Thoughts on the Constitutionality of the Southern Manifesto

I was intrigued by some of the arguments made in the Southern Manifesto, the document that  Professor Huebner lectured about last week. I was primarily interested in the argument that segregation was simply the regulation of eduction and therefore left to the states by the 10th amendment. I have often heard the argument that civil rights legislation and federal integration was an overreach of national authority. However, it would appear to me that federal overreach into education would be constitutional if it were created to uphold ciivl rights. Regardless of how southern elites might try to frame the debate, it would appear that federal oversight is permissible. In his dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, Justice Harlan argued that segregation was a "badge of slavery" and as such could be abolished by the 13th Amendment. Additionally, the 14th Amendment which was created to protect the "privileges and immunities" of citizens of the United States and ensures "equal protection" under the law, contains a clause which says that "Congress shall have the power to enforce this amendment through appropriate legislation". Thus, it would appear at least to me, even if one does see integration as the regulation of education, a matter normally left to the states, the presence of segregation constitutes a badge of slavery that Congress is allowed to regulate and exterminate. It is especially interesting to me to note how many senators and congressman from the south signed this manifesto. Following the rise of the New Deal most of the south was part of FDR's New Deal coalition. The New Deal greatly expanded the role of the federal government in the lives ordinary citizens and undercut state authority. This expanded legislation was often welcomed by southern states who were anxious to receive funds and support during the great depression. I believe at the time this manifesto was issued most of the south was still part of the Democratic Party. Thus, though many supporters of the manifesto had argued that government expansion was proper and necessary during the New Deal, they recoiled from it when confronted with integration. This appears to be another instance of when limited government is espoused by individuals who in reality are opposed to government contrary to their beliefs. These senators and congressmen likely would have happily accepted the New Deal funding regardless of their thoughts on federalism but integration to them was an abomination that they resisted on the spurious grounds that it was a federal overreach.