Segregation now, segregation forever!

ROTFLMAO... Dixie you are a hoot!

I know......he thinks that taking things out of context and applying his unique (to say the least) spin and interpretation on them will magically make ALL his rantings and revisionist BS come true....and eradicate actual history and ALL the facts of concern. What's even more absurd is how he lies about the chronology of who said what and why...and then REPEATS his BS in various forms ad nauseum, as if the previous posts that contradict his story don't exist! What a sad, pathetic little David Duke wanna be this guy is! :cof1:
 
I know......he thinks that taking things out of context and applying his unique (to say the least) spin and interpretation on them will magically make ALL his rantings and revisionist BS come true....and eradicate actual history and ALL the facts blahblah blah blah..hoey foey hoo! :ninj:

You are the only two trying to "revise history" here, not me! I am well aware of the history of this nation segregating black people and discriminating against them, and I am very appreciative of the CRA of 1964, which ended a century of such practices. You two seek to marginalize those accomplishments by claiming we had them in 1875! That Northern White America was fully supportive of desegregation, and it was ONLY the lowly South who insisted on segregating all that time! This just is not what history shows to be the case, and I can only imagine the reason you continue to argue this insipid point, is because you want to absolve yourselves from any culpability for racial discrimination... probably because you are both RACIST!

But... OHHHH.... DIXIE uses an inflammatory name, and has a Confederate battle flag in his avatar, he MUST be a David Duke wannabe! I've never uttered a single word of racial hatred in my entire life, and I am very comfortable with MY viewpoint on race, so it doesn't bother me that you two want to try and LIE about me! GO FOR IT!
 
Don't see where I admitted any such thing. I didn't mention Lott.

I will say this, the examples of Liberals hurling the "Strom supported segregation" bomb at Trent, is precisely what I am talking about here. You've relegated "segregation" to this isolated southern racist policy that no one supported and everyone rejected, and that wasn't the case. That ISN'T the truth. You AREN'T being honest!

The truth is, Strom, in 1948, would have been a political idiot to have NOT supported segregationist policies, as ALL his voters and colleagues ALSO supported it! No one in their right political mind, in 1948, would have been opposed to segregation! That is the nasty little secret you don't want people to realize! It wasn't something that was attempting to be enacted, it was already the way things were in America!

HHH and nearly every democrat north of the mason-dixon line was opposed to segregation in 1948. that is what prompted strom to run as a third party candidate.
 
HHH and nearly every democrat north of the mason-dixon line was opposed to segregation in 1948. that is what prompted strom to run as a third party candidate.

Everyone north of the Mason-Dixon was opposed to segregation in 1875, according to Jarhead! That's the load of shit he's pushing, anyway. I don't know why Strom ran, or what prompted him to, but I do know why he favored segregation, because his ALL-WHITE constituents favored segregation, and he wasn't politically stupid.

Now you want to run in here and save Jarhead from his own stupidity and ass kicking, by interjecting the wisdom that "every democrat north of the mason-dixon line was opposed to segregation in 1948!" How fucking many were there? TWO? Brilliant analysis, but not even the Wordcraft Master can save Jarhead on this one.
 
Everyone north of the Mason-Dixon was opposed to segregation in 1875, according to Jarhead! That's the load of shit he's pushing, anyway. I don't know why Strom ran, or what prompted him to, but I do know why he favored segregation, because his ALL-WHITE constituents favored segregation, and he wasn't politically stupid.

Now you want to run in here and save Jarhead from his own stupidity and ass kicking, by interjecting the wisdom that "every democrat north of the mason-dixon line was opposed to segregation in 1948!" How fucking many were there? TWO? Brilliant analysis, but not even the Wordcraft Master can save Jarhead on this one.

Strom Thurmond did not need to run for president to maintain the support of his constituents. He could have opposed segregation from his senate seat like he did before and after 1948. He ran for the presidency because he could not STAND the direction in which the democratic party was moving. He could not bear to imagine that the proud segregationist democratic party of the 19th century was being fundamentally changed into a party that embraced and welcomed blacks. And that is why YOU all continue to harp on the record of democrats from a half a century ago and try to get folks to believe that the democrats of today are unchanged from then... the reality is: most folks understand the seismic shift that took place.... most folks understand why Strom became a dixiecrat and then became a republican... most folks understand what the term "southern strategy" really means... and, most importantly, nearly every black man, woman and child in America understands which party is the party of racism and which party is not... and they vote overwhelmingly for the one that is not.
 
You are the only two trying to "revise history" here, not me! I am well aware of the history of this nation segregating black people and discriminating against them, and I am very appreciative of the CRA of 1964, which ended a century of such practices. You two seek to marginalize those accomplishments by claiming we had them in 1875! That Northern White America was fully supportive of desegregation, and it was ONLY the lowly South who insisted on segregating all that time! This just is not what history shows to be the case, and I can only imagine the reason you continue to argue this insipid point, is because you want to absolve yourselves from any culpability for racial discrimination... probably because you are both RACIST!

But... OHHHH.... DIXIE uses an inflammatory name, and has a Confederate battle flag in his avatar, he MUST be a David Duke wannabe! I've never uttered a single word of racial hatred in my entire life, and I am very comfortable with MY viewpoint on race, so it doesn't bother me that you two want to try and LIE about me! GO FOR IT!

Noone claimed that the CRA of 1875 was successfull. I merely used it as an example of Senators and Congressmen who were for desegregation prior to 1965 because you claimed none existed!
 
Everyone north of the Mason-Dixon was opposed to segregation in 1875, according to Jarhead! That's the load of shit he's pushing, anyway. I don't know why Strom ran, or what prompted him to, but I do know why he favored segregation, because his ALL-WHITE constituents favored segregation, and he wasn't politically stupid.

Now you want to run in here and save Jarhead from his own stupidity and ass kicking, by interjecting the wisdom that "every democrat north of the mason-dixon line was opposed to segregation in 1948!" How fucking many were there? TWO? Brilliant analysis, but not even the Wordcraft Master can save Jarhead on this one.

BULLSHIT!, I never said such thing you silly man, you have 0 creditability even with those who agree with your politics. You are basically a joke here.
 
You are the only two trying to "revise history" here, not me! I am well aware of the history of this nation segregating black people and discriminating against them, and I am very appreciative of the CRA of 1964, which ended a century of such practices. You two seek to marginalize those accomplishments by claiming we had them in 1875! That Northern White America was fully supportive of desegregation, and it was ONLY the lowly South who insisted on segregating all that time! This just is not what history shows to be the case, and I can only imagine the reason you continue to argue this insipid point, is because you want to absolve yourselves from any culpability for racial discrimination... probably because you are both RACIST!

But... OHHHH.... DIXIE uses an inflammatory name, and has a Confederate battle flag in his avatar, he MUST be a David Duke wannabe! I've never uttered a single word of racial hatred in my entire life, and I am very comfortable with MY viewpoint on race, so it doesn't bother me that you two want to try and LIE about me! GO FOR IT!

FOLKS....ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS FOLLOW THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE POSTS TO SEE WHAT A LIAR THIS CLOWN IS. That's the problem with white supremacists...like cockroaches they can't stand the light of day, and scurry like mad for the shadows...or in Dixie's case blather all types of delusional claptrap as if previous posts don't exists that prove him wrong at every turn. Poor Dixie...having a meltdown because he's caught with his sheet showing!
 
Originally Posted by Dixie
You are the only two trying to "revise history" here, not me! I am well aware of the history of this nation segregating black people and discriminating against them, and I am very appreciative of the CRA of 1964, which ended a century of such practices. You two seek to marginalize those accomplishments by claiming we had them in 1875! That Northern White America was fully supportive of desegregation, and it was ONLY the lowly South who insisted on segregating all that time! This just is not what history shows to be the case, and I can only imagine the reason you continue to argue this insipid point, is because you want to absolve yourselves from any culpability for racial discrimination... probably because you are both RACIST!

But... OHHHH.... DIXIE uses an inflammatory name, and has a Confederate battle flag in his avatar, he MUST be a David Duke wannabe! I've never uttered a single word of racial hatred in my entire life, and I am very comfortable with MY viewpoint on race, so it doesn't bother me that you two want to try and LIE about me! GO FOR IT!

Noone claimed that the CRA of 1875 was successfull. I merely used it as an example of Senators and Congressmen who were for desegregation prior to 1965 because you claimed none existed!

He's just having a hissy fit because he can't erase the previous posts that PROVE what a liar he is. Racists and bigots are always upset when their veneer of "rational" is taken away, and their revisionist claptrap is logically deconstructed.
 
n 1883, The United States Supreme Court ruled that the Civil Rights act of 1875, forbidding discrimination in hotels, trains, and other public spaces, was unconstitutional and not authorized by the 13th or 14th Amendments of the Constitution. The ruling read in part:

"The XIVth Amendment is prohibitory upon the States only, and the legislation authorized to be adopted by Congress for enforcing it is not direct legislation on the matters respecting which the States are prohibited from making or enforcing certain laws, or doing certain acts, but it is corrective legislation, such as may be necessary or proper for counteracting and redressing the effect of such laws or acts.

"The XIIIth Amendment relates to slavery and involuntary servitude (which it abolishes); ... yet such legislative power extends only to the subject of slavery and its incidents; and the denial of equal accommodations in inns, public conveyances and places of public amusement (which is forbidden by the sections in question), imposes no badge of slavery or involuntary servitude upon the party, but at most, infringes rights which are protected from State aggression by the XIVth Amendment."

The decision outraged the black community and many whites as well, for" The world has never witnessed such barbarous laws entailed upon the free people as have grown out of the decision of the United States Supreme Court, issued October 15, 1883," they felt it opened the door to legalized segregation. Bishop Henry McNeil Turner raged at the court for its decision: "The world has never witnessed such barbarous laws entailed upon a free people as have grown out of the decision of the United States Supreme Court, issued October 15, 1883. For that decision alone authorized and now sustains all the unjust discriminations, proscriptions and robberies perpetrated by public carriers upon millions of the nation's most loyal defenders. It fathers all the 'Jim-Crow cars' into which colored people are huddled and compelled to pay as much as the whites, who are given the finest accommodations. It has made the ballot of the black man a parody, his citizenship a nullity and his freedom a burlesque. It has engendered the bitterest feeling between the whites and blacks, and resulted in the deaths of thousands, who would have been living and enjoying life today." One of the justices on the court, John Harlan, gave a now-famous dissent, writing, "Whereas it is essential to just government we recognize the equality of all men before the law, and hold that it is the duty of government in its dealings with the people to mete out equal and exact justice to all, of whatever nativity, race, color, or persuasion, religious or political; and it being the appropriate object of legislation to enact great fundamental principles into law; I am of opinion that such discrimination is a badge of servitude, the imposition of which congress may prevent under its power, through appropriate legislation, to enforce the thirteenth Amendment; and consequently, without reference to its enlarged power under the fourteenth Amendment, the act of March 1, 1875, is not, in my judgment, repugnant to the constitution." African Americans would have to wait until 1964 before Congress would again pass a civil-rights law, this time constitutionally acceptable, that would forbid discrimination in public accommodations, employment, and unions.
 
The equal accommodations provision of the 1875 Civil Rights Act was extremely controversial. It redefined what most Americans had thought to be mere "social rights" as civil rights, to which all were entitled. It also was based on an expansive interpretation of the Civil War constitutional amendments that gave Congress power to enforce rights not just when those rights were impinged on by states but when infringed by individuals as well. It not only barred the total exclusion of African Americans from specified facilities, it seemingly prohibited racially segregated facilities altogether.

African American leaders, former abolitionists, and radical Republicans had pressed for this legislation since 1870, when Massachusetts Republican Senator Charles Sumner proposed an equal accommodations measure as the "crowning work" of Reconstruction. Sumner's proposal required integration not only of inns, transportation, and amusement places, but also of religious institutions, common schools, and legally incorporated cemeteries. However, most Republicans were extremely wary of the measure, fearing the political consequences, especially in the South. Although a truncated version of Sumner's bill passed the Senate in 1872, the House of Representatives never considered it.

Sumner reintroduced the Civil Rights bill in December 1873. Republican opinion remained badly divided. Some southern Republican congressmen supported it in deference to their African American constituents. More conservative southern Republicans warned that it would destroy southern white support not only for the Republican Party but also for the region's struggling public schools. Nonetheless, the Senate passed the bill in May 1874, moved in part by Sumner's death two months earlier. The House passed the bill in March 1875, as a final Reconstruction measure in the lame-duck session of Congress that followed the elections of 1874, in which Republicans lost control of the lower branch in part due to the southern white reaction against the proposal. However, the House stripped the mixed-school provision from the bill, with many Republicans supporting the Democratic motion to do so rather than accept an amendment that would have condoned segregated schools. Recognizing that to insist on mixed schools would now kill the entire bill, radical Republican senators acquiesced to the amended measure.

Despite the potential penalties, the law was only reluctantly enforced by federal officers, leaving most enforcement to private litigants. In 1883 the Supreme Court ruled in the Civil Rights Cases that the law exceeded Congress's constitutional power under the Fourteenth Amendment, because it applied to individual rather than state action. The law was not authorized under the Thirteenth Amendment, which was not limited to state action, because the rights involved were not civil rights, the denial of which would amount to a "badge of servitude." The Court sustained the jury provision in Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (1880).
 
My point exactly, there was contraversy about desegregation amungst the ruling class including Congressmen and Senators as far back as 1875, contrary to your claim when you started this thread!
 
The equal accommodations provision of the 1875 Civil Rights Act was extremely controversial.

You have gone from "not a single leader was for desegregation" to "It was Contraversal"!!!

My point is well established, admit you were wrong and lets end this thread... Otherwise Ill keep illistrtating that you are a jackass!
!
 
You have gone from "not a single leader was for desegregation" to "It was Contraversal"!!!

My point is well established, admit you were wrong and lets end this thread... Otherwise Ill keep illistrtating that you are a jackass!
!

Your point is NOT well established, your point is without substantiation. I argued that OUR COUNTRY did not embrace or endorse desegregation for a century after the Civil War. I argued that OUR LEADERSHIP on the state and federal levels, ignored the problem because it was politically expedient for them to do so. I argued that no Administration or Court stood up and demanded an end to segregation until 1964, and THAT is the case, irrespective of your flaunting of a bill that was found to be unconstitutional 8 years later, which was never popular, always controversial, and seldom ever enforced.

And I certainly will continue illustrating you're a jackass.
 
My point exactly, there was contraversy about desegregation amungst the ruling class including Congressmen and Senators as far back as 1875, contrary to your claim when you started this thread!

That's his usual tactic....rather that admit error, he'll try to smokescreen by spamming moot points sprinkled with his supposition and conjecture, then he tries to pretend that the chronological order of the posts don't exists as to what the original point of contention was and what he stated. No matter how many times and ways you logically prove him wrong, he'll just LIE and go around in circles, always restating his original assertion as if nothing has transpired. The man is sad.
 
Dixie said...

"Aside from a few black activists and a few pinhead liberal elites, no one in America was advocating against segregation until the early 60s."

I wonder how a bill got passed by both houses of Congress and signed by a president that outlawed segregation in 1875, by REPUBLICANS!
 
Dixie said...

"Aside from a few black activists and a few pinhead liberal elites, no one in America was advocating against segregation until the early 60s."

I wonder how a bill got passed by both houses of Congress and signed by a president that outlawed segregation in 1875, by REPUBLICANS!

Because half of Congress wasn't there, it was called "Reconstruction!"

So segregation was outlawed in 1919, when the streets of Chicago and Omaha ran red with the blood of black Americans? I guess they drove through the streets of Milwaukee randomly killing black people because they were Southern? Is THAT the spin? All of this history of violence against black people from 1875 to 1964 in the Great Liberal North, that was because those black people were from the South, is that it?

Where are the courageous leaders standing up for desegregation during all of this? Woodrow Wilson? Did HE do anything about what was happening in America? What was HIS stance on desegregating society, can you tell me?

The vast and overwhelming majority of America, did not want desegregation in the society in which THEY lived! You can throw up all the irrelevant examples you want, THAT is a FACT! History proves it is a fact! If you wish to pretend that sentiments toward blacks were the same in 1875 as they are today, you are a fool and a moron, and I am not wasting any more time debating this with you. If this is just about taking a slap at the South, again, I don't have time to waste with that. Unless you can support something in the insanity you've presented, we are done here. People didn't want desegregation, and we didn't have it, until the mid 60s, and it was a struggle even then! There are STILL people who don't want to be desegregated!
 
Back
Top