Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Dixiecrat Platform
The Smoking Gun ^ | August 14, 1948 | The States Rights Democratic Party

Posted on 12/13/2002 5:24:52 PM PST by GraniteStateConservative

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-189 next last
To: GraniteStateConservative
For crying out loud, he didn't even use the word "segregation". If you ask me the P.C. Jihad around here is more damaging to the Republican party than Trent Lott's remarks.
101 posted on 12/13/2002 10:06:17 PM PST by Dat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: EdJay
Really, it is past time for OUR party, the true Republican Party, the Grand Old Party of Abraham Lincoln, to give up its latter day Confederate wing.

Oh I see, then you want to renounce and invalidate all those Bush electoral votes that came from southern and border states in 2000, right? After all, they were tainted by having been cast by the vile "Confederate wing" of your otherwise pure and virtuous GOP. Moreover, I'm SURE that any loss incurred by cutting us out of your party will be more than compensated for by the flood of minority voters who will undoubtedly flock to the new and improved GOP once we're outta here. Yessir, you can take those minority votes to the bank for sure.

Sometime when you have nothing better to do, take a look at the 2000 red/blue election map. The despised "Confederate wing" of the party holds forth in that big RED area from just south of the Ohio river down to the Mexican border and the FL straits. Paint just one of those states blue and you would have Algore as your president right now. Paint a couple more blue and you would have a Democratic Senate and House.

But, if you virtuous and colorblind northerners don't want us po white trash to sully your precious party of Lincoln and Harding with our tainted votes, well, OK, I guess. But you do realize don't you, that your purified GOP will then become a minority party for the forseeable future? And that Daschele will be Senate majority leader in perpetuity? But I suppose it will be worth all that for you just to feel oh so rightous and high-minded, will it not?

Maybe you're too young to remember those good old days of the Democratic "solid south". You know, those days when the Democrats held the White House, and all but one congress, for 20 years straight? And when, but for a very popular wartime general named Ike, they would have held the White House for another 16 years. Well, believe it or not, if you do decide to throw us out of your party you can relive those glorious years of defeat and despair over and over again just as if you had a magic time machine. How great would that be?

102 posted on 12/13/2002 11:38:44 PM PST by epow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
>> My friend if you lose the "confederate wing" then kiss any republican election goodbye. <<

Tell that to Calvin Coolidge. Conservatives need not pander to you to be consevative and win.

103 posted on 12/14/2002 12:26:16 AM PST by BillyBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy
Conservatives need not pander to you to be consevative and win.

What do you mean "you". Sorry buddy but if the GOP loses the south it is democrats forever. I don't think you really want to turn this into a north south issue because that will be political suicide.

104 posted on 12/14/2002 12:28:54 AM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy
No South, no republican victory.

So long as the left can race bate without paying a price, they will be able to contain or at least divert the growing cnservative majority. So long as they can race bait they can bamboozle the hispanic vote where all the coming elections will be won or lost.

We have got to keep the South and we have got to find a way to make 'em pay for this race baiting. Let's stop eating our own and think about how to make them pay or the left will do this until there is no South, no North, no East or West for conservatives to hide in.

105 posted on 12/14/2002 12:59:44 AM PST by nathanbedford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: EdJay
"Back in 1980 he was claiming we'd be better off if the Dixiecrats had won in '48."

We may well have been better off if the Dixiecrats (or anyone else, for that matter) won in '48; Truman's admin was a disaster - so much that if he had run again in '52 he would have had his ass kicked all the way back to Missouri (to reiterate an earlier point.)
106 posted on 12/14/2002 3:55:04 AM PST by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
We need to clean our own house first.

If my kid steals, I will deal with that first. I don't want to hear how the kid down the block got caught stealing also.

Jesus did not say: "Go and sin until your neighbor sins no more."

107 posted on 12/14/2002 4:10:23 AM PST by Bluntpoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: CreekerFreeper
Explain to me how the government having the right to dictate whom you may marry (based solely on race) is a good and coservative thing?
108 posted on 12/14/2002 10:39:20 AM PST by Bella_Bru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity." --Robert Heinlein
109 posted on 12/14/2002 11:59:07 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Bluntpoint
Oh stop! Lott did not steal or break any of the other commandments (including love thy neighbor) he voiced a political opinion which is not entirely invalid (although some is invalid.)

States rights is an intellectually defensible position and so is the right to freedom of association. This country has made an accomodation of race at the expense of the constitution. This was a good thing but it was an intellectually dishonest thing. (Don't forget this last when you flame)

Don't make me pretend to a intellectual dishonesty to balm your conscience.

110 posted on 12/15/2002 3:06:26 AM PST by nathanbedford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
You can read a person's mind? You are truly amazing...
111 posted on 12/15/2002 3:10:30 AM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
Like Sen. "Sheets" Byrd?
112 posted on 12/15/2002 3:12:30 AM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: epow
And say hello to President Hillary Clinton! How proud they would all be then. Yes, Trent Lott, the evil racist. /sarcasm

We could learn what a ******* Jew ******* was at the same time per "OUR" President Hillary Clinton. Don't believe that more than that has rolled out of her mouth including some racist remarks about blacks. You'll never hear it from the press.

113 posted on 12/15/2002 3:31:50 AM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Actually, I am in favor of mandatory INTER-RACIAL marriage.

Mandatory? What ever happened to the right of free association?

114 posted on 12/15/2002 4:10:25 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: FreeRepublic
I really hate to see this. I'm not a huge Trent Lott fan and have become less of one since he has "grown" in office. I would like to see him replaced with a more conservative Republican as Majority Leader, but not at this time.

To replace Trent Lott now is to yield to the worst elements of our society, those who profit from divisive politics and personal attacks. To replace Trent Lott is not a blow to racism, it is an encouragement to those who would diminish the need for ending racism with their continual use of the term to accomplish their personal political goals. If we give in on this we encourage them to continue their pursuit.

Trent Lott's words were unfortunate. It is a small step from saying that Strom Thrmond should have won the 1948 Presidential election to endorsing segregation, but these two things are not the same thing. Thurmond's platform could never have passed muster or had enough political support to move out of committee. That's the political reality and for those stating Lott understood what he was saying, perhaps he also understood this.

I am a Southerner by the grace of God. I am a Republican by intellect and thoughtful decision. For years, this made me a minority within a minority.

To be a white Republican is, to many, to be a racist. To be a white conservative Republican is, to even more, to be a racist. As a party, we fight it nationwide constantly.

For non-Southerners, this would give you only the smallest taste of what it is like to be a white male Southern conservative Republican. The assumptions of others can be outrageous. Let us not make those assumptions here.

The War is over, even though its remanants live on. Let us focus, instead, on a future and on issues where we can agree. The future of the Republican Party should be a bright, shining gateway to freedom and prosperity.
115 posted on 12/15/2002 4:21:01 AM PST by Ken in Eastman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Karsus
I know for a fact, because it has happend to me several time that some of the posters on this board feel the State has the duty to kill my wife and I because we enjoy oral sex.

Yeah,but let's be fair here. They don't care if it's the state that kills you,or the feral gooberment that kills you. The main thing is that want you to die. They would most likely prefer to kill you themselves,but are willing to allow government to do it for them now that this power has been taken away from the church.

116 posted on 12/15/2002 4:26:53 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Karsus
Damn, what happend to the GOP?

Jorge "Ah LUV illegal aliens!" Bush and his merry band of Corporate Communists.

117 posted on 12/15/2002 4:30:14 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Bluntpoint
You are a racist.

Now, prove that you're not.

That's exactly what they are doing to Trent Lott(did to Judge Pickering, et al). It works EVERY TIME they use it.

118 posted on 12/15/2002 4:31:19 AM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
The dixiecrat platform would have made this country a better place to live. There. That would make me a racist. Read their platform.
119 posted on 12/15/2002 5:01:45 AM PST by Bluntpoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Bluntpoint
The dixiecrat platform would have made this country a better place to live. There. That would make me a racist. Read their platform.

Now, try reading the post you replied to.

120 posted on 12/15/2002 5:22:03 AM PST by Ken in Eastman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
"States rights is an intellectually defensible position and so is the right to freedom of association. This country has made an accomodation of race at the expense of the constitution. This was a good thing but it was an intellectually dishonest thing. (Don't forget this last when you flame)"

Dixiecrat platform was primarily about segregation. State run, white controlled segregation. It stated in its platform that it was pro-lynching. Yeah, that is a big states rights issue.

Is treating another person the same, no matter his skin color, a state's rights issue?

Is allowing the blacks the same rights as yourself, racial accommadation?

Again, read the platform. So. Are you saying that the end of segregation caused all these maladys?

What period do you want to go back to that will fix all these problems the blacks and the whites have?

Did the right to vote cause these problems for the Blacks and Whites

Did the right to sit anywhere on the bus they pleased cause these problems for the Blacks and Whites?

Did the right to attend any school of their choosing cause these problems for the Blacks and Whites?

Did the right to live anywhere they please cause these problems for the Blacks and Whites?

Did the right to eat in the same restuarant as you cause these problems for the Blacks and Whites?

Did the right to drink from the same water fountain cause these problems for the Blacks and Whites ?



I give up. What are we missing today that was present 50 years ago that would fix these problems?

What in the Dixiecrat platform is valid.

Separate but equal, is never equal, when one side gets to decide the rules and how the rights are parcelled out.

Yeah! Let us go back to a better, more simpler time, when men were men, and blacks could be lynched for acting like us men.











121 posted on 12/15/2002 5:23:05 AM PST by Bluntpoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Ken in Eastman
Well, I would have to prove that I am not by puting myself in the circumstances as Lott. Which I just did.

With support of the platform, one cannot defend charges he is a racist.

If I say I support murder and rape, how do I support a position that I am not for murder and rape?
122 posted on 12/15/2002 5:27:26 AM PST by Bluntpoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Bluntpoint
The point was that one cannot prove a negative which is why under our judicial system one is innocent until proven guilty.

Nice try, but you have yet to prove you -- not Trent Lott -- are not a racist.

And, of course, you are aware Lott has not endorsed the Dixiecrat Platform.

The truth is that none of us know what Lott was thinking when he made his remarks, but I don't think many people would be this upset if:

1- Lott were a Democrat;

2 - Lott were a liberal;

3 - Lott were from Massachussetts; or if,

4 - Lott were a black female.

Just a couple of things for you to think about while you're putting the final knots in your noose.

123 posted on 12/15/2002 5:37:10 AM PST by Ken in Eastman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Ken in Eastman
If we just had a picture of Trent Lott dressed like this...


124 posted on 12/15/2002 5:40:55 AM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Ken in Eastman
Or this...


125 posted on 12/15/2002 5:41:35 AM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Ken in Eastman
Or if The George H. Bush Library did this...


THE BLACK LANDMARK THE CLINTON LIBRARY RAZED

126 posted on 12/15/2002 5:43:12 AM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Ken in Eastman
Thats just it, I do not have to prove a negative under like circumstances as Lott. Lott's statement "beged" the question.

If Lott made a statement saying under the democratic platform this would have been a better country, then the onus is on him to prove otherwise. His actions, not outside charges, changed the burden of persuasion.

I have an adams' apple. I can prove it.

No one is charging they think he said what he said. He said what he said. Big difference in this empty, proving a negative debate.

Lott is in a position of answersing charges the he, and he alone, filed with the court of public opinion.

127 posted on 12/15/2002 5:51:08 AM PST by Bluntpoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
You don't really have to get married these days do you?

Then, there are all those people out there without a sense of humor - "blue noses" they are called. Heretofore most of them have been in the ranks of the Democrats. In recent years we Republicans have allowed a number of them to join our party.

As could have been expected we have been overrun with "blue noses".

128 posted on 12/15/2002 5:56:45 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: inkling
will first demand the Democrats remove Byrd and Hollings

What a great idea! I have no doubth that Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, Larry King, Al, Jessie James Carvil, Bill, Hillaryand Tom Brokaw will be jumping right on that band wagon. Boy, with brillaint ideas like this, we got it made!

129 posted on 12/15/2002 6:00:22 AM PST by Flint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Bluntpoint
His actions, not outside charges, changed the burden of persuasion.

And, of course, you would sum up a man's entire career in one statement made to an old colleague. Fortunately, I believe the rest of the country might be a little more fair with Senator Lott than you are predisposed to be.

No one is charging they think he said what he said. He said what he said.

And what he said is not what you are attacking. You have not attacked a hypothetical Strom Thurmond presidency. You have attacked a Dixiecrat platform -- which could not have been passed because the Dixiecrats had no real voting power in the US House or Senate.

Your interpretation of Lott's remarks leaves much to be desired. Lott has not stated he endorsed that platform. You keep saying that he has done so.

To state a Strom Thurmond administration would have been better than a Harry Truman administration is not the same as an endorsement of the Dixiecrat platform. You can twist it, stretch it and torture it, but you cannot make it the same.

With your false assumptions, you have set up a straw man. Pardon me if I am unimpressed to see you topple him.

130 posted on 12/15/2002 6:04:55 AM PST by Ken in Eastman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
GSC,

Thanks for posting the platform. I'd been looking for it for some days now.

Your points are well taken.

131 posted on 12/15/2002 6:08:32 AM PST by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Ken in Eastman
"under our judicial system one is innocent until proven guilty. "

Well, politics is not a court of law. If I had been Lott's attorney, and the party would have been a criminal trial, I would have informed him not to testify in his own behalf. Once the defendant testifies on his own behalf, the floodgates have been opened. The prosecutor can practically bring anything into evidence to impeach the defendant's veracity.
132 posted on 12/15/2002 6:11:32 AM PST by Bluntpoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Ken in Eastman
Listen. This whole matter is not your fault, my fault, the media's fault, the Dems fault.

Trent Lott opened this can or worms. He did so in a purely politcal environment. An envrionment he is not some innocent virgin as to how things work.

This was not your or my senile old grandpa up there who made such statement and is now being pilliared for.

This is a seasoned politician who knows how hardball politics is played. He has played them himself.

Please, don't look to me for any sympathy for his dumbass.
133 posted on 12/15/2002 6:17:28 AM PST by Bluntpoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Bluntpoint
Just in case you missed it:

Your interpretation of Lott's remarks leaves much to be desired. Lott has not stated he endorsed the Dixiecrat platform. You keep saying that he has done so and that is false.

To state a Strom Thurmond administration would have been better than a Harry Truman administration is not the same as an endorsement of the Dixiecrat platform. You can twist it, stretch it and torture it, but you cannot make it the same.

Good night.
134 posted on 12/15/2002 6:19:39 AM PST by Ken in Eastman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Ken in Eastman
Your interpretation of Lott's remarks leaves much to be desired. Lott has not stated he endorsed that platform. You keep saying that he has done so.

That is exactly what he did. That was the platform of Strom Thurmond, candidate for president, Dixiecrat party.

If you support the candidacy of Elenor Smeal, NARAL party, are you saying you don't support abortion?

135 posted on 12/15/2002 6:21:03 AM PST by Bluntpoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Bluntpoint
The dixiecrat platform would have made this country a better place to live. There. That would make me a racist. Read their platform.


136 posted on 12/15/2002 7:02:01 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
Thanks for posting this.

I had been looking for this around the Net and had been unable to locate a copy.

I _dare_ the northern liberal media to publish this platform.

They won't because they are afraid thirty percent of their readership would agree with it and begin political action to make it so!

As a Northerner who lived in Texas for a while I think the Southern folks have a point. If you want to find virulent racism just visit the many northern white suburbs that ring the black cities.
137 posted on 12/15/2002 7:33:32 AM PST by cgbg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ken in Eastman
I really hate to see this. I'm not a huge Trent Lott fan and have become less of one since he has "grown" in office.

I don't like him either,and never have. His whole "power sharing" nonsense was the most bizarre thing I think I have ever seen,and even though there was zero chance for a conviction in the Senate,he failed in his OBLIGATION to bring Bubba-1 to trial.Yes,there would have been repurcussions,but in the end,the country would have been better for it.

I would like to see him replaced with a more conservative Republican as Majority Leader, but not at this time.

You might as well wish to win the mega-lottery. Your chances are better. Lott was the Senate leader because the Republicans voted for him to be their leader. When the announcement is made next Friday evening that he is stepping down,his replacement will have the approval of the RINO's in the White House and the RNC,not to mention the approval of the DNC and the Congressional Black Caucus. In short,it will be somebody who makes Bush look like he has a spine.

138 posted on 12/15/2002 9:22:01 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Bluntpoint
Is treating another person the same, no matter his skin color, a state's rights issue?

First off,it is NONE of the state OR feral gooberments business how any of us treat each other on a individual basis,as long as no physical harm results. How the people of each state are treated as official policy IS the business of the state,NOT the feral gooberment. The only time the ferals have the right to stick their noses in is when Constitutional rights are being violated as official state policy.

Is allowing the blacks the same rights as yourself, racial accommadation?

No,but allowing them SPECIAL rights is worse than accomodation,it is discriminating against non-blacks.

Again, read the platform. So. Are you saying that the end of segregation caused all these maladys?

Segregation is practiced all over this country every day,and the only people punished for it are white people.

Did the right to attend any school of their choosing cause these problems for the Blacks and Whites?

When did this happen? Last I heard,the blacks and their commie white friends were screaming for forced integration,where both the black and the other children were TOLD where to go to school,and sometimes this resulted in them spending HOURS away from their neighborhoods and homes as they rode buses.

BTW,the above is THE prime reason we have so much juvenile crime today. Nobody has any sense of "neighborhood" because they don't grow up going to school and making friends with the people they live around. Nobody really knows anybody any more,and there is no sense of "community". While it's true the adults in neighborhoods mostly left the neighborhoods to work,it was their kids who played and socialized together that caused the adults to know one another.

Did the right to live anywhere they please cause these problems for the Blacks and Whites?

NOBODY has a "right" to live anywhere they please. This is a bullshit "right" created out of thin air to please the rich leftists and the racist blacks. You ONLY have a "right" to live somewhere you can afford to live,PROVIDING the person you are buying or renting from is willing to sell or rent to you.

The feral gooberment has passed "regulations" and made "administrative decisions" that have the force of law that TOTALLY takes away the Constitutional RIGHTS of home and property owners to make these decisions about their privately owned property. This is un-Constitutional as hell. The government may have the right and power to regulate how PUBLIC property is managed,but PRIVATE property is none of their legimitate concern.

Did the right to eat in the same restuarant as you cause these problems for the Blacks and Whites?

No,but losing the right to pick and choose your own customers damn sure infringes on the personal freedom of a restaurant owner. If a white restaurant owner wants to have a "whites only" restaurant,he or she has that CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. The right of free association. Blacks STILL have that right,yet a white restaurant owner who tried this would lose his restaurant in the lawsuits in federal court.

Separate but equal, is never equal, when one side gets to decide the rules and how the rights are parcelled out.

Try telling that to the NAACP and the CBC.

139 posted on 12/15/2002 9:49:28 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
You don't really have to get married these days do you?

I don't understand your point,here. You were calling for mandatory inter-racial marriages.

140 posted on 12/15/2002 9:53:14 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
So, tell us what your town would look like if you were in charge?

Would blacks and whites have the right to live and work in peace together? Could blacks shop, work, live next to whites. Could blacks date and marry whites?

Does God view people differently based on their skin color?



141 posted on 12/15/2002 10:00:57 AM PST by Bluntpoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Bluntpoint
So, tell us what your town would look like if you were in charge?

This is not a valid question. I don't live in or even near a town (by choice),and I have zero desire to be in charge of anything at anytime.

Would blacks and whites have the right to live and work in peace together? Could blacks shop, work, live next to whites. Could blacks date and marry whites?

Everybody would have the same rights,regardless of race,religion,or social position,as long as they are US citizens. This does NOT mean that everybody will always be treated equally be everybody else. People of all races,ethnic,and religious groups have a right to discriminate against anyone else they want on a personal level,at any time they want. They just don't have the right to cause anyone else to come to physical harm.

Does God view people differently based on their skin color?

Since I'm, a non-believer,you need to find somebody else to answer that question.

142 posted on 12/15/2002 10:14:54 AM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls; GraniteStateConservative; nicollo
Thanks for the link. I was looking for the other platforms just the other day. AmericanPresidency.org looks like a great site. I have bookmarked the archive of political platforms. Unfortunately the third party programs stop at 1924. It might be interesting to see just what more recent third party candidates have run on. There was a large reference set of volumes released by Arthur Schlesinger a few years ago, but library hours are restricted and the Internet is always open and searchable.

The thing about ideas is you can take them as units, as stackable black boxes; or else you can open them up and try to find out what's inside. Lott doesn't seem to be a very inquisitive fellow. He has these boxes like "Southern way of life" or "Limited Government," that he cares about deeply, but he's incurious about what may be "inside."

I'd say Lott was more of a spirited temperament -- or a manipulative cast of mind, than a reflective or analytical one, but I suspect we're all like that about some things. We can break down other people's basic ideas into what we take to be their components, but our own basic ideas are foundation or the indissoluble atoms of our mental world.

143 posted on 12/15/2002 10:22:06 AM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
Not surprisingly, many are missing the point here.

First of all, there is more to the Dixiecrat platform than segregation---which is the way the media is overwhelmingly presenting the case. The platform was about the right of a state to be sovereign within its own borders. Show me anywhere in the Constitution where the states gave the federal government the authority to come into their states, invade those states, and change the laws of those states that effected only the citizens of said states.

The segregation element of the platform, most notably in clauses 4 and 5, were an element of those specific times. While I certainly do not approve of those clauses in the sense of a support of that specific policy, I do defend the right of a state to make laws within its own borders.

Claiming that the federal government has a right to come in and force their will on any issue that involves a purely state matter---even if we disagree with that specific state law--shows the federal government usurping power it simply does not possess. All power the federal government possesses comes from specific power grants from the states outlined in the Constitution. Taking additional power to itself---which was what was happening in 1948 (and is much worse today)---is clearly unconstitutional, and this was the real reason for the birth of the Dixiecrats to begin with.

Today we have two parties that believe in big government, don't respect the Constitution, and have given us a government totally out of control.
144 posted on 12/15/2002 10:27:22 AM PST by PresidentDavis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
So, if a black purchases the plot of land next to yours, no problem?

If no problem, then we are on the same page.
145 posted on 12/15/2002 10:31:32 AM PST by Bluntpoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: CreekerFreeper; WhiskeyPapa
The only mistake the South made was that they should have freed the slaves first and deported en masse. Lincoln had the same idea...too bad John Wilkes Booth killed him or he'd deported the slaves back to Central America and Africa. We'd have no racial problems in this country, because they would've been here.

Not true. Booth heard or heard of a speech in which Lincoln refered to the possibility of giving Black veterans and educated Blacks the vote. Booth decided at that point to go through with his assassination plans. Resettlement of freedmen had been abandoned some time before.

146 posted on 12/15/2002 10:34:14 AM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Bluntpoint
"The segregation element of the platform, most notably in clauses 4 and 5, were an element of those specific times. While I certainly do not approve of those clauses in the sense of a support of that specific policy, I do defend the right of a state to make laws within its own borders. "

That said, the Dixiecrats led the charge on segregation.

Compare the platform of the Democratic party with the Dixiecrats in 1948, the only real difference is segregation.

States rights, in this instance, was just an excuse to defend the indefensible.
147 posted on 12/15/2002 10:37:30 AM PST by Bluntpoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: CreekerFreeper
"The only mistake the South made was that they should have freed the slaves first and deported en masse. Lincoln had the same idea...too bad John Wilkes Booth killed him or he'd deported the slaves back to Central America and Africa. We'd have no racial problems in this country, because they would've been here."


What about those who legally immigrated since the time of freeing the slaves?

148 posted on 12/15/2002 10:41:01 AM PST by Bluntpoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
You missed both the logic and the humor. I simply said I prefer mandatory inter-racial marriages. Presuming you get married, then we make the conditions mandatory.

In other parts of the thread they are discussing the government's abandonment of the old standards (which presumably resulted in assimilated immigrants). Logically, then, if the government has abandoned old standards, marriage need not be engaged in as well, ergo, something which does not exist which is mandatory is ......

Well, it's something for the "blue noses" to break their eyeteeth on eh?!

BTW, I live in a neighborhood full of immigrants. None of their kids are out shacking up. If the parents feel that it's time for the kid to get married, they bring in the bride (or the groom as the case may be) and a marriage is performed on the spot. Kind of interesting. I would guess that about 3/4 of the folks in my neighborhood have arranged marriages. There have been a couple of divorces. For some strange reason the immigrants here do not wish to engage fully in some of America's more bizarre customs, e.g. at will divorce!

149 posted on 12/15/2002 11:12:17 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Bluntpoint
If I knew Eleanor Smeal personally (shudder, shudder retch, puke), as Trent Lott knows Strom Thurmond personally, then yes there might be other reasons.

Regards,

Ken
150 posted on 12/15/2002 2:51:27 PM PST by Ken in Eastman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-189 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson