The Truth about the Dixiecrats What they were about.

National Review ^ | Dec 16,2002 | Dave Kopel

[Dave S]

As I was saying to folks last week on this subject, we all would have been much better off had the states in question cleaned up their own act instead of trying to wrap their racism in the mantle of states rights

Of course we would have but do you think Mississippi and Alabama and Louisiania would cleaned up their own acts by the 21st century without some prodding. I'm not so sure.

[dirtboy]

Well and succinctly stated. This is what allows the Boy Scouts to deny memberships to gays, and for you and I to deny admittance to Al Sharpton were he to show up at our front door demanding our beer and pizza.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

Not sure what to say. I agree the Federal Government tries to get its hands in everything it can.

[dirtboy]

I'm not so sure.

I agree with you, I was only throwing out a hypotheical in a context - if the Dixiecrats were so damned concerned about states rights, they would have read the writing on the wall and realized they were giving the feds legal justification for intervening in state matters. Had they cleaned up their act on their own, that would have been far more beneficial to the concept of states rights, which to this day carries the foul taint of the bigots who tried to righteously cloak themselves and their perversity within that noble concept.

[Ditto]

Lott has set back the Republican Party 54 years. Stupid bastard !

The Republican and Democrat platforms of 1948 were virtually identical on Civil Rights --- they both were for it.

[justshutupandtakeit]

There are no logical, consistent or historically accurate arguments that secession was constitutional. That is not to say that words can't be twisted, taken out of context or dreamed up that MIGHT offer a fig leaf to cover the naked illogic of secessionists but it would be more like a Black Locust leaf than a fig leaf. These are bankrupt and foolish arguments.

The 10th amendment refers to the POWERS of the states or the people.

A state's people have rights states do not.

[RaceBannon]

le bump

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

My friend, once again, you don't see my point. It is so obvious to you that this is the case. Some very bright men who knew a lot more about our constitution and laws happened to disagree with you. My point is that it is not as obvious as you'd like to believe.

[jimt]

I had a hard time distinguishing any actual quotes from all the blather thrown in by the author. Next time perhaps he should try directly quoting from the document when he's pretending to do so.

I know less about the Dixiecrats now than when I started.

Dump your agenda, Mr. Kopel, and give out with some facts.

[Paleo Conservative]

Senator Lott may have voted to convict Clinton, but chose to provide an environment that would make said conviction an impossibility.

I don't see how The Senate would have voted to convict. It takes a 2/3rds vote in the Senate to convict. That means a party line majority vote won't convict. Not a single DemocRAT senator voted to convict. Since Clinton was not going to be convicted, Republicans from more liberal states were not going to stick their necks out and vote to convict.

[js1138]

No one has a "right" to access the private property of an unwilling individual, or to demand employment or association with an unwilling individual. But government pretends otherwise.

The problem, as you well know, is that the feds have a finger in every pie. Because the feds have money in every piece of infrastructure (roads, etc) that allows people to move about and engage in commerce, they have a legal toehold in regulating public commerce.

[Dave S]

I guess every generation has their particular elections where they have to hold their noses when voting.

Thats true. My first election was in 68: Nixon, Humphrey, and George Wallace. Boy those were choices. A power hungry moderate who started the EPA, an out and out socialist who supported Johnsons war, and a segregationist bitching about pointy headed academics while using college students like myself and my counter culture buddies as pawns in his campaign, getting us to boo him on cue.

[Stingray51]

The dispute was not over whether the 13th and 14th Amendments did apply to the states (they did). It is the way in which they were applied.

[dirtboy]

The 10th amendment refers to the POWERS of the states or the people. A state's people have rights states do not.

You just contradicted yourself.

[jimt]

Nice to see you again !

[OWK]

A state's people have rights states do not.

More correctly...

A state's people have rights.

States do not.

[Dave S]

Buy the way, I got drunk and voted my absentee ballot for Nixon with his secret plan to end the war.

[OWK]

Thanks.... good to see a few familiar faces.

[geedee]

Gotta dance with the gal that brung ya. Dim-Dems proliferate when there's an oppressed minority that needs taking care of.

Handouts for all! See what them evil pubbies did to you? From cradle to grave, if you vote for us, we'll see to it that you're taken care of. Personal responsibility? Nah, it ain't your fault. The pubbies did that. Not making enough money? It's them darn pubbies. But vote for us and . . .

Radical African-American activists and Dim-Dems feed at the same "woe is me" trough and they both need an enslaved population to multiply.

[dirtboy]

I had a hard time distinguishing any actual quotes from all the blather thrown in by the author. Next time perhaps he should try directly quoting from the document when he's pretending to do so.

That lame, lame, lame technique is the last resort of those cornered by facts, logic and reason. It was tried extensively by a few other posters on FR and it failed miserable.