It has historically been the states that violate the rights of minorities. It has been the states that have historically been neglectful of their responsibilities towards its citizens.
It has been the states who historically have been the most corrupted by powerful interests that would turn a state into a semi-private fiefdom
You meant the Southern States that was controlled by Democrats.
You can believe that drivel or actually read up on history books.
I would suggest the latter.
Yes, the Southern States that were controlled by White Christian Conservative Democrats
Same old dirty tricks, they changed their names to liberal not their tricks.
The 19th century, Southern Democrats comprised whites in the South who believed in
Jacksonian democracy. In the 1850s they held that slavery was a good thing and promoted its expansion into the West.
After
Reconstruction ended in the late 1870s they controlled all the Southern states and disenfranchised the blacks (who were Republicans). The "
Solid South" gave nearly all its electoral
votes to Democrats in presidential elections. Republicans seldom were elected to office outside some mountain districts
The Negroes were Republicans in name only. They couldn't vote -- remember?
Your history link is so terrible it is humiliating to respond.
for one thing: "the elderly, and disabled." thing? FDR and Social Security. Whom did it cover?
Quotes by Madison and Franklin taken out of context. geeze.
Talk about not knowing history?
African Americans could vote 1865.
The first one to be elected was Edward Brooke in 1966.
The 15th amendment to the US Constitution was ratified in 1870 and gave former male slaves the legal right to vote. However, many southern states added requirements such as literacy tests and poll taxes that were designed to keep blacks from voting. In 1957, Congress passed a Civil Rights Act that made it difficult to deny voting rights based on race.
African Americans were granted the right to vote in the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Taken out of Context?
The quote from Ben Franklin comes from his writtings where he is is talking about - On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, 1766
You say, poor labourers cannot afford to buy bread at a high price, unless they had higher wages. Possibly. But how shall we Farmers be able to afford our labourers higher wages, if you will not allow us to get, when we might have it, a higher price for our corn?
By all I can learn, we should at least have had a guinea a quarter more if the exportation had been allowed. And this money England would have got from foreigners.
But, it seems, we Farmers must take so much less, that the poor may have it so much cheaper.
This operates then as a tax for the maintenance of the poor. A very good thing, you will say. But I ask, Why a partial tax? Why laid on us Farmers only? If it be a good thing, pray, Messrs. the Public, take your share of it, by indemnifying us a little out of your public treasury. In doing a good thing there is both honour and pleasure; you are welcome to your part of both.
For my own part, I am not so well satisfied of the goodness of this thing. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means.
I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
