But if there were NO polititians who supported it, how did it pass.
Segregation now, segregation forever!
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
But if there were NO polititians who supported it, how did it pass.
Dixie said...
"They didn't engage in political debate on the issue! They didn't campaign or advocate for the issue! They didn't put the issue in their national platforms! It may not signify support for segregationist policies, but it sure doesn't imply there was a fight against them.
Amazing how a bill passed both houses of Congress without debate on the issue! It was the national platform of the Republicans of 1875..... Id say that implied a fight against segregation! Wouldent you?
"They didn't engage in political debate on the issue! They didn't campaign or advocate for the issue! They didn't put the issue in their national platforms! It may not signify support for segregationist policies, but it sure doesn't imply there was a fight against them.
Amazing how a bill passed both houses of Congress without debate on the issue! It was the national platform of the Republicans of 1875..... Id say that implied a fight against segregation! Wouldent you?
Topspin
Verified User
dixie is a pointy hat wearing truck driving nascar fanboy juco graduate from alabama you expected more.
I did, just by the fact that he is human.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I've already explained it to you, dimwit! Go READ about the period of Reconstruction following the Civil War! The CRA/1875 was a last ditch move of desperation on part of Republicans to hold on to Reconstruction. The white Congressmen who supported the bill, had virtually NO blacks to worry with having to "segregate" in their necks of the woods, so it was of no consequence to them to pass such a bill! This is how it passed! It had absolutely NOTHING to do with ANY prevailing thought that we should live in a desegregated society! NOTHING! This is what you WANT to believe, and that is fine, retarded people believe all sorts of fantasies, far be it from me to deny you that! But when it comes to the actual sentiments in America toward desegregation, they simply didn't exist in 1875, ANYWHERE!
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Dixie gives new meaning to the phrase "revisionist history".
By his "logic", it's all null and void because those that voted didn't have black folk in their states. Someone should clue Dixie in...you don't have to be personally affected by a bad situation to vote to correct it in the UNITED STATES of America.
Last edited:
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Dixie gives new meaning to the phrase "revisionist history".
They didn't vote to "correct" anything! We still lived in a segregated America, it was no different in Chicago and Milwaukee than in Birmingham or Memphis. You can CLAIM that was what the bill was for, and the wording seems to indicate that might have been the case, but it simply wasn't the intent or the reason for the bill. The CRA of 1875, just like several other CRA's of the era, were specifically designed to control the South in post-Civil War Reconstruction. They were not implemented up North, the laws were rarely ever enforced by authorities or punished by the courts if they were!
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Again, you regurgitate a moronic premise "Well there's still prejudice and racism in the USA (i.e., segregation), so the Civil Rights Act of 1875 didn't do it's job and therefore that wasn't it's intent.
1. the act was passed by both Houses.
2. it contained specific language to address specific issues. NOTHING in the language alludes to sorting out just "southern states", as you assert.
3. All your personal opinion, supposition and conjecture cannot alter or dilute #1 & 2. That you AVOID the point I make above regarding your earlier statement speaks volumes.
4. Any decent high school teaches you that the successful implementation of a bill or law is determined by the diliberation process via State laws, federal resources. Additional amendments, reversals, etc. can and have been passed in the event laws are not being obeyed or a consensus wants change, etc.
5. When all is said and done, you just keep up this convoluted "logic" spin of yours to simply avoid acknowledging how Jarod took your own words and logically showed how absurd your stance is. But as the thread shows, you're just repeating disproven points and asserting insipid stubborness.
5,
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Again, you regurgitate a moronic premise "Well there's still prejudice and racism in the USA (i.e., segregation), so the Civil Rights Act of 1875 didn't do it's job and therefore that wasn't it's intent.
1. the act was passed by both Houses.
2. it contained specific language to address specific issues. NOTHING in the language alludes to sorting out just "southern states", as you assert.
3. All your personal opinion, supposition and conjecture cannot alter or dilute #1 & 2. That you AVOID the point I make above regarding your earlier statement speaks volumes.
4. Any decent high school teaches you that the successful implementation of a bill or law is determined by the diliberation process via State laws, federal resources. Additional amendments, reversals, etc. can and have been passed in the event laws are not being obeyed or a consensus wants change, etc.
5. When all is said and done, you just keep up this convoluted "logic" spin of yours to simply avoid acknowledging how Jarod took your own words and logically showed how absurd your stance is. But as the thread shows, you're just repeating disproven points and asserting insipid stubborness.
5,
And you can keep on trumpeting the CRA of 1875 like some kind of moronic idiot, all you like, Chicklet... it did NOT do what you claim it did. At the time, there was no "segregation" or "desegregation" ...there were black people and white people, and many establishments in the North and South, served white people only. Blacks weren't segregated, they didn't have a place at all! The CRA of 1875, was actually the catalyst for many of the coming segregationist laws. The Act mentions not discriminating, it says nothing about segregating or desegregating.
As I pointed out, it WAS passed by a Congress comprised of representatives from the Northern states, who had very few blacks among the population, and appointees to the Southern seats of Congress, who were primarily black and beholden to the Northern Senators who appointed them. Reconstruction is one of the only times in American history we did not have a truly representative republic. It was in that environment this legislation passed and was signed into law. Within less than a month, the very same president who signed CRA/1875 into law, signed an executive order mandating Blackfoot homelands be seized by the government and the Native Americans made wards of the state, forced off their land and corralled into reservations. This makes it apparent to anyone with any degree of intellectual honesty, Grant was not in favor of a segregated society in ANY way.
Okay lets move on to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, origionally vetoed by President Andrew Johnson, but that veto was overridden by Congress....
As of the 21st century, Section 1981(a) of the U.S. Code, which was originally enacted as the first section of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, continues in effect. It provides that:
"All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to the like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other."
As of the 21st century, Section 1981(a) of the U.S. Code, which was originally enacted as the first section of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, continues in effect. It provides that:
"All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to the like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other."
Dixie said...
"Let's tell the truth, shall we? Aside from a few black activists and a few pinhead liberal elites, no one in America was advocating against segregation until the early 60s."
But the Civil Rights Act of 1875 passed by both houses of Congress and signed by a president banned segregation??!!?!?!
The Civil Rights act of 1866 passed by both Houses and Passed again by a supermajority to override a presidental veto banned anything but equal protection for ALL people in US jurisdiction!
"Let's tell the truth, shall we? Aside from a few black activists and a few pinhead liberal elites, no one in America was advocating against segregation until the early 60s."
But the Civil Rights Act of 1875 passed by both houses of Congress and signed by a president banned segregation??!!?!?!
The Civil Rights act of 1866 passed by both Houses and Passed again by a supermajority to override a presidental veto banned anything but equal protection for ALL people in US jurisdiction!
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
All you've done is just repeat the same disproven suppostition and conjecture that was dismantled by Jarod (lightly supplementd by myself) several posts back. Your insipid stubborness would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic. When all is said and done, your diehard attempts to revise history to justify racist and bigoted policies/attitudes just can't be sustained in the light of contrary, valid historical facts. As I've always told you, the only intellectually lightweight "chicklet" here is YOU! (taichi is a practice of inner/spiritual strength, a fighting style of using the opponents strengths and weaknesses against them. Only a fool would try to mock that by a version of a schoolyard taunt "you're a girl") Carry on.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Now you've done it....it's going to take our Confederate flag waving stooge a few hours to try and BS his way pass more historical facts....but he'll do it...no matter how absurd and repetitive he sounds.
More like a few days!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
There is nothing in the CRA of 1875 or 1866 about "segregation" or "desegregation" ...those arguments were not made in the legislation. There was no "ban of segregation" and only an absolute brain-dead moronic idiot would think that to be the case, given the fact that black people certainly were segregated after 1866 and 1875.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Then by your logic, it is patently unconstitutional to deny inmates the right to own a firearm! They are "persons" and they are certainly "within the jurisdiction" of the United States.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Criminals are denied specific rights while incarcerated...a result of them committing crimes against the State and/or it's individual civilians. You should actually read your Constitution and Bill of Rights, the do a little research on the Criminal Code. What Jarod presents does in no way allude to the supposition and conjecture you propose. Essentially, you're just blowing smoke to avoid admitting that he logically proved your original contention was WRONG!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No, he is making the argument that "any person" means literally that, and if this is the case, inmates should have the constitutional right to bear arms. He hasn't proven anything I've said wrong and neither have you. You've both proven what simple-minded morons you are, and I congratulate you on that accomplishment!
You are both trying to argue that the US outlawed segregation in 1875, and that just isn't the case. Nothing was mentioned about "segregation" in the 1875 legislation, nor was it stipulated that society be "desegregated." When one of you idiots points this out to me, I will admit I am wrong, but so far.... *crickets*
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Here's the quote of the actual Act....Jarod didn't write it, unless he's immensely old. Note the bolden words:Section 1981(a) of the U.S. Code, which was originally enacted as the first section of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, continues in effect. It provides that:
"All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to the like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other."
So your moronic blathering about Jarod alluding to criminals having guns is just that....moronic. See genius, there are other laws that deal with the rights of those who break the law....having guns isn't one of them. I've known that since grade school civics class....pity a student of history such as yourself doesn't quite grasp that.
You've already been schooled about the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (you contend a civil rights act isn't about neutralizing segregation....get an adult to explain to you what "civil rights" are all about). So please spare us your lies, distortions, dodges and basic dishonesty...because quite frankly your insipid stubborness and proud ignorance/deceitfulness is getting old hat and taking up a lot of space....but it does cement your rep as a second rate white supremancist propagandists.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Section 1981(a) of the U.S. Code, which was originally enacted as the first section of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, continues in effect. It provides that:
"All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to the like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other."
So your moronic blathering about Jarod alluding to criminals having guns is just that....moronic. See genius, there are other laws that deal with the rights of those who break the law....having guns isn't one of them. I've known that since grade school civics class....pity a student of history such as yourself doesn't quite grasp that.
You've already been schooled about the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (you contend a civil rights act isn't about neutralizing segregation....get an adult to explain to you what "civil rights" are all about). So please spare us your lies, distortions, dodges and basic dishonesty...because quite frankly your insipid stubborness and proud ignorance/deceitfulness is getting old hat and taking up a lot of space....but it does cement your rep as a second rate white supremancist propagandists.
Wow Chicklet.... in all that bold text I must be missing where it says segregation is outlawed or mandates any desegregation. Can you please post those words in red for me, so I can see them, because I'm missing that part.
Oh, and I didn't say that Jarhead alluded to criminals having guns, nor did I say that I thought that was appropriate or authorized by the Constitution. Maybe you need to retake 3rd grade reading again? What I said was, by his interpretation, we would have to allow inmates to own a gun, it's their constitutional right. Says so right in the 2nd Amendment! A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Doesn't say inmates are excluded as people!