Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
States' rats was an excuse to own slaves and counting them as 3/5ths a head. It's mostly moved on past that nowadays. It's not historically states' rats is Jim Crow, sundown, segregated schools, no restrooms for coloreds. That's still the present mindset of a lot of people. It's generally not said so much but every once in a while some like Braun comes along and says what a good deal of the white population is really thinking. We need us some nanny state laws to protect the white damsels from being lead astray by a black. Yeehaw. Err, no I mean I didn't understand the question. It's not really a Democrat/Republican issue as much as either side deperately tries to do what they always do and spin everything into a partisan issue.
I don't know where you live or what kinds of people you associate with but almost everybody I know has at least one close friend or family members that are in inter-racial marriages.
There are no *secret discussions* when blacks aren't around longing for a return to segregation outside of fringe groups that make up a fraction of the 330million or more US citizens.
Considering you make a lot of racist comments in your post I think it's one of those cases like where the guy that cheats is always thinking others are out to cheat too.
How do you know I'm not Nisei? The wartime order was upheld by SCOTUS in Korematsu.
Restrictive covenants had to be struck down in many northern states. Hansberry v. Lee involved a law passed by Republicans.
It had everything to do with region with the southern legislators solidly against the civil rights laws. Some progressive Republicans (think Rockefeller, Javits and Percy) got wide Democratic support.
What Democrats said is that the unnecessary laws would impact most heavily the poor and minorities. Judges agreed.
Plus:
Why do Republican have to lie now about civil rights? Because they welcomed segregationists like Helms and Thurmond?
States' rats was an excuse to own slaves and counting them as 3/5ths a head. It's mostly moved on past that nowadays. It's not historically states' rats is Jim Crow, sundown, segregated schools, no restrooms for coloreds. That's still the present mindset of a lot of people. It's generally not said so much but every once in a while some like Braun comes along and says what a good deal of the white population is really thinking. We need us some nanny state laws to protect the white damsels from being lead astray by a black. Yeehaw. Err, no I mean I didn't understand the question. It's not really a Democrat/Republican issue as much as either side deperately tries to do what they always do and spin everything into a partisan issue.
It certainly was an excuse to keep slavery. I think about some people who are very much into that Pro-Confederate nonsense. Many will claim "it was about states' rights, not slavery". Of course, the #1 states right the Confederates were concerned about in 1860 was slavery.
Barry Goldwater was against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He was reluctant to be against it, but just the same, he was against it. In his view, it would result in an overreach of the federal government. I think of it like this. In an era of sundown towns, Jim Crow segregation, housing discrimination, etc, the state and local governments were doing harmful things. For alot of Black people, federal overreach was their least of their worries.
I think about what you said about "the White damsel led astray by a Black". I have lived in different parts of the USA. I grew up in Georgia though. I've run into people who believed that interracial marriage was wrong. I never quite understood what the problem was. I just wrote them off as hateful. I don't think all White people think that way. I do suspect that there are individuals, whom, if it were up to them, they would make it illegal for Black men to be with White women (or any non-Black women). I also suspect that there are some individuals who believe the Black man to be violent, lazy, stupid, and incorrigible. Some people, based on that thinking, might see states' rights as their way of "keeping the Black man in line". I'm not saying that everyone thinks that way. I do suspect there are SOME individuals who think this way, and see Senator Braun as saying something that they fear to say.
It always cracks me up when these conservatives blather on about how the Civil War was about "state's rights"...
Not because they are wrong, but because they won't admit that it was about "state's rights to own slaves".
Or at least the far-right winger types. I don't think this is all conservatives blathering about this. Now, as for the Pro-Confederate crowd, I frequently hear terms like "states' rights" and "southern heritage".
My view is this. The majority of Black Americans are southerners. I don't hear Black people talking about "states' rights" or "southern heritage" when it comes to the Civil War, particularly the Confederate part.
ALL conservatives have wet dreams about going back to Jim Crow and anti sodomy laws every time they argue for state rights.
This is why they always talk about the good old days back in the 50s...
I disagree. I don't think it is all conservatives. I notice this mentality much more among conservatives, in terms of a return to Jim Crow. However, I disagree with the idea that it's all. It isn't all. Per capita, I do see it more among conservatives.
Or at least the far-right winger types. I don't think this is all conservatives blathering about this. Now, as for the Pro-Confederate crowd, I frequently hear terms like "states' rights" and "southern heritage".
My view is this. The majority of Black Americans are southerners. I don't hear Black people talking about "states' rights" or "southern heritage" when it comes to the Civil War, particularly the Confederate part.
Nobody is blathering about anything, except perhaps you and a couple of other posters who are desperately trying to twist everyone's words to fit your narrative. The Civil War was, in fact, about states rights. It just so happens that, in the case of the Civil War, the state's right to enact (or not enact) laws regarding slavery was the issue at hand. They're not mutually exclusive. That's pretty obvious, so the only conclusion possible is that you're OK with continuing to violate the Constitution because a specific situation from over 150 years ago went badly. You do realize it was rectified by the 13th Amendment to the Constitution? That would be the same Constitution that was amended to ensure states rights. That's why there's a process to amend the Constitution. Since you seem to be OK with violating the Constitution, would you be OK with ignoring the 13th Amendment and bringing back slavery? At least be consistent with your ludicrous arguments. Until the day comes when there's a Constitutional Amendment giving the Federal Government the authority to enact legislation regarding interracial marriage, you argument is completely pointless. Do you really want the federal government to ignore the 10th Amendment based on the whims of whoever happens to be in power at the time? For Pete's sake, think about what you're writing before you post it.
Ike said that appointment was his biggest mistake. You still want to claim it as a GOP triumph?
Bigger than any mistake in WW2?
regardless, oh how much divide-healing we might do if we only considered whether someone was great for the job, and not what party or identity they were.
The whole "let the states decide " argument, well, I have learned through history Not to trust it. Say what you will about federal overreach. It took the federal government to make interracial marriage legal in ALL states. It took federal force to abolish slavery. It took federal force to make forced segregation in schools (and other public accommodations) illegal in ALL states.
Many states (particularly in the South), when left to their own devices, made interracial marriage illegal. They enforced Jim Crow laws and Jim Crow segregation. In many other states, housing directories was a big issue. Legally enforced sundown laws were a thing all over America. Federal force is what was needed to stop all of that.
There are cases when leaving it up to the states is something that I don't trust. I should be able to go to ANY AND ALL STATES and my rights apply everywhere.
Jim Crow laws - including "separate" facilities - existed in many states, not just the South.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
