An example of State Rights in North Carolina

C

cancel2 2022

Canceled
Dorothy Counts getting a warm welcome at Harry Harding High School, Charlotte, North Carolina.

Realizing desegregation was unavoidable, Charlotte School Board members ordered four black students to attend four non-integrated schools in the area. Dorothy Counts, one of the four students, was assigned to Harding High School and required to report there on September 4, 1957. While escorted by Reginald Hawkins, Counts was heckled, hissed, and spat upon while walking to the school. Counts remained stoical throughout the confrontation. She attended the school for only four days before her father withdrew her from Harding. She then moved to Pennsylvania to continue her education.
The political fallout from the event was tremendous. Coming only months before Little Rock, national and international press witnessed the abhorrence and entrenchment of segregation in North Carolina. The event embarrassed Charlotte lawmakers and business leaders and put significant political pressure on them to end segregation. It also challenged the perception of Charlotte as a racially progressive city.
Dorothy Counts Scoggins now resides in Charlotte.

http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/commentary/301/entry



article-2088503-0F84325300000578-554_964x1250.jpg
 
Last edited:
Charlotte is now a world apart from those days. You still have your rednecks like DY but they are only a small vocal minority in the city.
 
This isn't an example of states rights. The state does not have the right to restrict indiviual liberties, nor does the federal government.
 
General Sheridan said:
This isn't an example of states rights. The state does not have the right to restrict indiviual liberties, nor does the federal government.
Click to expand...

According to your opinion. However, I am not the police of ideological purity. I call people what they call themselves, rather than attempting to push a "true" ideology on everyone else, as if there's ever been a true ideology of anything. "States rights" has, historically, been an evil ideology that tried to restrict the rights of man. Thus, I do, and I always shall, oppose states rights.
 
General Sherman said:
According to your opinion. However, I am not the police of ideological purity. I call people what they call themselves, rather than attempting to push a "true" ideology on everyone else, as if there's ever been a true ideology of anything. "States rights" has, historically, been an evil ideology that tried to restrict the rights of man. Thus, I do, and I always shall, oppose states rights.
Click to expand...

Judging an ideology by the most idiotic of its practitioners is a poor strategy. There are fools and tyrants of every ideological shade and inclination. The proper usage of the States Rights doctrine is to keep localized and area specific problems at the lowest level needed to ensure they are dealt with effectively and smoothly. As it is the natural course of governments to seek more power, states rights must be defended to ensure that a degree of autonomy is retained.
 
General Sheridan said:
Judging an ideology by the most idiotic of its practitioners is a poor strategy. There are fools and tyrants of every ideological shade and inclination. The proper usage of the States Rights doctrine is to keep localized and area specific problems at the lowest level needed to ensure they are dealt with effectively and smoothly. As it is the natural course of governments to seek more power, states rights must be defended to ensure that a degree of autonomy is retained.
Click to expand...

Well said sir.
 
General Sheridan said:
Judging an ideology by the most idiotic of its practitioners is a poor strategy.
Click to expand...

Really, I don't think that ideology matters that much at all. People will simply bend or twist it to whatever they want it to say anyway. There's no real way to tell if an ideology is actually a good one in practice anyway, because no ideology has ever really been practiced. People make shit up as they go along and wrap it in ideological dressing in order to give it more credibility.
 
When has anyone ever talked about states rights in a context other than the federal government limiting the rights of states to limit the rights of individuals? And, besides what you said, that the states "do not have the right to limit the rights of individuals", yes, they don't generally have that right now. However, they used to. Thanks to states rights. It was a bad right, and it's good that we've taken that right away from them.
 
General Sherman said:
When has anyone ever talked about states rights in a context other than the federal government limiting the rights of states to limit the rights of individuals? And, besides what you said, that the states "do not have the right to limit the rights of individuals", yes, they don't generally have that right now. However, they used to. Thanks to states rights. It was a bad right, and it's good that we've taken that right away from them.
Click to expand...

No, they simply exercised state sponsored tyranny.
 
Watermark, we have, for the most part in this nation's history, only faught for individual rights against the power of state and local governments - and we have survived, such as we are, to this day.

Trust me, however, we do not want to see the day where we are fighting for our individual rights against the national government. That will not be a pretty picture. You can't simply escape it by fleeing to Pennsylvania. Nevertheless, the current war for individual liberties tends to be against national power, such as the war on drugs and the domestic provisions of the war on terror.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top