Civil Rights Movement

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_State_Sovereignty_Commission

Why didn't I ever hear about this before? I found out about it from /pol/ of all places. Pretty interesting stuff, does anyone else have any information to share about the Civil Rights Movement that isn't well known?

I got the mugshot from the Commission's digital archives at mdah.ms.gov/arrec/digital_archives/sovcom/

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Walker#Political_career
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_State_Sovereignty_Commission
nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93442.pdf)
census.gov/population/www/cen2000/censusatlas/pdf/10_Education.pdf
nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_coi.asp)
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Also is the information in this image accurate?

Shit, that's fascinating.

No idea how true the information is, but fuck me, I've always been skeptical of the Civil Rights movement and now this contextualizes everything should it be proven true.

>He was temporarily held in a mental institution on orders from Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy.

>Kennedy demanded that Walker receive a 90-day psychiatric examination.[16]

The attorney general's decision was challenged by noted psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, who insisted that psychiatry must never become a tool of political rivalry. The American Civil Liberties Union joined Szasz in a protest against the attorney general, completing this coalition of liberal and conservative leaders. The attorney general had to back down, and Walker spent only five days in the asylum.[17]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Walker#Political_career

PIC RELATED -> A vicious tyrant who throws his political opponents in psychiatric wards when they disagree with him.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_State_Sovereignty_Commission

Why did the south have to forever ruin the concept of "state's rights" with their segregationist bullshit?

They can't help but turn everything that they touch to shit.

Because segregation was a state right?

>you had whites being bussed out of their neighborhoods to black schools and blacks being bussed out of their neighborhoods to the white neighborhood. Ask your grandparents about that
I don't even need to ask my grandparents about it. I can ask my dad or myself about it. Those laws are fucking still in place in some parts of the South. I lived in an unincorporated community in Alabama. For all intents and purposes, I should have gone to county school. Instead, because of laws set up by fucking Eisenhower and JF fucking K, I got sent to the inner city school with the negroes. You want to know what hell on Earth is like? Imagine going to a school where getting stabbed, shot, or beaten to death was a REAL possibility on a daily basis. The only good thing about it was that we got at least one day off every week or two because some nigger brought a gun to school or someone died or there was a bomb threat. Seriously, fuck bussing laws.

Do you know what he did though. Doesn't warrant entering a ward but an arrest would have been fine.

>your freedoms are only important when you do what I want

Can anyone comment on this? Will check out the books and videos but that is a lot of claims.

>segregation was due to end naturally
Wait, what would this have looked like? If things were as rosy as that poster said under segregation, then why would it ever end naturally?

One state after the other

It's the same shit as gay marriage

No need to go the "social subversion without representation" way

So something like northern states repealing segregation laws in recognition of a growing black middle class demanding equal representation and then this trickling down to southern states over maybe another 50-100 years?

I mean, it just feels awfully hypothetical. The whole civil rights movement and a lot of these events grew out of the same pressures. If not Brown vs. Board, surely some other high-profile federal suit would have happened, no?

>repeatedly break the law and violate people's rights
>what, you're going to stop us from doing that?
>but that's against the law, and a violation of our rights

It's also hard to follow the train of thought of the original argument, mostly because the context is missing. As far as I can tell it seems to be that:
-BvB was ultimately more harmful than helpful to the civil rights movement
-BvB was pushed by sociologists operating on flawed methodology
-segregation was a divisive topic with some blacks supporting it and some blacks against
-the decision to end segregation was pursued mostly by a small minority that was hardly representative.

Just trying to make sure I've understood it correctly.

It'd be like Europe.

Southern European countries tend to join the party later than Northern nations when it comes to introduce social reforms, but they actually do.

Yeah, but Europe has no higher federal body to appeal to for social reform (no, the EU is not quite there yet). Like I said, the time was ripe for some sort of high-profile federal suit.

>Yeah, but Europe has no higher federal body to appeal to for social reform
And you don't need it. What you need is time. They join when they're ready.

>legal equality was supposed to happen in the 1860s
>south successfully suppresses it for a full century
>IF YOU MEAN YANKEES HAD JUST WAITED

I don't see the issue with segregation, you want more taxes in your provinces?
If race doesn't exist then segregation doesn't exist, it is just provincial loyalty.

/pol/ is rarely coherent, they're just against things, which is why they've taken so well to Trump. They have this logic that if they prove everyone else wrong, it makes them right, even if it gets to the point where they're contradictory and disprove themselves.

many provinces in the US recieves more taxes and funding, Negroes are simply the bane of the white race desu.

The incoherent ones are the ones whos world view is "educated" which means chosen and not inherently true.

wtf I hate civil rights now

Because "separate but equal" is a meme.

BvB and other cases like it are always harmful, no matter the movement. Judicial activism, especially when it is completely irrelevant to Constitutional matters like BvB was, shouldn't be tolerated at all. Instead, because it enforces a political paradigm of the reigning party, it's not only tolerated but lauded. It was never intended to work that way. Regardless, yes, that's pretty much the gist of their argument. It's not fully correct. I'd hardly call the civil rights movement a small minority. They weren't the majority, though, that's for sure. It was mostly made up of disenfranchised blacks in the South, and Northern student protest movements like Students for a Democratic Society while being opposed by Southerners and some Northern urban areas (Boston was an infamous haven of segregationists for example). The rest of America couldn't give a fuck about segregation and civil rights. The only times they did care were when CRM leaders were killed or when buses/churches/houses were bombed. They were appalled at the violence.

>Reconstruction
>the literal act of disenfranchising the vast majority of the South for the sole purpose of brute forcing legislation
>equality
That's a spicy meme you've latched on, lad. Are you sure it's correct?

Equality in general is a meme

>you can't just force through civil rights legislation
>that's a violation of our civil rights

This is why I don't get mad when SJWs deface monuments to Southern war dead.

That's not what I meant. "Separate but equal" was a meme because the services offered to the black citizenry was either non existent of explicitly inferior in quality.

Services of southerners was done by southerners, just because negs are inferior doesn't mean white man is keeping them down, they produced nothing and whites shouldn't provide a single dime to anyone else.

>government built on representation
>do the exact opposite of that
Much of Reconstruction wasn't even geared at civil rights.

>you can't make us be representative without our representation
>ignoring the fact that the states voluntarily joined the union and abiding by the constitution was part of that

At least when niggers dindu nuffin they usually just dindu a bike or a white woman or Baltimore.

separate but equal is exactly that, you either are equal and it's completely arbitrary the segregation, or you're not and it results in inferior living because of inferior people.

if necessary I believe some capital should be given in proportion to the hard capital of the whites.

>forcing you to live with people you don't want to live with is totally not coercion

The South was just as representative as the North.

top kek.

Good, then they shouldn't have had any problems with people desegregating the schools or registering black voters.

Unless, of course, they'd been systematically ignoring the constitutional protections they'd agreed to uphold when they joined the US.

But why would they do that.

Know you are entering pure delusion.

>had literally done nothing wrong
>until legislation from the bench decided they had
You see, Judicial Activism is something that was never counted on in our Constitution, but it's something that we're forced to put up with because of fuckboys like you.

>Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And yet, the South had completely upheld that.

Okay.

Then why was Brown vs. Board of Education such a problem?

If separate but equal actually meant equal, then what changed?

This.

I didn't learn shit through middle school because half of class was dedicated to making Tyrone sit in his seat and the second half was dedicated to making laquisha stop screaming. I only started learning shit when I got to high school and enrolled in AP (aka white) classes.

Did your middle school not have honors and academic classes?

>Then why was Brown vs. Board of Education such a problem?
The Supreme Court stepped out of their intended bounds and legislated from the bench. All evidence within BvB was completely constitutional. The South, legally and constitutionally, had done nothing wrong with segregation or Jim Crow. Had they done so, any of the numerous court cases against segregation in the years (or even the same year) before BvB would have had the same outcome. It's the same criticism against the Lochner Era, and the same criticism the dissenting judges had during the gay marriage ruling just last year. The issue is not BvB itself, it's judicial activism. Had the ruling come from Congress or the Senate, it would be a different story. Instead, a law was created from a non-constitutional ruling which was forced upon an unrepresented nation which goes against everything this nation was built upon.

What shitty middle school did you go to?

>If separate but equal actually meant equal, then what changed?

Activist judges got on the Supreme Court. The court had already ruled segregation constitutional, I mean the federal military was fucking segregated until the late 40s.

>when the Supreme Court rules in my favor, it's legitimate
>if they rule against me, it's judicial activism

Mississippian with generations of roots here. AMA. OP, google "Citizens Councils" if you want some really fucked up shit.

Yes but AP classes actually required parent signatures which was enough to keep most blacks out lol.

>When the Supreme Court rules in favor or against a law regardless of the constitutionality of the law, but instead because of how they FEEL about the law, it's judicial activism
FTFY

When it changes existing precedent it's activism.

Ayy, another MSfag.

What part of the state do you live in?

North central. Oxford area.

What would you think about Sweatt v Painter or McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents?

>the 60 years of jurisprudence after reconstruction is legitimate because it serves my political ends
>the most recent 60 years of jurisprudence isn't because muh feels

We all lose some times, there's no need to be a sore loser.

Gulf Coast area myself.

Any ancestors who fought in the Civil War?

You just repeated your same green text meme argument. I already defined what judicial activism meant and you have nothing.

Textbook examples of bench legislation, but not really what I was talking about when I mention other cases. More aspects than just segregated education were challenged in the 1950's. In fact, initially, education was the only place where desegregationists could gain ground until the 1960's.

>thinking this has anything do with whether or not we agree with law or not
I don't think legally mandated segregation is right. I don't think legally mandated integration is right either. SCOTUS still went out of bounds.

Oh yea. Some from MS, some from NC and VA. Several were KIA. I don't know much about any of them though.

gradual integration and/or equality of funding would have been better. Black schools or formerly minority schools were still neglected by school boards and states all over.

I mean "were and still are in many many palces"

Cohabitation is a local issue, not federal

Which is part of the reason why less blacks graduate or do well outside of school.

What could be more ironic (moronic) than arguing over the legality of Civil Rights measures?

Can something be illegal if the SCOTUS says it's not?

Because SCOTUS changes it's mind constantly. They declared the death penalty unconditional and then constitutional within a decade of each other. They also just overturned parts of the Voting Rights Act so constitutional law is very much a good topic of debate.

Of course they change their mind, but so does Congress. We fucking amended the Constitution for banning alcohol, then amended it again a couple decades later to erase the original amendment. Just think about that for a minute. Also, you didn't answer my question.

>Can something be illegal if the SCOTUS says it's not?

I answered you first question bub, arguing about the legality of Civil Right measures is definitely not moronic.

>Law is a static concept

Kill one's self.

That's a question of the integrity of the SCOTUS, really.

>laws should be changed like pairs of socks
kay why ess

If a law is outdated as fuck or harmful then sure.
Prohibition was a shitty thing so it was easy to remove once the whole moral panic went down

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. My point is that laws change, constantly. It's not a question of whether I agree with always-changing laws, it's a matter of fact.

And they should change through the democratic process line out in the agreed constitution, not through judicial activism.

>80% of blacks drafted met literacy requirements. 80% of blacks dont graduate high school today.

That's a false equivalence. You can be literate enough for service without graduating high school. Sources vary widely, but high-school completion rates among blacks in 1950 was at the lowest 10-15%. (nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93442.pdf) If you look at the census data provided here: census.gov/population/www/cen2000/censusatlas/pdf/10_Education.pdf , you can see that many areas of the rural south in 1950 had high school completion rates of less than 15%.

To imply that graduation rates have decreased since then is pretty silly. Overall black graduation rates in 2014 was somewhere around 73% (nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_coi.asp) That's still much lower than white and Asian students. However, even if they have lagged behind whites, the graduation rate for blacks has only trended upwards over the years.

SCOTUS has the legal right to do what they did during Brown v. Board of Education. Judicial activism, unfortunately, is granted to them by the very nature of their existence. No one is denying that. However, the idea behind SCOTUS is to determine whether or not a law is Constitutional or not. That's it. That's what it was designed to do: to ensure that laws passed by the legislative and executive branch were within the bounds of the Constitution. Judicial Activism takes this one step further and determines not whether a law is constitutional, but instead upon the personal decision of judges appointed to SCOTUS. This is the main dispute about SCOTUS, and has always been a big problem with SCOTUS, and was the main point of the dissenting opinions of the gay marriage decision and the largest criticisms of the Lochner Era. Ultimately, what it comes down to is the same fight that the right and left in the U.S. have been fighting about for centuries. Is the Constitution a limitation of what the government (and SCOTUS) can do or it is an outline of what they cannot do and everything else is free game? The American left thinks it's the latter. The American right thinks it's the former. Ironically, they're both right in different ways. Politics in America have always been an argument about semantics desu. Hell, the Civil War was ultimately an argument about whether the correct statement was "These United States are" or "The United States is."

>Hell, the Civil War was ultimately an argument about whether the correct statement was "These United States are" or "The United States is."

That's a good way of putting it.

She's kind of cute 2bh.

>it's another "thinly veiled /pol/ on Veeky Forums" thread

How so?

Prohibition isn't a great example, though, because both its introduction and its end involved constitutional amendments. Agreed, though, that sixty years was enough time to recognize that Plessy v. Ferguson's "separate but equal" was a farce, as services for blacks were vastly inferior and by no means equal.

This is one of the major problems with con law; SCOTUS's credibility is shot, people just perceive them as political actors.

There were two cases, South Carolina v. Gathers and Payne v. Tennessee, that looked like a naked political power grab when the decision to exclude victim impact statements from criminal trials in Gathers, from 1989, was overturned by Payne in 1991. What happened in the mere span of two years to render what was once unconstitutional now constitutional? Brennan retired and Bush I replaced him with Souter (at that point more conservative, particularly concerning criminal law). White switched sides from the majority in Gathers to the majority in Payne so it would look less like a mere product of the court's makeup changing. The precedent didn't matter at all, just who was on SCOTUS.

1/2

It's hard to know who to blame for this loss of confidence in the federal courts; probably everyone and nobody. The Warren Court made some much needed changes to old precedent, but may have gone further than they should have in some respects. The decision by some politicians and federal judges to require bussing was a disaster. The later Burger and Rehnquist courts had a clear MO to destroy the decisions of the Warren and early Burger courts by whittling them down or outright overturning them now that there was a more conservative majority. The Democrats unfortunately decided to politicize the appointment process by opposing Robert Bork, and later Clarence Thomas, and this has spread to federal circuit and district judges too.

Thus you have the situation today, where Bernie Sanders says he (and now Hillary) would appoint judges who will overturn specific cases, no matter how recent, and make decisions that will align with specific policy goals, and people cheer. Meanwhile someone like Ted Cruz wanted to appoint judges who would end Obamacare, and other people cheered. No wonder SCOTUS is viewed merely as a political tool and constitutional law has fallen into disrepute.

>/pol/
Stopped reading right there

He stole that from National Treasure 2

A thread where one of the very first and most quoted posts is a screenshot from /pol/ and people in the thread continue talking about "inferior people" surely has nothing to do with /pol/.

There's been an influx in /pol/ threads here lately, have they been trying to invade and "redpill" this board too?

"Mugged" by Ann Coulter, and "Hillary's 2016" by Dinesh D'Souza.

>Ann Coulter

I guess people were just imagining all those sundown towns.

C-can't you understand that the smart white people in those towns were just trying to maintain the moral and genetic purity of their people? And the only way to do that was to live in constant fear of being attacked and destroyed by black people?

An american one?

Except I didn't. It's a pretty well-known comparison that's been around in print since at least 1934.

Not sure how that refutes anything?

>It took less than 50 years of attempted integration for neo-segregation beliefs to become mainstream

Really makes you think...

>Can't you understand that the smart jews were just trying to maintain the emortal and genetic purity of their people? And the only way to do that is to live in constant fear of the goyim killing another 6 million?

Let me guess it's okay when the Jews do it lol

I can imagine that graduating high school in 1950 wasn't as needed for finding a good job especially in rural areas. Working on a farm or factory requires just a basic education and it was very common, especially for rural males to drop out at 16 and start work at blue collar jobs

>1973
I don't know enough about Jews during that time but it's a pretty radically conservative opinion to only marry Jews.
Even if they did, that has nothing to do with segregation. Refusing to live in a town with black people is on an entirely separate level than wanting a spouse with your religious views.

>Jewry is a religion

You wot m8