(The following is based on a comment I left on this blog post)

I want to preface this comment by saying that I disagree with Dr. Paul recently (and not so recently) espoused position on segregation and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but I have to jump in here and point out that nearly all of the response since his appearance on the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC on May 19 ignores the core component position, as I understand it: that legislatively mandated segregation is and ought to be illegal.

My understanding of Dr. Paul’s argument is that absent government support for segregation (active and passive), social and economic pressures would have been sufficient to end “private” segregation in the South. I think he’s wrong, but we’ll never really know, because it was never tried. We went from state-sanctioned/required segregation (including failure to successfully prosecute people who assaulted and murdered de-segregation advocates) to the “public accommodations” component of the Civil Rights Act.

Again, I vehemently disagree with Dr. Paul on this matter, and believe that the public accommodations component of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was absolutely necessary, and, arguably, the most important single part of it. I just want the debate to be over Dr. Paul’s actual position, not some knee-jerk, didn’t-pay-close-enough-attention reaction to it. I think THAT conversation would benefit everyone.