The Truth about the Dixiecrats What they were about.

National Review ^ | Dec 16,2002 | Dave Kopel

[justshutupandtakeit]

If by "original constitution" you mean the Articles of Confederation then you are correct in believing that it was fundamentally different than the constitution in this regard. It was so fundamentally flawed that Congress was powerless, almost all powers remained with the states. A single state could veto any legislation. Thus, the nation barely was able to win the War with the help of the French.

The founders realized that too much power was left in the hands of the States and that had to be changed if the nation was to survive. Reduction of states' powers was crucial to achieve national survival. Yet even that flawed document recognized that the Union was to be perpetual.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Governments have powers to violate the citizens rights. It was to protect the rights of citizens that the powers of government was carefully circumscribed by the constitution.

If power equalled rights then no governmental edict could be challenged. Merely because it has the power to do something does not mean it has the right to do it.

[Republic of Texas]

" Back to my initial supposition. The State of South Carolina is then either all stupid or racist?"

Exactly.

[Dave S]

If by "original constitution" you mean the Articles of Confederation then you are correct in believing that it was fundamentally different than the constitution in this regard

No, actually I was referring to the consitution prior to the addition of the bill of rights and the subsequent ammendments. The base document.

[dirtboy]

If power equalled rights then no governmental edict could be challenged. Merely because it has the power to do something does not mean it has the right to do it.

That is why I coupled power with rights. Power without rights is tyranny. But rights without force, power and will are meaningless. The federal government, once the 14th was passed, had the right and the power to intervene against segregation, but chose not to do so until the right to intervene was subverted by Plessey v. Ferguson. Once that flawed decision was removed, the feds once again had the right, they had the power, and this time they had the will.

[Republic of Texas]

Well that makes it ok then, doesn't it?

[Bluntpoint]

Great work!

It shows all this state's rights talk to be empty. Strom bolted the democrats because they were for civil rights as were the Republicans.

Dixiecrats were about segregation. Period.

[Bluntpoint]

Great work!

It shows all this state's rights talk to be empty. Strom bolted the democrats because they were for civil rights as were the Republicans.

Dixiecrats were about segregation. Period.

[jimt]

Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995), the founder of modern libertarianism...

And he was also well known in the LP as "Typhoid Murray" years before his death as a measure of his endearing personality and personal warmth.

[Ditto]

Next time perhaps he should try directly quoting from the document when he's pretending to do so.

Here's "the document". Basically, "segregation now and segregation" forever wrapped in perverted interpretation of the Constitution.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Oh, then you are not correct. The BoR added to the constitution it did not change anything which was there before so the "original constitution" is still there if you just read the part before the amendments.

[society-by-contract]

"Cool screen name."


Thank you. When I read your screen name I think of the German high command during the war.

[Chi-townChief]

And after all that Strom still would have probably been a better president than Truman.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

What are you talking about?

[SteveTuck]

Well that makes it ok then, doesn't it?

Uh, no. Just clearing up a misconception.

[Snidely Whiplash]

As an aside, funny how no one wants to talk about Truman being a member of the KKK [...]

Hm. Truman was a Klan member? Sounds like a bunch of crap to me. I recall that it was brought up during his campaign for VP, but it has been soundly debunked.

Truman apparently flirted with the Klan in the 1920s, and took a mild interest since they were a political force of the time, and not so widely derided as today. He apparently even paid a membership fee, before he heard them say he couldn't hire Catholics if he got the KKK's support. Characteristically, Truman told them he'd hire anyone he damned well pleased, and that was basically the end of it.

Further, I'd judge the man by his actions in office. It seems strange that he'd be a Klan member, especially in light of his move to integrate the military and finally passing an anti-lynching law (which languished throughout FDR's tenure). Add in the fact that Truman was a Mason (IIRC), and you have what would normally be a pretty strongly anti-Klan type.

Snidely

[JohnGalt]

I am confused: your posts states correctly that Truman paid a membership fee (ergo he was a member of the Klan) and yet you think it's a "bunch of crap" that he was a Klan member?

[JohnGalt]

I am confused: your posts states correctly that Truman paid a membership fee (ergo he was a member of the Klan) and yet you think it's a "bunch of crap" that he was a Klan member?

[p. henry]

Bravo.

[Sparta]

Bump for later read and comment.