How Can Prince Georges Improve via Government and Citizens

[1973 Forced Busing]

The 14th amendment abolished slavery. It was passed after Lincoln's assasination. Lincoln did not end slavery in Maryland with the EP. The EP was a propaganda tool. It abolished slavery in the states that had left the Union. At the time of the signing of the EP Lincoln could not enforce it. It is also clear now that Lincoln was going to remove all former slaves from the US. He had no intention of trying to intergrate our country.

[truthhurts]

Originally Posted by 1973 Forced Busing

The 14th amendment abolished slavery. It was passed after Lincoln's assasination. Lincoln did not end slavery in Maryland with the EP. The EP was a propaganda tool. It abolished slavery in the states that had left the Union. At the time of the signing of the EP Lincoln could not enforce it. It is also clear now that Lincoln was going to remove all former slaves from the US. He had no intention of trying to intergrate our country.

Wow, that's totally 100% true and a little fact, that the history revisionist of the "black civil rights" and "liberal white elite media" seem to always omit this little known fact when celebrating Lincoln. Had it gone the way he wanted we'd all be in Liberia. However, i sort of wonder what they would have done with the race of mulattos? Would they have been permitted to stay or shipped away as well? Some of them although half african and half european had amassed considerable amounts of economic prosperity and in some cases political power.....would have been interesting

[Jaded]

Originally Posted by truthhurts

Wow, that's totally 100% true and a little fact, that the history revisionist of the "black civil rights" and "liberal white elite media" seem to always omit this little known fact when celebrating Lincoln. Had it gone the way he wanted we'd all be in Liberia. However, i sort of wonder what they would have done with the race of mulattos? Would they have been permitted to stay or shipped away as well? Some of them although half african and half european had amassed considerable amounts of economic prosperity and in some cases political power.....would have been interesting

It probably would have depended upon how the mulatto in question looked. If he/she looked more white, maybe they would have never been questioned at all since many assimilated into white society and married white with hopes of their offspring being "white." Some mulattos crossed over and never came back to black! However, if a mulatto happened to look more like his african/black side of the family...well, he/she would have probably been waving from the ship.

The "rule" was that if you had any african blood in you, then you were considered a negro.

[TuborgP]

Originally Posted by Jaded

It probably would have depended upon how the mulatto in question looked. If he/she looked more white, maybe they would have never been questioned at all since many assimilated into white society and married white with hopes of their offspring being "white." Some mulattos crossed over and never came back to black! However, if a mulatto happened to look more like his african/black side of the family...well, he/she would have probably been waving from the ship.

The "rule" was that if you had any african blood in you, then you were considered a negro.

Background Summary and Questions ***, Plessy v. Ferguson, Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Plessy looked white and was able to pass for white. Someone on the train that day knew the family and alerted the conductors to his background.
You are 100% accurate and eventually probably everyone would have been on the boat. One needs to only remember that being an abolitionist meant you were against slavery and not necessarily an full advocate of equal rights. Thus my read on the Democratic party. They can be for civil rights as a law but not for full equality with them in individual life. Likewise the Republican party is with sin also. However they have appointed African Americans to the position of Chair Joint Chiefs, National Security Advisor and Secretary of State. No Democratic administration has come that close.

[truthhurts]

Originally Posted by TuborgP

Background Summary and Questions ***, Plessy v. Ferguson, Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Plessy looked white and was able to pass for white. Someone on the train that day knew the family and alerted the conductors to his background.
You are 100% accurate and eventually probably everyone would have been on the boat. One needs to only remember that being an abolitionist meant you were against slavery and not necessarily an full advocate of equal rights. Thus my read on the Democratic party. They can be for civil rights as a law but not for full equality with them in individual life. Likewise the Republican party is with sin also. However they have appointed African Americans to the position of Chair Joint Chiefs, National Security Advisor and Secretary of State. No Democratic administration has come that close.

Wow, this thread quickly turned to being a very informative history lesson. I had no idea about some of this stuff. Great posts!! Even more impressive is that they raised 3,000 dollars in 1890, it is the eqivalent of 62,000 in todays dollars.

This leads me to ask a very controversial question. Who better lead blacks? The Mulatto Aristocracy or the current Civil Rights Aristocracy?

[TuborgP]

Originally Posted by truthhurts

Wow, this thread quickly turned to being a very informative history lesson. I had no idea about some of this stuff. Great posts!! Even more impressive is that they raised 3,000 dollars in 1890, it is the eqivalent of 62,000 in todays dollars.

This leads me to ask a very controversial question. Who better lead blacks? The Mulatto Aristocracy or the current Civil Rights Aristocracy?

To assume that the best leadership can be identified by race, political affliation or Greek membership is folly. The best leadership comes from the individual. Come on Truth we have both argued that we are not a monolithic group to be led in mass. That being accepted each individual must value what is in the best interest for their family in both the short and long term and chart that path. That will mean voting differently at different times. Black or White the economy has got to be in the top three issues for folks. The individual needs to look at their situation and decide who to support. That is why the wealthier you get the more conservative you tend to become. For both of us I suspect we respond to leadership that advocates fiscal responsibility and the accumulation of individual capital. I am certainly not wealthy but I do appreciate what I have and want to keep it.
I may be ahead of your statistics but I know I am not wealthy.

[fishfister]

Originally Posted by truthhurts

Yea and i'm black and my vote is definitely going to Ron Paul. He's the only person in the election saying the things that matter most to me. Seriously he's the only candidate, that moves me to vote. Yes, I think its great Barrack is going to win the nomination and between he and Hilary he would have my vote without thinking twice, but between McCain, Obama, and Paul my vote without hesitation would go to Ron Paul.

Although I have thought heavily about the possibility of voting for Barrack if he had an actual chance of winning the Presidency, but the only thing i find moving about him is his orating ability. Seriously, although I hate her Hilary is darn good at it too. However, Barrack is such a great speaker if only he said more things that I agree with.

Wow! We somewhat agree on political ideals spoken from the mouths of Politicos. I have thought consistently that Ron Paul is the idea but not the man to do the job - he is 72. Every American should hold all candidates to at least 50% of what Paul says. Then again, most of America has no idea what the constitution of the USA really says - they have never read it. Google NARA and it can be found as easily as several versions of the bible can be found at biblegateway.

As far as the Obama/Clinton choice - Obama speaks easily but consistently says two words - "CHANGE and HOPE". He hasn't laid out much more than that as a plan of action - I don't know if he has one. I hope he hasn't been surrounded by a bunch of Politicos, private interest groups or presumptuous civil action individuals to "lead" him along the way. Bush was surrounded by those that served under his father as he floundered along. The actions of his administration could raise income taxes to the 40 percentile range in attempts to cure our woes.
Where is Alan Keyes?

Clinton has lived it for several years in different capacities and knows how to run an office. I don't agree with her typical democratic speak when promising away the coffers of the treasury just to win votes but I think she can think her way out of a maze of political doodoo. I don't know why people hold her in contempt as they do.

Huckabee (what a name) can do it on a state level but I think ultimately WE, THE PEOPLE, want a democratic president this go 'round and an end to the present war.

Originally Posted by truthhurts

This leads me to ask a very controversial question. Who better lead blacks? The Mulatto Aristocracy or the current Civil Rights Aristocracy?

Yes, that was controversial. To answer...
Would that be "High yellow" liberals versus "White" liberals?

[liliblu]

If you want to know where Barack Obama stands on the issues visit his web site or click the link below to view his blue print for change.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama...tForChange.pdf

[markablue]

This place is for local debates only. You're welcome to move your general discussion to the Politics forum.