Segregation now, segregation forever!

Right, because lynching is just a minor case of discrimination, on par with job discrimination and bad funding for majority black districts. The act in question, was a civil rights act, meaning that it was rather large in scope, and since institutional segregation is one of many things covered by civil rights, I guess you guys were discussing much more important things than desegregation. My bad...

Now anyone with half a brain can read the accounts of what happened up NORTH after the Civil War, when blacks migrated there to find jobs and start new lives. It wasn't peace and fucking harmony, was it? The glorious Northern Whites weren't any more cordial to black people than Southerners, were they?

You fucking bastards can TRY to keep arguing all you like, I will keep reminding you of what a bunch of fuckwits you are.

This is stunning! I have two of you claiming Congress passed anti-discrimination laws in 1875, and one retard claiming the only violence against blacks was down South! The REALITY is posted for you to educate yourselves. Blacks were being slaughtered by the thousands ALL OVER AMERICA! Not JUST in the South, not JUST by racist Southerners!
 
Last edited:
Wow 3D... I never knew Montana, Illinois and Washington were in the SOUTH!

Once again, our 3rd rate white supremacist propagandist "Dixie" leaves out the bits of history that just don't jibe with his myopic revisionism. Note that neither I or Jarod stated that the northern states were exempt from racism, nor do I lay it all on Southern States, as Three Dee alludes to. However, here's a little clarity and balance that gives one an idea of where Dixie's mindset springs from:

Segregation and disfranchisement laws were often supported, moreover, by brutal acts of ceremonial and ritualized mob violence (lynchings) against southern blacks. Indeed, from 1889 to 1930, over 3,700 men and women were reported lynched in the United States--most of whom were southern blacks. Hundreds of other lynchings and acts of mob terror aimed at brutalizing blacks occurred throughout the era but went unreported in the press. Numerous race riots erupted in the Jim Crow era, usually in towns and cities and almost always in defense of segregation and white supremacy. These riots engulfed the nation from Wilmington, North Carolina, to Houston, Texas; from East St. Louis and Chicago to Tulsa, Oklahoma, in the years from 1865 to 1955. The riots usually erupted in urban areas to which southern, rural blacks had recently migrated. In the single year of 1919, at least twenty-five incidents were recorded, with numerous deaths and hundreds of people injured. So bloody was this summer of that year that it is known as the Red Summer of 1919.

The so-called Jim Crow segregation laws gained significant impetus from U. S. Supreme Court rulings in the last two decades of the nineteenth century. In 1883, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the Civil Rights Act of 1875. The 1875 law stipulated: "That all persons ... shall be entitled to 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." The Court reviewed five separate complaints involving acts of discrimination on a railroad and in public sites, including a theater in San Francisco and the Grand Opera House in New York. In declaring the federal law unconstitutional, Chief Justice Joseph Bradley held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not protect black people from discrimination by private businesses and individuals but only from discrimination by states. He observed in his opinion that it was time for blacks to assume "the rank of a mere citizen" and stop being the "special favorite of the laws." Justice John Marshall Harlan vigorously dissented, arguing that hotels and amusement parks and public conveyances were public services that operated under state permission and thus were subject to public control.


http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/history/creating2.htm
 
Wow, it's amazing this wasn't even addressed in the CRA of 1875. It says nothing about disallowing this practice, probably because this particular practice hadn't yet been practiced! Those were some forward-thinking liberals in Congress back then! They had the wisdom to pass a law against something that didn't exist, so white people could bring it into existence and one day, a century later, they could pass another law to stop the practice! Amazing!

You can call me all kinds of names, you can lie and distort history, but you've not disproved anything I have said, and you can't. You are resorting to your typical clown routine, appealing to your "crowd of folks" who don't exist, except in your bigoted mind. There is you and Jarhead... Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb! Both of your minds working together, couldn't power a small appliance bulb. You have no concept of history, you've been thoroughly schooled from one end of this thread to the other, and like a mange-infested yard dog, you keep coming back for more! So far, all you two have presented is a piece of legislation passed in 1875, and you've completely taken the words out of context to suit your insane and ignorant argument. Surely there must be some speeches or writings from these illustrious Congressmen, speaking out against segregation and demanding desegregation in 1875... I mean, this was a pretty big deal, there should be numerous cases of these people speaking out, why don't you go dig some of them up? I'll tell you why, because you're full of shit, and that wasn't what they voted for!

Take a look back at page 11 of this thread again! Does that look like a nation of constituents clamoring for desegregation to you? Now, since the white people who were murdering black people by the thousands were allowed to vote and black people weren't, I would venture to say most politicians of the time probably took a side closer to the white people than the blacks. Just a fucking guess there! But I am sure you have reams of speeches from politicians of the time, since this was such a landmark piece of legislation! ...Come on you fucking fraud, put up or shut up! Let's see something besides the misconstrued text of the bill, if what you say is true! PROVE your point, nitwit!


Here mastermind, learn something....because all you've got so far is just regurgitating the same old myopic, revisionist crap while ignoring everything else.

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Segregation now, segregation forever!
 
Now anyone with half a brain can read the accounts of what happened up NORTH after the Civil War, when blacks migrated there to find jobs and start new lives. It wasn't peace and fucking harmony, was it? The glorious Northern Whites weren't any more cordial to black people than Southerners, were they?

You fucking bastards can TRY to keep arguing all you like, I will keep reminding you of what a bunch of fuckwits you are.

This is stunning! I have two of you claiming Congress passed anti-discrimination laws in 1875, and one retard claiming the only violence against blacks was down South! The REALITY is posted for you to educate yourselves. Blacks were being slaughtered by the thousands ALL OVER AMERICA! Not JUST in the South, not JUST by racist Southerners!


Calm down Frances.

Nah, nobody ever claimed that there aren't racists in the north.


All any one ever said, and what is demonstrably true and beyond dispute, is that the slavery, oppression, segregation, and racial intolerance is most egregious in the south. And that the south, to a greater extent than anywhere else, enslaved, raped, and murdered blacks, trafficked in human flesh, and set up structural systems of institutionalized racism.


You yourself parade around message boards with confederate battle flags, proclaim that being against inter racial marriage isn't neccesarily racist; and that prior to the civil rights movement blacks just "accepted" segregation pretty much without complaint.

Until you burn your Klan membership card, and do some personal introspection and soul searching about your own (apparently subconcious) racial insensitivity, you'll forever be doomed to wandering around cyberspace whining that other people are just as racist as you.
 
Once again, our 3rd rate white supremacist propagandist "Dixie" leaves out the bits of history that just don't jibe with his myopic revisionism. Note that neither I or Jarod stated that the northern states were exempt from racism, nor do I lay it all on Southern States, as Three Dee alludes to. However, here's a little clarity and balance that gives one an idea of where Dixie's mindset springs from:

Segregation and disfranchisement laws were often supported, moreover, by brutal acts of ceremonial and ritualized mob violence (lynchings) against southern blacks. Indeed, from 1889 to 1930, over 3,700 men and women were reported lynched in the United States--most of whom were southern blacks. Hundreds of other lynchings and acts of mob terror aimed at brutalizing blacks occurred throughout the era but went unreported in the press. Numerous race riots erupted in the Jim Crow era, usually in towns and cities and almost always in defense of segregation and white supremacy. These riots engulfed the nation from Wilmington, North Carolina, to Houston, Texas; from East St. Louis and Chicago to Tulsa, Oklahoma, in the years from 1865 to 1955. The riots usually erupted in urban areas to which southern, rural blacks had recently migrated. In the single year of 1919, at least twenty-five incidents were recorded, with numerous deaths and hundreds of people injured. So bloody was this summer of that year that it is known as the Red Summer of 1919.

The so-called Jim Crow segregation laws gained significant impetus from U. S. Supreme Court rulings in the last two decades of the nineteenth century. In 1883, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the Civil Rights Act of 1875. The 1875 law stipulated: "That all persons ... shall be entitled to 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." The Court reviewed five separate complaints involving acts of discrimination on a railroad and in public sites, including a theater in San Francisco and the Grand Opera House in New York. In declaring the federal law unconstitutional, Chief Justice Joseph Bradley held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not protect black people from discrimination by private businesses and individuals but only from discrimination by states. He observed in his opinion that it was time for blacks to assume "the rank of a mere citizen" and stop being the "special favorite of the laws." Justice John Marshall Harlan vigorously dissented, arguing that hotels and amusement parks and public conveyances were public services that operated under state permission and thus were subject to public control.


http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/history/creating2.htm

Aww how cute Chicklet! You are now taking the point I have been arguing with Jarhead for the past dozen pages, and claiming it for your own, whilst pretending that I have said the complete opposite! You are not supposed to be showing me where America was discriminating against blacks, you are supposed to be supporting Jarheads ignorance that we outlawed segregation in 1875! I am a tolerant person, but I can't let you steal MY argument and make it your own, then LIE and claim I am taking the opposite position!

I am very familiar with Jim Crow laws, which is one of the many reasons it is ABSURD to believe Congress outlawed segregation in 1875! Seems like someone so obsessed with following the chronology of the posts would not spend so much time ignoring the posts and pretending something else is being said. You didn't really have to go to so much trouble admitting I am right and Jarhead is wrong, you could have just not posted anything, but thanks for the confirmation and affirmation of the point I've been trying to make for the past dozen pages. Unfortunately, you can't make it your own. Sorry!
 
Calm down Frances.

Nah, nobody ever claimed that there aren't racists in the north.

Yes, that is exactly how 3D thinks it was! Thanks for taking MY side in the argument against his stupidity and admitting racists were up North too!


All any one ever said, and what is demonstrably true and beyond dispute, is that the slavery, oppression, segregation, and racial intolerance is most egregious in the south. And that the south, to a greater extent than anywhere else, enslaved, raped, and murdered blacks, trafficked in human flesh, and set up structural systems of institutionalized racism.

Really? Well, according to Jarhead this was outlawed in 1875! Thanks again for refuting HIS stupidity on the subject!


You yourself parade around message boards with confederate battle flags, proclaim that being against inter racial marriage isn't neccesarily racist; and that prior to the civil rights movement blacks just "accepted" segregation pretty much without complaint.

Truth is truth. I honor my ancestors who died in battle, and they never owned a slave or knew anyone who did. They were farmers themselves, having to compete with big plantations who enjoyed free labor. My ancestors were actually better off when slavery ended. I wish they had you around back then to explain how the Civil War was about slavery, because they believed it was about protecting their homes and land.

Until you burn your Klan membership card, and do some personal introspection and soul searching about your own (apparently subconcious) racial insensitivity, you'll forever be doomed to wandering around cyberspace whining that other people are just as racist as you.

I am the only one in this thread defending the plight of black Americans against the ignorance and stubborn refusal to accept responsibility for white America's history of discrimination. I know you all wish I would say something you can play on as racist, I know you wish I was taking another position here... hell, Chicklet wishes it so much he has imagined that IS what I am doing! But you won't find someone more familiar with Civil Rights and fully understanding of what black people have been through as the result of ignorance, like the ignorance being displayed by pinheads here. So call me racist, call me a sheet-wearer, claim I belong to the KKK, and keep pretending that is the case, because you only continue to expose your closed-minded bigotry and unwillingness to face the truth. It doesn't bother me to get called names by idiots, I can deal with that.
 
DIXIE:

I am the only one in this thread defending the plight of black Americans.......


I had to stop reading when I got to this sentence, because I fell out of my chair busting my gut with laughter.

Thanks man, don't ever change!


kkk.jpg
 
Oh that's right Prissy... keep LYING YOUR ASS OFF! That's a really good tactic to use here, and so much more effective than Chicklet's strategy of adopting my argument and pretending I have taken a contradicting position. You might actually stand a chance of convincing the lazy who haven't read the thread, so more power to ya man! I know it's difficult to try and turn the worm once your ass has been PWNED, it's so hard to argue when you have no ass and that was where your brains were... I understand!
 
Note to Dixie, the Great Migration didn't occur until WWI and the 1920s, which is about the time that the North finally began to take an interest in black issues, by passing anti-lynching laws, and so forth. Prior to that, very few blacks actually moved up North.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Once again, our 3rd rate white supremacist propagandist "Dixie" leaves out the bits of history that just don't jibe with his myopic revisionism. Note that neither I or Jarod stated that the northern states were exempt from racism, nor do I lay it all on Southern States, as Three Dee alludes to. However, here's a little clarity and balance that gives one an idea of where Dixie's mindset springs from:

Segregation and disfranchisement laws were often supported, moreover, by brutal acts of ceremonial and ritualized mob violence (lynchings) against southern blacks. Indeed, from 1889 to 1930, over 3,700 men and women were reported lynched in the United States--most of whom were southern blacks. Hundreds of other lynchings and acts of mob terror aimed at brutalizing blacks occurred throughout the era but went unreported in the press. Numerous race riots erupted in the Jim Crow era, usually in towns and cities and almost always in defense of segregation and white supremacy. These riots engulfed the nation from Wilmington, North Carolina, to Houston, Texas; from East St. Louis and Chicago to Tulsa, Oklahoma, in the years from 1865 to 1955. The riots usually erupted in urban areas to which southern, rural blacks had recently migrated. In the single year of 1919, at least twenty-five incidents were recorded, with numerous deaths and hundreds of people injured. So bloody was this summer of that year that it is known as the Red Summer of 1919.

The so-called Jim Crow segregation laws gained significant impetus from U. S. Supreme Court rulings in the last two decades of the nineteenth century. In 1883, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the Civil Rights Act of 1875. The 1875 law stipulated: "That all persons ... shall be entitled to 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." The Court reviewed five separate complaints involving acts of discrimination on a railroad and in public sites, including a theater in San Francisco and the Grand Opera House in New York. In declaring the federal law unconstitutional, Chief Justice Joseph Bradley held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not protect black people from discrimination by private businesses and individuals but only from discrimination by states. He observed in his opinion that it was time for blacks to assume "the rank of a mere citizen" and stop being the "special favorite of the laws." Justice John Marshall Harlan vigorously dissented, arguing that hotels and amusement parks and public conveyances were public services that operated under state permission and thus were subject to public control.

http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/history/creating2.htm

Aww how cute Chicklet! Ignorant blowhards think that by "feminization" of your name will automatically diminish your position in a debate...Someone should have told Dixie most people here are beyond high grade school for that tactic to be effective. You are now taking the point I have been arguing with Jarhead for the past dozen pages, and claiming it for your own, whilst pretending that I have said the complete opposite! No genius....if you read carefully you would note that the information CONTRADICTS what you've been ranting about...as it clearly makes the connection between the 1875 CRA and segregation, and points out how there were folks in Congress for and against the civil rights of black folk, and how those for got the Act passed. For you to claim otherwise given the chronology of the posts is delusional at best. You are not supposed to be showing me where America was discriminating against blacks, you are supposed to be supporting Jarheads ignorance that we outlawed segregation in 1875! :palm: Read the second paragraph of the excerpt provided, genius...read it carefully and comprehensively. Ask an adult to explain it to you and if you still don't/won't get it, I'll dumb it down for you. I am a tolerant person, but I can't let you steal MY argument and make it your own, then LIE and claim I am taking the opposite position! Actually you're an insipidly stubborn white supremacist who's too deluded or cowardly to acknowledge when your proven wrong factually and logically...so much so that your "argument" borderlines on nothing more than your delusional view of which the chronology of the post just does not support.

I am very familiar with Jim Crow laws, which is one of the many reasons it is ABSURD to believe Congress outlawed segregation in 1875! Not by itself, you blithering idiot! It was among the many ACTS that attacked segregation on many levels. READ THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THE EXCERPT AGAIN....this time without the eyelets of the pointed hood obscuring your view. Seems like someone so obsessed with following the chronology of the posts would not spend so much time ignoring the posts and pretending something else is being said. Translation: Dixie just rehashs his posts and denies the content of anything contrary. You didn't really have to go to so much trouble admitting I am right and Jarhead is wrong, you could have just not posted anything, but thanks for the confirmation and affirmation of the point I've been trying to make for the past dozen pages. Unfortunately, you can't make it your own. Sorry!

Only in your fevered little mind, my intellectually bankrupt confederate! Your self contradictions, repetitive denial of facts and logic and outright lies are there for all to see. Carry on.
 
Note to Dixie, the Great Migration didn't occur until WWI and the 1920s, which is about the time that the North finally began to take an interest in black issues, by passing anti-lynching laws, and so forth. Prior to that, very few blacks actually moved up North.

Well I can't understand why black people didn't want to migrate to the Liberal Pro-desegregation North! After all, they had passed the "Desegregation Act of 1875" according to Jarhead! And history shows they were so hospitable to black people before the 1920s.... incidents such as this:

In 1892, a police officer in Port Jervis, New York, tried to stop the lynching of a black man who had been wrongfully accused of assaulting a white woman. The mob responded by putting the noose around the officer's neck as a way of scaring him. Although at the inquest the officer identified eight people who had participated in the lynching, including the former chief of police, the jury determined that the murder had been carried out "by person or persons unknown."

OR THIS....

Joe Coe, also known as George Smith, was an African-American laborer who was lynched in 1891 in Omaha, Nebraska. Overwhelmed by a mob of one thousand at the Douglas County Courthouse, the twelve city police officers stood by without intervening. Afterward, the mayor called the lynching "the most deplorable thing that has ever happened in the history of the country."

Ten days after the lynching, the Douglas County Assistant Coroner testified in court that Smith died of "fright", rather than of the wounds inflicted on him by the mob. Those wounds included sixteen wounds to his body and three vertebrae broken in his spine. Despite this, the coroner testified, "The heart was so contracted and the blood was in such a condition that the doctor was satisfied that the man was literally scared to death." County Attorney Mahoney said he would have to modify the charges against the lynchers The grand jury decided not to prosecute.


OR THIS...

The Springfield Race Riot of 1908 was a mass civil disturbance in Springfield, Illinois, USA sparked by the transfer of two African American prisoners out of the city jail by the county sheriff. This act enraged many white citizens, who responded by burning black-owned homes and businesses and killing black citizens. By the end of the riot, there were at least seven deaths and US$200,000 in property damage. The riot led to the formation of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, a civil rights organization.

At the turn of the century, Springfield, Illinois, was a rapidly-growing industrial center, with the highest percentage of African Americans of any comparably-sized city in Illinois. Racial tensions were high at the time due to fierce job competition and the use of black workers as "scabs" during labor strikes.

On July 4, 1908, someone broke into the home of mining engineer Clergy Ballard. Ballard awoke and rose to investigate, finding a man standing near his daughter's bed. The intruder fled the house and Ballard gave chase. After catching up with the intruder, Ballard's throat was slashed with a straight razor. Before he died, Ballard identified the assailant as Joe James, a black man with a long record of minor crimes. White citizens of the town were enraged by this crime, thinking that the murder was the result of a thwarted sexual assault of a white woman by a black man. A crowd of whites caught James and beat him unconscious. The police rescued James, arrested him, and locked him in the city jail.

On Friday, August 15 of that year, the local Illinois State Journal newspaper ran the story of a white woman, Mabel Hallam, who had allegedly been raped by a local black man, George Richardson. The 21-year-old wife of a well-known streetcar conductor claimed that the black caretaker had dragged her out of bed and assaulted her the night before. Police arrested Richardson and took him to the city jail as well.

Later on August 14, a significant amount of mob action took place. A crowd of white citizens gathered in downtown Springfield, outraged by the fact that two black men had allegedly committed brutal crimes against white townspeople. The crowd demanded the release of the prisoners, but Sheriff Charles Werner was able to remove the two from jail and transport them to safety in Bloomington 64 miles away, with the help of restaurant owner Harry Loper.

When the crowd learned that the two black prisoners had been moved with the help of Loper, they walked to his restaurant to exact revenge. Despite the fact that Loper stood in the doorway, the mob trashed the building and torched his expensive automobile. Realizing that the local authorities were overwhelmed by the crowd, Governor Charles S. Deneen activated the state militia.

The crowd now directed their anger toward the rest of Springfield's minorities. They proceeded to Fishman's Hardware, owned by a Jewish businessman, and stole weapons to use in the further destruction of homes and businesses. Then the mob moved on the Levee, a predominantly African American area, and destroyed numerous black-owned businesses.

As the crowd moved on towards the Badlands, another black neighborhood, they encountered a black barber named Scott Burton. Burton attempted to defend his business with a warning shot from a shotgun, and was killed when the crowd returned fire. Burton's shop was burned and his body was dragged to a nearby saloon, where it was hung from a tree.

The mob then burned black-owned homes in the Badlands. By this time, an estimated 12,000 people had gathered to watch the houses burn. When firefighters arrived, people in the crowd impeded their progress and cut their hoses. African American citizens were forced to flee the town, find refuge with sympathetic whites, or hide in the State Arsenal. The National Guard was finally able to disperse the crowd late that night.

The next day, Saturday, August 15, as thousands of black residents fled the city, five thousand National Guard troops marched in to keep the peace, along with curiosity seekers and tourists who had read about the riots in the newspaper. The peace was soon broken, however, when a new mob formed and began marching toward the State Arsenal, where many black residents were being housed. When confronted by a National Guardsman, the crowd changed direction and instead walked to the home of black resident William Donnegan, who had committed no crime, but had been married to a white woman for 32 years; Donnegan himself was either 84 or 76-years old. When Donnegan came outside, the mob captured him, cut his throat, and lynched him in a tree in the yard of what was later known as The Hay-Edwards School across the street from his home.

Aftermath

The riots ended at this point, leaving 40 homes and 24 businesses in ruins, and seven people confirmed dead: two black men and five white people who were killed in the violence. Some of the white casualties were shot by blacks defending their homes and businesses. There were rumored to have been several more unreported deaths.

A grand jury brought 107 indictments against nearly 80 individuals who had allegedly participated in the riots (including four police officers), but only one man, a 20-year-old Russian Jewish vegetable peddler named Abraham Raymer, was convicted. His crime was stealing a saber from a guard. Raymer had previously been put on trial for the murder of William Donnegan, of which he was acquitted, and he was also subsequently acquitted of other serious charges in two later trials, results which would set the tone for the rest of the cases. Kate Howard, a white woman who had directed much of the violence, committed suicide before facing the charges against her. Mabel Hallam later admitted that her accusation of rape against George Richardson was false, and Richardson was released from jail. Joe James was convicted of the murder of Clergy Ballard and was hanged in the Sangamon County Jail on October 23, 1908.

As a direct result of the Springfield Race Riot, a meeting was held in New York City to discuss solutions to racial problems in the U.S. This meeting led to the formation of the NAACP, a well-known civil rights organization.

Visitors to Springfield, Illinois, can take a self-guided tour of nine historical markers that describe key moments in the Springfield Race Riot of 1908.


I guess the mobs of white people HAD to lynch all these blacks and burn their homes and businesses so we could establish the NAACP, huh? Yeah, they seem like they were really interested in black issues back then.

White Liberal Anti-discrimination Pro-desegregation folks were all over the place, which is why a famous author wrote an essay....

The United States of Lyncherdom was an essay by Mark Twain written in 1901, after the lynching of three men in Pierce City, Missouri, his home state. It blames lynching in the United States on the herd mentality that prevails among Americans. Twain decided that the country was not ready for the essay, and shelved it. A redacted version was finally published in 1923, when Twain's literary executor, Albert Bigelow Paine, slipped it into a posthumous collection, Europe and Elsewhere.

I guess Mark was actually writing about someplace else, since blacks hadn't yet migrated to the hospitable and open-minded North, where everyone loved black people and welcomed them with open arms, huh?

Maybe he was talking about further North, like maybe Canada....

Louie Sam (1870? – February 24, 1884) was a youth from native village near Abbotsford, British Columbia who was lynched by an American mob.

Sam was 14 at the time these events occurred. He had been accused of the murder of James Bell, a shopkeeper in Nooksack (today Whatcom County, Washington). The people of his band, today the Sumas First Nation at Kilgard turned him over to the B.C. government to settle the matter.

Following this, an angry mob crossed the border into Canada on February 24 and captured Sam, who had been in the custody of a B.C. deputy. They then hanged him from a tree close to the U.S. border.

A subsequent investigation by Canadian authorities strongly suggests that Sam was innocent, and that the likely murderers were two white Americans who were leaders of the lynch mob. They were William Osterman, the Nooksack telegraph operator who took over Bell's business, and David Harkness, who at the time of Bell's murder was living with Bell's estranged wife. Neither man was ever prosecuted.


I guess they couldn't prosecute him because they hadn't passed the "Desegregation Act of 1875" which outlawed this sort of thing in Canada, huh?

Oh well, by WWI, the North was nothing like it was BEFORE the Civil War... you know, that war the glorious anti-racist Northerners fought to free the slaves and give black people equal rights to white people? Back before the war things were a lot worse... stuff like this was happening all over the place:

The Lombard Street Riot, sometimes called the Abolition Riots was a three-day race riot in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1842.The riot was the last in a 13-year period marked by frequent racial attacks in the city.It started on Lombard Street, between Fifth and Eighth streets.

In the early decades of the 19th century, there were significant increases in the city's African-American population as large numbers of freed and fugitive slaves joined other immigrants in Philadelphia. During the twenty-five years prior to the run of riots, the city's African American population grew more than 50%. At the same time, there were increasing numbers of Irish immigrants, who were also separated from the larger society by their generally rural backgrounds, as well as by their Catholic religion. Given European political and religious tensions and the British occupation of Ireland, there had long been strong anti-Catholic feeling among many American Protestants.

During the years immediately before the riots, there were periodic outbreaks of racial, ethnic and religious violence among Irish Catholics, German Protestants, African Americans and even pacifist Quakers. These were the result of social and economic competition, especially between Irish Catholics and African Americans, who were generally at the bottom of the social hierarchy. Many Irish refused to work on labor teams with African Americans, adding to the difficulties of both groups in getting work.

On the morning of August 1, 1842, a parade was held by over 1,000 members of the black Young Men's Vigilant Association on Philadelphia's Lombard Street between Fifth and Eighth Streets in commemoration of the end of slavery in the British West Indies.

As the paraders neared Mother Bethel Church, they were attacked by a mob of Irish Catholics.

Requests to the Mayor and police for protection initially led to the arrest of several of the victims and none of the rioters. Over three days of attacks, the Second African American Presbyterian Church, the abolitionist Smith's Hall and numerous homes and public buildings were looted and burned, many of them destroyed. The mayor had credible evidence of a plan to burn several local churches, which he ignored.


And that was in the City of Brotherly Love! Man, they really knew how to love a brother, huh?

Even as the Civil War raged on, things like this were happening up North:

On March 6, 1863 the city of Detroit, Michigan experienced its first riot. At the time, it was reported as “the bloodiest day that ever dawned upon Detroit.”

While not as famous or destructive as riots later in Detroit’s history, the riot of 1863 was certainly a momentous occasion for the city of Detroit. The casualties of the day included at least two innocent people dead, a multitude of others—-mostly African-American—-mercilessly beaten, 35 buildings burned to the ground, and a number of other buildings damaged by fire.


I guess that must have obviously been Southern Racists who had fled the South and lived in Detroit at the time, huh? Because we all know the lily white liberal non-discriminatory people of the North would never behave this way, right?


All of this happened well before WWI or 1920, and WAY after 1875!
 
Well I can't understand why black people didn't want to migrate to the Liberal Pro-desegregation North! After all, they had passed the "Desegregation Act of 1875" according to Jarhead! And history shows they were so hospitable to black people before the 1920s.... incidents such as this:

In 1892, a police officer in Port Jervis, New York, tried to stop the lynching of a black man who had been wrongfully accused of assaulting a white woman. The mob responded by putting the noose around the officer's neck as a way of scaring him. Although at the inquest the officer identified eight people who had participated in the lynching, including the former chief of police, the jury determined that the murder had been carried out "by person or persons unknown."

Would not have happened in the South, a police officer standing up for truth and justice. That's the difference. Up North there were good, decent people.

My reference to the Great Migration, which predictably went right over your head, you fucking moron, is that most statistics for lynching in the North, and especially the West, were committed against whites.
 
Would not have happened in the South, a police officer standing up for truth and justice. That's the difference. Up North there were good, decent people.

My reference to the Great Migration, which predictably went right over your head, you fucking moron, is that most statistics for lynching in the North, and especially the West, were committed against whites.

I think it is abundantly clear to anyone but a sheet-wearing racist, that black Americans were flagrantly discriminated against from the end of the Civil War until the CRA of 1964, and trying now to distance yourself from that, is a racist insult and slap in the face of Civil Rights. I don't care how you parse words, I don't care how much you want to twist facts, I don't care how much you want to try and change my position or argue with the vivid history. I've not ever said there was no discrimination in the South, I've not ever tried to excuse the South for their history, I fully accept the South's role in racial discrimination. This is NOT an issue that dissipated at the Mason-Dixon line, there were NOT progressive liberals in Congress pushing for Civil Rights in 1875, and to continue arguing this silliness is indicative of the ignorant and arrogant attitude found in many white Americans who simply want to DENY what happened, and in many cases, what is still happening in your hearts.
 
I had to stop reading when I got to this sentence, because I fell out of my chair busting my gut with laughter.

Thanks man, don't ever change!


kkk.jpg
Once people start into pictures of their collection of KKK action figures we should invoke Godwin's Law. You have nothing to add to this discussion.
 
LMAO... That's some trick! It strikes directly at the heart of something that didn't yet exist? Let's clarify... Restaurants and hotels in 1875, didn't have separate areas for blacks. Their policy was, blacks are NOT ALLOWED! PERIOD! Blacks didn't have separate bathrooms and water fountains, they had NONE! There couldn't have been "desegregation" at that time, because there wasn't any "segregation" at that time!

As I said, I am quite sure, if someone had suggested segregationist policies in 1875, those who voted FOR the CRA of 1875 would have thought it was the greatest breakthrough in the history of the country and would have embraced the concept of "separate but equal" but that wasn't the case. No, the reality was, white mobs were murdering black people for even walking by a restaurant or hotel!

You are a fucking half-witted moron, and Jarhead is a quarter-witted moron! You are both PRIME examples of why we still have racial turmoil in America, the sheer condescension of thinking your beloved Congress stood up against segregation in 1875, nearly 100 years before Rosa Parks, is a racist insult and devoid of any understanding regarding the plight of black Americans.

This is simply not true, even Congress had black members... I am sure they had a place to use the bathroom, Ill bet they even had an office.
 
Synopsis of this thread...

1) Dixie says,... No people with any kind of power were for desegregation.

2) I point out that Congress passed the Desegregation act of 1875, and had black members.

3) Dixie calls me wrong because he can prove racism existed.

Talk about non-sequitor.
 
Synopsis of this thread...

1) Dixie says,... No people with any kind of power were for desegregation.

2) I point out that Congress passed the Desegregation act of 1875, and had black members.

3) Dixie calls me wrong because he can prove racism existed.

Talk about non-sequitor.

1.) Dixie states an unequivocal fact that Jarhead can't refute.

2.) Jarhead lies and tries to claim he has refuted it.

3.) Dixie PWNS Jarhead repeatedly and relentlessly.
 
Synopsis of this thread...

1) Dixie says,... No people with any kind of power were for desegregation.

2) I point out that Congress passed the Desegregation act of 1875, and had black members.

3) Dixie calls me wrong because he can prove racism existed.

Talk about non-sequitor.

Ohh, I forgot, allow me to insert a

2.5) Damo tries to save Dixie, then bows out when he sees the shit he steped into.
 
Back
Top