Segregation now, segregation forever!

[Jarod]

Originally Posted by Jarod "What was the intent behind the 14th and 15th Amendments?"

Dixie Responded:" It certainly wasn't racial equality!"

So its time for remedial High School Civics and History, forgive Dixie, they teach it differently in Alabama...

All we really need to discuss to illistrate Dixie's lack of basic post civil war knoledge and to enlighten him about race relations in 1864 is the first section of the 14th.....


The 14th Amendment...

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

___________


"All persons", this means black people as well as white, and considering this this was of the Amendments passed during reconstruction after the civil war it is safe to assume it was intended to address specifically the issue of black people while being broad enough to encompass other groups that are descriminated against. Shall not be denied EQUAL protection under the law. Sounds like they wanted balcks to be treated EQUALLY under the law!

This Amendment was radified July 9, 1868. It provided full citizenship to former slaves for the first time and demanded that they be provided EQUAL protection under the law of the Fed Governement and the State Governments. This Amendment Directly overuled the Dread Scott Decision. It was also the bases for the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision almost 100 years later. We can see that the seeds of the American Civil Rights Movement were planted by the Reconstructionsts who made the law requiring equal treatment under the law for ALL CITIZENS. So its safe to say the framers of the Amendment intended racal equality, the Supreme Court has consistantly ruled that was the intent, and it is clear from the plane meaning, at least to me.

The remainder of the Amendment deals with the Southern States and how issues of the rebellion were to be delt with including debt and rights of Confederate officials to hold office in the future.

Section 1 of the Amendment was written by Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, and supported by Edgar Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull, all Northern Statesmen. Sennator Connsee also contributed to the Amendmend, he was from California.

The 15th is more basic..

The text reads....

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

This Amendment was radified February 3, 1870 as a part of the Reconstruction Amendments.


Dixie, please learn some American History and maybe you will see that your way is misguided by Southern bias. To say the 14th and the 15th had nuthing to do with Racial Equality is either incredable ignorance for a person educated in The United States or it is willfull denial to support a belife system that is not valid. I suspect the latter.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Jarhead, we all know what the 14th and 15th Amendments say, we don't need your civics lesson. You are trying to argue from a position in favor of desegregation against a position of segregation, and place me on the side of segregation. I think it is cute you have such a wild imagination, but that has never been an argument I have made.

In Plessy v. Ferguson, the SCOTUS ruled it was perfectly okay for business to segregate based on race. It became the landmark case which enabled another 50+ years of systemic discrimination against blacks. Obviously, they didn't have your current interpretation of the 14th and 15th in mind, when they made their ruling.

 

[Jarod]

Jarhead, we all know what the 14th and 15th Amendments say, we don't need your civics lesson. You are trying to argue from a position in favor of desegregation against a position of segregation, and place me on the side of segregation. I think it is cute you have such a wild imagination, but that has never been an argument I have made.

In Plessy v. Ferguson, the SCOTUS ruled it was perfectly okay for business to segregate based on race. It became the landmark case which enabled another 50+ years of systemic discrimination against blacks. Obviously, they didn't have your current interpretation of the 14th and 15th in mind, when they made their ruling.

You said RACIAL EQUALITY, not segregation. They said, in a gymnastic feat, that sepperate was equal... but they acknoledged that equal was a requirement, thats RACIAL EQUALITY being the requirement. YOU SAID THAT THE 14th and the 15th HAD NUTHING TO DO WITH RACIAL EQUALITY.

 

[Jarod]

This also proves that we had CONGRESSMEN and SENATORS and STATE LEGISLATORS who were conserned with Racial Equality as early as the 1860's!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You said RACIAL EQUALITY, not segregation. They said, in a gymnastic feat, that sepperate was equal... but they acknoledged that equal was a requirement, thats RACIAL EQUALITY being the requirement. YOU SAID THAT THE 14th and the 15th HAD NUTHING TO DO WITH RACIAL EQUALITY.

This also proves that we had CONGRESSMEN and SENATORS and STATE LEGISLATORS who were conserned with Racial Equality as early as the 1860's!

Segregation prevents the realization of racial equality. Are you really THAT dimwitted? If the 14th and 15th guaranteed racial equality, we would have never had segregation! You have interpreted "racial equality" into the 14th and 15th, the words do not appear there, and before the 1954 Brown v. BOE case (in Kansas, btw), the Supreme Court upheld the practice of segregation, and maintained it did not violate the 14th and 15th.

Again, you are taking modern day understandings for the basis of desegregation and the CRA, and claiming this was the sentiment in pre-1950s America. That was simply not the case. Time and time again, that case was not made, largely because black people had no political power in America.

We had NO Congressmen who were the least bit concerned with giving black people a completely desegregated society! NONE! If you can cite any example prior to WWII, I would love to see it! Truth is, it doesn't exist!

 

[Socrtease]

I didn't say Marriage was solely a religious tradition. It is, however, a widely regarded part of religious custom and tradition, and vitally important to the institution of religion. We're not arguing whether marriage belongs only to religion, we are debating why you would want to usurp the traditional and customary meaning of "marriage" and my argument is, because you wish to attack religious tradition. That is the only thing that makes logical sense, but rather than admit this, you want to try and twist the debate into something else, claim I said something I never said, and make it about that, instead of providing some support for your view. Thanks for confirming you have no support for your view, and I am 100% correct in my evaluation.

I have been married three times, never in a church and never with a minister. JOP, Judge, and Judge. Marriage is NOT a religious institution in america any more. It happens in Churches, but it happens enough elsewhere that it is now as secular as it is religious. Your assertion is ludicrous. I don't care what religious people think of gay marriage. Hate it, love it I give a fuck. And what religious people think about it means nothing in a society that has a secular government. Not the governments job not to offend religions, so long as they don't interfere with their practice.

 

[Thorn]

I have been married three times, never in a church and never with a minister. JOP, Judge, and Judge. Marriage is NOT a religious institution in america any more. It happens in Churches, but it happens enough elsewhere that it is now as secular as it is religious. Your assertion is ludicrous. I don't care what religious people think of gay marriage. Hate it, love it I give a fuck. And what religious people think about it means nothing in a society that has a secular government. Not the governments job not to offend religions, so long as they don't interfere with their practice.

I'll add to that: even church-held marriages must first be licensed and then registered with the government. We, too, were married by a judge.

 

[Minister of Truth]

I have been married three times, never in a church and never with a minister. JOP, Judge, and Judge. Marriage is NOT a religious institution in america any more. It happens in Churches, but it happens enough elsewhere that it is now as secular as it is religious. Your assertion is ludicrous. I don't care what religious people think of gay marriage. Hate it, love it I give a fuck. And what religious people think about it means nothing in a society that has a secular government. Not the governments job not to offend religions, so long as they don't interfere with their practice.

Why three times?

 

[WinterBorn]

Why three times?

Sooner or later the women figure things out?

Sooner or later the alcohol wears off?

He hasn't had time for four?

3 Wishes?

Wife #1 and wife #2 had no sense of humor? Oddly, the lack of sense of humor involved wife #2 and wife #3.

He got a good trade-in value?





pick one you like

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I have been married three times, never in a church and never with a minister. JOP, Judge, and Judge. Marriage is NOT a religious institution in america any more. It happens in Churches, but it happens enough elsewhere that it is now as secular as it is religious. Your assertion is ludicrous. I don't care what religious people think of gay marriage. Hate it, love it I give a fuck. And what religious people think about it means nothing in a society that has a secular government. Not the governments job not to offend religions, so long as they don't interfere with their practice.

But is this issue about YOUR personal views on marriage? Is THAT what's in play here? Do you give a shit what the rest of the society you live in thinks? Or should the rest of society just have to suck it up and put up with YOUR personal viewpoint on things, regardless of what they think or believe?

I would argue it is indeed the "government's job" to obey the Constitution and not prohibit the free exercise of religion, which includes making a complete mockery of their customs and rituals. I don't think government has that right, sorry! And I am sorry that an overwhelming majority of Americans disagree with your view, and do not want to redefine the meaning of traditional marriage.

I proposed a solution, one that gives all sides what they claim to want... except YOUR side, you don't get to impose YOUR view on the rest of society against their will... you don't get to impose YOUR view on religion and religious tradition! Everyone else is covered in my proposal... gay couples, straight couples, religious people, secular people, midgets... everyone except Atheist slimeballs who want to trash religion!!

 

[Minister of Truth]

Sooner or later the women figure things out?

Sooner or later the alcohol wears off?

He hasn't had time for four?

3 Wishes?

Wife #1 and wife #2 had no sense of humor? Oddly, the lack of sense of humor involved wife #2 and wife #3.

He got a good trade-in value?





pick one you like

Okay, see my pick above.

 

[Timshel]

I've not done that. You wish that were my position, but it's not one I have taken. I have not denied there were activists speaking out against segregation, I made that abundantly clear 50 posts back, it's not what I have said. Our society as a whole, including ALL the political representatives we elected to office, held a view condoning segregation, or tacitly refused to take a firm stand on the issue. That is the truth, that is how things were in America. You can deny that, and claim it wasn't the case, but it most certainly was.

That is, MLK condoned segregation. Rosa Parks condoned segregation. Okay...

Your argument then is against individual responsibility and in favor of collectivism and moral relativism. In your fucked up world those who opposed segregation are just as blameworthy as those who supported it, because it existed. Only after the moral code, as set forth by the collective in laws, changed could it then be immoral to support segregation.

I may be willing to cut some slack to a guy that supported it 50 years ago but has since changed his tune. But only if he/she is willing to take responsibility for the error. Any one claiming that they were just victims of society, can fuck off.

 

[Timshel]

Dixie condones abortion. With the exception of maybe Dr killers, everyone condones it or refuses take a firm stand against it. Further, it is wrong to hold supporters of the status-quo responsible for their positions. That is, it is wrong to take a firm stand against it.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That is, MLK condoned segregation. Rosa Parks condoned segregation. Okay...

I didn't say that... read it again, pinhead! Our society as a whole, including ALL the political representatives we elected to office, held a view condoning segregation, or tacitly refused to take a firm stand on the issue. MLK and Rosa Parks viewpoint did not represent society as a whole, and black Americans were effectively shut out of the political process.

Your argument then is against individual responsibility and in favor of collectivism and moral relativism. In your fucked up world those who opposed segregation are just as blameworthy as those who supported it, because it existed.

In my very realistic and pragmatic world, those who allowed it to take place for a century after the Civil War are all equally to blame. It did exist, and it existed because we collectively condoned it and allowed it to exist. Segregation wasn't some idea that never saw fruition because liberals defeated it in 1964, it was largely the system our country operated under for almost 100 years.

Only after the moral code, as set forth by the collective in laws, changed could it then be immoral to support segregation.

Exactly... so why is it, every time someone mentions Strom Thurmond, they bring up his support of something that was not immoral to support at the time, as if it were immoral? This is my point in a nutshell... we've bastardized "segregation" and turned it into this failed idea that Southerners are somehow responsible for! It was the way of the world, across the United States, we routinely segregated people by race... EVERYWHERE!

I may be willing to cut some slack to a guy that supported it 50 years ago but has since changed his tune. But only if he/she is willing to take responsibility for the error. Any one claiming that they were just victims of society, can fuck off.

I'm not much on the "victim" thing, but I think we were ALL victims of society! Very few people had the moral courage to stand up and say it's WRONG to segregate by race! Most Americans found some kind of justification for allowing it to continue, including, ironically enough, that segregation "protected" the black's 'pursuit of happiness' by keeping them from being socially ostracized! We were simply doing them a favor, don't you see? That was the kind of mentality that was common in America, prior to the mid-60s!

For people to now try and claim that America was by and large, supportive of desegregation, and for a century, the South and the South alone, stood in the way of realizing it, is the height of arrogance and/or ignorance. I haven't denied the South played a pivotal role in fighting FOR segregation... I can't escape that history, it's there for the world to see... but let's not lose sight of the fact that segregation existed, it was the system in place for almost 100 years, and MANY political leaders either openly supported it and advocated it, or were completely indifferent to it, because it didn't translate into votes.

 

[Timshel]

Only after the moral code, as set forth by the collective in laws, changed could it then be immoral to support segregation.

Exactly... so why is it, every time someone mentions Strom Thurmond, they bring up his support of something that was not immoral to support at the time, as if it were immoral? This is my point in a nutshell... we've bastardized "segregation" and turned it into this failed idea that Southerners are somehow responsible for! It was the way of the world, across the United States, we routinely segregated people by race... EVERYWHERE!

I was laying out your position not giving my own. I reject your moral relativism.

Segregation was/is immoral and Strom Thurmond deserves scorn for his support of it.

 

[Canceled2]

For people to now try and claim that America was by and large, supportive of desegregation, and for a century, the South and the South alone, stood in the way of realizing it, is the height of arrogance and/or ignorance. I haven't denied the South played a pivotal role in fighting FOR segregation... I can't escape that history, it's there for the world to see... but let's not lose sight of the fact that segregation existed, it was the system in place for almost 100 years, and MANY political leaders either openly supported it and advocated it, or were completely indifferent to it, because it didn't translate into votes.

This----

I get your reasoning Dix and you are correct. Until it became a politically fashionable idea to do away with it, Segregation was an accepted norm all across the country to our national shame.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I was laying out your position not giving my own. I reject your moral relativism.

Segregation was/is immoral and Strom Thurmond deserves scorn for his support of it.

So when America finally comes to the realization that killing a million unborn humans a year is immoral, we can retroactively make you and all who ever supported the pro-choice movement into villains and blame YOU alone for it? Is that what you are saying?

 

[Timshel]

Dixie is way off and once again displays his ignorance. After all, Strom Thurmond's run for President was due to Truman's opposition to segregation.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie is way off and once again displays his ignorance. After all, Strom Thurmond's run for President was due to Truman's opposition to segregation.

No, I am not way off, and you've not made that case. It's fine if you just want to spew your typical bullshit rhetoric, but you've not shown one thing I've said to be incorrect.

If Truman was opposed to segregation, why wasn't the Civil Rights Act passed during his administration? Why didn't he ever advocate for a Civil Rights Act, when he was campaigning for President? Why was this not part of his platform and agenda as President? THE TRUTH is hard to run from... you can SAY Truman "opposed segregation" but you haven't really offered a thing to support that. Now, he may have opposed segregation, he certainly did desegregate the military, but as for his domestic policies, there is nothing of record to show for this immense respect Truman supposedly had for racial equality.

 

[Timshel]

No, I am not way off, and you've not made that case. It's fine if you just want to spew your typical bullshit rhetoric, but you've not shown one thing I've said to be incorrect.

If Truman was opposed to segregation, why wasn't the Civil Rights Act passed during his administration? Why didn't he ever advocate for a Civil Rights Act, when he was campaigning for President? Why was this not part of his platform and agenda as President? THE TRUTH is hard to run from... you can SAY Truman "opposed segregation" but you haven't really offered a thing to support that. Now, he may have opposed segregation, he certainly did desegregate the military, but as for his domestic policies, there is nothing of record to show for this immense respect Truman supposedly had for racial equality.

Thurmond ran over a split with Truman on segregation and the addition of a civil rights plank in the platform. From a speech in 1948...

I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches.

Why would Thurmond say such a thing if there were no credible threat to segregation?

Pick up a history book. Truman supported several policies and laws aimed at improving civil rights. It's obvious to anyone but the brain dead that he opposed segregation and did much to bring about its end. Did he have the votes to pass the 64 civil rights act? No. But your argument is that civil rights was just something that caught fire in the 60s. That is not the case. There was a long struggle that brought about those changes.