- Mar 11, 2015
- 102,448
- 115,137
- 3,645
The truth is painful for republicans who try revising history in order to gaslight. I am about to make an example out of this one.
The Racist History of The Democratic Party
- Thread starter Viktor
- Start date
John T. Ford
Diamond Member
- Jun 21, 2020
- 7,850
- 9,548
- 2,128
- Mar 11, 2015
- 102,448
- 115,137
- 3,645
In the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1875, which had prohibited racial discrimination in hotels, trains, and other public places, was unconstitutional.
In an 8-1 decision, the court ruled that the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution did not give Congress the power to regulate the affairs of private individuals and businesses.
Background
During the post-Civil War Reconstruction Period between 1866 and 1877, Congress passed several civil rights laws intended to implement the 13th and 14th amendments.
The last and most aggressive of these laws, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, imposed criminal penalties against the owners of private businesses or modes of transportation that restricted access to their facilities because of race.
The law read, in part:
Details of the Cases
In the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, the Supreme Court took the rare route of deciding five separate but closely related cases with one unified ruling.
The five cases (United States v. Stanley, United States v. Ryan, United States v. Nichols, United States v. Singleton, and Robinson v. Memphis & Charleston Railroad) reached the Supreme Court on appeal from the lower federal courts and involved suits filed by African American citizens claiming they had been illegally been refused equal access to restaurants, hotels, theaters, and trains as required by the Civil Rights Act of 1875.
Decision and Reasoning
In an 8-1 opinion written by Justice Joseph P. Bradley, the Supreme Court found the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to be unconstitutional. Justice Bradley declared that neither the 13th nor the 14th Amendment granted Congress the power to enact laws dealing with racial discrimination by private citizens or businesses.
Of the 13th Amendment, Bradley wrote, “The 13th Amendment has respect, not to distinctions of race … but to slavery.” Bradley added,
He wrote:
Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote the only dissenting opinion in the Civil Rights Cases. Harlan’s belief that the majority’s “narrow and artificial” interpretation 13th and 14th Amendments led him to write,
In addition, noted Harlan, Section II of the 13th Amendment decreed that “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation,” and had thus been the basis for the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which granted full citizenship to all persons born in the United States.
Harlan contended that the 13th and 14th amendments, as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1875, were constitutional acts of Congress intended to ensure African Americans the same rights to access and use of public facilities that white citizens took for granted as their natural right.
In summary, Harlan stated that the federal government had both the authority and the responsibility to protect citizens from any actions that deprive them of their rights and to allow private racial discrimination would “permit the badges and incidents of slavery” to remain.
Impact
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Civil Rights Cases virtually stripped the federal government of any power to ensure African Americans equal protection under the law.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/GettyImages-640463175-3aa8f569201d465695b447b978a392b2.jpg)
www.thoughtco.com
In an 8-1 decision, the court ruled that the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution did not give Congress the power to regulate the affairs of private individuals and businesses.
Background
During the post-Civil War Reconstruction Period between 1866 and 1877, Congress passed several civil rights laws intended to implement the 13th and 14th amendments.
The last and most aggressive of these laws, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, imposed criminal penalties against the owners of private businesses or modes of transportation that restricted access to their facilities because of race.
The law read, in part:
Many people in both the South and the North objected to the Civil Rights Act of 1875, arguing that the law unfairly infringed on personal freedom of choice. Indeed, the legislatures of some Southern states had already enacted laws allowing separate public facilities for whites and African Americans.
Details of the Cases
In the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, the Supreme Court took the rare route of deciding five separate but closely related cases with one unified ruling.
The five cases (United States v. Stanley, United States v. Ryan, United States v. Nichols, United States v. Singleton, and Robinson v. Memphis & Charleston Railroad) reached the Supreme Court on appeal from the lower federal courts and involved suits filed by African American citizens claiming they had been illegally been refused equal access to restaurants, hotels, theaters, and trains as required by the Civil Rights Act of 1875.
Decision and Reasoning
In an 8-1 opinion written by Justice Joseph P. Bradley, the Supreme Court found the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to be unconstitutional. Justice Bradley declared that neither the 13th nor the 14th Amendment granted Congress the power to enact laws dealing with racial discrimination by private citizens or businesses.
Of the 13th Amendment, Bradley wrote, “The 13th Amendment has respect, not to distinctions of race … but to slavery.” Bradley added,
Justice Bradley went on to agree with the argument that the 14th Amendment applied only to the states, not to private citizens or businesses.
He wrote:
The Lone Dissent
Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote the only dissenting opinion in the Civil Rights Cases. Harlan’s belief that the majority’s “narrow and artificial” interpretation 13th and 14th Amendments led him to write,
Harlan wrote that the 13th Amendment did far more than “to prohibit slavery as an institution,” it also “established and decreed universal civil freedom throughout the United States.”
In addition, noted Harlan, Section II of the 13th Amendment decreed that “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation,” and had thus been the basis for the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which granted full citizenship to all persons born in the United States.
Harlan contended that the 13th and 14th amendments, as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1875, were constitutional acts of Congress intended to ensure African Americans the same rights to access and use of public facilities that white citizens took for granted as their natural right.
In summary, Harlan stated that the federal government had both the authority and the responsibility to protect citizens from any actions that deprive them of their rights and to allow private racial discrimination would “permit the badges and incidents of slavery” to remain.
Impact
The Supreme Court’s decision in the Civil Rights Cases virtually stripped the federal government of any power to ensure African Americans equal protection under the law.
About the Civil Rights Cases of 1883
The history and significance of the Supreme Court’s 1883 Civil Rights Cases decision declaring the Civil Rights Act of 1875 unconstitutional.
- Mar 11, 2015
- 102,448
- 115,137
- 3,645
Sometimes it's best to keep your mouth shut JOHN.
United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1876), was a voting rights case in which the United States Supreme Court narrowly construed the 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides that suffrage for citizens can not be restricted due to race, color or the individual having previously been a slave.
This was the Supreme Court's first voting rights case under the Fifteenth Amendment and the Enforcement Act of 1870. A Kentucky electoral official had refused to register an African‐American's vote in a municipal election and was indicted under two sections of the 1871 act: section 1 required that administrative preliminaries to elections be conducted without regard to race, color, or previous condition of servitude; section 2 forbade wrongful refusal to register votes where a prerequisite step “required as foresaid” had been omitted.
The Court held that the Fifteenth Amendment did not confer the right of suffrage, but it prohibited exclusion from voting on racial grounds. The justices invalidated the operative section 3 of the Enforcement Act since it did not repeat the amendment's words about race, color, and servitude. They ruled that the section exceeded the scope of the Fifteenth Amendment. This ruling was the grounds for which the Ku Klux Klan was invented, as it provided white southerners with legal reassurance.
United States v. Reese - Wikipedia
This was an 8-1 SCOTUS decision whereby the court decided that,"the 15th amendment did not guarantee the right to vote but it just prevented states from giving preference to one citizen over another on account of race or color." Chief Justice Morrison Waite, a REPUBLICAN, decided that the right to vote was decided by the states.
United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214 (1876), was a voting rights case in which the United States Supreme Court narrowly construed the 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides that suffrage for citizens can not be restricted due to race, color or the individual having previously been a slave.
This was the Supreme Court's first voting rights case under the Fifteenth Amendment and the Enforcement Act of 1870. A Kentucky electoral official had refused to register an African‐American's vote in a municipal election and was indicted under two sections of the 1871 act: section 1 required that administrative preliminaries to elections be conducted without regard to race, color, or previous condition of servitude; section 2 forbade wrongful refusal to register votes where a prerequisite step “required as foresaid” had been omitted.
The Court held that the Fifteenth Amendment did not confer the right of suffrage, but it prohibited exclusion from voting on racial grounds. The justices invalidated the operative section 3 of the Enforcement Act since it did not repeat the amendment's words about race, color, and servitude. They ruled that the section exceeded the scope of the Fifteenth Amendment. This ruling was the grounds for which the Ku Klux Klan was invented, as it provided white southerners with legal reassurance.
United States v. Reese - Wikipedia
This was an 8-1 SCOTUS decision whereby the court decided that,"the 15th amendment did not guarantee the right to vote but it just prevented states from giving preference to one citizen over another on account of race or color." Chief Justice Morrison Waite, a REPUBLICAN, decided that the right to vote was decided by the states.
tycho1572
Gold Member
- Sep 2, 2016
- 13,050
- 3,095
- 290
It’s not uncommon for victims of slavery to try protecting those who enslaved them, IM2.
Its called Stockholm syndrome.... just saying
en.wikipedia.org
Its called Stockholm syndrome.... just saying
Stockholm syndrome - Wikipedia
Missouri_Mike
Diamond Member
- Nov 5, 2012
- 27,137
- 19,783
- 2,405
Back then? You’re racists right now. I can prove that with a few questions.
1- Are blacks capable of getting an ID to vote?
2- Are blacks intelligent enough to get into college without quotas or lowering their expected SAT scores?
3- Are blacks capable of learning good paying careers on their own?
Democrats as a party say no to these questions. What do you say?
BluesLegend
Diamond Member
Missouri_Mike
Diamond Member
- Nov 5, 2012
- 27,137
- 19,783
- 2,405
So the Republican Party with its first president elected in 1860. Who by the way fought and won a civil war to end slavery. And you think by 1880, a mere 20 years later the Republicans not only gained a Supreme Court majority but also turned into democrats and were the reason for Jim Crow type laws.Actually we can. In the 1876 Compromise, Republican President Rutherford Hayes made a deal with southern states in to remove military troops return for presidential votes. By doing that, he ended reconstruction. During the Civil rights cases in the 1880's republican majorities on the supreme court nullified the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments by giving states the option to abide by them. This helped in the creation of the KKK, erased equal protection for blacks and enabled many discriminatory laws to be made. It was a republican majority vote in a 7-1 with one abstaining vote that made Jim Crow the law of the land in Plessy v. Fergusson. There is a lot more evidence but this is just a small piece of the republican complicity in American racism.I already have.Which is why the KKK and Confederate flag wavers vote Republican. The story is a white washing for the Republicans who claim they are innocent babes and still have their halos and harps..When all along the GOP helped to create and allow the existence of the discrimination to exist instead of seeking to extinguish its very existence. Yet now the blacks vote for Democrats because they committed themselves the most to reform while Republicans now fly the Confederate flags and deny the US history on race relations by their party.
It is just as easy for YOU to address the statements in the video, how come you haven't done it yet?
Now you are lying since there is no such post in THIS thread from you.
You are also stupid , because even YOU can't show evidence that Republicans supported slavery, created the KKK, created black code, promoted segregation, voting road blocks. It was President Grant and his republican supporters who fought the KKK in the 1870's pushed legislation to shut them down. It was the first Republican President who posted the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, it was the Republicans who passed amendments abolishing slavery, grant citizenship and the right to vote.
It is YOU who is denying history.
Are you fucking retarded?
John T. Ford
Diamond Member
- Jun 21, 2020
- 7,850
- 9,548
- 2,128
Here's a little reality check for your racist history revisionist shit.
Dallas sniper who gunned down 5 cops 'wanted to kill white people,' chief says
Five Dallas police officers were killed and seven wounded by a sniper who "wanted to kill white people" during an anti-police brutality protest Thursday, an explosion of violence that President Obama declared a “vicious, calculated and despicable attack on law enforcement.”
www.foxnews.com
Black Lives Matter leaders sued over Baton Rouge police shooting
A police officer wounded in a shooting rampage in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, last year that left three officers dead sued Black Lives Matter movement leaders on Friday, accusing them of inciting violence that spurred the attack.
www.reuters.com
Sheriff links "Black Lives Matter" movement to slain deputy
Movement's leader says sheriff wants "to politicize this tragedy" after official makes claim while also admitting there's no concrete evidence
www.cbsnews.com
Indiana woman shot dead after saying ‘all lives matter’: family
A young mother was fatally shot earlier this month in Indiana and may have been targeted for saying “all lives matter,” the 24-year-old’s family said Sunday. Jessica Doty Whitaker…
www.nydailynews.com
How about you shove your Racist History revisionist bullshit straight up your
And, let's talk about just how racist and VIOLENT the Left is today !!!!!
We know who the Left is .....
The ARE not ONLY the Party of SLAVERY in the US, but also the Party that brought back SLAVERY to Northern Africa THIS Century.
www.aljazeera.com
The International Organization for Migration says trade in humans has become so normalised that people are being bought and sold in public for as little as $400.
"As shocking as it seems, it's indeed true," Leonard Doyle from the International Organization for Migration tells Counting the Cost. "The reason it [slave trade] can happen is because there is really no rule of law across much of Libya. Libya is a country as big as France, with a lot of space there. Migrants are coming there ... they see the promise of a new life when they go to their Facebook feed and they think something wonderful is waiting for them in Europe, because a smuggler has abused the system and has sold them that lie."
He explains that when they arrive in Libya, "they get off the bus and they are quickly put into a kind of murder machine, an extortion machine. They are robbed of their possessions, their families are called. They are forced, they are tortured, they give them money. And then they are sold. Unbelievable, but they are sold in open, public auctions: $400 for a labouring man, maybe a bit more for a woman who can be put in the sex trade. And this is what's happening across the country."
Doyle stresses that this issue shows that the international community should pay more attention to post-Gaddafi Libya.
"Modern-day slavery is widespread around the world and Libya is by no means unique. It's happening in the developed countries of the world as well as the undeveloped countries. But what's particularly shocking is that this is happening effectively in the open, where people can go to a farmhouse, place a bid and end up 'owning' a human being."
Migrants for sale: Slave trade in Libya
African refugees have long used Libya as gateway to Europe, but many are now facing abuse, exploitation and trafficking.
The International Organization for Migration says trade in humans has become so normalised that people are being bought and sold in public for as little as $400.
"As shocking as it seems, it's indeed true," Leonard Doyle from the International Organization for Migration tells Counting the Cost. "The reason it [slave trade] can happen is because there is really no rule of law across much of Libya. Libya is a country as big as France, with a lot of space there. Migrants are coming there ... they see the promise of a new life when they go to their Facebook feed and they think something wonderful is waiting for them in Europe, because a smuggler has abused the system and has sold them that lie."
He explains that when they arrive in Libya, "they get off the bus and they are quickly put into a kind of murder machine, an extortion machine. They are robbed of their possessions, their families are called. They are forced, they are tortured, they give them money. And then they are sold. Unbelievable, but they are sold in open, public auctions: $400 for a labouring man, maybe a bit more for a woman who can be put in the sex trade. And this is what's happening across the country."
Doyle stresses that this issue shows that the international community should pay more attention to post-Gaddafi Libya.
"Modern-day slavery is widespread around the world and Libya is by no means unique. It's happening in the developed countries of the world as well as the undeveloped countries. But what's particularly shocking is that this is happening effectively in the open, where people can go to a farmhouse, place a bid and end up 'owning' a human being."
BrokeLoser
Diamond Member
and your buddies Ice Cube and Nick Cannon--REAL racists
..your dumbass list is nothing compared to these REAL racists
Ice Cube calls Kareem Abdul-Jabbar a Judas over his column
Ice Cube hit back at Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, accusing the NBA star of being a Judas after he criticized him and other black celebs for their anti-Semitism in a column for The Hollywood Reporter.www.dailymail.co.uk
You don't have the balls to hold your own accountable.
You enable it. You're part of the problem.
Hold our own “accountable” for having the courage to acknowledge the behavior of dark people?
I’m curious, are you holding dark people accountable for stealing American citizenships, for robbing taxpayers, for their off the charts level of criminality?
I don’t recall any such posts from you.
Will you pretend you didn’t see this post?
John T. Ford
Diamond Member
- Jun 21, 2020
- 7,850
- 9,548
- 2,128
Lakhota
Diamond Member
Democrats have evolved. Republicans have devolved. The Democratic Party of today is not the same party of yesteryear. The Democratic Party of yesteryear is now the Republican Party - or specifically the Party of Trump.
BrokeLoser
Diamond Member
True.
Today's Democrat Party hates Americas right to sovereignty....They'll come for your Reservations next. Why wouldn't they?
Lakhota
Diamond Member
Actually, Democrats are trying to improve and protect the reservations.
BrokeLoser
Diamond Member
So they're giving California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to Mexico's people but they are going to protect your land...you honestly believe that? How does that make sense?
Jets
Platinum Member
- Jun 29, 2019
- 4,301
- 2,597
- 940
I say Yes to all three questions. The last sentence is hyperbole.
j-mac
Nuthin' but the truth
Projection of the worst kind.
j-mac
Nuthin' but the truth
Similar threads
New Topics
-
And Speaking Of The No Kings Turnout, The Estimates Are Coming In And They Are Staggering- Started by skews13
- Replies: 3
-
NY Mets display ‘gay pride’ flag on jumbotron during national anthem.- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 5
-
-
Islamic Fascist Republic threatened annihilation since the '90s- Started by Sayaras
- Replies: 0
-
One tweet encapsules desperate genocidal Islamic Relublic's zero strategy
- Started by Sayaras
- Replies: 1
