Segregation now, segregation forever!

Jarod said:
How so?

hypocrate..!

You are the one who said that not a single congressman or senator was opposed to segregation... HA....!
Click to expand...

Is there some argument going on in your mind, which indicates you have successfully refuted the point I made? No, there is not! Nothing you have yet presented, contradicts the point and principle of what I stated in the opening post of this thread, or any subsequent statement by me. I have presented the history of what happened in proper context, and supported it with actual accounts to show that you are wrong. I don't know how much clearer it could be made, and you still seem to think you've proven something here. Chicklet's eager agreement with your idiocy, is not how we judge this debate! Sorry!
 
Just to clear up a few things:

Dixie stated:
In 1875 the debate was whether or not black people had ANY Constitutional rights, or if they were even citizens! Some didn't even want to say they were HUMANS! Segregation didn't start happening until the CRA of 1875, which established in law, that blacks had to be given "equal access" ...that's where "separate but equal" evolved from!

Obviously, he didn't know about the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which stated:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.


Which was followed up by the CRA of 1875

Whereas it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political; and it being the appropriate object of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law: Therefore,


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 ...

Dixie's "argument" is that since the word "segregation" doesn't appear, the laws don't effect the segregationist policies that existed in the USA. So by his "logic", until a law is passed naming an act, the act doesn't exist. Now during the course of this debate I put forth examples of segregation that were protested against

[ame="http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=613922&postcount=501"]Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Segregation now, segregation forever![/ame]

Dixie claims these are lies, yet he cannot logically or factually prove so. So again, by Dixie's "logic", there was no segregation against black folk in America....ergo, the millions of slaves over 2 centuries just vanished at the end of the days work and magically reappeared in the next day. No living quarters, etc. were necessary.

Another one of Dixie's fantasies is this:

There is no connotation of racism in a battle flag that men who never owned a slave, fought and died under! Indeed, some racist hate groups hijacked our beloved battle flag and used it to promote their hate, I can't help what they did, and it doesn't change what that flag represents to me and other Sons of the Confederacy. The fact that you are an ignorant bigot who doesn't accept the traditional history of the Confederate States of America, or have respect for soldiers who died fighting for their homeland, is not my problem.

Now as history shows us, slavery was THE backbone of the Southern states (later to be known as the Confederacy for a brief time). Now unless those brave men that Dixie's rapts nostalgic about were publically advocating against slavery...they just accepted it as the status quo, whether they owned slaves or not. And THAT is the fly in the ointment...that "slavery" was just an afterthought to these people, a mere formality to be later worked out.....THEY WERE DEFENDING THE "RIGHT" OF PEOPLE TO OWN SLAVES! Now that mindset doesn't do a whole hell of a lot for the slaves, now does it? So trying to wash the stink of slavery from the Confederate flag is a fools errand of denial.

Now I will give Dixie this: since some states to this day still mark a persons' race on their drivers license, his claim of license ID as a Cherokee (NA) at one time 30 years ago would be valid.

However,

Dixie did state that he "hid" his 1/8 heritage to avoid discrimination at times (yet at another time used it to gain educational scholarship). In order to "pass", you have to physically look like the racial group you are trying to fit in with. So for Dixie to par take in an action that has been known for centuries to black folk, and then turn around and mouth the platitudes found in the many speeches of David Duke and his ilk when it comes to black history speaks volumes of Dixie's twisted mindset....something that his alleged degree in psychology should have set off bells and whistles. But it's hard for the hypocrit to recognize their own hypocrisy.

So there you have it folks, the never ending saga of Dixie's twisted sense of self that has been incorporated into this revisionist agenda regarding America's racist history. All who logically point out his folly is labeled "racist", which would take a real psycho-analyst to sort out that thought process. I almost pity him....almost. Unless its' all a lie, by which would be understandable. He'll continue regurgitating the same claptrap, as the final word is very important to a liar trying to convince someone...I'll just let the record and the logic speak for itself.
 
Last edited:
Dixie's "argument" is that since the word "segregation" doesn't appear, the laws don't effect the segregationist policies that existed in the USA. So by his "logic", until a law is passed naming an act, the act doesn't exist. Now during the course of this debate I put forth examples of segregation that were protested against
Click to expand...

Dixie's argument is, segregation didn't exist until after this, and it was the primary reason for segregationist policy. Nothing you posted says anything about segregation or desegregation, because they didn't exist in 1875, and you've not established they did. Just because some "account" of the specific circumstances of an event, inaccurately uses the word "segregation" doesn't mean you have proven a point, it only means that the Internet is full of incorrect information.

Any nitwit with half a brain, understands that segregation happened all over America, well into the 1960s. Denial of that reality and fact, are tantamount to racism. It puts you squarely in the camp of Holocaust deniers. I'm not trying to be "simple minded" just truthful and honest, read the words of the very bills and acts you are posting, they say absolutely NOTHING about segregationist policies or desegregation. You keep trying to interject some erroneous point that they intended this, but they clearly do not say it, and the Supreme Court clearly didn't think that was what they intended. Who is being honest, who is being dishonest? I leave it to the reader to decide.
 
Now as history shows us, slavery was THE backbone of the Southern states (later to be known as the Confederacy for a brief time). Now unless those brave men that Dixie's rapts nostalgic about were publically advocating against slavery...they just accepted it as the status quo, whether they owned slaves or not. And THAT is the fly in the ointment...that "slavery" was just an afterthought to these people, a mere formality to be later worked out.....THEY WERE DEFENDING THE "RIGHT" OF PEOPLE TO OWN SLAVES!
Click to expand...

Nope... they were defending their communities, homes and property. No one on either side was publicly advocating against slavery, including Abe Lincoln, who ran on the promise he wouldn't abolish slavery in 1860. It was only after the Civil War had gone badly for the Union, and he needed something to hang the morality of victory on, in order to garner public support for the war. New York threatened to succeed from the Union over the war, that's how bad things were. So slavery became "the issue" for the war, when the war was nearly lost.

There is a cold hard fact that escapes people like Chicklet, who don't understand the history of the Civil War... Not one single soldier who fought and died in the Civil War, owned any slaves. Slaves were owned by plantation owners, and they represented less than 2% of the population in the South. At the time, it was common practice for the North and South, for the wealthy people in America to send a "proxy" to fight in their place, so the plantation owners and their sons, did not actually participate in fighting during the Civil War.

The issue, above and beyond slavery or anything else, was Federalism vs. Confederacy. Whether we were to be a nation of states, or states of a nation? Whether states could retain autonomous authority or whether the federal government bound us irretrievably? There was a much more fundamental principle in play, than slavery, but slavery was a big part of it. My only point is, it wasn't the only part. That is what so many are taught, or so many learn from public school, but when you go back and look at the events which lead to the war, look at what was happening through the prism of the times, and why the issue of slavery even was an issue in 1860... an honest evaluation finds the Confederacy acted within reason to declare secession. In fact, one could argue the Confederacy had even more of a right to secede than the colonies to secede from the British. Britain created the colonies, the states created the United States.
 
Taichiliberal wrote:

Now as history shows us, slavery was THE backbone of the Southern states (later to be known as the Confederacy for a brief time). Now unless those brave men that Dixie's rapts nostalgic about were publically advocating against slavery...they just accepted it as the status quo, whether they owned slaves or not. And THAT is the fly in the ointment...that "slavery" was just an afterthought to these people, a mere formality to be later worked out.....THEY WERE DEFENDING THE "RIGHT" OF PEOPLE TO OWN SLAVES!
Click to expand...

Dixie said:
Nope... they were defending their communities, homes and property. No one on either side was publicly advocating against slavery, including Abe Lincoln, who ran on the promise he wouldn't abolish slavery in 1860. It was only after the Civil War had gone badly for the Union, and he needed something to hang the morality of victory on, in order to garner public support for the war. New York threatened to succeed from the Union over the war, that's how bad things were. So slavery became "the issue" for the war, when the war was nearly lost.

Guess what genius....YOU JUST MADE MY POINT! Slavery was an after thought...whether it was by the South or the North. Slavery was the money driver to maintain Southern economy, and the mainstay owners slavers were part of the cash cow to maintain the Confederacy. Lincoln wised up and realized that you can't take the moral high ground and ask black folk to fight against their best interest in a grueling war. As the war turned bad for the Confederacy, they promised blacks freedom if they fought for them! Make no mistake, the Confederacy was fighting for the "right" of the Southern slave owner AND home owner...whether you acknowledge that or not is irrelevent. The sheer racism in the level of consideration of people more that 2 centuries enslaved, then and now, is extraordinary...that 21st century folk are trying to BS away the significance of that is disgraceful!

There is a cold hard fact that escapes people like Chicklet, who don't understand the history of the Civil War... Not one single soldier who fought and died in the Civil War, owned any slaves. Slaves were owned by plantation owners, and they represented less than 2% of the population in the South. At the time, it was common practice for the North and South, for the wealthy people in America to send a "proxy" to fight in their place, so the plantation owners and their sons, did not actually participate in fighting during the Civil War.

Are you fucking kidding me? You're going to EXCUSE the Confederacy defending slavery by trying to split a hair!??! Get this through your thick skull, whether by proxy, whether by direct involvment (only a FOOL would try to say that NO slave owners were soldiers...do you think all those "colonels" were just honorary titles?) the Confederacy defended slavery...it was an integral part of the Southern economy, and DON'T get me started on the numbers game you apologist play regarding actual slaves, the economy and slave owner over the 2 centuries or so.

The issue, above and beyond slavery or anything else, was Federalism vs. Confederacy. Whether we were to be a nation of states, or states of a nation? Whether states could retain autonomous authority or whether the federal government bound us irretrievably? There was a much more fundamental principle in play, than slavery, but slavery was a big part of it. My only point is, it wasn't the only part. That is what so many are taught, or so many learn from public school, but when you go back and look at the events which lead to the war, look at what was happening through the prism of the times, and why the issue of slavery even was an issue in 1860... an honest evaluation finds the Confederacy acted within reason to declare secession. In fact, one could argue the Confederacy had even more of a right to secede than the colonies to secede from the British. Britain created the colonies, the states created the United States.
Click to expand...

Spare me this defense of slavery bullshit......you just keep making my point....slavery was an afterthought....a "commodity" that was just part of the economy. Well fuck that and fuck you, because the millions of black folk that lived and died in slavery over the centuries were human beings...and THAT is the sickness of the Confederacy, the level of denial, the level of dismisal...which leads twisted clowns like you to try and pretend the content of the CRA of 1866 and 1875 didn't address what it did.
 
Dixie's "argument" is that since the word "segregation" doesn't appear, the laws don't effect the segregationist policies that existed in the USA. So by his "logic", until a law is passed naming an act, the act doesn't exist. Now during the course of this debate I put forth examples of segregation that were protested against
Click to expand...

Dixie said:
Dixie's argument is, segregation didn't exist until after this, and it was the primary reason for segregationist policy. Nothing you posted says anything about segregation or desegregation, because they didn't exist in 1875, and you've not established they did. Just because some "account" of the specific circumstances of an event, inaccurately uses the word "segregation" doesn't mean you have proven a point, it only means that the Internet is full of incorrect information.

Any nitwit with half a brain, understands that segregation happened all over America, well into the 1960s. Denial of that reality and fact, are tantamount to racism. It puts you squarely in the camp of Holocaust deniers. I'm not trying to be "simple minded" just truthful and honest, read the words of the very bills and acts you are posting, they say absolutely NOTHING about segregationist policies or desegregation. You keep trying to interject some erroneous point that they intended this, but they clearly do not say it, and the Supreme Court clearly didn't think that was what they intended. Who is being honest, who is being dishonest? I leave it to the reader to decide.
Click to expand...

You did EXACTLY what I said you'd do....you just repeated yourself while ignoring the FACTS and logic that totally deconstructs your silliness. My prior posts puts to rest your blatherings.

By your "logic" a group can call itself the white socialist party, march down a street and mouth EVERY platitude of the Nazi Party of WWII, but they are not "nazis" because no one "officially" says so. Blow that out your ass, Dixie...no one besides your like minded buddies are buying this.
 
Guess what genius....YOU JUST MADE MY POINT! Slavery was an after thought...whether it was by the South or the North.
Click to expand...

GOOD! So long as we agree, it was not the sole reason the Civil War was fought! Afterthought is fine, if that's how you'd like to put it, I have no problem with that. Indeed slavery was a very crucial component to the Southern economy... and who's fault was that? Are you going to now try to tell us the Founding Fathers outlawed slavery when the nation was born in the previous century? I mean, where does your denial end?

As the war turned bad for the Confederacy, they promised blacks freedom if they fought for them! Make no mistake, the Confederacy was fighting for the "right" of the Southern slave owner AND home owner...whether you acknowledge that or not is irrelevent.
Click to expand...

You are completely ignorant of the Civil War time line, I can see. As well as the fundamental purpose and reason, hundreds of thousands (none of which were slave-owners) went and died for. It's easy to say in retrospect, they fought for slavery. It's just not completely honest or truthful.


(only a FOOL would try to say that NO slave owners were soldiers...do you think all those "colonels" were just honorary titles?)
Click to expand...

I think I know a little about the Confederacy, and the facts regarding it. I'll put my knowledge up against yours on that any day. No soldiers who fought and died in the Civil War, ever owned a slave. The people who fought and died under the Confederate battle flag, were not fighting for any 'morality' issue regarding slavery, and neither was the North (in the beginning) for that matter. As you said, slavery was an afterthought, it was not the reason these boys went and died in the most brutal war of our history.

Spare me this defense of slavery bullshit......
Click to expand...

I will, because I haven't defended slavery, there is nothing that can be defended about slavery. We can only recognize TRUTH about slavery, and accept it! Let it be a lesson to us, but accept that it happened, and society was responsible as a whole, for letting it happen. There is no excuse, there is nothing anyone can ever say to justify it or rationalize it in any way. This is why I don't understand why you keep hearing me make an argument that I have never made. I've merely pointed out the truth, what happened. It's not right what happened, that isn't my argument, never has been! But the Confederate States of America did not make it legal to own slaves in this country, that was the United States government.

you just keep making my point....slavery was an afterthought....a "commodity" that was just part of the economy. Well fuck that and fuck you, because the millions of black folk that lived and died in slavery over the centuries were human beings...and THAT is the sickness of the Confederacy, the level of denial, the level of dismisal...which leads twisted clowns like you to try and pretend the content of the CRA of 1866 and 1875 didn't address what it did.
Click to expand...

LMAO... NOOOooooo Chicklet.... "DENIAL" is when you try to pretend that 1866 and 1875, the Congress of the United States was mandating something they weren't, something that didn't really even exist yet. Segregation was a system born from these measures, starting in 1876 up until the 1880's when the SCOTUS made it abundantly clear that the segregationist systems were Constitutional... again, I call your attention to the FACT that this was done by the SCOTUS, not the CSA! This social policy of discrimination and segregation, lasted up until the late 40s early 50s, when black WWII soldiers returned to the country they risked their lives for, to be told to sit at the back of the bus, eat on the porch... like a yard dog! It was THEN that America began to wake up to the injustices of this segregationist system we had built, and effectively began to dismantle it! To pretend that happened in 1875... 1866... or anytime before when it actually DID... is DENIAL!
 
Dixie said:
LMAO... NOOOooooo Chicklet.... "DENIAL" is when you try to pretend that 1866 and 1875, the Congress of the United States was mandating something they weren't, something that didn't really even exist yet. I'm a retard. Segregation was a system born from these measures, starting in 1876 up until the 1880's when the SCOTUS made it abundantly clear that the segregationist systems were Constitutional... again, I call your attention to the FACT that this was done by the SCOTUS, not the CSA! I'm a retard. This social policy of discrimination and segregation, lasted up until the late 40s early 50s, when black WWII soldiers returned to the country they risked their lives for, to be told to sit at the back of the bus, eat on the porch... like a yard dog! I'm a retard. It was THEN that America began to wake up to the injustices of this segregationist system we had built, and effectively began to dismantle it! To pretend that happened in 1875... 1866... or anytime before when it actually DID... is DENIAL!
Click to expand...

Denial is you ignoring the fucking text of the two CRAs in question.
 
Threedee said:
Denial is you ignoring the fucking text of the two CRAs in question.
Click to expand...

LMAOoo... I am not the one ignoring the text, I have been the one to point out, the text simply doesn't say what you deniers CLAIM it does! Go read it, they've posted it, where does it say anything about "desegregating" anything? Where does it indicate that "segregation" is outlawed or banned? The ONLY way you can arrive at that interpretation in 1875, is to get into your Time Machine, zip forward to 1954, get a SCOTUS ruling from Brown v. Board of Ed., then zip back to 1875! If you aren't living in denial, you realize these acts simply enabled segregationist policies, and the practice was upheld for nearly another century. They literally used the CRA of 1875 to JUSTIFY segregation!

If you aren't denying the truth, you realize businesses and services did not have any legal requirement to provide "separate but equal" anything to black people in 1875, and they simply weren't! The only real segregation was whites eating in the restaurant and the black man swinging in a tree out back for looking in the window! That was how things were 'segregated' in 1870s America. If you want to say the CRA of 1875 did away with THAT, then I suppose you can make the argument, but history shows a quite different story. Blacks migrating to the North following reconstruction, were faced with mobs of angry white people, who didn't act like they wanted to integrate at all. They were downright hostile about black people taking their jobs, and what they did can only be described as black genocide.
 
Jarod said:
Originally Posted by Jarod "What was the intent behind the 14th and 15th Amendments?"

Dixie Responded:" It certainly wasn't racial equality!"

So its time for remedial High School Civics and History, forgive Dixie, they teach it differently in Alabama...

All we really need to discuss to illistrate Dixie's lack of basic post civil war knoledge and to enlighten him about race relations in 1864 is the first section of the 14th.....


The 14th Amendment...

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

___________


"All persons", this means black people as well as white, and considering this this was of the Amendments passed during reconstruction after the civil war it is safe to assume it was intended to address specifically the issue of black people while being broad enough to encompass other groups that are descriminated against. Shall not be denied EQUAL protection under the law. Sounds like they wanted balcks to be treated EQUALLY under the law!

This Amendment was radified July 9, 1868. It provided full citizenship to former slaves for the first time and demanded that they be provided EQUAL protection under the law of the Fed Governement and the State Governments. This Amendment Directly overuled the Dread Scott Decision. It was also the bases for the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision almost 100 years later. We can see that the seeds of the American Civil Rights Movement were planted by the Reconstructionsts who made the law requiring equal treatment under the law for ALL CITIZENS. So its safe to say the framers of the Amendment intended racal equality, the Supreme Court has consistantly ruled that was the intent, and it is clear from the plane meaning, at least to me.

The remainder of the Amendment deals with the Southern States and how issues of the rebellion were to be delt with including debt and rights of Confederate officials to hold office in the future.

Section 1 of the Amendment was written by Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, and supported by Edgar Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull, all Northern Statesmen. Sennator Connsee also contributed to the Amendmend, he was from California.

The 15th is more basic..

The text reads....

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

This Amendment was radified February 3, 1870 as a part of the Reconstruction Amendments.


Dixie, please learn some American History and maybe you will see that your way is misguided by Southern bias. To say the 14th and the 15th had nuthing to do with Racial Equality is either incredable ignorance for a person educated in The United States or it is willfull denial to support a belife system that is not valid. I suspect the latter.
Click to expand...

.
 
Jarod said:
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!
Click to expand...

Time for a refresher on the claims made by Dixie... He keeps changing them!
 
Dixie, please learn some American History and maybe you will see that your way is misguided by Southern bias. To say the 14th and the 15th had nuthing to do with Racial Equality is either incredable ignorance for a person educated in The United States or it is willfull denial to support a belife system that is not valid. I suspect the latter.
Click to expand...

The 14th and 15th have to do with equality, but not desegregation. The historic application of the 14th and 15th, through 1954, was certainly NOT about equality, unless you believe "separate but equal" is giving black people equality, because that is what history shows the law provided for them. You are the one who seems to remain completely ignorant of that fact, and it demonstrates the opening point of the thread in a better way than I could ever do myself. It's no wonder people like you have so much vile and scorn for people who advocated segregation in the late 40s, you have a fantasy view of how society was back then, and apparently assume 'segregation' was some kind of rogue thing Southerners were doing, in violation of the Constitution.

IF we could retroactively apply modern interpretations, perhaps you have some kind of argument here, but that is NOT reality, we can't apply a future viewpoint to actions of society today. It would be like jumping forward to 2040, when the SCOTUS will rule that unborn humans have Constitutional rights, then proceeding to rip on those who are speaking now about "a womans right to choose" as if they are in the wrong from societies current viewpoint. Would that be fair? When the SCOTUS decides that it's wrong to kill babies, can we then deem anyone who advocated for abortion a 'baby killer' without further consideration? The sentiment of the time be damned? It doesn't matter that abortion was legal and the SCOTUS upheld it, just the fact that pro-abortion viewpoints are struck down a few decades from now, that's enough to retroactively rewrite history? This is EXACTLY what you are trying to do with this!

Our society did not begin to tear down the systems of segregation, until after 1954, and it lasted in some places, well into the 1960s and beyond. To pretend this was the prevailing viewpoint anytime before that, is a lie and distortion of the facts.
 
Dixie said:
The 14th and 15th have to do with equality, but not desegregation. The historic application of the 14th and 15th, through 1954, was certainly NOT about equality, unless you believe "separate but equal" is giving black people equality, because that is what history shows the law provided for them. You are the one who seems to remain completely ignorant of that fact, and it demonstrates the opening point of the thread in a better way than I could ever do myself. It's no wonder people like you have so much vile and scorn for people who advocated segregation in the late 40s, you have a fantasy view of how society was back then, and apparently assume 'segregation' was some kind of rogue thing Southerners were doing, in violation of the Constitution.

IF we could retroactively apply modern interpretations, perhaps you have some kind of argument here, but that is NOT reality, we can't apply a future viewpoint to actions of society today. It would be like jumping forward to 2040, when the SCOTUS will rule that unborn humans have Constitutional rights, then proceeding to rip on those who are speaking now about "a womans right to choose" as if they are in the wrong from societies current viewpoint. Would that be fair? When the SCOTUS decides that it's wrong to kill babies, can we then deem anyone who advocated for abortion a 'baby killer' without further consideration? The sentiment of the time be damned? It doesn't matter that abortion was legal and the SCOTUS upheld it, just the fact that pro-abortion viewpoints are struck down a few decades from now, that's enough to retroactively rewrite history? This is EXACTLY what you are trying to do with this!

Our society did not begin to tear down the systems of segregation, until after 1954, and it lasted in some places, well into the 1960s and beyond. To pretend this was the prevailing viewpoint anytime before that, is a lie and distortion of the facts.
Click to expand...

You are using the now discredited and old interpertation of the 15th as described in Plessy v. Furgison...

Lets use the new and valid interpertation as defined by Brown v. Board of Education!

The fight to integrate society started many many many years ago as is evidenced by the intergatration act of 1875 and 1866 and the Civil War...
 
Jarod said:
You are using the now discredited and old interpertation of the 15th as described in Plessy v. Furgison...

Lets use the new and valid interpertation as defined by Brown v. Board of Education!

The fight to integrate society started many many many years ago as is evidenced by the intergatration act of 1875 and 1866 and the Civil War...
Click to expand...

Well, yes, dumbass, I AM using the old interpretation of the 15th as described in Plessy, because that was the prevailing view of the day in question! That is the whole goddamn point here! Finally, you seem to start to realize, we can't just retroactively apply a societal viewpoint onto the people of that era, which simply did not exist at the time! It exists now! We currently view segregation as abhorrent, but in 1875, that was just not the case in the vast and overwhelming American society.

Now you have changed "Desegregation Act of 1875" to "Integration Act of 1875" and that is still a dishonest lie about the text and intent of the Act in question. It was a Civil Rights Act, it did seek to ensure equality for blacks, but the future interpretations of what constituted "equality" for blacks, was a completely different matter. If what you are claiming was intended, was actually the intent, history would show the courts upholding that intent, more stringent enforcement and clarification of that intent... but that is not what history shows. If politicians intended "integration" or "desegregation" in 1875, the actions and policies of these politicians would reflect that going forward, but they don't. Woodrow Wilson, your Liberal Progressive GOD, was one of the most racially discriminatory presidents of all time! None of the white men who ran for president from Lincoln to Johnson, advocated "desegregation" or an end to segregationist policies. The history simply doesn't support your suppositions.
 
Dixie said:
Well, yes, dumbass, I AM using the old interpretation of the 15th as described in Plessy, because that was the prevailing view of the day in question! That is the whole goddamn point here! Finally, you seem to start to realize, we can't just retroactively apply a societal viewpoint onto the people of that era, which simply did not exist at the time! It exists now! We currently view segregation as abhorrent, but in 1875, that was just not the case in the vast and overwhelming American society.

Now you have changed "Desegregation Act of 1875" to "Integration Act of 1875" and that is still a dishonest lie about the text and intent of the Act in question. It was a Civil Rights Act, it did seek to ensure equality for blacks, but the future interpretations of what constituted "equality" for blacks, was a completely different matter. If what you are claiming was intended, was actually the intent, history would show the courts upholding that intent, more stringent enforcement and clarification of that intent... but that is not what history shows. If politicians intended "integration" or "desegregation" in 1875, the actions and policies of these politicians would reflect that going forward, but they don't. Woodrow Wilson, your Liberal Progressive GOD, was one of the most racially discriminatory presidents of all time! None of the white men who ran for president from Lincoln to Johnson, advocated "desegregation" or an end to segregationist policies. The history simply doesn't support your suppositions.
Click to expand...

Check with Brown v. Board to see what the Supreme Court says was intended by the Amendment.

No the Integration Act of 1875 was passed by a Radical Republican Congress, they lost power soon after and thus the provisions of these laws and others like them were watered down, that does not deminish the accomplishments of the more liberal Republicans that had previsusly held the majority in Congress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top