there4eyeM
unlicensed metaphysician
- Jul 5, 2012
- 20,763
- 5,343
- 280
Some people would have decisions made by feelings rather than by agreed upon legal constraints.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Clearly there was what you call racism, all over the USA. It was not confined to the South. Democrats of the north were democrats for different reasons. Sure I went to the South in the early 1960s and saw racism up close. Very different as I was a Democrat from CA and not one bit like those racists. But I was not a Democrat due to race. Democrats in the South were experiencing an influx of new people. Those from the North liked the better weather. And wanted cheaper property. This is why we find Democrats over time losing power as the Republicans decided now that racism was supposedly gone, they would want to live in the South. Democrats lost the Civil War. Trying to pretend they were not democrats is proven by history to be wrong. A good many blacks do not believe your version of history.Red herring?!
Neither I nor any source I'd link to would claim Northerners, let alone Northern Democrats were free of racism. The Southern Strategy of the Republican party would not even be thinkable in the old GOP. But leading up to the 1960s, the party leaders from the South, party leaders in both houses of the US Congress, were intent on keeping Jim Crow on life support.
Southerners lost the American Civil War. Slavery was a major issue for the South. When they lost, they invited Jim Crow to live in America. White Southern Christian Conservatives.
Why would I move back to the left?Some people would have decisions made by feelings rather than by agreed upon legal constraints.
As to being in the union sure. But not why they fought the Civil war. You would probably fight an army there to conquer you too if they did as Lincoln did to the South. HE forced the war.Slavery was a major issue for the South.
revisionistAs to being in the union sure. But not why they fought the Civil war. You would probably fight an army there to conquer you too if they did as Lincoln did to the South. HE forced the war.
Was Jim Crow widespread across the US?Clearly there was what you call racism, all over the USA. It was not confined to the South. Democrats of the north were democrats for different reasons. Sure I went to the South in the early 1960s and saw racism up close. Very different as I was a Democrat from CA and not one bit like those racists.
But I was not a Democrat due to race. Democrats in the South were experiencing an influx of new people. Those from the North liked the better weather. And wanted cheaper property. This is why we find Democrats over time losing power as the Republicans decided now that racism was supposedly gone, they would want to live in the South.
Democrats who lost the Civil War were -- Southerners, correct?Democrats lost the Civil War. Trying to pretend they were not democrats is proven by history to be wrong. A good many blacks do not believe your version of history.
I can speak of just Georgia in the 1960s and Western States then as well.Was Jim Crow widespread across the US?
Democrats who lost the Civil War were -- Southerners, correct?
"A good many blacks?" This is proof of what? Define a good many. Then stop pretending you are not what you are. We've seen your disgusting racists posts.
disagreeI can speak of just Georgia in the 1960s and Western States then as well.
Mom first told me of Jim Crow laws around 1957 since they were not in CA at the time. When I was drafted in 1962, I saw evidence of them in Georgia.
Definitely Southerners lost the war.
A good many blacks are republicans. You have not seen my racist posts. Merely discussing race does not make a person a racist or you would be one and bragging as well.
Prejudice swings it's tongue both ways.disagree
And define "good many" please
note:
Lee Atwater: “My generation will be the first generation of Southerners that won’t be prejudiced.”
Admitting that he believes the people down south are prejudiced fucks.
Why would I try to not sound racist? I that what we see you doing when you comment on race? You fear speaking your mind because it might look racist?Prejudice swings it's tongue both ways.
If you are trying not to sound racist, erase your words. Good many means that.
I saw Racism I told you when I was based at Ft. Benning. Blacks I was riding with told me would not go into town because we would be beaten up. Try to dream up some reasons why you think I am racist. I graduated high school and did not know them. There were very few blacks at the school. They did not take college prep courses.
And since it's inception (the US Constitution), people including the framers themselves, could not agree on that.
False analysis ^ again from the dainty. How insipid of him.The rest of your comment where you go on acting as if you're hosting a Talk Show where the host speaks nonstop nonsense -- think Rush/Sean et al... --- on just about anything and everything?
Why? You’re babbling dishonestly and incoherently.Well, let's just let that sink in.
And insinuating and worse, believing that segregation ceases to exist without Jim Crow laws?
Zzz. Your false claims don’t put anything you say in a stronger position. As always, you’re practically self-refuting.That's a despicable argument and belief. There segregation of races before Jim Crow laws, and after the dismantling of most all Jim Crow laws. These facts are undeniable to even the most avowed racists. It's actually what most racists demand.
Good gawd...False. They sure could and they did. The only variation was when something seemingly conflicted.
Some people, being people on many sides of the ideological and political spectrums?Some people would have decisions made by feelings rather than by agreed upon legal constraints.
That reads as if you are a racist. WE is whom? No, I speak frankly. No need to be racist.Why would I try to not sound racist? I that what we see you doing when you comment on race? You fear speaking your mind because it might look racist?
I have that book. Rakove's Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution.Good gawd...
The US Constitution is full of agreements to compromise. Add to that the conversations over what the meanings of words are and who to look to for the meanings?
Madison himself wrote in letters that anyone looking for the 'original intent' or meanings' in the document should look to what the 'people' who ratified the document thought they were ratifying, not to look to the framers like himself for meanings -- as the ultimate authority lay in what the 'people' understood the words and the document to say.
And people were arguing over this from day 1.
You really should read something like Rakove's Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution.
Those with an agenda to serve above established law.Some people, being people on many sides of the ideological and political spectrums?
"serve above established law?"Those with an agenda to serve above established law.
Would you prefer "beyond"?"serve above established law?"
Why do some whites say this crap?Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
Separate was unequal. Black schools were underfunded, black communities did not have the same things white communities had. So the 14th Amendment was violated.Fake News.
My position is that separate but equal is not unconstitutional.
Separate but unequal WOULD violate the 14th amendment...but separate but equal would not.
That's not an opinion...that is a fact.
Prove me wrong directly from the Constitution or STFU.