Segregation now, segregation forever!

[Jarod]

He was an "awful racist" because you are applying a modern standard to what he advocated. You lack the comprehension of context, the prevailing sentiment of the times. When he said "segregation now, segregation forever" it was regarding forced Federal integration. There were very few integrated state schools at the time, most school systems had adopted a segregated system which had been upheld for decades by the courts... not making an excuse for this... not saying it was right... but the states had done, up until that point, exactly what the law indicated they should and could do. They built black and white schools, not because they were racist haters of black people who wanted to treat them unequal... that is from a modern understanding... they were acting in accordance to what the law of the time was, and doing what the collective rest of society was doing. Support for the practice to continue without Federal interference, was popular, not just in the South, but anywhere there was a sizable black population.

You have to try and imagine what it was like before people thought about 'equality' as they do today. The meaning has certainly changed over the years, and continues to change. Many segregationists argued it was "equality" to segregate, they were doing the same for both whites and blacks, and both would be more content and happy amongst their own kind... blacks wouldn't be "equal" trying to compete in white schools... it was doing them a favor to segregate them... save them the social detriment... all of these arguments were presented by people and agreed with, for years! You and I don't make those arguments, WE don't view things from that perspective, but THEY did! Our whole society did! From New York to California, and everywhere in between, we went down that road.

The argument here, has never been whether there weren't always some people who fought for equality, I named several off the top of my head earlier... there were advocates of racial equality, it just wasn't predominate.

Back to Wallace... do you honestly believe, if a person believes in their heart, there is a superior race and an inferior race, they can overcome that? How can Wallace "at one point in his career" be an awful racist, yet in his later career, garners 87% of the black vote in Alabama? I say, he either completely fooled a lot of black Alabamians, or he wasn't really racist at heart. He supported the popular status quot of the time, whether that was "right or wrong," or whether it fits our modern criteria for "equality" regarding race, that is entirely a different thing. We have to put thing in the context of the time, we can't apply our modern understanding of things, because they simply had a different perspective because of the culture and the times. That is a reality we have to accept, whether we are proud of it or not, whether we find it repulsive to face or not.

Claiming sanctuary in history hardly makes it more okay...

I dont know Wallace's hart as it relates to Black People. I know his political positions were inconsistant, and I know him to have a had a good hart when it came to other issues. I new his wife Lauren was the first woman govenor of Alabama and was a truely kind harted person.

There were promoters of equality in the Senate and the House! There have been law requireing equal treatment, yet they were explained away by the Supreme Court, that does not change what was origionally intended by the laws.

In one of the few and greatestest examples of a violation of Stari Decisus, in Brown v. Board of Education the Supremem Court called out Plessy v. Furgison and said that interpertation was completly fraudlent and that seperate cannot be equal.

Read about how Thourgood Marshall, who lost Brown when he argued it to the Supreme Court, ended up on the Supreme Court and corrected the error! You will learn a lot.

Prior to this thread, you never even heard of the CRA of 1875 or the CRA of 1866... it appears you did not know what a Radical Republican was....

Where did you go to High School? Was it Texas, or did Alabama buy text books directly from the Texas School Board, because they clearly took the part out about reconstruction!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Claiming sanctuary in history hardly makes it more okay...

Claiming sanctuary? Is that how you interpret my points? Let me again reiterate, this has nothing to do with my personal view, or justifying anything that happened in the past regarding race relations. It's far more unethical to pretend the past was something it wasn't! To pretend there was some mass movement toward integration, when there just plain wasn't! Now you can play it in your mind as if it was the same as Gay Rights today, but that was just not the case at all, ever! To put into perspective, the number of advocates for Gay Marriage today, is ten times greater than any movement favoring integration in 1875. While there were SOME people advocating racial equality, it was not enough to have an impact on the general public, and it was not the prevailing societal view of the time. If you want to take that as me claiming sanctuary, so be it, that's the truth of the matter.

I dont know Wallace's hart as it relates to Black People. I know his political positions were inconsistant, and I know him to have a had a good hart when it came to other issues. I new his wife Lauren was the first woman govenor of Alabama and was a truely kind harted person.

You mean "Lurlene" Wallace, and she was indeed kindhearted. No one knows what's inside another man's heart, but pragmatic thought should tell you, if someone believes in their heart that blacks and whites are not equal, they generally do not change. It is an inherent belief some people have, and regardless of what they say, simply can't overcome. You say Wallace was an "awful racist" in his early career, but just a decade later, he is garnering 87% of the black vote in Alabama... how does that comport with logic? Do black people generally support "awful racists" for any reason? That doesn't make sense, and neither does some radical transformation and repentance moment, where people completely abandon a mindset they have always had.

My explanation is, Wallace was not a racist, not even when he was saying "Segregation now, segregation forever!" We view that as a racist comment, but we lack the context of the times, the understanding of the public social perspective. Wallace was merely standing up for what had always been, the status quot. Not that it was "right" for him to do it, only that it was politically popular to do so at the time. Going back to Lincoln, he said blacks and whites could never integrate, there were too many differences in the two races. If we heard someone say those things today, we would certainly view them as "racist" people, espousing a "racist" thought... but this was Lincoln, the man who freed the slaves. The key, is perspective, and the prevailing public social sentiment of the times. It has nothing to do with whether it was "right or wrong," only that it WAS that way.

There were promoters of equality in the Senate and the House! There have been law requireing equal treatment, yet they were explained away by the Supreme Court, that does not change what was origionally intended by the laws.
In one of the few and greatestest examples of a violation of Stari Decisus, in Brown v. Board of Education the Supremem Court called out Plessy v. Furgison and said that interpertation was completly fraudlent and that seperate cannot be equal.

Read about how Thourgood Marshall, who lost Brown when he argued it to the Supreme Court, ended up on the Supreme Court and corrected the error! You will learn a lot.

And again... Original intent is subject to the prevailing thoughts of that time, not current political correctness. You have to remember, in 1875, the southern states were pretty much shut out of political process in Congress. Laws were passed by congressmen who had no black populations to speak of, and it didn't effect them in the least, the INTENT was, to impose their will on the southern states, who most of them blamed for the death of Lincoln. It had nothing to do with them wanting to integrate blacks into white society. You continue to apply this "intent" and there is just no rationale for doing so. They intended to pass a law which gave the Federal government authority to use troops to quell violence and mass murder, and establish that freed slaves were to be recognized as people who do have rights. EQUALITY has always been subjective, throughout our history, into today! You know this, you've argued this! Surely you can realize that we have ALWAYS had a subjective view on equality. You simply can't read a post-1954 SCOTUS definition of equality, to people in 1875 America, it does not comport with logic.

Prior to this thread, you never even heard of the CRA of 1875 or the CRA of 1866... it appears you did not know what a Radical Republican was....

Where did you go to High School? Was it Texas, or did Alabama buy text books directly from the Texas School Board, because they clearly took the part out about reconstruction!

I was well aware of the Reconstruction era, it seems you have a really warped concept of it though. I also know what a Radical Republican was, but you apparently think it was something completely different, because you keep wanting to apply a modern perspective to their intentions. You continue to try and argue their intentions were to integrate blacks into white society as equals, and I continue to point out, if that had been their intention, it would have happened, and it didn't. What did happen, was Segregation.

 

[Jarod]

Claiming sanctuary? Is that how you interpret my points? Let me again reiterate, this has nothing to do with my personal view, or justifying anything that happened in the past regarding race relations. It's far more unethical to pretend the past was something it wasn't! To pretend there was some mass movement toward integration, when there just plain wasn't! Now you can play it in your mind as if it was the same as Gay Rights today, but that was just not the case at all, ever! To put into perspective, the number of advocates for Gay Marriage today, is ten times greater than any movement favoring integration in 1875. While there were SOME people advocating racial equality, it was not enough to have an impact on the general public, and it was not the prevailing societal view of the time. If you want to take that as me claiming sanctuary, so be it, that's the truth of the matter.



You mean "Lurlene" Wallace, and she was indeed kindhearted. No one knows what's inside another man's heart, but pragmatic thought should tell you, if someone believes in their heart that blacks and whites are not equal, they generally do not change. It is an inherent belief some people have, and regardless of what they say, simply can't overcome. You say Wallace was an "awful racist" in his early career, but just a decade later, he is garnering 87% of the black vote in Alabama... how does that comport with logic? Do black people generally support "awful racists" for any reason? That doesn't make sense, and neither does some radical transformation and repentance moment, where people completely abandon a mindset they have always had.

My explanation is, Wallace was not a racist, not even when he was saying "Segregation now, segregation forever!" We view that as a racist comment, but we lack the context of the times, the understanding of the public social perspective. Wallace was merely standing up for what had always been, the status quot. Not that it was "right" for him to do it, only that it was politically popular to do so at the time. Going back to Lincoln, he said blacks and whites could never integrate, there were too many differences in the two races. If we heard someone say those things today, we would certainly view them as "racist" people, espousing a "racist" thought... but this was Lincoln, the man who freed the slaves. The key, is perspective, and the prevailing public social sentiment of the times. It has nothing to do with whether it was "right or wrong," only that it WAS that way.



And again... Original intent is subject to the prevailing thoughts of that time, not current political correctness. You have to remember, in 1875, the southern states were pretty much shut out of political process in Congress. Laws were passed by congressmen who had no black populations to speak of, and it didn't effect them in the least, the INTENT was, to impose their will on the southern states, who most of them blamed for the death of Lincoln. It had nothing to do with them wanting to integrate blacks into white society. You continue to apply this "intent" and there is just no rationale for doing so. They intended to pass a law which gave the Federal government authority to use troops to quell violence and mass murder, and establish that freed slaves were to be recognized as people who do have rights. EQUALITY has always been subjective, throughout our history, into today! You know this, you've argued this! Surely you can realize that we have ALWAYS had a subjective view on equality. You simply can't read a post-1954 SCOTUS definition of equality, to people in 1875 America, it does not comport with logic.



I was well aware of the Reconstruction era, it seems you have a really warped concept of it though. I also know what a Radical Republican was, but you apparently think it was something completely different, because you keep wanting to apply a modern perspective to their intentions. You continue to try and argue their intentions were to integrate blacks into white society as equals, and I continue to point out, if that had been their intention, it would have happened, and it didn't. What did happen, was Segregation.

I know her real name, its on the corner stones of many buildings in Auburn... As I small child I always called her Mrs. Lauren.

So its impossable that a group of people in congress wanted something that did not happen?

Is it impossable that the Supreme Court can gut a law regardless of the intent of the Legislature?

So if the S. Ct. calls a law unconstitutional that was the intent of the legislature to have it be null and void?

 

[Minister of Truth]

Dix PWNED

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I know her real name, its on the corner stones of many buildings in Auburn... As I small child I always called her Mrs. Lauren.

So its impossable that a group of people in congress wanted something that did not happen?

Is it impossable that the Supreme Court can gut a law regardless of the intent of the Legislature?

So if the S. Ct. calls a law unconstitutional that was the intent of the legislature to have it be null and void?

It is impossible that people were elected to Congress by their constituents in 1875, with the advocacy of integrating black and white races, yes! It is impossible because that was contrary to the prevailing thought of the day, and just plain wasn't the case in any segment of our society. You've not established intent to CRA of 1875, you have assigned intent, based on your ill-founded opinion, and I have shown how your opinion is contrary to logic and reason. The SCOTUS did not overturn the CRA of 1875 and make it null and void, they clarified that segregation did not violate the intent of the legislation. You see, it was a popular argument of segregationists, that if "equal access" were provided, there was no discrimination. We have to get to 1954 before a different prevailing thought enters the picture, we can't retroactively apply it to people before 1954, no matter how much it seems to help your argument. If you apply the perspective of the times, you do not arrive at the intent you claim, and the clincher is, the intent you claim was never realized by society, the exact opposite happened. This leaves us with absolutely nothing to support the viewpoint that those who passed the CRA of 1875, were intending to end discrimination and integrate the races in harmonious equality. That is a fantasy you are having, and that is what has been destroyed here by the points made. You can continue to argue from the false perspective all you like, it has been discredited, and nothing else you have to offer can be legitimate, because it is based on a fallacy.

In 1776, our founding fathers (some) owned slaves, it was legal to own slaves. Not everyone owned slaves, only those who benefited from owning slaves. Even up to the Civil War, some of the strongest advocates to continue slavery, were Northern industrialists, who profited greatly from Southern cotton, picked by slave labor. Through the late 1700s and early to mid 1800s, slavery was "tolerated as a necessary evil" because it was tied to the economy, the largest cash crop was cotton. By the mid-1800s, technology was rendering slavery obsolete, and social pressure began to grow, to end the deplorable practice of human enslavement... but that does not mean those who held this view were in favor of integration! Should someone be owned as a slave, is a different argument from, should the races be integrated as equals in society. Because some people opposed slavery, it did not mean they favored integrating blacks into white society. As I pointed out, many of the "abolitionists" also favored a plan to ship black people off to far away places, and avoid the issue of integration completely! It is really hard to try and argue they intended integration, isn't it?

 

[Jarod]

It is impossible that people were elected to Congress by their constituents in 1875, with the advocacy of integrating black and white races, yes! It is impossible because that was contrary to the prevailing thought of the day, and just plain wasn't the case in any segment of our society. You've not established intent to CRA of 1875, you have assigned intent, based on your ill-founded opinion, and I have shown how your opinion is contrary to logic and reason. The SCOTUS did not overturn the CRA of 1875 and make it null and void, they clarified that segregation did not violate the intent of the legislation. You see, it was a popular argument of segregationists, that if "equal access" were provided, there was no discrimination. We have to get to 1954 before a different prevailing thought enters the picture, we can't retroactively apply it to people before 1954, no matter how much it seems to help your argument. If you apply the perspective of the times, you do not arrive at the intent you claim, and the clincher is, the intent you claim was never realized by society, the exact opposite happened. This leaves us with absolutely nothing to support the viewpoint that those who passed the CRA of 1875, were intending to end discrimination and integrate the races in harmonious equality. That is a fantasy you are having, and that is what has been destroyed here by the points made. You can continue to argue from the false perspective all you like, it has been discredited, and nothing else you have to offer can be legitimate, because it is based on a fallacy.

In 1776, our founding fathers (some) owned slaves, it was legal to own slaves. Not everyone owned slaves, only those who benefited from owning slaves. Even up to the Civil War, some of the strongest advocates to continue slavery, were Northern industrialists, who profited greatly from Southern cotton, picked by slave labor. Through the late 1700s and early to mid 1800s, slavery was "tolerated as a necessary evil" because it was tied to the economy, the largest cash crop was cotton. By the mid-1800s, technology was rendering slavery obsolete, and social pressure began to grow, to end the deplorable practice of human enslavement... but that does not mean those who held this view were in favor of integration! Should someone be owned as a slave, is a different argument from, should the races be integrated as equals in society. Because some people opposed slavery, it did not mean they favored integrating blacks into white society. As I pointed out, many of the "abolitionists" also favored a plan to ship black people off to far away places, and avoid the issue of integration completely! It is really hard to try and argue they intended integration, isn't it?

False, Ill respond to more of your drull later when I have a chance, but Ill start by pointing out that your understandin of the SCOTUS did declare the CRA of 1875 null and void, and did not interperate the intent to be anything other than "full access".

The SCOTUS delcared it null and void because according to them, it overstepped the bounds of FEDERAL AUTHORITY, they declared it null and void on a states rights issue. STUDY SOME MORE ON YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS HISTORY...!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

False, Ill respond to more of your drull later when I have a chance, but Ill start by pointing out that your understandin of the SCOTUS did declare the CRA of 1875 null and void, and did not interperate the intent to be anything other than "full access".

The SCOTUS delcared it null and void because according to them, it overstepped the bounds of FEDERAL AUTHORITY, they declared it null and void on a states rights issue. STUDY SOME MORE ON YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS HISTORY...!

The SCOTUS most certainly didn't rule the CRA of 1875 "null and void!" They DID rule that segregationist policies were not discriminatory and did not justify inequality, or violate the intent of the CRA of 1875. Of course, that was in 1896... the SCOTUS would later find differently in the 1954 Brown decision, and later again in '68 and '72, they would have an even broader definition of equality. The point being, we have always had a subjective view on what was considered "equality" in America. This has clearly changed through the years and continues to change. Pretending that legislators had some futuristic modernized sense of equality in 1875, is laughable to me, truly laughable! I'll bet you, that if the black activists of the day, like Fredrick Douglass, would have been presented with the proposition in 1870, that... we will build 'separate but equal' everything for blacks... they would have been ecstatic over such a deal! At the time, they were pleading for someone to just do something about black genocide in America, 'segregated facilities' would have been a major achievement for blacks in that era.

One thing that many white people also misinterpret or falsely presume, is the idea that black people always "want" to integrate into white society. Recently, black communities challenged the "forced busing" provisions established by the government to achieve full desegregation. They wanted their children to attend schools in their own community, and not be forced to bus into white areas to attend school. If I am not mistaken, the court ruled in their favor and allowed it... does that make them racist, or promoters of segregation? It depends on perspective.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Dix PWNED

That's been obvious for a LONG time! I'm surprised Jarod is still dealing with this clown on this subject....Dixie's revisionism coupled with his dishonesty and racism (not to mention his knack for insinuating his supposition and conjecture into historical fact) borderlines a full blown delusion!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That's been obvious for a LONG time! I'm surprised Jarod is still dealing with this clown on this subject....Dixie's revisionism coupled with his dishonesty and racism (not to mention his knack for insinuating his supposition and conjecture into historical fact) borderlines a full blown delusion!

Nothing I have said is a revision of history, it is all well-documented fact.
You haven't refuted anything I have said, or shown where it is supposition or conjecture.
The only "racist" view espoused in this thread, is from you and those who seek to turn the past into something it wasn't, and deny the discrimination which did take place.

The only people who feel I have "lost" the debate here, are left-wing nitwits like you and Jarhead, who have a bias and prejudice toward me because I don't agree with you politically. That is how pathetically shallow and devoid of integrity you are.

 

[Jarod]

The Civil Rights Act of 1875 (18 Stat. 335) was a United States federal law proposed by Republican Senator Charles Sumner and Republican Congressman Benjamin F. Butler in 1870. The act was passed by Congress in February, 1875 and signed by President Grant on March 1, 1875. It was declared unconstitutional[1] by the US Supreme Court in 1883[2]. Many of the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 were passed into law in the 1960s with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act using the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

The Act guaranteed that everyone, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, was entitled to the same treatment in "public accommodations" (i.e. inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement).

If found guilty, the lawbreaker could face a penalty anywhere from $500 to $1,000 and/or 30 days to 1 year in prison. However, the law was rarely enforced (especially after the withdrawal of federal troops from the South after the 1876 Presidential election) and in the 1883 Civil Rights Cases the Supreme Court deemed the act unconstitutional on the basis that Congress had no power to regulate the conduct of individuals. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination by the state, not by individuals.

Civil Rights Act of 1875 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The Civil Rights Act of 1875 (18 Stat. 335) was a United States federal law proposed by Republican Senator Charles Sumner and Republican Congressman Benjamin F. Butler in 1870. The act was passed by Congress in February, 1875 and signed by President Grant on March 1, 1875. It was declared unconstitutional[1] by the US Supreme Court in 1883[2]. Many of the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 were passed into law in the 1960s with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act using the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

The Act guaranteed that everyone, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, was entitled to the same treatment in "public accommodations" (i.e. inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement).

If found guilty, the lawbreaker could face a penalty anywhere from $500 to $1,000 and/or 30 days to 1 year in prison. However, the law was rarely enforced (especially after the withdrawal of federal troops from the South after the 1876 Presidential election) and in the 1883 Civil Rights Cases the Supreme Court deemed the act unconstitutional on the basis that Congress had no power to regulate the conduct of individuals. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination by the state, not by individuals.

Civil Rights Act of 1875 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They DID rule that segregationist policies were not discriminatory and did not justify inequality, or violate the intent of the CRA of 1875. Of course, that was in 1896... the SCOTUS would later find differently in the 1954 Brown decision, and later again in '68 and '72, they would have an even broader definition of equality.

I think I said the same thing you are trying to point out. I am not sure why you continue to try and hang the discussion up on trivial technicality, I guess you see yourself "winning" some argument? Whether you want to say SCOTUS found CRA of 1875 unconstitutional, or upheld the constitutionality of segregation, it is the same thing, isn't it? I mean, really, aren't both statements essentially stating the same thing? So why all the silliness?

 

[Jarod]

There is a difference between having it ruled unconstitution and defining seperate as equal or not equal.

The Court when evaluating the CRA of 1875... did not define segregation or seperate... it simply said that the Fed's cant control individual behavyor.

Its not a technaicality, you simply do not know much about reconstruction history. Its understandable, Ababama public schools tend to gloss over it.

 

[Jarod]

They DID rule that segregationist policies were not discriminatory and did not justify inequality, or violate the intent of the CRA of 1875. Of course, that was in 1896... the SCOTUS would later find differently in the 1954 Brown decision, and later again in '68 and '72, they would have an even broader definition of equality.

I think I said the same thing you are trying to point out. I am not sure why you continue to try and hang the discussion up on trivial technicality, I guess you see yourself "winning" some argument? Whether you want to say SCOTUS found CRA of 1875 unconstitutional, or upheld the constitutionality of segregation, it is the same thing, isn't it? I mean, really, aren't both statements essentially stating the same thing? So why all the silliness?

Do you have a cite for your claims about the 1896 supreme court decisions.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

There is a difference between having it ruled unconstitution and defining seperate as equal or not equal.

The Court when evaluating the CRA of 1875... did not define segregation or seperate... it simply said that the Fed's cant control individual behavyor.

Do you have a cite for your claims about the 1896 supreme court decisions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in the jurisprudence of the United States, upholding the constitutionality of racial segregation even in public accommodations (particularly railroads), under the doctrine of "separate but equal".

The decision was handed down by a vote of 7 to 1 (Justice David Josiah Brewer did not participate in the decision), with the majority opinion written by Justice Henry Billings Brown and the dissent written by Justice John Marshall Harlan. "Separate but equal" remained standard doctrine in U.S. law until its repudiation in the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education.


NOW SHUT THE FUCK UP, MORON!

 

[Jarod]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in the jurisprudence of the United States, upholding the constitutionality of racial segregation even in public accommodations (particularly railroads), under the doctrine of "separate but equal".

The decision was handed down by a vote of 7 to 1 (Justice David Josiah Brewer did not participate in the decision), with the majority opinion written by Justice Henry Billings Brown and the dissent written by Justice John Marshall Harlan. "Separate but equal" remained standard doctrine in U.S. law until its repudiation in the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education.


NOW SHUT THE FUCK UP, MORON!

I know you want to confuse the issue, and you would love for me to shut up... But you are again seriously misinformed or lying....

Sure you are correctly quoting Plessy, but Plessy had NOTHING to do with the CRA of 1975.

You said the CRA of 1975 was not overruled by the SCOUS and that the SCOUS used that case to define "seperate but equal", but that rulling had ZILCH to do with the CRA of 1975.

You again are seriously under educated on this subject to be discussing it.

I know you were done debating long ago... but you keep debating so, I will keep pointing out where you are FLAT OUT IGNORANT! (at best)

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I know you want to confuse the issue, and you would love for me to shut up... But you are again seriously misinformed or lying....

Sure you are correctly quoting Plessy, but Plessy had NOTHING to do with the CRA of 1975.

You said the CRA of 1975 was not overruled by the SCOUS and that the SCOUS used that case to define "seperate but equal", but that rulling had ZILCH to do with the CRA of 1975.

You again are seriously under educated on this subject to be discussing it.

I know you were done debating long ago... but you keep debating so, I will keep pointing out where you are FLAT OUT IGNORANT! (at best)

First of all, I presume you mean CRA of 1875, not 1975... I find it very ironic that the Supreme Court heard a case regarding segregation, and it did not have anything to do with an Act you claimed outlawed segregation! I'm not saying you are wrong, I am not sure what specific case law was presented in Plessy as the basis for the case, but I would assume it might include legislation which you interpreted as a mandate to desegregate. In any event, MY argument and statement, was that the SCOTUS ruled on "equality" in 1896, and ushered in an era of segregationist policies. You haven't proven that not true, you haven't refuted that argument, and you can't... it's a FACT!

Now you can keep calling me names and pretending I am "ignorant" on the subject, but it is you who has been schooled repeatedly in this thread. The "debate" was over long ago, I just enjoy thwacking pinheads over the head with their own stupidity.

 

[Minister of Truth]

I know you want to confuse the issue, and you would love for me to shut up... But you are again seriously misinformed or lying....

Sure you are correctly quoting Plessy, but Plessy had NOTHING to do with the CRA of 1975.

You said the CRA of 1975 was not overruled by the SCOUS and that the SCOUS used that case to define "seperate but equal", but that rulling had ZILCH to do with the CRA of 1975.

You again are seriously under educated on this subject to be discussing it.

I know you were done debating long ago... but you keep debating so, I will keep pointing out where you are FLAT OUT IGNORANT! (at best)

What's the deal? I've always been told that Plessey declared the CRA of 1875 unconstitutional...

 

[Jarod]

Are you guys kidding me?

Plessy was a challange to a Louisiana law segregating train passengers. It was argued to the S.Ct that the 14th Amendment outlawed segregation and thus this Louisiana law was unconstitutional. The S.Ct. ruled that the 14th did not outlaw segregation because seperate does not necessarly mean unequal, the law was not declared unconstitutional. Plessy did not declare anything unconstitutional, thats the problem with Plessy!

This had nothing whatsoever to do with the CRA of 1875 AKA the Desegration Act of 1875. The CRA of 1875 was declared unconstitutional on other grounds years earlier. The Court did not even take up segregation in the CRA case.

Plessy was a test case intentionally pushed to the S.Ct by segregation opponants of the late 1800's...( I know Dixie thinks only a few such deadenders existed), in an attempt to use the 15th to force integration.


No wonder we are in such trouble, the Conservatives lack a basic education in American History!

WE really need to better job of educating our people.

 

[Jarod]

Please read Plessy, as a history lesson, prior to going furhter in this discussion, it will be much more productive of a discussion, and you will not continue to illistrate your embarrasing lack of education.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=163&invol=537

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Why don't you stop pretending you know more than others on the subject? You've not shown you know anything other than how to manipulate the conversation by raising irrelevant points and changing the subject. At one point, you claim they "outlawed segregation" with the CRA of 1875, but later, when the SCOTUS reviewed segregation, it didn't even consider the legislation. Both can not be true... one has to be false. Either the CRA of 1875 was never intended to "outlaw segregation" or the SCOTUS did review the legislation in the landmark Plessy case. And none of this has anything to do with the actual policies and practices happening all over America from 1875 to 1954, and what the prevailing sentiments were regarding integration and racial equality in general. We keep going from a profound point about the history of segregation policies, to mulling over some trivial technical detail you think you've found. This whole thing has just gotten silly, now you want to act like you are "schooling" people here... get over yourself, moron! You're still calling the CRA of 1875 the "Desegregation Act" like some kind of fucking retard. You're just going to make people think you're autistic.