US Intrusions Into Race Relations In The South

 

The liberal media and public schools often try to make it appear that centralised US government and US government intrusions into race relations were and are needed by pointing to examples in Southern history. But when the whole story and each side of the issues are considered, those examples usually illustrate the evils of big government and the importance of limited constitutional government.

Consider the slavery issue. In 1776 slavery existed legally in every state of the Union, and when the US Constitution was ratified it was neither a pro-slavery or anti-slavery document. After the American War for Independence the northern states began to progressively remove their slave populations for the sake of profit, as slavery was not very profitable in the north, and to reduce their black populations and not for principles of morality as so many have been led to believe. The northern States always protected the property rights of northern slave owners and none of the northern States ever passed a law emancipating anyone who was already a slave. It is important to note that the end of slavery in northern States was gradual, usually through selling slaves to Southern States or the Caribbean, and there is no credible argument that the institution of slavery in the Southern States would have survived into the twentieth century without the armed invasion of the CSA.

It is easy to look back and make a blanket condemnation of slave states and southern slave owners without considering the whole situation, and it was hypocritical of northerners to condemn southern slavery while condoning deplorable conditions in northern factories. Slaves in the southern states often lived under better conditions and better treatment than white factory workers in the north, and in many cases the conditions in northern factories were worse than the worse southern plantations. Slavery did not give slave owners an economic advantage over northern factory owners: northern factory owners paid meager wages and were indifferent toward working conditions and the lives of employees as employees were easily replaced while slave owners had to take care of their slaves and slaves were expensive to replace.

Why didn't the Bible prohibit slavery? All men are equal in creation and redemption, but at the same time all men are unequal in abilities, talents, social station, etc. While all humans are of equal value as persons in creation and redemption the Gospel does not change our positions in life. For example, becoming Christians does not mean that a married couple cease to be married or that either one has a change in gender or that the roles of headship and helpmeet are nullified, and the existence of abusive husbands does not make marriage evil. (Galatians 3:28) Consider also that making slaves of war captives and certain criminals was more merciful and advantageous than killing them; the absence of black slavery would have meant death and not freedom for most who became slaves, and the black slaves were already slaves enslaved by black Africans before they were brought to America. (Of course, that is a broad statement made to be brief, and further research is encouraged.)

I do not argue for a return to slavery, and I do not know of anyone who does; the point is that the abolition of slavery was not the reason the USA invaded the CSA and the existence of slavery in the CSA did not justify the armed invasion. During the American War of Independence all thirteen States had slavery and England had already abolished slavery, British interference with the institution of slavery was among the reasons for secession from the British Empire outlined in the Declaration of Independence, the British insisted that the Americans just wanted to keep their slaves, and the British actively recruited slaves that belonged to patriot masters; does this mean the American War of Independence was fought over slavery? The USA invaded the CSA because of lust for money and power, not a desire to free slaves, and the Confederate States fought because their country was invaded. Incidentally, when Italy invaded and conquered Ethiopia in 1935 Benito Mussolini freed the slaves and abolished slavery there, so why isn’t he honoured and celebrated in Ethiopia?

Arguments that US intrusions were justified by racism in the South tend to be one-sided and hypocritical. For example, you have likely heard that Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens said that the negro is not equal to the white man and subordination to the white race is his natural and normal condition, but were you aware that Abraham Lincoln and other US leaders made similar statements?

In the decades preceding the War of Northern Aggression and subsequent abolition of slavery numerous southern statesmen, clergy, and southern abolitionists warned of dangers in the sudden emancipation of all slaves (and naturally nobody in the South wanted a repeat of what happened in Haiti), and those predictions came true. The US government abolished slavery for political purposes and not for moral principles or humanitarianism, and this became obvious during the so-called Reconstruction of the South. During the so-called Reconstruction of the South (1865 – 1877) US intrusions, US extremes, martial law, political corruption, and the excesses of the Republican Party, the Union League, and the Freedmen's Bureau, and increasing black-on-white crime, provoked reactions and attitudes that lasted for generations. The Fourteenth Amendment was used to keep white southrons from voting or holding public offices and the Fifteenth Amendment made illiterates the overwhelming majority vote in the South, and this enabled carpetbaggers, scalawags, and other radicals to take advantage of a bad situation, use and exploit freed slaves, and win elections with unrealistic and outrageous campaign promises. (Southern Legislatures and statesmen tried in vain to persuade the US Congress to delay ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment until the freed slaves learned to read and assimilated into free society.) The US government gave black people special rights and discriminated against white southrons, and enacted laws and programs obviously meant to pit whites and blacks against each other, and all of this was enforced through martial law. (An old trick of tyrants and empires is to keep ethnic groups pitted against each other to keep them from recognising their common enemy.) The US government tried to remove white southrons from the political life of their communities and states and establish black dominance in the Southern States at a time when whites and blacks in the South were the most dissimilar cultures in the world: white southrons came from a background of Anglo-Celtic culture that had been influenced by Christianity for centuries and black people in general were just a few generations from African heathenism and barbarism.

The murder of Emmitt Louis Till in Money, Mississippi (August 28, 1955), was an early catalyst for the so-called Civil Rights Movement. The murder of Emmitt Till was used to justify US government intrusions and is still used to demonise the South. In school I was taught that Emmitt Till was in Mississippi visiting relatives in 1955 and was lynched just for whistling at a white woman. Looking at details of the case and considering the accounts and statements of friends and relatives who were with him when he flirted with a white woman makes me think the case got so much media coverage because northern liberals and southern scalawags saw an opportunity to stir up racial tensions and further demonize the South. Consider: Suppose a group of white boys were in a black neighborhood in Chicago (or Atlanta, Detroit, etc.) and one of them, a white teenager from another State, on a dare flirted with a married black woman, taking her hand and then putting his hands on her waist while using vulgarity as he propositioned her and bragged to her about fornication with other black women and then whistled at her as a friend or cousin pulled him away from her. Could this arouse any negative reactions in the community? Is it possible that a jealous black husband might decide to deal with him personally and could even become violent?

In the decades preceding and during the so-called Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and '60s numerous southern statesmen and clergy warned of dangers in the race-mixing movement and racial egalitarianism and those predictions came true. Look at the years and decades since and seriously consider: Did racial egalitarianism and coerced racial integration produce racial harmony or foster civil unrest and increasing black-on-white crime (which the liberal media tries to censor) while infringing on State sovereignty and increasing US government power? The US intrusions involved were reminiscent of the so-called Reconstruction of the South. The attempts of social engineers to change hearts through legislation and court decisions are self-defeating and social programs purported to alleviate racial tensions and produce racial harmony, such as through racial egalitarianism and Ex Post Facto Laws, usually have the opposite effect. During the so-called Freedom Marches of the 1960s, which were often held without a parade permit, demonstrators smoked marijuana, spat on or assaulted police officers, and fornicated in the open, and afterward the local authorities were left with the problem of dealing with the tons of garbage that was left by demonstrators, which included used condoms, drug paraphernalia, and feces; by not covering those aspects the news media was able to make many Americans believe that race was the only reason white southerners objected to the Freedom Marches coming through their towns. During the so-called Civil Rights Movement, media censorship of increasing black-on-white crime, sensationalized and distorted news reports and docudramas, and other distorted media portrayals of the South, fostered white guilt and bleeding hearts, and the US government instituted policies and programs that may have appeared noble at first glance but were obviously designed to expand US government power, subvert homogenous cultures to make people easier to control, and pit blacks and whites against each other to prevent them from recognizing their common enemy. Consider just a few examples:

The Pleggy VS Ferguson decision of 1896, which made racial segregation the official US policy for over fifty years, was repudiated in the Brown VS Board of Education decision of 1954, and both US Supreme Court Decisions were based on interpretations of an Amendment (Fourteenth Amendment) that was never ratified by the states and therefore is not lawfully part of the US Constitution. The Brown VS Board of Education decision of 1954 was a means to expand US government power. For example, efforts to use the National Guard to block enforcement of Brown VS Board of Education were countered by deploying federal troops and federalising the National Guard of a resisting State, and in these and other ways the US government violated the US Constitution to enforce a power not delegated to the US government by the US Constitution.

All-white colleges in the South (e.g., University of Mississippi & University of Alabama) were not merely required to racially integrate; they were forced to enroll black students who previously would have been rejected if they had been white because they did not meet the required standards. This was not about the right to a college education as there were black colleges throughout the South.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not give non-whites equal rights as racial equality was already the law of the land; the Civil Rights Act of 1964 required racial egalitarianism, special rights for ethnic minorities, racial quotas, and discrimination against white people.

If black people were not allowed to vote in Alabama and other Southern States prior to the Voting Rights Act, then how do you explain the black counties and black cities in Alabama and other Southern States with black public officials and all-black electorates prior to 1965? Prior to 1965 the state of Alabama and other Southern States required basic literacy and a basic knowledge of the US Constitution and state government to be eligible to vote. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 did not give non-whites the right to vote as they already had the right to vote for almost a century; it secured voting privileges for illiterates who would have been ineligible to vote prior to 1965 if they had been white. (While universal suffrage may sound like a noble cause, this inevitably results in a majoritarian democracy, mob rule, that gives unchequed government power to charismatic personalities.)

In 1967 the US Supreme Court held State Miscegenation Laws to be unconstitutional, in the Loving vs Virginia decision, which was an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Beginning in 2013 Loving vs Virginia has been cited as precedent in US federal court decisions that held state laws restricting same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional, and this should not have been a shock or surprise to anyone. It is interesting that those who argue that miscegenation laws and restrictions against same-sex marriage violated civil rights by restricting the choice of a marriage mate and are therefore unconstitutional do not always apply the same argument to other marriage laws that restrict the choice of a marriage mate. What about state laws that limit the number of times someone can divorce and remarry? What about state laws that raise the age at which teenagers can marry even with parental consent?  What about state laws prohibiting first cousins from marrying? (The USA is the only country with restrictions against first cousin marriage, and those States that restricted it did so based on claims and data that were later disproved.) Why don’t they challenge the constitutionality of those laws? Have you considered the possibility that liberals just did not consider those other marriage laws to be issues as useful or effective in centralising government? (The modern racing-mixing movement was sponsored by globalists who said over the years that humans will be easier to control when they are all the same colour. Personal research is encouraged.) Whether you agree or disagree with miscegenation laws, it is obvious that this issue should not have been decided by the US government as it was a violation of the Tenth Amendment for the US government to intrude in such matters. As with many other US Supreme Court decisions, the Loving vs Virginia decision did not actually protect a constitutional right but did expand US government power and the power of US federal courts especially. (If you research Loving vs Virginia some aspects of the case might arouse questions and suspicions about how and why it became a criminal case, went to trial, and went to the US Supreme Court. E.g., the lack of evidence that Mildred Loving had any black ancestry; Mildred Loving was American Indian and marriages between white people and American Indians were not illegal in Virginia.)

This is not saying that black people have always had it good, this is simply saying that the way things were handled or accomplished was often wrong and often caused more problems than were solved. (You do not have to take my word on this. I encourage you to research these things on your own.)