As I stated in a previous post, the motives of some white supporters and leaders of the States Rights Party were suspect. Yet neither Goldwater or Taft, or, for that matter, Rothbard, could be accused of being segregation supporters. Don't forget that in the 1950s, William Buckley and his
National Review associates were opposed to the civil rights movement. Let's not forget that there were also white Southern liberals, such as Al Gore, Sr., and William Fulbright, that were as pro-segregation as John Stennis or Coke Stevenson. They may have suppported Harry Truman in 1948 and Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and 1956, but their public pronouncements were as pro-racial segregation as those of white Southern conservatives.
As for the difference between ill will and a failure of will, I would submit that a victim of either condition has been wronged. In either case, Federal governmental remedies should be applied only when Constitutionally warranted.
I recall the fifties and the segregationists of both liberal and conservative stripe well.
I think support of segregation is a moral issue, one that has caused pain even within my own family as family members have disagreed.
Your point that the victime of ill will and of a failure of will has been wronged in either case is true as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far. The former, ill will, is definitely morally culpable, while the latter, while not praiseworthy, represents only a failure to adhere to an ideal superogatory standard.