Replies

I will preface this response with the clarification that I do not, have never, and will never deny the existence and severity of segregation in the South, nor will I attempt to suggest such a denial in reply to its reference. But neither will I deny, nor affect the denial, that it existed elsewhere.

Of course you won't.

Of course, you are such a fair and honest fellow that we can depend upon this to be a comprehensive and objective account. I will read it again with the certain hope that I will find scathing denunciation of the Boston desegregation riots. After all, principled crusader that you are, you would never engage in uneven cherry-picking.

And you are so fair and honest that the fact that you ignored the Virginia and South Carolina parts of the case in your haste to try and bash the North with it was no doubt simple oversight. But by all means check my facts. Research is to be encouraged among the Southron contingent.

It is as Southern as nitrogen, according to your standard of proof.

It is largely imaginary, according to the Southern representatives who post here.

Of course you won't.

Well, it was a polite invitation to honesty.

I ended my last post with a calculated accusation which I will restore: "You ... both have concluded posts with the claim that any occurrence of segregation within the South makes the institution "Southern" regardless of its scope." You did not bother to deny this. Would you like to do so now?

Here, you prove the above accusation to be truthful. If the Brown case testifies to the existence of segregation in South Carolina, Virginia, Kansas, Delaware, and the District of Columbia, then I take from it that segregation was present in South Carolina, Virginia, Kansas, Delaware, and the District of Columbia. Your takeaway is that it existed in South Carolina and Virginia and fault any who cite Kansas. I anticipated this when I prefaced my previous post with a refusal to deny that segregation existed in South as it did elsewhere, yet you accuse me of ignoring South Carolina and Virginia precisely because I brought up Kansas. Your recitation only supports your conclusion ("Southern honor at its finest") if, indeed, your standard of proof is "any occurrence...within the South makes the institution 'Southern'". I did not, for my part, refer to the Boston riots to suggest that forced segregation should be considered 'Northeastern'.

It is largely imaginary, according to the Southern representatives who post here.

If you would explain what your standard of proof is, exactly, you could prove them wrong.