Segregation now, segregation forever!

[Jarod]

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.

Please the very primise of this post has been shot down, and now you are screaming that its illrelevant.

Every time you post something, it is full of inaccuraces and incorrect statements, designed to try to prove some everchanging point.

Here is a point, if you want to have any shred of creditability, start with facts then form an idea, when you do it the other way around (starting with an idea you hope is true, and then form facts to try to prove the idea) it makes you look like an idiot to those of us who know the real facts.

 

[Jarod]

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[SIZE="2[COLOR="Red"]"](Congress did outlaw segregation with the CRA of 1875)[/[/COLOR]SIZE], but later, when the SCOTUS reviewed segregation, it didn't even consider the legislation. [SIZE="2[COLOR="red"]"](thats because the S.Ct had already struck down the CRA of 1975 on other constitutional grounds)[/COLOR][/SIZE]( Both can not be true... [SIZE="2[COLOR="red"]"](Clearly based on history both are true, you see we have three branches of Government... Ill explain that to you some other time.)[/COLOR].[/SIZE]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.[SIZE="2[COLOR="red"]"](Its all directly releated, its how the government tried to regulate what was going on, if it had nuthing to do with it, why did you use it as an example?)[/COLOR][/SIZE] (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.

.....The Desegration Act of 1875 is a better name because it defines what its authors were trying to accomplish!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

.....The Desegration Act of 1875 is a better name because it defines what its authors were trying to accomplish!

No... beacuse:

1. The legislation doesn't mention either segregation, desegregation or integration.
2. Systemic segregation had not yet taken place, there was no requirement (thus no reason) for it.
3. The SCOTUS ruled on the "intent" of the law, they disagreed with you unanimously.
4. No policies following the CRA of 1875 indicate any such intent of the legislation.
5. Segregation prevailed legally until 1954.

So basically, we have YOUR OPINION vs. FACT... and guess which one wins?

 

[Minister of Truth]

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1875"]Civil Rights Act of 1875 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Okay, Jarod, apparently it was an earlier SCOTUS ruling (1883) that overruled the CRA of 1875. Sorry, but my public school teachers said differently!!

 

[Jarod]

No... beacuse:

1. The legislation doesn't mention either segregation, desegregation or integration.
2. Systemic segregation had not yet taken place, there was no requirement (thus no reason) for it.
3. The SCOTUS ruled on the "intent" of the law, they disagreed with you unanimously.
4. No policies following the CRA of 1875 indicate any such intent of the legislation.
5. Segregation prevailed legally until 1954.

So basically, we have YOUR OPINION vs. FACT... and guess which one wins?

1) A rose by any other name is still a rose.
2) See your first post in this thread.
3) They never ruled on the intent of the CRA of 1875.... I defy you to prove your point.
4) Because the S.Ct. ruled the entire law unconstitutional based on federal powers.
5) See number 5. and remember that just because the laws were not enforced does not mean they did not exist. (Federal marijuana laws of today)

 

[Jarod]

Bump

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

1. The legislation doesn't mention either segregation, desegregation or integration.
1) A rose by any other name is still a rose.

2. Systemic segregation had not yet taken place, there was no requirement (thus no reason) for it.
2) See your first post in this thread.

3. The SCOTUS ruled on the "intent" of the law, they disagreed with you unanimously.
3) They never ruled on the intent of the CRA of 1875.... I defy you to prove your point.

4. No policies following the CRA of 1875 indicate any such intent of the legislation.
4) Because the S.Ct. ruled the entire law unconstitutional based on federal powers.

5. Segregation prevailed legally until 1954.
5) See number 5. and remember that just because the laws were not enforced does not mean they did not exist. (Federal marijuana laws of today)

1. IF the legislation doesn't SAY it is about something, it CAN'T be about that! This has absolutely nothing to do with roses, it's how legislation is interpreted. You claiming a tulip is a rose, doesn't make the tulip a rose! You claiming the legislation "intended" something it simply doesn't say, is the same as calling a tulip a rose and refusing to accept reality.

2. My first post is consistent with my last, and nowhere have I made the argument that segregation existed as part of the system prior to 1875. The whole point escaping your empty noodle is, before we passed laws making black people human citizens with actual rights, there was no inclination or obligation for white establishments to provide "separate but equal" anything! They weren't even obliged to provide services to black people, if they didn't want to do so! In most areas of the country, it was acceptable to hang the black man from a tree for even daring to ASK for provision of said services! It was a different America than what you apparently have envisioned. You keep trying to make some silly ridiculous argument, as if 1875 were 1965, and two heartfelt ideologies were clashing over civil rights! That was not the case in 1875 America, I am sorry, I wish I could say otherwise... I wish I could convince myself, as you seem to have, that 1875 was full of John Lewis-Malcom X types, who were fighting for the rights of the black man on a political level, but history shows that not to be the case. Aside from rare Reconstruction examples you've trotted out, you can't support your viewpoint. It wasn't the intent of Congress in 1875 to prohibit segregation, force integration, or desegregate society. It just plain wasn't!

3. Yes they ruled on the intent of the law in Plessy, and found that 'segregation' did not constitute 'inequality' and wasn't unconstitutional. IF you want to argue they actually ruled on 'another' law, that's fine, but it was your (original) argument that the CRA of 1875 "outlawed segregation" in America (your words) because of its' intent, and the SCOTUS disagreed with that in Plessy. They had also previously agreed the Federal Government could not dictate to individuals, with regard to segregationist policies. So there was a separation of powers issue as well, but you seem to want to divert the argument to something that reinforces my point even more. The intent of CRA 1875 couldn't have been as you claim, because the Federal government did not even have the power to establish that intent.

4. So you maintain the SCOTUS had the power to tell the Congress what to pass into law, based on their finding of unconstitutionality? Seems to me, if Congress' "intent" were to ban segregation and promote integration, they would have passed more laws and trumped the SCOTUS ruling, or at least challenged it further. This can be done you know? SCOTUS only rules on the law, the Congress passes the law. Had the "intent" of Congress been as you claimed, they would have certainly taken immediate action to remedy the finding of the court... that didn't happen.

5. Federal laws are most certainly enforced, I know people doing time for violating federal marijuana laws. The TRUTH is, there was no "law against segregation" in America until 1954, because the SCOTUS had not interpreted the law as such, and Congress had not passed such a law. In fact, the SCOTUS did just the opposite, they ruled that "segregation" was not unconstitutional, and didn't violate the law.

BUMP!

 

[Jarod]

1. IF the legislation doesn't SAY it is about something, it CAN'T be about that! This has absolutely nothing to do with roses, it's how legislation is interpreted. You claiming a tulip is a rose, doesn't make the tulip a rose! You claiming the legislation "intended" something it simply doesn't say, is the same as calling a tulip a rose and refusing to accept reality.

2. My first post is consistent with my last, and nowhere have I made the argument that segregation existed as part of the system prior to 1875. The whole point escaping your empty noodle is, before we passed laws making black people human citizens with actual rights, there was no inclination or obligation for white establishments to provide "separate but equal" anything! They weren't even obliged to provide services to black people, if they didn't want to do so! In most areas of the country, it was acceptable to hang the black man from a tree for even daring to ASK for provision of said services! It was a different America than what you apparently have envisioned. You keep trying to make some silly ridiculous argument, as if 1875 were 1965, and two heartfelt ideologies were clashing over civil rights! That was not the case in 1875 America, I am sorry, I wish I could say otherwise... I wish I could convince myself, as you seem to have, that 1875 was full of John Lewis-Malcom X types, who were fighting for the rights of the black man on a political level, but history shows that not to be the case. Aside from rare Reconstruction examples you've trotted out, you can't support your viewpoint. It wasn't the intent of Congress in 1875 to prohibit segregation, force integration, or desegregate society. It just plain wasn't!

3. Yes they ruled on the intent of the law in Plessy, and found that 'segregation' did not constitute 'inequality' and wasn't unconstitutional. IF you want to argue they actually ruled on 'another' law, that's fine, but it was your (original) argument that the CRA of 1875 "outlawed segregation" in America (your words) because of its' intent, and the SCOTUS disagreed with that in Plessy. They had also previously agreed the Federal Government could not dictate to individuals, with regard to segregationist policies. So there was a separation of powers issue as well, but you seem to want to divert the argument to something that reinforces my point even more. The intent of CRA 1875 couldn't have been as you claim, because the Federal government did not even have the power to establish that intent.

4. So you maintain the SCOTUS had the power to tell the Congress what to pass into law, based on their finding of unconstitutionality? Seems to me, if Congress' "intent" were to ban segregation and promote integration, they would have passed more laws and trumped the SCOTUS ruling, or at least challenged it further. This can be done you know? SCOTUS only rules on the law, the Congress passes the law. Had the "intent" of Congress been as you claimed, they would have certainly taken immediate action to remedy the finding of the court... that didn't happen.

5. Federal laws are most certainly enforced, I know people doing time for violating federal marijuana laws. The TRUTH is, there was no "law against segregation" in America until 1954, because the SCOTUS had not interpreted the law as such, and Congress had not passed such a law. In fact, the SCOTUS did just the opposite, they ruled that "segregation" was not unconstitutional, and didn't violate the law.

BUMP!

1) Legislation can be about something that it describes yet does not call by name, such as the CRA of 1875.

2) Lie, anyone wondering who is right her, just look at Dixie's first post.

3) The S.Ct in Plessy was comparing a Louisianna law to the requirements of the 14th Amendment.... Nothing to do with the CRA of 1875, which had been deemed unconstitutional in an earlier decision henging on federal powers. If you are correct, please find a cite...

4) Ugh, lack of basic comprehension.

5) Not all Federal laws are enforced.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

1) Legislation can be about something that it describes yet does not call by name, such as the CRA of 1875.

CRA of 1875 doesn't mention OR describe segregation.

2) Lie, anyone wondering who is right her, just look at Dixie's first post.

Well I don't know what you think I've lied about in my first post, you just keep saying to read it... hell, I wrote it, and I don't know what the fuck you're talking about, so why don't you expound further on this, if you think you have a point to make? So far, all you have done is accuse me of lying... about what, we don't know yet!

3) The S.Ct in Plessy was comparing a Louisianna law to the requirements of the 14th Amendment.... Nothing to do with the CRA of 1875, which had been deemed unconstitutional in an earlier decision henging on federal powers. If you are correct, please find a cite...

Like I said, if you want to claim SCOTUS ruled on another law, that's fine, they ruled on the issue of segregation, which according to you, was outlawed by the CRA of 1875. Plessy was clearly about segregation, anyone with any level of education knows that. The Plessy decision also addressed the 'federal powers' issue, but that doesn't mean it wasn't about segregation.

I don't need a cite, I have already stated, if you want to say SCOTUS ruled on another law, that's fine... that means I accept that you are correct, therefore, I don't need a cite to prove you are incorrect. I will note, it is interesting, the SCOTUS heard a case on segregation just 21 years after passage of an act you claim outlawed it, and that legislation was not even looked at by the court. That's really odd, if CRA of 1875 were intended to do what you claimed.

4) Ugh, lack of basic comprehension.

Well I am sorry you are having that problem, maybe they will serve jello today!

5) Not all Federal laws are enforced.

Now I will have to ask for you to cite some examples.

 

[Jarod]

Bump, please review some of above if you have ever had any respect for Dixie.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Bump, please review some of above if you have ever had any respect for Dixie.

Yes, I know... It really looks bad for my Living Legend status that I would spend this much time arguing with a complete idiot. I realize I am bound to lose some respect from my throng of fans over this, but I was only trying to educate an imbecile. For that, I shall take my lumps, but perhaps Jarhead actually learned something through this? I agree, it's doubtful, but there is a chance, there is hope!

 

[Jarod]

Yes, I know... It really looks bad for my Living Legend status that I would spend this much time arguing with a complete idiot. I realize I am bound to lose some respect from my throng of fans over this, but I was only trying to educate an imbecile. For that, I shall take my lumps, but perhaps Jarhead actually learned something through this? I agree, it's doubtful, but there is a chance, there is hope!

Yer funny!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yer funny!

And I'll be here all week!

 

[Canceled.LTroll.28]

And I'll be here all week!

No job, might as well, huh?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No job, might as well, huh?

Oh, I have many jobs, I multi-task.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Oh, I have many jobs, I multi-task.

don't worry about legion troll dixie...he has no life and all his does is post on the internet all day long under hundreds of different troll accounts...

hence why the mods and board owner call him legion troll

 

[Canceled.LTroll.28]

don't worry about legion troll dixie...he has no life and all his does is post on the internet all day long under hundreds of different troll accounts...

hence why the mods and board owner call him legion troll

And YurTroll, by contrast, does something different?

 

[Jarod]

Come on now, lets keep this "example" of Dixie's fine basic reasoning abilities and logic alive..

I want this fine example of Conservative circular reasoning fresh in the minds of anyone with an open mind!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Come on now, lets keep this "example" of Dixie's fine basic reasoning abilities and logic alive..

I want this fine example of Conservative circular reasoning fresh in the minds of anyone with an open mind!

I agree, let's keep this thread at the top of the board forever! I love the attention, in case you hadn't noticed! But even more than that, I really enjoy spanking me some liberal yankee ass on Civil War history, which they are completely clueless of.

I can't tell you how gratifying it is, to articulate a point, and then have real-life examples like you and Chicklet, illustrate my point in a way I never could have done alone. In post #1, I stated the following:

When we hear Liberals speak today, of political pasts... we often hear "he supported segregation!" As if, 'segregation' were this obscure radical idea some southern rednecks adopted, and wanted to impose on the rest of the free and uninhibited, open-minded people of America! As if some Bubba had said, ya know what'd be a good idear, if we segregated them ni**ers from the whites! To hear liberals speak of it, that is what you would think Segregation were all about! They fail to comprehend that we lived in a completely segregate society! We had lived in it for 100 years! It was the way things were!

When you interjected the stupidity that Congress "outlawed segregation" in 1875, it was more than even I could have imagined. I really didn't believe there were liberals that stupid! I knew that many of you failed to comprehend history, but I didn't realize how you've managed to rewrite history in your mind, or how willing you would be to display that ignorance publicly. Indeed, this thread has exceeded my wildest expectations!

So please, if I forget to bump it, I hope you will do so! I want everyone to have the opportunity to read this! I want them to see what extremes you will go to in order to absolve yourself of guilt, and blame your forefathers mistakes on The South. I want to see you continue to diminish the enormity of Civil Rights, and excuse away 200 years of treating black people as inferior in America, as you attempt to paint the Confederacy as the problem. I want to see you continue to excuse the US Government's own racist past, as you attempt to pin it all on The South and Southerners, because they happened to grow cotton in a region suitable for growing cotton well.

Those people down there were racist, and these people up here, weren't! Those people hated blacks, and these people didn't... those people are immoral, unethical, and bad... these people are righteous and good! People down there wanted to keep slaves, these people up here didn't... We're obviously better people up here, than those people down there! We are superior to them, and they are inferior to us! ....Isn't it funny how BIGOTRY works?

 

[Canceled.LTroll.28]

I agree, let's keep this thread at the top of the board forever! I love the attention, in case you hadn't noticed! But even more than that, I really enjoy spanking me some liberal yankee ass on Civil War history, which they are completely clueless of.

I can't tell you how gratifying it is, to articulate a point, and then have real-life examples like you and Chicklet, illustrate my point in a way I never could have done alone. In post #1, I stated the following:

When we hear Liberals speak today, of political pasts... we often hear "he supported segregation!" As if, 'segregation' were this obscure radical idea some southern rednecks adopted, and wanted to impose on the rest of the free and uninhibited, open-minded people of America! As if some Bubba had said, ya know what'd be a good idear, if we segregated them ni**ers from the whites! To hear liberals speak of it, that is what you would think Segregation were all about! They fail to comprehend that we lived in a completely segregate society! We had lived in it for 100 years! It was the way things were!

When you interjected the stupidity that Congress "outlawed segregation" in 1875, it was more than even I could have imagined. I really didn't believe there were liberals that stupid! I knew that many of you failed to comprehend history, but I didn't realize how you've managed to rewrite history in your mind, or how willing you would be to display that ignorance publicly. Indeed, this thread has exceeded my wildest expectations!

So please, if I forget to bump it, I hope you will do so! I want everyone to have the opportunity to read this! I want them to see what extremes you will go to in order to absolve yourself of guilt, and blame your forefathers mistakes on The South. I want to see you continue to diminish the enormity of Civil Rights, and excuse away 200 years of treating black people as inferior in America, as you attempt to paint the Confederacy as the problem. I want to see you continue to excuse the US Government's own racist past, as you attempt to pin it all on The South and Southerners, because they happened to grow cotton in a region suitable for growing cotton well.

Those people down there were racist, and these people up here, weren't! Those people hated blacks, and these people didn't... those people are immoral, unethical, and bad... these people are righteous and good! People down there wanted to keep slaves, these people up here didn't... We're obviously better people up here, than those people down there! We are superior to them, and they are inferior to us! ....Isn't it funny how BIGOTRY works?

Not really.