Segregation now, segregation forever!

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Great, now lets stick with this so you still cant confuse the issue.....

Did you say:

"Throughout history, there have not been people in political power, advocating change in our segregationist policy, prior to 1963! It doesn't exist, because black people were shut out of the political process, and it was not an issue, it was presumed and assumed you supported and condoned segregationist policy, because that was how things were in America. No one stood up and said it was bad! Everyone accepted it, and continued to condone it!"

??????????????????????????????????????

Yep it is what I said, and you citing a couple of obscure and rare exceptions, is not disproving my point. It actually SUPPORTS my point. You are stuck on the myopic details of trying to apply literal meaning to every word, rather than comprehending context. I don't know what kind of mental affliction causes you to do this, but you definitely have it! When I say "no one stood up against segregation" it doesn't mean that NO ONE PERSON stood up! That seems to be where the problem is, you take what I have said to a literal extreme that was never intended. When I correct you on the context of what I said, you continue to insist you are right and I am wrong, and refuse to accept the context. This is why I keep saying it is "myopic" ...you are focused on the word "every" or "all" and since you've found a couple of obscure examples, you see where you can prove that wrong, so you have! Apparently, proving Dixie wrong on something, is far more important than engaging in a debate or following the context of what is said.

Now Jarhead, I don't mind being proven wrong about things, it's how we learn and grow as people, and not something to be hated or disliked. But proving that 100% of America didn't support segregationist policy, is not proving my point wrong or incorrect in any way, and it is a little on the silly side. After all, there aren't many things that 100% of America has ever agreed on. Most people are capable of understanding, I was not trying to establish that point, therefore, refuting that point does nothing to the argument I was making. Yeah, stick a feather in your hat... you found a period turned upside down!

 

[Jarod]

Yep it is what I said, and you citing a couple of obscure and rare exceptions, is not disproving my point. It actually SUPPORTS my point. You are stuck on the myopic details of trying to apply literal meaning to every word, rather than comprehending context. I don't know what kind of mental affliction causes you to do this, but you definitely have it! When I say "no one stood up against segregation" it doesn't mean that NO ONE PERSON stood up! That seems to be where the problem is, you take what I have said to a literal extreme that was never intended. When I correct you on the context of what I said, you continue to insist you are right and I am wrong, and refuse to accept the context. This is why I keep saying it is "myopic" ...you are focused on the word "every" or "all" and since you've found a couple of obscure examples, you see where you can prove that wrong, so you have! Apparently, proving Dixie wrong on something, is far more important than engaging in a debate or following the context of what is said.

Now Jarhead, I don't mind being proven wrong about things, it's how we learn and grow as people, and not something to be hated or disliked. But proving that 100% of America didn't support segregationist policy, is not proving my point wrong or incorrect in any way, and it is a little on the silly side. After all, there aren't many things that 100% of America has ever agreed on. Most people are capable of understanding, I was not trying to establish that point, therefore, refuting that point does nothing to the argument I was making. Yeah, stick a feather in your hat... you found a period turned upside down!

So are you now saying that people in power prior to 1963 advocating for change in segregationist policies DOES EXIST? Are you saying that not EVERYONE accepted it? Are you saying that at least some pointed out it was bad? Because that was your point!

 

[Jarod]

Okay we are now two for two...

Lets keep going, so you cant confuse the issue...

Did you say....

"there were people in 1864 who thought slaves were equal to whites! Unfortunately, NONE of them were political figures, or able to be political figures, because the overwhelming majority of an ALL WHITE electorate, fundamentally disagreed with them!"

????????????????????????????????

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So are you now saying that people in power prior to 1963 advocating for change in segregationist policies DOES EXIST? Are you saying that not EVERYONE accepted it? Are you saying that at least some pointed out it was bad? Because that was your point!

Okay we are now two for two...

Lets keep going, so you cant confuse the issue...

Did you say....

"there were people in 1864 who thought slaves were equal to whites! Unfortunately, NONE of them were political figures, or able to be political figures, because the overwhelming majority of an ALL WHITE electorate, fundamentally disagreed with them!"

????????????????????????????????

No confusing the issue, the history on this is clear. Did we have integration in America following 1875? Yes or No? Was the reason for that, somehow escaping you? Proving that a black man somehow got elected to Congress in 1875, is not proof that America was intent or inclined to integrate blacks into white society, or that any prominent political figures were even advocating it! You have found an insignificant point of technicality, and I have given you due credit for that, and clarified my point, but you remain stuck on the detail of the insignificant point of technicality you found, as if that is some prized possession you now have... is that really so important to you, Jarhead? Really? Because, that is sad to me.

 

[Taichiliberal]

All I see in post 501, is another one of your LIES about what I didn't ever say!

Unless you're totally ignorant of American history regarding slavery and Jim Crow laws, you're insane notion that segregation wasn't "official" and therefore not technically existent (and therefore no law was against it) [AN ARGUMENT NEVER POSTED BY DIXIE] reeks of the revisionist blatherings found in the writings of David Duke and like minded trolls.

You continue to demonstrate a sociopath mentality of interjecting your opinions into what I have said. If you are going to continue to do this, you can't even start to refute what I have actually said, you are stuck on a LIE, a complete fabrication of what you WISH that I had said. I've already shown where you are guilty of this, and you still insist you didn't LIE! It's right there in black and white, what you CLAIM was said, and what was actually posted by me... and you STILL refuse to admit your LIE! Instead, you just jump back over to another LIE, and keep right on going!

You are nothing but a dishonest lying blowhard, and you have nothing to offer to this debate or any other that I've seen you in. Looks like you just want to strut around the board insulting people and being belligerent, like that makes you some kind of a big man. I can only imagine it is because in real life, you are a little man, no one respects much of what you have to say, or pays you much thought in your pathetic existence. It's pretty sad when you have to be a bully on a message board because you lack the balls to be one in real life. Total waste of the Internet if you ask me.

This is what YOU posted:

Why would white people need to provide "separate but equal" facilities for black people? Why would businesses need to go to the expense and trouble of doing that? There was no law stating this had to be done, and the 'interpretations' of the Constitution at the time, didn't even give black people American citizenship. They didn't have any right to equality with white people, so why would white people be going out of their way to provide it?

Now you've been playing this game that if you didn't use the exact words, no one can hold you accountable for the logical conclusion of your words. Well bunky, in American history LAWS are created to address EXISTING CONDITIONS. As I gave evidence in post #501, unjust racial segregation not only existed, but was PROTESTED by local citizens.... a matter of history, a matter of fact. So not only were you wrong about the situation existing and people protesting it, you were wrong that the subsequent Civil Rights ACTS of 1866 and 1875 addressed these issues. Facts and history that you try to ignore or replace with your fantastic revisionist bullshit. YOUR OPINION, SUPPOSITION AND CONJECTURE IS NOT A REPLACEMENT FOR CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORIC FACT.

Now, be a good little racist shit and just keep regurgitating your bilge. My job is done exposing you for what you truly are.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Chicklet, you showed a case where black people walked out of a church rather than being segregated... the US Government, unless something has radically changed, does not have the authority to intervene in church affairs, and never has. To pretend they passed some kind of "desegregation" law and applied it to churches in 1875, is sheer ignorance of history AND the Constitution.

As I correctly stated, before 1875, there was no law providing black people with equal access to anything! I asked you the question before, and I'll ask it again... IF there wasn't a law mandating that black people be given "equal access" why would businesses go to the trouble of providing them and segregating the blacks into them? Why not just forbid blacks from entering the premises? There was no law which said they had to let them in, much less give them "equal accommodation" until after 1875, so there was not a relevant need for "segregation" in those days. Now.... were people and groups practicing segregation? I am sure they were, but not because they had a compelling reason to do so, not because the law mandated they give black people equal access! Those instances, where segregation may have been practiced, could have simply denied blacks access!

It was actually AFTER the passage of CRA/1875 and other similar legislation, that businesses began "upholding the law" by providing "separate but equal" facilities for black patrons. THEN is when "segregation" became widespread and systemic.... THEN is when segregation became institutionalized and codified into law, and later upheld by the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson.

 

[Jarod]

No confusing the issue, the history on this is clear. Did we have integration in America following 1875? Yes or No? That answer depends, Congress was integrated, schools were not, there were some working on integrating the schools, but that was not fully accomplished until the 1960's/Was the reason for that, somehow escaping you? Proving that a black man somehow got elected to Congress in 1875, is not proof that America was intent or inclined to integrate blacks into white society, or that any prominent political figures were even advocating it! Some prominent political figures were advocating for it, but not enough to make it happen, the Supreme Court was against itYou have found an insignificant point of technicality, and I have given you due credit for that, and clarified my point, but you remain stuck on the detail of the insignificant point of technicality you found, as if that is some prized possession you now have... is that really so important to you, Jarhead? Really? Because, that is sad to me.I have many many points that you were wrong about, I am slowly and methodically illistrating that, you continue to try to make it difficult. Some of your overall point I actually agree with, but my point is that, no matter how small, a group of liberals have existed for over 200 years in America working toward racial equality

.

 

[Jarod]

Okay we are now two for two... You have yet to answer this one...

Lets keep going, so you cant confuse the issue...

Did you say....

"there were people in 1864 who thought slaves were equal to whites! Unfortunately, NONE of them were political figures, or able to be political figures, because the overwhelming majority of an ALL WHITE electorate, fundamentally disagreed with them!"

????????????????????????????????

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

but my point is that, no matter how small, a group of liberals have existed for over 200 years in America working toward racial equality

You are totally full of liberal horseshit! Next to Obama, the most progressive president we ever had was Woodrow Wilson... He endorsed "Birth of a Nation," a movie that depicted the KKK as heroes! He was one of the most racist SOB's to ever grace the Oval Office... and what did you beloved FDR do in his unprecedented 4 terms as president? He didn't do diddly-squat about segregation! Never used his bully pulpit to speak out against the injustices, never lifted a finger to stop the practice! No, the liberals "fight" for desegregation was like their fight for gay marriage! When Liberals lost the election of 2004, they blamed Karl Rove for putting "gay marriage" on the ballots in key states! You hypocrites CLAIM you are "fighting" for something, but you will throw it under the bus in a heartbeat, to curry favor with the electorate and regain power!

You can believe your liberal fairytale all you like, the HISTORY doesn't lie!

 

[zappasguitar]

Yep it is what I said, and you citing a couple of obscure and rare exceptions, is not disproving my point. It actually SUPPORTS my point. You are stuck on the myopic details of trying to apply literal meaning to every word, rather than comprehending context. I don't know what kind of mental affliction causes you to do this, but you definitely have it! When I say "no one stood up against segregation" it doesn't mean that NO ONE PERSON stood up! That seems to be where the problem is, you take what I have said to a literal extreme that was never intended. When I correct you on the context of what I said, you continue to insist you are right and I am wrong, and refuse to accept the context. This is why I keep saying it is "myopic" ...you are focused on the word "every" or "all" and since you've found a couple of obscure examples, you see where you can prove that wrong, so you have! Apparently, proving Dixie wrong on something, is far more important than engaging in a debate or following the context of what is said.

Now Jarhead, I don't mind being proven wrong about things, it's how we learn and grow as people, and not something to be hated or disliked. But proving that 100% of America didn't support segregationist policy, is not proving my point wrong or incorrect in any way, and it is a little on the silly side. After all, there aren't many things that 100% of America has ever agreed on. Most people are capable of understanding, I was not trying to establish that point, therefore, refuting that point does nothing to the argument I was making. Yeah, stick a feather in your hat... you found a period turned upside down!

If you don't want people to misunderstand what you've written, then try to be more careful and stop using words like "every" or "all" if you don't mean just that. If you are going to write that "no one stood up against segregation", then by God MEAN what you say or don't use such all-encompassing generalities.

The guy who claims we can't state for certain that humans and Dinos DIDN'T live together because we haven't dug up 100% of the Earth's crust now demands that others not treat what he writes with the same specificity.

You stated NO ONE stood up against segregation...be more specific from now on or cut others the same slack you expect.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That answer depends, Congress was integrated, schools were not, there were some working on integrating the schools, but that was not fully accomplished until the 1960's

On December 5, 1887, for the first time in almost two decades, Congress convened without an African-American Member. “All the men who stood up in awkward squads to be sworn in on Monday had white faces,” noted a correspondent for the Philadelphia Record of the Members who took the oath of office on the House Floor. “The negro is not only out of Congress, he is practically out of politics.” Though three black men served in the next Congress (51st, 1889–1891), the number of African Americans serving on Capitol Hill diminished significantly as the congressional focus on racial equality faded. Only five African Americans were elected to the House in the next decade: Henry Cheatham and George White of North Carolina, Thomas Miller and George Murray of South Carolina, and John M. Langston of Virginia. But despite their isolation, these men sought to represent the interests of all African Americans. Like their predecessors, they confronted violent and contested elections, difficulty procuring desirable committee assignments, and an inability to pass their legislative initiatives. Moreover, these black Members faced further impediments in the form of legalized segregation and disfranchisement, general disinterest in progressive racial legislation, and the increasing power of southern conservatives in Congress.
Thomas Rice created the character “the Jim Crow minstrel” in 1828. The actor was one of the first to don blackface makeup and perform as a racially stereotyped character.Thomas Rice created the character “the Jim Crow minstrel” in 1828. The actor was one of the first to don blackface makeup and perform as a racially stereotyped character.Image courtesy of Library of Congress

In the decade after the 1876 presidential election, the Republican-dominated Reconstruction governments, which had provided the basis for black political participation in the South, slowly disintegrated, leaving the rights of black voters and political aspirants vulnerable to Democratic state governments controlled by former Confederates and their sympathizers. The electoral crisis of 1876 also revealed fissures within the GOP, as many party stalwarts focused on commercial issues rather than on the volatile racial agenda previously pursued by the Republicans. This period marked the beginning of a “multigenerational deterioration” of the relationship between black and white Republicans. By the 1890s, most Black Americans had either been barred from or abandoned electoral politics in frustration. Advocacy for blacks in Congress became substantially more difficult. After Representative White’s departure from the House in March 1901, no African American served in the U.S. Congress for nearly three decades. The length and persistence of this exile from national politics starkly conveyed the sweeping success of the system of racial segregation imposed upon blacks by law and custom, known widely as “Jim Crow.”
Jim Crow

During this era African Americans experienced unique suffering and deprivation. Beginning in the last quarter of the 19th century, blacks—the vast majority of whom still lived in the South—endured a system of racial segregation that circumscribed their political, economic, and social status. Distinguished historian of the South C. Vann Woodward explains that the removal of key “restraints” unleashed widespread, virulent racist social policies. Eroding northern liberal interest in fostering a biracial society in the South after 1877, the failure of southern conservatism to check race baiting politics, and the corresponding capitulation of the southern ruling class to rising white supremacist radicalism, each played a part in fashioning a uniquely American racial apartheid.
Foreshadowing the struggles of a half-century later, magazines like Puck Illustrated noted the inequities of Jim Crow transportation as early as 1913.Foreshadowing the struggles of a half-century later, magazines like Puck Illustrated noted the inequities of Jim Crow transportation as early as 1913.Image courtesy of Library of Congress

Jim Crow, a system of segregation enforced by legal and extralegal means, evolved over several decades. Jim Crow was a popular character in southern minstrel shows—in which white performers in blackface portrayed African Americans. How the term Jim Crow came to be associated with segregation is not clear, but it was eventually used to describe both the formal and the informal manifestations of segregation in the South. Beginning with Tennessee in 1870, every southern state adopted laws against interracial marriage. By the 1880s, most public places and many private businesses had Whites Only and Colored facilities. These included schools, seating areas, drinking fountains, work spaces, government buildings, train stations, hospitals, restaurants, hotels, theaters, barbershops, laundries, and even public restrooms.

Virtually all the political advances afforded freedmen during Reconstruction were rolled back and eradicated during the years after 1890. In the South, the races were separated even more systematically and rigidly than during slavery. Many blacks were reduced to a suppressed citizenship that was repeatedly exploited for political and economic purposes. As C. Vann Woodward writes, Jim Crow laws “did not assign the subordinate group a fixed status in society. They were constantly pushing the Negro farther down.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------


There's your history... Black were certainly NOT integrated into Congress or anywhere else. With the exception of a tiny sliver of history known as Reconstruction, you can't give an example of blacks being elected to Congress! Now, did the public sentiment change? Did the great noble LIBERALS from South Carolina, who elected Joe Rainey, change their minds? Or did the Democrats do away with all the gerrymandering and unconstitutional redistricting, which enabled blacks like Rainey to be elected?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

If you don't want people to misunderstand what you've written, then try to be more careful and stop using words like "every" or "all" if you don't mean just that. If you are going to write that "no one stood up against segregation", then by God MEAN what you say or don't use such all-encompassing generalities.

The guy who claims we can't state for certain that humans and Dinos DIDN'T live together because we haven't dug up 100% of the Earth's crust now demands that others not treat what he writes with the same specificity.

You stated NO ONE stood up against segregation...be more specific from now on or cut others the same slack you expect.

I was clear about it you dishonest racist fucktard! I said NUMEROUS times, the FEW who advocated racial equality, were not in positions of prominent political power. For all intents and purposes of establishing the law and fundamentally changing society, NO ONE stood up! You want to be a fucktard and misconstrue the meaning of what I said, that is up to you... HISTORY doesn't lie!

 

[zappasguitar]

I was clear about it you dishonest racist fucktard! I said NUMEROUS times, the FEW who advocated racial equality, were not in positions of prominent political power. For all intents and purposes of establishing the law and fundamentally changing society, NO ONE stood up! You want to be a fucktard and misconstrue the meaning of what I said, that is up to you... HISTORY doesn't lie!

And jut like clockwork the Dixitard resorts to vulgarity when his points have been thoroughly discredited.

History doesn't lie...but history does show that YOU DO LIE.

Gotten every single human on the planet to give you that IQ test yet, or do we continue to assume you are mentally challenged for lack of evidence otherwise?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Some prominent political figures were advocating for it, but not enough to make it happen, the Supreme Court was against it

Aside from Reconstruction, there was NO ONE advocating for it, and I think a case can be made that even during Reconstruction, Congressmen like Rainey weren't advocating it either! You've shown absolutely NOTHING to demonstrate that, you've just lied your ass off about the "Desegregation Act" and "Integration Act" of 1875! Unfortunately your LIES do not refute HISTORY!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And jut like clockwork the Dixitard resorts to vulgarity when his points have been thoroughly discredited.

History doesn't lie...but history does show that YOU DO LIE.

Gotten every single human on the planet to give you that IQ test yet, or do we continue to assume you are mentally challenged for lack of evidence otherwise?

Fuck off you little insulate retard! You've not presented any history, you've not done a damn thing except interject your profound stupidity and run your mouth, and you aren't worth the time I have taken to respond.

None of my points have been discredited, you are just too stupid and ignorant to grasp CONTEXT and comprehend what people are saying! It's a fucking wonder you are able to make it through the day without getting hit by a bus or something. Why don't you do us all a favor and go smoke some meth and listen to heavy metal, at least that would be something you know how to do, you sure as hell can't debate!

 

[Jarod]

Okay we are now two for two... You have yet to answer this one...

Lets keep going, so you cant confuse the issue...

Did you say....

"there were people in 1864 who thought slaves were equal to whites! Unfortunately, NONE of them were political figures, or able to be political figures, because the overwhelming majority of an ALL WHITE electorate, fundamentally disagreed with them!"

????????????????????????????????

FOr the third time... please answer!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yes JArhead, that is what I said, and what you still haven't refuted the context of. You have presented obscure examples and oddities which did not represent the public sentiment of the time, and you can't even establish it represented any political sentiment of the time, that is your speculation alone! You've not presented any great speeches protesting segregation from any politician of the time, including the rare black ones you found! Nowhere have you proven my point invalid or incorrect! You managed to find some minor point of technicality in the exact wording I used and a silly literal interpretation of something, which you have been corrected on numerous times. You have no argument here, you've made no point here, you have demonstrated yourself to be a petty myopic nitwit who lacks any sort of logic, reason, or comprehension of history, or the English language.

 

[Canceled1]

And jut like clockwork the Dixitard resorts to vulgarity when his points have been thoroughly discredited.

History doesn't lie...but history does show that YOU DO LIE.

Gotten every single human on the planet to give you that IQ test yet, or do we continue to assume you are mentally challenged for lack of evidence otherwise?

Well truth be told Zapless, you bring out the BEST in all of us!

Keep up the predictable work, Mr Blimpington!

 

[Taichiliberal]

Chicklet, Projecting again, bunky? you showed a case where black people walked out of a church rather than being segregated... the US Government, unless something has radically changed, does not have the authority to intervene in church affairs, and never has. To pretend they passed some kind of "desegregation" law and applied it to churches in 1875, is sheer ignorance of history AND the Constitution.

Nice try toodles, but as the post #501 shows, your response was to Jarod some long winded bullshit about how segregation technically didn't exist since black people weren't citizens, blah, blah, blah. Well, not ONLY did I PROVE that SEGREAGATION EXISTED, but I also provided FACT BASED EVIDENCE that segregation also existed in the public forum...evidence that YOU try to ignore because YOU are one dishonest little racist creep. Here it is for the audience to see your dishonesty:

1849 - While black students attended Monroe School, whites attended Sumner School, named for Massachusetts congressman and abolitionist Charles Sumner. Sumner and an African-American attorney named Robert Morris challenged segregation in Massachusetts in 1849. In an introductory videotape called "In Pursuit of Freedom and Equality," a narrator emphasizes that throughout our nation's history, federal laws have mandated segregated schools only for African-Americans: "not for Irish

You tried to split a hair.....in your warped desperation to defend America's racist past, you try to say that documented segregation in a church doesn't count? How screwed up are you?

As I correctly stated, before 1875, there was no law providing black people with equal access to anything! Why do you think they PASSED THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS OF 1866 AND 1875, YOU DIMWIT? Laws are passed to address problems and issues of contention in a society. I asked you the question before, and I'll ask it again... IF there wasn't a law mandating that black people be given "equal access" why would businesses go to the trouble of providing them and segregating the blacks into them? Why not just forbid blacks from entering the premises? There was no law which said they had to let them in, much less give them "equal accommodation" until after 1875, so there was not a relevant need for "segregation" in those days. Now.... were people and groups practicing segregation? I am sure they were, but not because they had a compelling reason to do so, not because the law mandated they give black people equal access! Those instances, where segregation may have been practiced, could have simply denied blacks access!

"....people and groups practicing segregation? I am sure they were, but not because they had a compelling reason to do so"

Are you drunk? A community purposely forces a section of the population to be separated from public facilities, schools, houses of worship and have NO COMPELLING REASON? HOW ABOUT RACISM, YOU BLITHERING BUMPKIN!!??

It was actually AFTER the passage of CRA/1875 and other similar legislation, that businesses began "upholding the law" by providing "separate but equal" facilities for black patrons. THEN is when "segregation" became widespread and systemic.... THEN is when segregation became institutionalized and codified into law, and later upheld by the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson.

So according to the David Duke History book, there was no "real" segregation in society until those dastardly liberals and northerners passed Civil Rights laws, which forced the put upon white folk to create terrible separate but equal facilities, because until 1875 all was hunky-dory and black folk had perfectly fine life style and full access social emenities on par with everyone else. Yes, slavery was an oasis of perfection until Civil Rights laws ruined it.

Sorry bunky, but like above, I and Jarod have thoroughly deconstructed this oft parroted bullshit of yours six ways to Sunday, as the chronological order of the posts shows, your denial non-withstanding.

Blow it out your ass, Dixie....you can lie, deny, split hairs, rewrite, distort history and try to push your supposition and conjecture over historical facts and logic until doomsday....you'll always be a 3rd rate racist propagandist and historical revisionist, as this thread clearly shows. Post #501,546, 568, 591 and 616 are the nails in your willfully ignorant, intellectually bankrupt coffin. You're done.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

your response was to Jarod some long winded bullshit about how segregation technically didn't exist since black people weren't citizens, blah, blah, blah.

Black people weren't citizens prior to the Civil War, that is true. While my response to Jarhead was a bit long, it entailed the historic accounts of what took place in America over the course of a couple hundred years, so in that respect, it was relatively short-winded. I did not say that segregation "technically didn't exist," I said there was no tenable reason for segregation to exist to any large degree, because businesses were not required to serve black customers, much less, serve them equally. You cannot refute this, because history shows this is the truth.

You tried to split a hair.....in your warped desperation to defend America's racist past, you try to say that documented segregation in a church doesn't count? How screwed up are you?

I am not the one trying to split hairs and defend America's racist past, that is you and Jarhead! I have merely pointed out what was the facts, and what actually happened throughout history in America, and I have not once tried to claim America passed "desegregation" in 1875, or that Great Liberals were carrying the torch of desegregation back then! Again, that is you and your nitwit retarded butt buddy! I have presented historical facts, and they have refuted your ignorance throughout the thread.

"Splitting hairs" is when someone says... No one was standing up for the rights of African Americans in 1875, and buttmunches like you point to one reconstruction-era black congressman to prove that at least one person was, and I am wrong... THAT is splitting a fucking hair!

Documented segregation in a church has nothing to do with the US government, Congress, politicians, 1875 CRA, 1866 CRA, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments... or anything pertaining to this discussion, including the systemic legalized and SCOTUS upheld segregation, which prevailed in this country until 1954!

As I correctly stated, before 1875, there was no law providing black people with equal access to anything! Why do you think they PASSED THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS OF 1866 AND 1875, YOU DIMWIT? Laws are passed to address problems and issues of contention in a society.

I explained it to you back on page 11... they passed both of these Acts as a means to take Federal action in areas where black genocide was taking place! At the time, former black slaves were not protected under the Constitution, did not have the rights of any American citizen, and were being slaughtered by the thousands at the hands of white mobs all across America! The CRA Acts of the late 1800s, supposedly addressed THAT issue, and provided the Feds with a justification to send in the National Guard to protect those rights for black Americans. Prior to those acts, there was nothing the Federal government could do about the killings and lynchings, they had NO Federal authority to intervene! It was through THAT legislation, they were able to enforce a policy of "equality" which led to "separate but equal" establishment of segregation policy!

Are you drunk? A community purposely forces a section of the population to be separated from public facilities, schools, houses of worship and have NO COMPELLING REASON? HOW ABOUT RACISM, YOU BLITHERING BUMPKIN!!??

Uh, that isn't what I meant by "compelling reason." There was no law which required a restaurant or hotel to serve black patrons. Most upper-class establishment in both the North and South, simply did not cater to black people, and that was the way it was! There was no "segregation" of blacks, there was complete dis-inclusion! They had no compelling reason to provide "separate but equal" facilities for the black people, they simply ignored the black people and didn't provide "separate" anything for them! What part of that is not getting through your thick skull? I'm not making an excuse for what they did! I am explaining what they did and telling you why they did so at the time! You seem to want to think I am "defending" the practices, or that I am somehow "legitimizing" what took place, and that is NOT my intent, never has been... I am only pointing out what WAS THE CASE, WHAT DID HAPPEN! You are the one in DENIAL... complete and total DENIAL of what happened!

So according to the David Duke History book, there was no "real" segregation in society until those dastardly liberals and northerners passed Civil Rights laws, which forced the put upon white folk to create terrible separate but equal facilities, because until 1875 all was hunky-dory and black folk had perfectly fine life style and full access social emenities on par with everyone else. Yes, slavery was an oasis of perfection until Civil Rights laws ruined it.

There was no "separate but equal" because there was no tenable reason for it! The later part of your rant is obviously something you wish I had said, or envisioned in your mind that you read from me, but is so far removed from any comment I have ever made, that I don't feel compelled to even respond, it's sheer idiocy and lies on your part. Anyone who is intelligent, can read this thread and see what you have done all the way through, distort what was said, lie about what was said, insist your lie is the truth and call people insane for not admitting what you lied about, and continuously running your mouth like you are on some moral high horse, taking down a racist propagandist! Nothing I have said is racist or disrespectful to black Americans, it is the 100% gospel truth of what happened in America, and the history of Civil Rights.... It wasn't some "LIBERAL" cause that pinheads like you have been fighting for since the Civil War! If you want to live in your fantasy world and believe that, it's entirely up to you, but history simply doesn't support your idiotic viewpoint. If you want to believe Great Liberal Americans stood up and outlawed segregation in 1875, and the lowly racist Southerners just ignored the law and violated the Constitution for another century, without ever being contested or challenged, again... up to you and the rainbow unicorn, I have no control over your dementia. If you want to argue that America was fighting for desegregation between 1875 and 1948, then you will have to argue with yourself, because I don't argue with idiots forever.