I think you get it, for the most part. The federal govt. should oversee the states, I'm fine with that, it's the federal government's role. The analysis of Black Wall Street that I provided boils down to two points: 1) Black people could and did thrive without the Civil Rights Act. 2) The govt. failed to prevent white people from burning the place to the ground. If it took federal troops to prevent it, so be it. Go reread my posts and you'll see that I railed against the feds about #2. It's clear in the constitution and the oaths that our representatives take that their role is to uphold and protect the constitution. You may want to revisit your history books about reconstruction. The North militarily occupied the South to assure the only civil rights act ever needed (14th amendment, bill of rights), and black people flourished. The occupation also protected those damned radical republicans there who worked with the newly freed slaves. Your precious federal govt. failed miserably in 1882 when SCOTUS ruled that separate but equal was OK in Plessy v. Ferguson. From 1882 until 1954 (Brown v. Board of Education), that was the law of the land and Jim Crow was not only possible but encouraged. Figure out why reconstruction ended and how the Court that ruled on Plessy was put together and it may open your eyes. After Brown v. Board of Education, Eisenhower nationalized the national guard to physically move Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus away from the doors to Little Rock High School so that school could be integrated. JFK and RFK sat on their hands for far too long while the freedom riders went from town to town getting their asses kicked by people who were against desegregation. Rand Paul was clear from the first interview that things like nationalizing the national guard to integrate Public Sector (not Public Sphere) places was right. As for Slavery being on its way out, it is clear this was true and why the South seceded in the first place. Before the constitution, the abolitionist movement was already strong and most of the northern states (if not all) had already abolished it. The Constitution forbade the importation of new slaves after 1800, ending that bit of it. The constitution penalized slave states by counting their slaves only 3/5 when it came to govt. representation - the incentive was to free slaves to get full representation. Without full representation, the North went about building a complex railroad system in the North, and the South couldn't muster the votes to equalize the giving away of land for those railroads so they'd be built in the South, too. All new states joining the union would not be slave states after 1820.
Not to nitpick Denny, but your statement about no new slave states after 1820 is deceptive. There was a bitter, and almost successful effort by southern pols to block Oregon and California statehood - unless they agreed to be slave states. They came within a few votes of *forcing* us to be a slave state. There was a powerful and vocal minority that was never going to accept the peaceful end of slavery.
Not sure I agree segregation is only slightly better than slavery, but even if it is... what have you got against making things slightly better? barfo
Not to nitpick myself... http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/exhibits/1857/after/state.htm Oregonians endorsed the constitution by more than two to one. Their votes against slavery and free blacks, expressing their ideal of an Oregon with only free white labor, were even more striking—with 75 percent voting down slavery and 89 percent in favor of prohibiting the immigration of free blacks to the state.
Slavery was ended, but without any sort of plan to integrate the former slaves into society. They were uneducated, from broken (split up) families, and set free unprotected from a great deal of people who weren't these things but were extremely hostile to them. What do you have about doing things half-assed and calling the "slightly better" good enough?
Nowhere did I say it was good enough. Your plan, on the other hand, would have kept them in slavery longer. That's not half-assed. That's entirely, completely assed. barfo
Sorry, it was maxiep's plan that slavery would have gone away if the government just stayed out of the way. It seemed to me that you were co-signing that plan when you said If that wasn't what you were saying, then I'm not sure what you are arguing with me about. I wasn't around after the civil war, so I don't think you can hold me accountable for the Jim Crow and segregation failures. barfo
My plan would involve paying out large sums of money as reparations (maybe $2T in today's dollars). And certainly some orderly program that would assure that the newly freed slaves wouldn't be preyed upon, uneducated, and so on. I only commented that Slavery was doomed, it was just a matter of time. The emancipation proclamation doesn't seem legal, though the 13th and 14th amendments are. The civil war was not about slavery; the emancipation proclamation came 3 years into it, and the North was losing the war (Gettysburgh was pretty far north, you know).
Wow. That's not very libertarian of you. Really, a giant government program to solve a social problem? Time to teach you the secret liberal handshake I guess. Welcome! Could a constitutional amendment not be legal? It seems like they are by definition. What's the legal problem with the emancipation proclamation? Maybe it wasn't all about slavery, but slavery certainly had a lot to do with it. Not sure of your point about the North losing. barfo
The government is good at writing checks. There's no "program" to it. The emancipation proclamation wasn't an amendment, it was something like an executive order. I don't see where the president on his own has the authority to do these things, he's not a dictator. Though war time changes a few things. Thus I question the legality of it. The emancipation proclamation was made in late 1862, and did not free all the slaves - only those in the states that seceded. I don't think it would have been made at all if the North was winning the war - to the victors go the spoils. Lincoln wasn't about freeing the slaves (as president), he was about keeping the union together. A house divided and all that. The 13th amendment wasn't passed until after Lincoln's assassination. For the South, it was about Slavery and their way of life. South Carolina was the first state to secede, and their declaration of independence/secession includes a complaint about increasing hostility on the part of non-slave states towards the institution of slavery.
So, it's not a program, you just call it a program? Ok... so why did you say it wasn't about slavery? Trying to confuse me? barfo
The program I was speaking of might have been giving the freed slaves their own state, and certainly using the army to protect their lives and property. When you think of "program" it has to be some big tax and over spend kind of thing, it seems. The war wasn't about slavery, it was about whether states had the right to secede. South Carolina didn't declare war on the north, at least not right away, you know.
I understand the semantic point you are making, but I don't see the relevance. Muskets don't kill rebel soldiers, musket balls do? barfo
South Carolina fired on US ships in Charleston Harbor. Declarations of War don't come much plainer than that. /me butting my nose in on this thread.
Because the indian reservations have been such a success, it would be good to have black reservations too. barfo
