Skip to main content

Posted on another site 'Race something. sorry

Jim Crow is a system of laws. True, it is a practice. It is a practice, however, based in law. It was supposed, even assumed, that the civil rights laws of the 1960s negated that legal structure. It didn't. The significant failure was, no is, the fact that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is temporary. It was from its original construction.

No, the entire law was not made temporary. Only the parts addressing PROTECTION on the basis of 'race and color' were made temporary, particularly Section 4(a). This section was given an original life, in 1965, of 5 years at which time the section was to be 'reconsidered'. It was.

In 1970, Congress 'reconsidered' the section, and voted to extend its PROTECTION on the basis of 'race and color' for another 5 years, at which time the section would again be 'reconsidered.' It was.

In 1975, Congress again 'reconsidered' the section, voted to extend its PROTECTION on the basis of 'race and color', this time for another 7 years, at which time the section would again be 'reconsidered'. It was.

In 1982, Congress again 'reconsidered' the section. Then-President Ronald Reagan wanted 'it' terminated. It is unclear whether he wanted the entire law repealed, or only its Section 4(a). Then-Senator Dole (R)Kansas succeeded in getting a compromise of 15 years extension to a vote in the subcommittee.. Then-Senator Jesse Helms established a filibuster. Senator Orrin Hatch (R)Utah, chairman of the subcommittee, negotiated a settlement of 'termination in 25 years' for Section 4(a) not the entire law.

That settlement passed in the subcommittee, and passed in the full committee, and passed in the full Senate in August 1982. This reestablished the circumstance African American-Americans were held in as of 1877, effective August 2007.

The legal structure of Jim Crow was enabled with the signing of the agreement Louisiana, Florida, and South Carolina with the Republican Party and the Republican candidate for the Presidency in the election of 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes. He had loss the popular for President to the Democratic candidate a Mr. Tilden.

The reward for signing the agreement was that the Republican Party's candidate was assured of the electoral votes (18) needed to create a tie. An additional single vote from the State of Oregon was swung with the resignation of an otherwise ineligible 'elector' who was a federal employe of the United States post office. His vote gave the presidency to Hayes. And...empowered Jim Crow.

Jim Crow thrived with the endorsement, and support of the United States for the next 88 years until the bitterly fought enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

In 2 years and 5 months, August 2007, the constraint on Jim Crow in America will be released.

Battered, but alive and well in the United States

PEACE

Jim Chester
African Americans for African America http://iaanh2.org African American Pledge of Unity We stand, Together, after left alone in a land we never knew. We Bind ourselves, Together, with the blood and will of Those who have gone before. From the Bodies of our Ancestors thrown away, from the Pieces of Ourselves left to perish, We rise as One, a New Body in a New Land, a New People in a New Nation. Of Common Mind, Body, and Spirit, By Declaration of our Amalgamated Individual and Personal Authorities, We Are African America. © James Wesley Chester 2004; 2008 You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
So, Mr. Chester ....

What (in your best prediction) is going to happen in 2007 if nothing is done about the Voting Rights Act at that time?

In other words, do you believe that America will return to a Jim Crow law-type society at that time if the Voting Rights Act (or Section 4(a)) is allow to lapse or terminate?


Not likely.

What will happen is that States will openly prevent African American-Americans from voting in local, county, and State elections when, and where such intervention is desired.

The same thing will happen in and by States in national elections, most notably Presidential.

Over time the practice will become pervasive until the Supreme Court is challenged once again.

I won't go the 'doomsday' root, and predict dire acts.

The most important consequence will be the return of the control of the vote of African America to the European Establishment.

We will have not political alternative to the two-party system in which we are currently locked.

Strangely, most African American-Americans today (the descendants of the soldiers of the Civil Rights Movement) find no discomfort, and therefore no cause for alarm for the condition we found unacceptable in 1964.

Our children have been lulled to sleep by half-a-loaf of freedom.


PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
Our children have been lulled to sleep by half-a-loaf of freedom.
Jim Chester


Now, on that we agree.

And I also see your other points as well. However, inasmuch as our vote is already compromised today with said Act already initiated, the change and remedy we need to correct our disenfranchisement regarding our vote is not going to be found in a piece of legislation that is already semi-effective.

It will be interesting to see how all this plays out in the next couple of years.

But it's good to know we've got people like you on the front line of the fight for the justice of our vote. Smile
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
Our children have been lulled to sleep by half-a-loaf of freedom.
Jim Chester


Now, on that we agree.

And I also see your other points as well. However, inasmuch as our vote is already compromised today with said Act already initiated, the change and remedy we need to correct our disenfranchisement regarding our vote is not going to be found in a piece of legislation that is already semi-effective.


Ditto to both. I'm gonna bite that one JWC
quote:
Ditto to both. I'm gonna bite that one JWC


Unfortunately, both of you guys are missing the point of disenfranchisement. Unless you mean something other than my understanding of the word.

To me disenfranchisement means the taking away of, or prevention of the exercise of, some given empowerment.

The empowerment at issue here is the right to vote.

The law at issue specifically protects the exercise of that empowerment.

To say, that law cannot provide the change needed implies that the law did not historically do what it was/is intended to do.

I don't see the logic.


PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
The fact that the law still lives just further emphasizes our value. The question that is probably keeping the law alive is "Are black people worth the hassle of revising the system?" Obviously the answer is no.


You have it inverted.

The value, the power, of the vote of African america is of such significance it must be kept under the power of European America. Gutting the law puts that power at the discretion and power of the States.

Either way, European America holds the repressive hand.

And...it does not even makes want to holler.
\
Amazing.

We just rationalize it away as 'inevitable', AND go right back to 'selling wolf tickets.'

Oh I'll do this. Yeah and I'll do that.

It's racist.

Yada, yada, yada.


PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester: Unfortunately, both of you guys are missing the point of disenfranchisement. Unless you mean something other than my understanding of the word. I don't see the logic.

To say, that law cannot provide the change needed implies that the law did not historically do what it was/is intended to do.


I believe what I am saying, JWC, is that actually, no, that law has not historically done what it was/intended to do. It helped make things better. Scared the white folks into thinking there would be severe consequences to their actions ... and made a few of them stop doing the things they were doing. I'm sure some even faced prosecution and were made examples of ... and that probably helped a lot.

But, if that law has/had indeed accomplished its mission, and, indeed, made our vote just as even, just as fair, just as counted, just as important and substantial as anybody else's vote, BY LAW, then I would call it an effective
law.

An example ... it is illegal[i] for a law enforcement officer to beat a man up just because he is Black. Eek Eek I don't even have to go there for you to know how effective that law is. To take it away would mean nothing ... because they still do it anyway!! They get taken into court, tried for violating that [i]law and get exonerated. If they take that law away, and it gives the police free reign to beat away at Black men, it has got to be US and what we do to stop it.

Now, of course, because that law is in place, it doesn't happen as often as it might otherwise. The law stands looming ... and probably gives second-thought to those who might otherwise break it.

This Voting Rights Act law is not even as radical as the example above. We want and fight for and demand a law that gives us a right that was emboldened to us in 1775 when the Constitution was written. BY LAW.

Now, if that isn't a more powerful weapon with which to fight for our right to vote than the 1965 Voting Act Right, then I'm the one who's got it all wrong. That is where I don't see the logic.
Oshun Auset ...

I believe what HeruStar is trying to say is that there shouldn't be a law on the books for that in the first place. And that the fact that it is is due to 1 of 2 (or both) of these things:

#1 - that those in control don't really give a damn about us enough to revise the law; and/or

#2 - we haven't give much of a damn about ourselves to make sure that such a law isn't even necessary anymore.

Either way, I'd have to agree with him.
But, if that law has/had indeed accomplished its mission, and, indeed, made our vote just as even, just as fair, just as counted, just as important and substantial as anybody else's vote, BY LAW, then I would call it an effective
law.---EbonyRose


We want and fight for and demand a law that gives us a right that was emboldened to us in 1775 when the Constitution was written. BY LAW.

Now, if that isn't a more powerful weapon with which to fight for our right to vote than the 1965 Voting Act Right, then I'm the one who's got it all wrong. That is where I don't see the logic.---EbonyRose

The Voting Rights Act was written to PROTECT the right to vote on the basis of 'color and race.' It was/is to be the mechanism to enforcement the 15th Amendment, and the 14th.

The 15th Amendment was/is the primary focus BECAUSE that amendment is there to PROTECT the right to vote, BUT HAS NO MECHANISM FOR EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT.

THAT'S ALL IT SUPPOSE TO DO.

A lot of other wrongs need fixing, but this law is not the tool.

Nor was it intended to be the tool.

What you are/seem to be taking for granted, namely the ABILITY to vote, is what is being denied in the law.

IT IS THE REASON SOLDIERS STOOD AT POLLING PLACES FROM THE DAY THE LAST SHOT WAS FIRED IN THE CIVIL WAR.


PEA CE

Jim Chester
quote:
Originally posted by EbonyRose:
Oshun Auset ...

I believe what HeruStar is trying to say is that there shouldn't be a law on the books for that in the first place. And that the fact that it is is due to 1 of 2 (or both) of these things:

#1 - that those in control don't really give a damn about us enough to revise the law; and/or

#2 - we haven't give much of a damn about ourselves to make sure that such a law isn't even necessary anymore.

Either way, I'd have to agree with him.


I know..I was just irritated yesturday and wasn't displaying iwa pele(good character)..

I apologize for the insult...sometimes stuff gets to me just a tad bit...

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×