohibited by the Constitution. Your AG's actions are prohibited by the constitution and are therefore tyranny. The constitution does not protect you from tyranny -- only the ballot box or ammo box.