Skip to comments.
The Dixiecrat Platform
The Smoking Gun ^
| August 14, 1948
| The States Rights Democratic Party
Posted on 12/13/2002 5:24:52 PM PST by GraniteStateConservative
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-189 next last
To: GraniteStateConservative
Drop sections 4, 5, and 6, and I'd stand behind that platform in a heartbeat.
}:-)4
2
posted on
12/13/2002 5:27:56 PM PST
by
Moose4
To: GraniteStateConservative
They were for the right to choose one's associates, but in the same breath they wanted the government to weild its coercive force to prevent a black person and a white person from marrying one another.
What a bunch of nutjobs.
3
posted on
12/13/2002 5:28:24 PM PST
by
mvpel
To: GraniteStateConservative
You DO understand that this campaign was waged in 1948, don't you? You are also aware, I assume that we are nearing the end of the year 2002. What is your obsession with this matter? If you ask me the violence and hatred exhibited in Boston because of bussing was much worse than anything I saw in the South. So what's your point?
4
posted on
12/13/2002 5:28:50 PM PST
by
pgkdan
To: pgkdan
I remember after we had integrated our schools with out violence, I see several years later in the land of Teddy Kennedy Irish youth are burning their buses, and killing blacks..... I tell you we laughed at the hypocracy we were seeing... In fact Martin Luther King said the racism he observed in Chicago was worse than any he had every seen in the south.
Would that these "good People" would admit that they have as many skeletons in there closets... Oh yes and lets not forget the race riots in New York City in 1863 after Gettsburg where blacks were lynched in NYC....
Give me a break!!!!!
To: pgkdan
The point is that Trent Lott probably still doesn't understand the gravity of what he said. Many here at FR don't. They say, "Oh Thurmond was for strong national defense, reducing wasteful government spending-- that's what Lott was talking about."
No, that's not what he was talking about and he knows it. Why does everyone think Lott is an ignoramus? He didn't just fall off the turnip truck. He got a juris doctorate. He knows what is in this platform. He knew what he was saying. He was only stupid to blurt it out.
To: GraniteStateConservative
You are overestimating Lott's intelligence. BTW, is this the complete platform? I seem to recall a longer version.
To: GraniteStateConservative
Thanks for the excellent post.
Cheers,
Richard F.
8
posted on
12/13/2002 5:43:08 PM PST
by
rdf
To: GraniteStateConservative
Take a deep breath.....there, now breathe out........now...let...it...go.......
Really, get over yourself already. You are really obsessing about this. Who cares but you?
9
posted on
12/13/2002 5:45:34 PM PST
by
GWfan
To: GWfan
I care.
Trent must go.
To: Moose4
Drop sections 4, 5, and 6, and I'd stand behind that platform in a heartbeat. Darn tootin.
11
posted on
12/13/2002 5:50:36 PM PST
by
gitmo
To: mvpel
They were for the right to choose one's associates, but in the same breath they wanted the government to weild its coercive force to prevent a black person and a white person from marrying one another. To be more specific, they wanted to prevent the Federal government from repealing state miscegenation laws.
Many people here believe that states have the right to tell people what they can put in their body, even if the Federal government does not. I wonder if those same people would argue that the state does not have the right to tell people whom they can and cannot marry.
To: Captain Kirk
No, Lott is a political retard. He's not an actual one, though.
To: GWfan
How can you not care that Lott is a bigot? Can you really say with a straight face that a white Mississippi lawyer (one good enough to eventually end up in the Senate) has no idea what the Dixiecrat Party was about?
To: GraniteStateConservative
Remember the canonization of Sam Ervin during Watergate?
And how the media never failed to remind us that he was a constitutional law expert?
What they never told us was that he became a constitutional law expert so that he could justify segregation.
15
posted on
12/13/2002 5:53:58 PM PST
by
07055
To: GraniteStateConservative
Soooooo...they want smaller government, unless it is about marrying someone of a different race. My, how noble.
To: mhking
Mike, in case you were curious.
To: GWfan
I care, as well.
18
posted on
12/13/2002 5:56:37 PM PST
by
AM2000
To: Trailerpark Badass
They not were against the federal government interfering these laws, of course, they actively worked for these laws in their own states.
To: mvpel
but in the same breath they wanted the government to weild its coercive force to prevent a black person and a white person from marrying one another. No big surprise, you have a few people here who feel that there should be laws against interracial marriage.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-189 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson