Oh for god's sake, no. 209 in the 90's was sort of a crafty way of getting rid of affirmative action. Again, affirmative action is a highly debate-able construct. I get that.
16 removed the language that prevented affirmative action and defaults to the federal guidelines regarding affirmative action.
It simply doesn't matter what the racist intentions were. Does affirmative action involve discrimination of people by their race?
If yes, then it is racist.
It wasn't a Democrat versus Republican thing. It was a Southern versus Northern States thing. Not to mention it was started by JFK and pushed very hard by LBJ.
It was Democrats who filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Law. It doesn't matter that they were mostly southern Democrats. They were Democrats. The Democrats stood in the way of racial equality.
Your "southern Democrats" who worked against civil rights included then-Senator and future-President Lyndon B. Johnson who worked to remove protections from the civil rights laws:
Johnson is noted as watering down civil rights laws here:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07343468909507929?journalCode=uctp20While the Civil Rights Rights Act of 1957 failed to provide adequate protection for black voters, its passage reflected the intensity with which President Eisenhower could function–contrary to popular and uninformed opinion–as a master politician. Despite his political skills, however, Eisenhower met his match in Majority leader Lyndon Johnson. The Texan's capable and forceful leadership was essential in securing passage of the Civil Rights Act. At the same time, Johnson was responsible for the elimination of the bill's most effective provisions. The watered-down version that was finally passed reflected Johnson's desires more than Eisenhower's wishes. Johnson is also noted as watering down laws here:
https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1951-2000/The-Civil-Rights-Act-of-1957/Under the direction of Senate Majority Leader and future President Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, the Senate passed a watered-down version of the House bill which removed stringent voting protection clauses.Your excuse making of the 'southern Democrats' is mirrored by USA Today, who admits that the Democrats stood in the way of racial equality -
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/23/fact-check-democrats-hold-senate-filibuster-record-75-days-1964/3228935001/It is true that the Democrats hold the record for the longest filibuster. But there are a couple of aspects of the exact claim that are false or misleading. It wasn't 75 days long; it lasted only 60 days. And there should be a distinction made in exactly who was blocking the bill. The majority of Democrats who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act were from Southern states; some Democrats in non-Southern states did support the bill.The filibuster ended with a
14 hour long speech by Senator Robert C. Boyd, an
exalted cyclops of the Klu Klux Klan, who
later became Democratic Conference secretary (1967-1971), whip (1971-1977), and leader (1977-1989).
If the racist southerners were somehow a scourge on the otherwise good ethics of the Democratic party, why didn't the party disavow them? Why not kick out the racists who filibustered the law? Why didn't the party break in two? To the contrary, the racists were given a pass and Johnson and Byrd went on to become leaders of the Democrat Party.
A ranking member of the KKK and a filibusterer of the Civil Rights Act became a leader of the Democrat Party.
Incredible!
Lyndon Johnson himself experienced subsequent success in the party and among Democrats, became President, passed the Civil Rights bill, and is quoted as continuing his tirade of racism.
From the earlier video posted on the last page:
The source in the corner of the image says it comes from Ronald Kessler, Inside the White House, 1995, p.33. His championing and passing of a civil rights act does not appear to be too genuine if he was doing it so that blacks would vote Democrat.
The following is a recording of Lyndon Johnson complaining about too many n*****s voting in Texas:
If a significant portion of your party is racist then you are complicit as well. The behavior of the Democrat party members is an incurable stain on it, regardless of who the bad actors are.
I would be embarrassed if a significant portion of an organization I was a part of wanted racism or had a history of racism. I would not associate with that organization. By joining the Democrat party you complicity choose to turn a blind eye and associate with a party who stood for slavery, sexism, and racial inequality. Rather horrendous.