Drop sections 4, 5, and 6, and I'd stand behind that platform in a heartbeat.
posted on 12/13/2002 5:27:56 PM PST
They were for the right to choose one's associates, but in the same breath they wanted the government to weild its coercive force to prevent a black person and a white person from marrying one another.
What a bunch of nutjobs.
posted on 12/13/2002 5:28:24 PM PST
You DO understand that this campaign was waged in 1948, don't you? You are also aware, I assume that we are nearing the end of the year 2002. What is your obsession with this matter? If you ask me the violence and hatred exhibited in Boston because of bussing was much worse than anything I saw in the South. So what's your point?
posted on 12/13/2002 5:28:50 PM PST
Take a deep breath.....there, now breathe out........now...let...it...go.......
Really, get over yourself already. You are really obsessing about this. Who cares but you?
posted on 12/13/2002 5:45:34 PM PST
Remember the canonization of Sam Ervin during Watergate?
And how the media never failed to remind us that he was a constitutional law expert?
What they never told us was that he became a constitutional law expert so that he could justify segregation.
posted on 12/13/2002 5:53:58 PM PST
Soooooo...they want smaller government, unless it is about marrying someone of a different race. My, how noble.
Mike, in case you were curious.
Does anyone actually think Lott has put this behind him? Tomorrow there will be another example of his "racism." Then another the day after that. Then another and another.
And now Lott has handed over his personal problem to the entire Republican Party. The GOP Senators have given him a pass for applauding the Dixiecrats. Therefore the GOP is now the party that will actively abide racist sentiments.
All the work we have done to prove we aren't racist has been set aside to save this feckless, vacillating, spineless, toupeed mediocrity.
We are the stupid party. We will suffer dearly for the hubris and selfishness of Trent Lott. And all we will get in return is Lott's severe pandering to the Black Caucus to "prove" he isn't racist. I hope you Lott-backers like Affirmative Action.
posted on 12/13/2002 5:58:35 PM PST
Section three looks like a rebuke of Harry Truman's 1947 demand that subversives in the Army be ferreted out and listed.
Interesting to see Liberals so opposed to the Dixiecrat platform while at the same time they are still angry about Harry's lists (which they blame on Tailgunner Joe!
posted on 12/13/2002 6:05:16 PM PST
You damn Northerners are all the same...in your opinion the only racial problems existed south of the Mason-Dixon Line and still do. As a southern Conservative, I must say that the War of Northern Aggression was a criminal act.
The social contract (read John Locke) was a two-way street. You enter into the contract; but, you can also dissolve the contract if the participants view the power of the government is not fulfilling its duties or is violating the contract by infringing upon the rights of the the populous.
Southern states were practicing good federalism when they opted to dissolve the contract and live the Union.
What the North and Abraham Lincoln did was pure and simple: They destoryed a civilization and the resultant centuries old plague of poverty and underdevelopment that exists to this day in certain areas of the South, in particular Appalachia.
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.
But, keep living the fairy tale that you Northerners have no racial problems...I enjoy it.
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.
posted on 12/15/2002 7:33:32 AM PST
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.
Actually, this is a pretty good platform. Needs a couple of revisions but altogether acceptable. Section 6 does seem to have predicted what has happened.
posted on 12/16/2002 4:29:45 AM PST
Thanks for the post ! NOW I know something about the Dixiecrats.
posted on 12/16/2002 10:53:22 AM PST
I believe that we will see the leadership of the Democratic extend an olive branch of sorts to Lott, a grudglingly apology-accepted stance, in order to keep him as the Majority Leader.
'Lott the Majority Leader' is more useful to the Dens than 'Lott the Senator'.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson