Segregation now, segregation forever!

[zappasguitar]

I never said the CRA of 1875 ended segregation, I said it was an attempt.

You said.... Noone was for segregation and I said... Yes look at CRA of 1875....

Now now now....

Ya gotta watch how you paraphrase ol Trixie Dixie. He NEVER said NO ONE was against segregation. Only that NO SENATORS OR CONGRESSMEN were against it.

Of course your post still proves he's wrong, but now he can't spend another post twisting round what you meant.

 

[Jarod]

Now now now....

Ya gotta watch how you paraphrase ol Trixie Dixie. He NEVER said NO ONE was against segregation. Only that NO SENATORS OR CONGRESSMEN were against it.

Of course your post still proves he's wrong, but now he can't spend another post twisting round what you meant.

The CRA of 1875 was passed by SENATORS AND CONGRESSMEN!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I never said the CRA of 1875 ended segregation, I said it was an attempt.

You said.... Noone was for segregation and I said... Yes look at CRA of 1875....

Yes, and I said look at the circumstances of WHY the CRA of 1875 was passed, and it was CLEAR it was not done as a measure of achieving desegregation. The very president who signed the CRA of 1875, also signed 4 executive orders, in 1873,1874,1875,1876, to basically STEAL the rightfully owned land from Native Americans and ship them off to reservations as wards of the government!

The people you are talking about, who passed CRA in 1875, are some of the most prejudiced and bigoted people of American history. This was NOT done because liberal politicians recognized the righteousness of desegregation, and for you to pretend that was the case, is either ignorant or deplorable, but either way, unacceptable.

 

[Jarod]

Yes, and I said look at the circumstances of WHY the CRA of 1875 was passed, and it was CLEAR it was not done as a measure of achieving segregation. The very president who signed the CRA of 1875, also signed 4 executive orders, in 1873,1874,1875,1876, to basically STEAL the rightfully owned land from Native Americans and ship them off to reservations as wards of the government!

The people you are talking about, who passed CRA in 1875, are some of the most prejudiced and bigoted people of American history. This was NOT done because liberal politicians recognized the righteousness of desegregation, and for you to pretend that was the case, is either ignorant or deplorable, but either way, unacceptable.

They passed a law prohibiting segregation!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

They passed a law prohibiting segregation!

No they didn't you goofy bitch! If they had, there would have been desegregation, and there was no desegregation! Instead, there was blatant segregation! What do you call it when they round up a specific group of people and isolate them on a reservation?

They passed a law that APPEARED to prohibit segregation, they used this as the justification for their policies toward the South during reconstruction. It was how they legally justified stripping Southern Americans of their right to vote and to have representation in Washington. It was never enforced as a means to implement desegregation, not one time! For nearly a century after the CRA of 1875, we CLEARLY still had segregation, and it wasn't because racist southerners were disobeying the law, it was happening from coast to coast!

Do I need to copy and paste more accounts of the racial discrimination and abhorrent violence perpetrated on black people in America throughout the 20th century? Because I have volumes of it to post, if you have the stomach for it. Personally, if I were you, I would just shut my ignorant mouth and hope Dixie lets this thread die. You're being resoundingly embarrassed.

 

[Jarod]

No they didn't you goofy bitch! If they had, there would have been desegregation, and there was no desegregation! Instead, there was blatant segregation! What do you call it when they round up a specific group of people and isolate them on a reservation?

They passed a law that APPEARED to prohibit segregation, they used this as the justification for their policies toward the South during reconstruction. It was how they legally justified stripping Southern Americans of their right to vote and to have representation in Washington. It was never enforced as a means to implement desegregation, not one time! For nearly a century after the CRA of 1875, we CLEARLY still had segregation, and it wasn't because racist southerners were disobeying the law, it was happening from coast to coast!

Do I need to copy and paste more accounts of the racial discrimination and abhorrent violence perpetrated on black people in America throughout the 20th century? Because I have volumes of it to post, if you have the stomach for it. Personally, if I were you, I would just shut my ignorant mouth and hope Dixie lets this thread die. You're being resoundingly embarrassed.

THey passed a law banning alchole sales, are they illegal? Laws are often overturned, that does not negate the intent of those who passed the laws. The Supreme Court overturned the CRA of 1875.... That does not negate the intent of those SENNATORS AND CONGRESSMEN who passed it!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

THey passed a law banning alchole sales, are they illegal? Laws are often overturned, that does not negate the intent of those who passed the laws. The Supreme Court overturned the CRA of 1875.... That does not negate the intent of those SENNATORS AND CONGRESSMEN who passed it!

As I said, the very president who signed the CRA of 1875 into law, also signed 4 executive orders to take Indian land and put them on reservations. Hardly the act of someone who believes in racial equality or desegregation.

You've simply NOT established the "intent" of those senators and congressmen who passed CRA of 1875, you have merely ASSUMED it, and that is where your flaw is. History shows these men were anything BUT non-prejudice and supportive of a desegregated society.

 

[Damocles]

As I said, the very president who signed the CRA of 1875 into law, also signed 4 executive orders to take Indian land and put them on reservations. Hardly the act of someone who believes in racial equality or desegregation.

You've simply NOT established the "intent" of those senators and congressmen who passed CRA of 1875, you have merely ASSUMED it, and that is where your flaw is. History shows these men were anything BUT non-prejudice and supportive of a desegregated society.

What? You mean they got the short end of that deal? They didn't want to move to the most arid and crappiest land?

 

[Jarod]

As I said, the very president who signed the CRA of 1875 into law, also signed 4 executive orders to take Indian land and put them on reservations. Hardly the act of someone who believes in racial equality or desegregation.

You've simply NOT established the "intent" of those senators and congressmen who passed CRA of 1875, you have merely ASSUMED it, and that is where your flaw is. History shows these men were anything BUT non-prejudice and supportive of a desegregated society.

Look at the Act, see what they voted for... Intent is clear, desegregation!

You were WRONG, I was RIGHT, I know thats a hard concept for you... but its true!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Look at the Act, see what they voted for... Intent is clear, desegregation!

You were WRONG, I was RIGHT, I know thats a hard concept for you... but its true!

No, the intent would be clear if we actually saw an America which was moving toward desegregating, but that is not what we saw at all. In fact, we saw just the opposite, the establishment of a caste system was the result, and that prevailed until the mid 60's for blacks in America. Open a history book and read of the terrible atrocities committed by white Americans in the North, in the South, out West... it didn't matter, it was happening all over America. Lynchings, beatings, mass murders... in Chicago, Omaha, Wisconsin... in New York... in California... and yes, even in good old Alabama!

Through it all, our Congress remained largely indifferent. This was mainly due to the fact that politicians depended on all-white voters to keep them in power. Until the Voting Rights Act in 1964, black people were essentially shut out of the political process in America. This is all in the history books, Jarhead, sorry you thought Congress was intent on ending it in 1875, they simply weren't and history supports that.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

What? You mean they got the short end of that deal? They didn't want to move to the most arid and crappiest land?

Yeah, imagine that... Jarhead's marvelous example of Racial Desegregation, U.S. Grant, signed four executive orders which took millions of acres of land from Native Americans, and made them wards of the government, who were then carted off to reservations in the middle of nowhere to die.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Dixie said...

The truth, as ugly as it may be, is that every politician prior to 1965, is responsible for supporting segregationist policy, because they DID! Repeatedly! For a century, every president, every Congress, and every Judge they appointed, upheld and maintained a system of complete and total segregation in America!


No one in their right political mind, in 1948, would have been opposed to segregation!

Throughout history, there have not been people in political power, advocating change in our segregationist policy, prior to 1963! It doesn't exist, because black people were shut out of the political process, and it was not an issue, it was presumed and assumed you supported and condoned segregationist policy, because that was how things were in America. No one stood up and said it was bad! Everyone accepted it, and continued to condone it!


there were people in 1864 who thought slaves were equal to whites! Unfortunately, NONE of them were political figures, or able to be political figures, because the overwhelming majority of an ALL WHITE electorate, fundamentally disagreed with them!

They didn't engage in political debate on the issue! They didn't campaign or advocate for the issue! They didn't put the issue in their national platforms! It may not signify support for segregationist policies, but it sure doesn't imply there was a fight against them. You can say that "plenty opposed" the status quot when it came to segregation, but it wasn't "plenty" or the law would have changed, politicians would have campaigned on the issue, people would have initiated change, had that been the case. Let's tell the truth, shall we? Aside from a few black activists and a few pinhead liberal elites, no one in America was advocating against segregation until the early 60s.

I have not denied there were activists speaking out against segregation, I made that abundantly clear 50 posts back, it's not what I have said. Our society as a whole, including ALL the political representatives we elected to office, held a view condoning segregation, or tacitly refused to take a firm stand on the issue. That is the truth, that is how things were in America. You can deny that, and claim it wasn't the case, but it most certainly was.


The history of the struggle is, for nearly 100 years, there was no struggle, segregation was accepted and condoned, and affixed in our society by the politicians, congress, judges, and any other positions of authority, which were all controlled by white people!


With regard to political leaders, congressmen who could effectively change laws, presidents, judges, etc.... there were essentially NONE! From 1864 to 1964, the number of such leaders can be counted on less than one hand! For you to keep insisting this was not the case, is laughable and foolish.


No politician was out there "pushing for" desegregation and racial equality! It just wasn't happening in the real world! To a fault, every damn one of them were either promoting segregation, or tacitly accepting of it...a 'necessary evil', or whatever. None of them stood up to challenge it or speak against it... for 100 years! Well, almost 100, anyway....

We had NO Congressmen who were the least bit concerned with giving black people a completely desegregated society! NONE! If you can cite any example prior to WWII, I would love to see it! Truth is, it doesn't exist!


Our society as a whole, including ALL the political representatives we elected to office, held a view condoning segregation, or tacitly refused to take a firm stand on the issue.

From the time of the Civil War until after WWII, the overwhelming majority of people in America, were supportive of the segregation policies. No one in political power, or seeking political power, was advocating desegregation. This went on for decades, Congress after Congress, Supreme Court after Supreme Court, President after President!

No one in political power or running for any high-level political office, supported, condoned, or advocated desegregation, prior to WWII. If you have ANY example, please post it!

The challenge still stands... Show me any political leader who was openly advocating public desegregation prior to 1964! Just one example?

You can read what you want to into my comments, you haven't given us any examples of public legislation to desegregate anything yet. No presidents or Congressional leaders advocating it, nothing... save for an instance of Truman desegregating the military in 1948, you have nothing. There is no verbal snafu, just as there is no record of Congress supporting desegregation for nearly a century. You can try to hide from that or live in denial of it if you like, I can't change the mind of a bigot, and I won't try.


I've already told you, I am never wrong!

----------------------------------

To which I say, CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1875!

To all of the ABOVE I point out the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1875! A bill passed by CONGRESS that made segregation illegal and instituted a fine for segregating, in fact it went further than the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT of 1964 because it prevented even private orginizations from segregating.

This act was written by ELECTED CONGRESSMEN, am MAJORITY PASSED THE BILL after it was supported and campaigned on!

Dont they teach this stuff in Alabama?

Dixie, to prevent further embarrasment of yourself enroll in an American History Class before you speak up again!

You've got to understand, you're dealing with a David Duke wanna be.....insipidly stubborn little cretins who essentially IGNORE what doesn't fit into their racist convoluted logic. According to jokers like Dixie, black people were perfectly happy with Jim Crow laws, and the trouble only started when those dastardly liberals forced EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW on everyone.

That another white supremacist SOS presumes to tell black folk that they were happy with separate but equal clap trap, discrimination in jobs, housing, education, etc. speaks volumes as to their self delusion. But hey, if they can't dazzle us with brillance, they'll just try to bury us in their myopic viewpoint of history.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You've got to understand, you're dealing with a David Duke wanna be.....insipidly stubborn little cretins who essentially IGNORE what doesn't fit into their racist convoluted logic. According to jokers like Dixie, black people were perfectly happy with Jim Crow laws, and the trouble only started when those dastardly liberals forced EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW on everyone.

That another white supremacist SOS presumes to tell black folk that they were happy with separate but equal clap trap, discrimination in jobs, housing, education, etc. speaks volumes as to their self delusion. But hey, if they can't dazzle us with brillance, they'll just try to bury us in their myopic viewpoint of history.

I think you are confused here, it is Jarhead who maintains our Congress addressed segregation in 1875! It has been MY consistent position, that this was not the case, and that blacks were discriminated against for nearly another century. It looks like you may have gotten mixed up in who posted what, because MY position is the polar opposite of what you just articulated.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Jarod
Dixie said...

The truth, as ugly as it may be, is that every politician prior to 1965, is responsible for supporting segregationist policy, because they DID! Repeatedly! For a century, every president, every Congress, and every Judge they appointed, upheld and maintained a system of complete and total segregation in America!


No one in their right political mind, in 1948, would have been opposed to segregation!

Throughout history, there have not been people in political power, advocating change in our segregationist policy, prior to 1963! It doesn't exist, because black people were shut out of the political process, and it was not an issue, it was presumed and assumed you supported and condoned segregationist policy, because that was how things were in America. No one stood up and said it was bad! Everyone accepted it, and continued to condone it!


there were people in 1864 who thought slaves were equal to whites! Unfortunately, NONE of them were political figures, or able to be political figures, because the overwhelming majority of an ALL WHITE electorate, fundamentally disagreed with them!

They didn't engage in political debate on the issue! They didn't campaign or advocate for the issue! They didn't put the issue in their national platforms! It may not signify support for segregationist policies, but it sure doesn't imply there was a fight against them. You can say that "plenty opposed" the status quot when it came to segregation, but it wasn't "plenty" or the law would have changed, politicians would have campaigned on the issue, people would have initiated change, had that been the case. Let's tell the truth, shall we? Aside from a few black activists and a few pinhead liberal elites, no one in America was advocating against segregation until the early 60s.

I have not denied there were activists speaking out against segregation, I made that abundantly clear 50 posts back, it's not what I have said. Our society as a whole, including ALL the political representatives we elected to office, held a view condoning segregation, or tacitly refused to take a firm stand on the issue. That is the truth, that is how things were in America. You can deny that, and claim it wasn't the case, but it most certainly was.


The history of the struggle is, for nearly 100 years, there was no struggle, segregation was accepted and condoned, and affixed in our society by the politicians, congress, judges, and any other positions of authority, which were all controlled by white people!


With regard to political leaders, congressmen who could effectively change laws, presidents, judges, etc.... there were essentially NONE! From 1864 to 1964, the number of such leaders can be counted on less than one hand! For you to keep insisting this was not the case, is laughable and foolish.


No politician was out there "pushing for" desegregation and racial equality! It just wasn't happening in the real world! To a fault, every damn one of them were either promoting segregation, or tacitly accepting of it...a 'necessary evil', or whatever. None of them stood up to challenge it or speak against it... for 100 years! Well, almost 100, anyway....

We had NO Congressmen who were the least bit concerned with giving black people a completely desegregated society! NONE! If you can cite any example prior to WWII, I would love to see it! Truth is, it doesn't exist!


Our society as a whole, including ALL the political representatives we elected to office, held a view condoning segregation, or tacitly refused to take a firm stand on the issue.

From the time of the Civil War until after WWII, the overwhelming majority of people in America, were supportive of the segregation policies. No one in political power, or seeking political power, was advocating desegregation. This went on for decades, Congress after Congress, Supreme Court after Supreme Court, President after President!

No one in political power or running for any high-level political office, supported, condoned, or advocated desegregation, prior to WWII. If you have ANY example, please post it!

The challenge still stands... Show me any political leader who was openly advocating public desegregation prior to 1964! Just one example?

You can read what you want to into my comments, you haven't given us any examples of public legislation to desegregate anything yet. No presidents or Congressional leaders advocating it, nothing... save for an instance of Truman desegregating the military in 1948, you have nothing. There is no verbal snafu, just as there is no record of Congress supporting desegregation for nearly a century. You can try to hide from that or live in denial of it if you like, I can't change the mind of a bigot, and I won't try.


I've already told you, I am never wrong!

----------------------------------

To which I say, CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1875!

To all of the ABOVE I point out the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1875! A bill passed by CONGRESS that made segregation illegal and instituted a fine for segregating, in fact it went further than the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT of 1964 because it prevented even private orginizations from segregating.

This act was written by ELECTED CONGRESSMEN, am MAJORITY PASSED THE BILL after it was supported and campaigned on!

Dont they teach this stuff in Alabama?

Dixie, to prevent further embarrasment of yourself enroll in an American History Class before you speak up again!

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You've got to understand, you're dealing with a David Duke wanna be.....insipidly stubborn little cretins who essentially IGNORE what doesn't fit into their racist convoluted logic. According to jokers like Dixie, black people were perfectly happy with Jim Crow laws, and the trouble only started when those dastardly liberals forced EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW on everyone.

That another white supremacist SOS presumes to tell black folk that they were happy with separate but equal clap trap, discrimination in jobs, housing, education, etc. speaks volumes as to their self delusion. But hey, if they can't dazzle us with brillance, they'll just try to bury us in their myopic viewpoint of history.

I think you are confused here, it is Jarhead who maintains our Congress addressed segregation in 1875! It has been MY consistent position, that this was not the case, and that blacks were discriminated against for nearly another century. It looks like you may have gotten mixed up in who posted what, because MY position is the polar opposite of what you just articulated.

Sorry, but you're not fooling anyone here. Jarod is VERY specific as to what points in your diatribe he's responding to and why. Bottom line: as you stressed how the majority of the politicians were for segregation, Jarod points out that the majority VOTED AGAINST IT in 1875. A simple fact you just don't want to full deal with.

I'm not going to waste time and effort deconstructing your BS....been there, done that. All you've got is the usual tools of a second rate white supremacist propagandist...which is ad nauseum repetition and then denial of the logical conclusions reached when one reads carefully and comprehensively ALL your rantings...as Jarod did quite well.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Sorry, but you're not fooling anyone here. Jarod is VERY specific as to what points in your diatribe he's responding to and why. Bottom line: as you stressed how the majority of the politicians were for segregation, Jarod points out that the majority VOTED AGAINST IT in 1875. A simple fact you just don't want to full deal with.

I'm not going to waste time and effort deconstructing your BS....been there, done that. All you've got is the usual tools of a second rate white supremacist propagandist...which is ad nauseum repetition and then denial of the logical conclusions reached when one reads carefully and comprehensively ALL your rantings...as Jarod did quite well.

Well, no they didn't vote for desegregation in 1875, or we would have had desegregation as a result. That just seems like simple fucking logic to me, anyone else? So we have to look at CRA 1875, and objectively consider what might have been the reasoning and rationale, because it certainly wasn't desegregation, as history proves. When we further examine the Congress of 1875, we see that a large chunk of states had no representation in Congress, so they simply were not part of the vote, and ironically enough, those who were part of the vote, had no black population to speak of. When we further look at how the CRA of 1875 was utilized, we see a clear pattern of measures designed to punish the South. This indicates to me, that was the primary reason for passage of CRA 1875, and that is what I accurately stated.

Now at this point, unless you have some evidence to offer to refute what I've said, then you are just sucking eggs. You want to continue arguing a point you can't make, which has no basis of support, and doesn't even conform with history. Do either of you realize what fools you look like, arguing that this nation voted for desegregation in 1875? I mean, really! After the volumes of reports on mass racial violence across America, after decades of SCOTUS rulings to uphold Jim Crow laws, you two want to argue that Congress opposed segregation in 1875? And I am supposed to be the David Duke here?

Get fucking real!

 

[Jarod]

Well, no they didn't vote for desegregation in 1875, or we would have had desegregation as a result. That just seems like simple fucking logic to me, anyone else? So we have to look at CRA 1875, and objectively consider what might have been the reasoning and rationale, because it certainly wasn't desegregation, as history proves. When we further examine the Congress of 1875, we see that a large chunk of states had no representation in Congress, so they simply were not part of the vote, and ironically enough, those who were part of the vote, had no black population to speak of. When we further look at how the CRA of 1875 was utilized, we see a clear pattern of measures designed to punish the South. This indicates to me, that was the primary reason for passage of CRA 1875, and that is what I accurately stated.

Now at this point, unless you have some evidence to offer to refute what I've said, then you are just sucking eggs. You want to continue arguing a point you can't make, which has no basis of support, and doesn't even conform with history. Do either of you realize what fools you look like, arguing that this nation voted for desegregation in 1875? I mean, really! After the volumes of reports on mass racial violence across America, after decades of SCOTUS rulings to uphold Jim Crow laws, you two want to argue that Congress opposed segregation in 1875? And I am supposed to be the David Duke here?

Get fucking real!

Ugh, You must understand that plent of time in history a bill became a law that was overturned by the S. Ct. even though it was the will of Congress.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Ugh, You must understand that plent of time in history a bill became a law that was overturned by the S. Ct. even though it was the will of Congress.

But this wasn't really the will of Congress you dufus! That's the part you don't seem to comprehend. Had that legitimately been their will, we would have seen the measures enforced across America, and by 1964, it would have been a point of interesting trivia that black people were once discriminated against. History simply doesn't support your view!!!

The Supreme Court's ruling is just more evidence to support my point, that America really wasn't supportive of segregation, and it was largely unpopular in society, as well as politics. You can argue with that and wave the CRA of 1875 around all you like, you are fucking retarded! Lacking the basic fundamental sense to understand history and facts.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Sorry, but you're not fooling anyone here. Jarod is VERY specific as to what points in your diatribe he's responding to and why. Bottom line: as you stressed how the majority of the politicians were for segregation, Jarod points out that the majority VOTED AGAINST IT in 1875. A simple fact you just don't want to full deal with.

I'm not going to waste time and effort deconstructing your BS....been there, done that. All you've got is the usual tools of a second rate white supremacist propagandist...which is ad nauseum repetition and then denial of the logical conclusions reached when one reads carefully and comprehensively ALL your rantings...as Jarod did quite well.

Well, no they didn't vote for desegregation in 1875, or we would have had desegregation as a result. That just seems like simple fucking logic to me, anyone else? So we have to look at CRA 1875, and objectively consider what might have been the reasoning and rationale, because it certainly wasn't desegregation, as history proves. When we further examine the Congress of 1875, we see that a large chunk of states had no representation in Congress, so they simply were not part of the vote, and ironically enough, those who were part of the vote, had no black population to speak of. When we further look at how the CRA of 1875 was utilized, we see a clear pattern of measures designed to punish the South. This indicates to me, that was the primary reason for passage of CRA 1875, and that is what I accurately stated.

Now at this point, unless you have some evidence to offer to refute what I've said, then you are just sucking eggs. You want to continue arguing a point you can't make, which has no basis of support, and doesn't even conform with history. Do either of you realize what fools you look like, arguing that this nation voted for desegregation in 1875? I mean, really! After the volumes of reports on mass racial violence across America, after decades of SCOTUS rulings to uphold Jim Crow laws, you two want to argue that Congress opposed segregation in 1875? And I am supposed to be the David Duke here?

Get fucking real!

To be more correct, you're a cheap knock off...a David Duke wanna be. Only an idiot would try and propose that the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1875 was NOT about desegregation, or that it wasn't a legitimate vote, as it reads:

Be it enacted, That all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude.

SEC. 2. That any person who shall violate the foregoing section by denying to any citizen, except for reasons by law applicable to citizens of every race and color, and regardless of any previous condition of servitude, the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges in said section enumerated, or by aiding or inciting such denial, shall, for every such offense, forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred dollars to the person aggrieved thereby, . . . and shall also, for every such offense, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than five hundred nor more than one thousand dollars, or shall be imprisoned not less than thirty days nor more than one year . . .


SEC. 3. That the district and circuit courts of the United States shall have exclusively of the courts of the several States, cognizance of all crimes and offenses against, and violations of, the provisions of this act . . .


SEC. 4. That no citizen possessing all other qualifications which are or may be prescribed by law shall be disqualified for service as grand or petit juror in any court of the United States, or of any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; and any officer or other person charged with any duty in the selection or summoning of jurors who shall exclude or fail to summon any citizen for the cause aforesaid shall, on conviction thereof, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and be fined not more than five thousand dollars.


SEC. 5. That all cases arising under the provisions of this act ... shall be renewable by the Supreme Court of the United States, without regard to the sum in controversy ...


Source: US Statutes at Large, Vol. XVIII, p. 335 ff.


Oh, and you had black members of Congress and the Senate at the time
http://baic.house.gov/historical-data/representatives-senators-by-state.html

Once again, your lack of knowledge coupled with your revisionist bent is your undoing. Like I said before, it's a waste of time desconstructing your BS, because you're just insipidly stubborn. Flail away, I'm done with you here.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

To be more correct, you're a cheap knock off...a David Duke wanna be. Only an idiot would try and propose that the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1875 was NOT about desegregation, or that it wasn't a legitimate vote, as it reads:

Before we go calling ME a David Duke type, let's have a look at what you and Jarhead are peddling...

Be it enacted, That all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude.

Now, you will notice the "out" they gave themselves here. It is pretty obvious, even to someone retarded like Jarhead. The "conditions and limitations" were segregated facilities, "colored" sections, separate water fountains, not to mention all kinds of restrictions with regard to property ownership, particularly in white neighborhoods.

SEC. 2. That any person who shall violate the foregoing section by denying to any citizen, except for reasons by law applicable to citizens of every race and color, and regardless of any previous condition of servitude, the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges in said section enumerated, or by aiding or inciting such denial, shall, for every such offense, forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred dollars to the person aggrieved thereby, . . . and shall also, for every such offense, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than five hundred nor more than one thousand dollars, or shall be imprisoned not less than thirty days nor more than one year . . .

Again, we see the "out" built into the law. Basically what the CRA of 1875 says is, you have to desegregate unless you have laws passed to segregate, in which case, it's alright!

Oh, and you had black members of Congress and the Senate at the time
http://baic.house.gov/historical-data/representatives-senators-by-state.html

Once again, your lack of knowledge coupled with your revisionist bent is your undoing. Like I said before, it's a waste of time desconstructing your BS, because you're just insipidly stubborn. Flail away, I'm done with you here.

Yes, you dipwad, I said that about 3 pages back! The Southern states were not represented in Congress at that time, the people who voted for Southern states were black representatives who had been appointed by the Union in the wake of the Civil War, they weren't duly elected Congressmen.

I am glad you are done here, because you are really making a fucking idiot out of yourself, not that you needed much help, but this is really showing people what an insipid little closed-minded twit you are as well. You've not read my posts, you continue to make outrageous comments about me being a David Duke wannabe, when it is YOU and your butt buddy who are crowing about your great and wonderful Congress of 1875, who eradicated segregation a century before MLK! Pat your racist asses on the back some more, you haven't done enough of that in this thread! Brag a little more about how forward thinking you Northern elites were, even though you were lynching blacks by the hundreds and thousands well into the 1960s. Noooo... It wasn't YOUR fault we had segregation, it was those mean old racist Southerners who were responsible, you Yankees would have loved to give up your jobs and neighborhoods to blacks, that was why you welcomed them so warmly up north in 1919!

Both of you make me sick! RACIST SCUM!

 

[Jarod]

ROTFLMAO... Dixie you are a hoot!