Should Blacks Pay Reparations To Whites?

[danielpalos]

625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white. More than half of them were Union soldiers. These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result. Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?

It was a "management" problem not a "labor" problem.

And, blacks also paid in blood, and served their country.

You should watch some historical videos on black, Civil War regiments.

Black men Won the right to vote before White Women.

 

[katsteve2012]

I was aware of that. It is common knowledge. And what is the common denominator?

ALL of them were southerners. I stated earlier in this thread that I am not loyal to any party, and I also stated that SOUTHERN democrats AND republicans were just as racist and backward in the 20th century as they were in past centuries....you just chose to ignore that bit of truth.

You claimed that blacks have been voting Democrat since the Johnson administration because of welfare....and I clearly showed you that welfare was not the reason and the shift of black voters began long before the Johnson era.

20th century southerns just as racists as "past centuries"?


What does that say about your boy Jimmy?

Here is what I have to say to YOU.
The point was regading the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which has NOTHING to do with 1976. Try to keep up, or go away.


"You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.

You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.

Source:Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten

You said that 20th Century Southerns were just as racist as past centuries.

1976 was well within the 20th century and the South was solid for the democrat Jimmy Carter.

So, was Jimmy running a racist campaign? Or was the supposedly racist south ready to vote for a non racist pro-civil rights President?

I was aware of that. It is common knowledge. And what is the common denominator?

ALL of them were southerners. I stated earlier in this thread that I am not loyal to any party, and I also stated that SOUTHERN democrats AND republicans were just as racist and backward in the 20th century as they were in past centuries....you just chose to ignore that bit of truth.

You claimed that blacks have been voting Democrat since the Johnson administration because of welfare....and I clearly showed you that welfare was not the reason and the shift of black voters began long before the Johnson era.

20th century southerns just as racists as "past centuries"?


What does that say about your boy Jimmy?

Here is what I have to say to YOU.
The point was regading the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which has NOTHING to do with 1976. Try to keep up, or go away.


"You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.

You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.

Source:Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten

You said that 20th Century Southerns were just as racist as past centuries.

1976 was well within the 20th century and the South was solid for the democrat Jimmy Carter.

So, was Jimmy running a racist campaign? Or was the supposedly racist south ready to vote for a non racist pro-civil rights President?

You can likely answer your own question by looking up the distribution of votes by demographic for that election. I am not posting anymore links in this thread......no one else is.

I didn't ask for a link. I asked for you to explain that your position, ie that the 20th century southerns are just as racist as 18th century southerns, is strongly contradicted by the PRO CIVIL RIGHTS JIMMY CARTER nearly sweeping the SOuth.

Because on the face of it, it completely disproves your claim.

No worries. You were not getting a link from me. And no, I am not wrong.

1964 WAS the 20th century, and southern politicians almost unanimously voted against the Civil rights act. You are comparing an election to legislation that changed the country.

You have an opinion and your opinion is YOURS, not mine.

 

[Correll]

625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white. More than half of them were Union soldiers. These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result. Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?

It was a "management" problem not a "labor" problem.

And, blacks also paid in blood, and served their country.

You should watch some historical videos on black, Civil War regiments.

Black men Won the right to vote before White Women.

So you want to give credit to blacks for the 40k of them that died in the Civil War?

Makes sense.

But if 40k deserves credit, 600k obviously deserves far more.

Especially since they were fighting for SOMEONE else to be free, instead of selfish self interest.

 

[Correll]

20th century southerns just as racists as "past centuries"?


What does that say about your boy Jimmy?

Here is what I have to say to YOU.
The point was regading the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which has NOTHING to do with 1976. Try to keep up, or go away.


"You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.

You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.

Source:Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten

You said that 20th Century Southerns were just as racist as past centuries.

1976 was well within the 20th century and the South was solid for the democrat Jimmy Carter.

So, was Jimmy running a racist campaign? Or was the supposedly racist south ready to vote for a non racist pro-civil rights President?

20th century southerns just as racists as "past centuries"?


What does that say about your boy Jimmy?

Here is what I have to say to YOU.
The point was regading the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which has NOTHING to do with 1976. Try to keep up, or go away.


"You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.

You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.

Source:Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten

You said that 20th Century Southerns were just as racist as past centuries.

1976 was well within the 20th century and the South was solid for the democrat Jimmy Carter.

So, was Jimmy running a racist campaign? Or was the supposedly racist south ready to vote for a non racist pro-civil rights President?

You can likely answer your own question by looking up the distribution of votes by demographic for that election. I am not posting anymore links in this thread......no one else is.

I didn't ask for a link. I asked for you to explain that your position, ie that the 20th century southerns are just as racist as 18th century southerns, is strongly contradicted by the PRO CIVIL RIGHTS JIMMY CARTER nearly sweeping the SOuth.

Because on the face of it, it completely disproves your claim.

No worries. You were not getting a link from me. And no, I am not wrong.

1964 WAS the 20th century, and southern politicians almost unanimously voted against the Civil rights act. You are comparing an election to legislation that changed the country.

You have an opinion and your opinion is YOURS, not mine.

And your opinion of the South, in the 20th century, being just as racist as the south in the 18th century is proven wrong by the Pro-Civil Rights Jimmy Carter nearly sweeping the South.

Your refusal to defend your position, but to insist on still holding on to it, reveals that your position is not based on any facts, but just on hatred of your fellow Americans.

 

[danielpalos]

625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white. More than half of them were Union soldiers. These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result. Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?

It was a "management" problem not a "labor" problem.

And, blacks also paid in blood, and served their country.

You should watch some historical videos on black, Civil War regiments.

Black men Won the right to vote before White Women.

So you want to give credit to blacks for the 40k of them that died in the Civil War?

Makes sense.

But if 40k deserves credit, 600k obviously deserves far more.

Especially since they were fighting for SOMEONE else to be free, instead of selfish self interest.

It was about the "rule of law". States have no authority over immigration since 1808. That should have meant; that no new slaves were born in the US, and would have to be "imported" from overseas.

 

[Correll]

625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white. More than half of them were Union soldiers. These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result. Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?

It was a "management" problem not a "labor" problem.

And, blacks also paid in blood, and served their country.

You should watch some historical videos on black, Civil War regiments.

Black men Won the right to vote before White Women.

So you want to give credit to blacks for the 40k of them that died in the Civil War?

Makes sense.

But if 40k deserves credit, 600k obviously deserves far more.

Especially since they were fighting for SOMEONE else to be free, instead of selfish self interest.

It was about the "rule of law". States have no authority over immigration since 1808. That should have meant; that no new slaves were born in the US, and would have to be "imported" from overseas.

The topic is what is owed to whites for the massive sacrifices of their ancestors.

Nothing in your post is on topic near as I can tell.

 

[katsteve2012]

Here is what I have to say to YOU.
The point was regading the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which has NOTHING to do with 1976. Try to keep up, or go away.


"You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.

You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.

Source:Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten

You said that 20th Century Southerns were just as racist as past centuries.

1976 was well within the 20th century and the South was solid for the democrat Jimmy Carter.

So, was Jimmy running a racist campaign? Or was the supposedly racist south ready to vote for a non racist pro-civil rights President?

Here is what I have to say to YOU.
The point was regading the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which has NOTHING to do with 1976. Try to keep up, or go away.


"You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.

You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.

Source:Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten

You said that 20th Century Southerns were just as racist as past centuries.

1976 was well within the 20th century and the South was solid for the democrat Jimmy Carter.

So, was Jimmy running a racist campaign? Or was the supposedly racist south ready to vote for a non racist pro-civil rights President?

You can likely answer your own question by looking up the distribution of votes by demographic for that election. I am not posting anymore links in this thread......no one else is.

I didn't ask for a link. I asked for you to explain that your position, ie that the 20th century southerns are just as racist as 18th century southerns, is strongly contradicted by the PRO CIVIL RIGHTS JIMMY CARTER nearly sweeping the SOuth.

Because on the face of it, it completely disproves your claim.

No worries. You were not getting a link from me. And no, I am not wrong.

1964 WAS the 20th century, and southern politicians almost unanimously voted against the Civil rights act. You are comparing an election to legislation that changed the country.

You have an opinion and your opinion is YOURS, not mine.

And your opinion of the South, in the 20th century, being just as racist as the south in the 18th century is proven wrong by the Pro-Civil Rights Jimmy Carter nearly sweeping the South.

Your refusal to defend your position, but to insist on still holding on to it, reveals that your position is not based on any facts, but just on hatred of your fellow Americans.

I don't need to "defend my position" regarding the setiments of SOUTHERN policy makers, who if they had been successful would have kept MY family, who served this country, in the position of second class citizenship.

The proof of that fact is in history that you refuse to acknowledge.

I don't hate anyone who does not hate or stereotype me.

Finally, I have better things to do than respond to your silliness.

Get lost.

 

[danielpalos]

625,000 men died fighting the civil war, almost all were white. More than half of them were Union soldiers. These men gave their lives and the beneficiaries of their sacrifice were slaves, who gained their freedom as a result. Should they not be required to pay reparations to the descendants of those men who gave their lives so that blacks could enjoy the freedom and prosperity they enjoy in today's society?

It was a "management" problem not a "labor" problem.

And, blacks also paid in blood, and served their country.

You should watch some historical videos on black, Civil War regiments.

Black men Won the right to vote before White Women.

So you want to give credit to blacks for the 40k of them that died in the Civil War?

Makes sense.

But if 40k deserves credit, 600k obviously deserves far more.

Especially since they were fighting for SOMEONE else to be free, instead of selfish self interest.

It was about the "rule of law". States have no authority over immigration since 1808. That should have meant; that no new slaves were born in the US, and would have to be "imported" from overseas.

The topic is what is owed to whites for the massive sacrifices of their ancestors.

Nothing in your post is on topic near as I can tell.

Blacks get to be treated at least as well as, "poor whites".

 

[S.J.]

I have already posted several links in this thread that you have obviously eiher ignored or failed to read, which is your problem, not mine.

One of them clearly explained how black citizens were in many cases not eligible for public assistance during FDRS era.

You posted links to opinions, not facts.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Black voters made a DRAMATIC shift towards voting Democrat during the FDR years......and IT WAS NOT because of welfare, you stupid fuck.

I guess you think if you call me names and use a lot of profanity it will somehow make your argument stronger, huh? Yeah, welfare started under FDR, so naturally it drew a lot of blacks to the Democratic Party. And yeah, it WAS because of welfare, that's pretty obvious.

Robert Byrd?! Are you fucking kidding? He was ONE racist SOUTHERN senator..

One racist, huh? Here's a list of the Senators who organized the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act:
Robert Byrd - DEMOCRAT
Richard Russell - DEMOCRAT
Strom Thurmond - DEMOCRAT (switched to Republican later)
William Fulbright - DEMOCRAT
Sam Irvin - DEMOCRAT

And who broke the filibuster so the legislation could pass? You guessed it.

Everett Dirksen - REPUBLICAN.

Maybe YOU should try reading up on history instead of relying on liberal hack sites like FactCheck.

Lincoln Married a Rich Girl; That's All You Need to Know About the Civil War

So Democrats are for White people and Republicans hate White people?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

[QUOTE="S.J., post: 17287097, member: 41356] It was Lyndon Johnson who saw the opportunity to put them back on the plantation by expanding the welfare program which opened the flood gates for blacks to be dependent on his party far into the future. You have trouble facing the fact that blacks have been selling their vote for a welfare check since it'sits inception, the same way they sold their own people into slavery.[/QUOTE]



War Is Class Warfare

LBJ escalated the Vietnam War to kill off or take the fight out of the bravest sons of the working class. War is good business; invest your employees' sons.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Blacks should stop whining or else go back to Africa.

In Africa, Black lives have never mattered.

 

[katsteve2012]

I have already posted several links in this thread that you have obviously eiher ignored or failed to read, which is your problem, not mine.

One of them clearly explained how black citizens were in many cases not eligible for public assistance during FDRS era.

You posted links to opinions, not facts.

You have yet to provide any credible source that proves them not to be facts.....because you cannot.

 

[S.J.]

I have already posted several links in this thread that you have obviously eiher ignored or failed to read, which is your problem, not mine.

One of them clearly explained how black citizens were in many cases not eligible for public assistance during FDRS era.

You posted links to opinions, not facts.

You have yet to provide any credible source that proves them not to be facts.....because you cannot.

150 years of history proves me right.

 

[katsteve2012]

8

I have already posted several links in this thread that you have obviously eiher ignored or failed to read, which is your problem, not mine.

One of them clearly explained how black citizens were in many cases not eligible for public assistance during FDRS era.

You posted links to opinions, not facts.

You have yet to provide any credible source that proves them not to be facts.....because you cannot.

150 years of history proves me right.

Thats hilarious. You are not even able to understand or intelligently articulate events from fairly recent history.

 

[danielpalos]

The overall prosperity of the United States in the 1920s overshadowed the chronic poverty of certain vulnerable populations. These were the same populations that had always been at risk in American history: children, older Americans, minorities, female-headed families, people with disabilities, and workers with unstable or low-paying jobs.--http://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/eras/great-depression/american-social-policy-in-the-great-depression-and-wwii/

 

[S.J.]

I have already posted several links in this thread that you have obviously eiher ignored or failed to read, which is your problem, not mine.

One of them clearly explained how black citizens were in many cases not eligible for public assistance during FDRS era.

You posted links to opinions, not facts.

You have yet to provide any credible source that proves them not to be facts.....because you cannot.

You have yet to provide any credible source that proves them TO be facts.....because you cannot.

 

[S.J.]

8

I have already posted several links in this thread that you have obviously eiher ignored or failed to read, which is your problem, not mine.

One of them clearly explained how black citizens were in many cases not eligible for public assistance during FDRS era.

You posted links to opinions, not facts.

You have yet to provide any credible source that proves them not to be facts.....because you cannot.

150 years of history proves me right.

Thats hilarious. You are not even able to understand or intelligently articulate events from fairly recent history.

You're entitled to your opinion but facts are facts, and the fact is that after 150 years of freedom and at least 50 years of preferential treatment (AA, quotas, grants, etc.), they are still on the bottom rung of society. Why does 13% of the population consume 50% of the welfare?

 

[danielpalos]

8

I have already posted several links in this thread that you have obviously eiher ignored or failed to read, which is your problem, not mine.

One of them clearly explained how black citizens were in many cases not eligible for public assistance during FDRS era.

You posted links to opinions, not facts.

You have yet to provide any credible source that proves them not to be facts.....because you cannot.

150 years of history proves me right.

Thats hilarious. You are not even able to understand or intelligently articulate events from fairly recent history.

You're entitled to your opinion but facts are facts, and the fact is that after 150 years of freedom and at least 50 years of preferential treatment (AA, quotas, grants, etc.), they are still on the bottom rung of society. Why does 13% of the population consume 50% of the welfare?

Lousy "management"? Would Jim Crow have occurred to Anyone, if blacks could have simply quit on an at-will basis and collect unemployment.

 

[Correll]

You said that 20th Century Southerns were just as racist as past centuries.

1976 was well within the 20th century and the South was solid for the democrat Jimmy Carter.

So, was Jimmy running a racist campaign? Or was the supposedly racist south ready to vote for a non racist pro-civil rights President?

You said that 20th Century Southerns were just as racist as past centuries.

1976 was well within the 20th century and the South was solid for the democrat Jimmy Carter.

So, was Jimmy running a racist campaign? Or was the supposedly racist south ready to vote for a non racist pro-civil rights President?

You can likely answer your own question by looking up the distribution of votes by demographic for that election. I am not posting anymore links in this thread......no one else is.

I didn't ask for a link. I asked for you to explain that your position, ie that the 20th century southerns are just as racist as 18th century southerns, is strongly contradicted by the PRO CIVIL RIGHTS JIMMY CARTER nearly sweeping the SOuth.

Because on the face of it, it completely disproves your claim.

No worries. You were not getting a link from me. And no, I am not wrong.

1964 WAS the 20th century, and southern politicians almost unanimously voted against the Civil rights act. You are comparing an election to legislation that changed the country.

You have an opinion and your opinion is YOURS, not mine.

And your opinion of the South, in the 20th century, being just as racist as the south in the 18th century is proven wrong by the Pro-Civil Rights Jimmy Carter nearly sweeping the South.

Your refusal to defend your position, but to insist on still holding on to it, reveals that your position is not based on any facts, but just on hatred of your fellow Americans.

I don't need to "defend my position" regarding the setiments of SOUTHERN policy makers, who if they had been successful would have kept MY family, who served this country, in the position of second class citizenship.
...t.

You don't "need" to defend your position on Southerns, which is good, because you CAN'T.

It is obvious bullshit as demonstrated by Jimmy Carter's near sweep of the South.

Why do you feel the need to smear good people?

How do you justify your marginalization of good people?

How can you not see that your behavior makes YOU the bad person here?