(06-22-2019 07:39 PM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  Slavery was the history of the world since the beginning of humanity. Finally, along came the Founding Fathers, who wrote one of the greatest documents ever that envisioned liberating humanity and providing equal opportunity for all, without regard to race (the word was never mentioned in the original constitution), wealth, religion, etc. But because it was a revolutionary new idea, some compromises had to be made at the outset, and the reality of living conditions in the country did not match what the constitution envisioned. It took a civil war, with great loss of (primarily non-slave) lives to correct a major flaw in the constitution, and women had to fight a long, hard battle to be able to vote.

Instead of applauding the progress made over the centuries after the birth of America, some seek to destroy this country because it was not perfect at its founding, and this original sin can never be rectified, in their estimation. These people are continually looking to the past and finding fault, instead of looking to the future with optimism. We now have a president who has done more for black people than any president since Lincoln, but do these people support our president? They don't even acknowledge that he is the legitimate president of this country!

Outstanding reply, Kate.

(06-22-2019 08:33 PM)J. Beckert Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 07:39 PM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  We now have a president who has done more for black people than any president since Lincoln . . . .

Outstanding reply, Kate.

Really?! I thought only Donald Trump thought that statement to be true.

(06-22-2019 07:39 PM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  Slavery was the history of the world since the beginning of humanity. Finally, along came the Founding Fathers, who wrote one of the greatest documents ever that envisioned liberating humanity and providing equal opportunity for all, without regard to race (the word was never mentioned in the original constitution), wealth, religion, etc. But because it was a revolutionary new idea, some compromises had to be made at the outset, and the reality of living conditions in the country did not match what the constitution envisioned. It took a civil war, with great loss of (primarily non-slave) lives to correct a major flaw in the constitution, and women had to fight a long, hard battle to be able to vote.

Instead of applauding the progress made over the centuries after the birth of America, some seek to destroy this country because it was not perfect at its founding, and this original sin can never be rectified, in their estimation. These people are continually looking to the past and finding fault, instead of looking to the future with optimism. We now have a president who has done more for black people than any president since Lincoln, but do these people support our president? They don't even acknowledge that he is the legitimate president of this country!

Well said!

As Christine started this thread, I can only reiterate - sigh

President John F. Kennedy and the Civil Rights Movement

The turbulent end of state-sanctioned racial discrimination was one of the most pressing domestic issues of the 1960s. Jim Crow segregation was the established law in the Deep South. The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. Many schools, especially those in southern states, did not obey the Supreme Court's decision. The Court also prohibited segregation at other public facilities (such as buses, restaurants, theaters, courtrooms, bathrooms, and beaches) but it continued nonetheless.

President Kennedy verbally supported racial integration and civil rights; during his 1960 presidential campaign, he telephoned Coretta Scott King, wife of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., who had been jailed while trying to integrate a department store lunch counter. Robert Kennedy called Georgia governor Ernest Vandiver and obtained King's release from prison, which drew additional black support to his brother's candidacy. Upon taking office in 1961, Kennedy postponed promised civil rights legislation he made while campaigning in 1960, recognizing that conservative Southern Democrats controlled congressional legislation. Historian Carl M. Brauer concluded that passing any civil rights legislation in 1961 would have been futile. During his first year in office, Kennedy appointed many blacks to office including his May appointment of civil rights attorney Thurgood Marshall to the federal bench.

In his first State of the Union Address in January 1961, President Kennedy said, "The denial of constitutional rights to some of our fellow Americans on account of race – at the ballot box and elsewhere – disturbs the national conscience, and subjects us to the charge of world opinion that our democracy is not equal to the high promise of our heritage." Kennedy believed the grassroots movement for civil rights would anger many Southern whites and make it more difficult to pass civil rights laws in Congress, including anti-poverty legislation, and he distanced himself from it.

Kennedy was concerned with other issues in the early part of his administration, such as the Cold War, Bay of Pigs fiasco, and the situation in Southeast Asia. As articulated by his brother Robert, the administration's early priority was to "keep the president out of this civil rights mess." Civil rights movement participants, mainly those on the front line in the South, viewed Kennedy as lukewarm, especially concerning the Freedom Riders, who organized an integrated public transportation effort in the south, and who were repeatedly met with white mob violence, including by law enforcement officers, both federal and state. Kennedy assigned federal marshals to protect the Freedom Riders rather than using federal troops or uncooperative FBI agents. Robert Kennedy, speaking for the president, urged the Freedom Riders to "get off the buses and leave the matter to peaceful settlement in the courts." Kennedy feared sending federal troops would stir up "hated memories of Reconstruction" after the Civil War among conservative Southern whites.

On March 6, 1961, Kennedy signed Executive Order 10925, which required government contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." It established the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity. Displeased with Kennedy's pace addressing the issue of segregation, Martin Luther King Jr. and his associates produced a document in 1962 calling on the president to follow in the footsteps of Abraham Lincoln and use an Executive Order to deliver a blow for Civil Rights as a kind of Second Emancipation Proclamation. Kennedy did not execute the order.

In September 1962, James Meredith enrolled at the University of Mississippi but was prevented from entering. In response to that, Robert Kennedy, now U.S. Attorney General, sent 400 federal marshals, while President Kennedy reluctantly sent 3,000 troops after the situation on campus turned out violent. The Ole Miss riot of 1962 left two people dead and a dozen others injured, but Meredith did finally enroll for class. Kennedy regretted not sending in troops earlier and he began doubting as to whether the "evils of Reconstruction" of the 1860s and 1870s he had been taught or believed in were true. The instigating subculture at the Old Miss riot, and at many other racially ignited events, was the Ku Klux Klan. On November 20, 1962, Kennedy signed Executive Order 11063, which prohibited racial discrimination in federally supported housing or "related facilities".

Both the President and the Attorney General were concerned about King's ties to suspected Communists Jack O'Dell and Stanley Levison. After the President and his civil rights expert Harris Wofford pressed King to ask both men to resign from the SCLC, King agreed to ask only O'Dell to resign from the organization and allowed Levison, whom he regarded as a trusted advisor, to remain.

In early 1963, Kennedy related to Martin Luther King Jr. his thoughts on the prospects for civil rights legislation: "If we get into a long fight over this in Congress, it will bottleneck everything else, and we will still get no bill." Civil rights clashes were on the rise that year. Brother Robert and Ted Sorenson pressed Kennedy to take more initiative on the legislative front.

On June 11, 1963, President Kennedy intervened when Alabama Governor George Wallace blocked the doorway to the University of Alabama to stop two African American students, Vivian Malone and James Hood, from attending. Wallace moved aside only after being confronted by Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach and the Alabama U.S. National Guard, which had just been federalized by order of the president. That evening Kennedy gave his famous Report to the American People on Civil Rights on national television and radio, launching his initiative for civil rights legislation—to provide equal access to public schools and other facilities, and greater protection of voting rights.

His proposals became part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The day ended with the murder of a NAACP leader, Medgar Evers, in front of his home in Mississippi. As the president had predicted, the day after his TV speech, and in reaction to it, House Majority leader Carl Albert called to advise him that his two-year signature effort in Congress to combat poverty in Appalachia (Area Redevelopment Administration) had been defeated, primarily by the votes of Southern Democrats and Republicans. When Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. complimented Kennedy on his remarks, Kennedy bitterly replied, "Yes, and look at what happened to area development the very next day in the House." He then added, "But of course, I had to give that speech, and I'm glad that I did." On June 16, The New York Times published an editorial which argued that while the president had initially "moved too slowly and with little evidence of deep moral commitment" in regards to civil rights he "now demonstrate[d] a genuine sense of urgency about eradicating racial discrimination from our national life."

Earlier, Kennedy had signed the executive order creating the Presidential Commission on the Status of Women on December 14, 1961. Former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt led the commission. The Commission statistics revealed that women were also experiencing discrimination; its final report, documenting legal and cultural barriers, was issued in October 1963. Further, on June 10, 1963, Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which amended the Fair Labor Standards Act and abolished wage disparity based on sex.

Over a hundred thousand, predominantly African Americans gathered in Washington for the civil rights March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom on August 28, 1963. Kennedy feared the March would have a negative effect on the prospects for the civil rights bills in Congress, and declined an invitation to speak. He turned over some of the details of the government's involvement to the Dept. of Justice, which channeled hundreds of thousands of dollars to the six sponsors of the March, including the N.A.A.C.P. and Martin Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC). To ensure a peaceful demonstration, the organizers and the president personally edited speeches which were inflammatory and agreed the March would be held on a Wednesday and would be over at 4:00 pm. Thousands of troops were placed on standby. Kennedy watched King's speech on TV and was very impressed. The March was considered a "triumph of managed protest", and not one arrest relating to the demonstration occurred. Afterwards, the March leaders accepted an invitation to the White House to meet with Kennedy and photos were taken. Kennedy felt that the March was a victory for him as well and bolstered the chances for his civil rights bill.

Nevertheless, the struggle was far from over. Three weeks later, a bomb exploded on Sunday, September 15, at the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham; by the end of the day, four African American children had died in the explosion, and two other children were shot to death in the aftermath. Due to this resurgent violence, the civil rights legislation underwent some drastic amendments that critically endangered any prospects for passage of the bill, to the outrage of the president. Kennedy called the congressional leaders to the White House and by the following day the original bill, without the additions, had enough votes to get it out of the House committee. Gaining Republican support, Senator Everett Dirksen promised the legislation would be brought to a vote preventing a Senate filibuster. The legislation was enacted by Kennedy's successor President Lyndon B. Johnson, prompted by Kennedy's memory, after his assassination in November, enforcing voting rights, public accommodations, employment, education, and the administration of justice.

(Source: Wikipedia on John F. Kennedy)

Now, exactly what has President Trump “done more for black people than any president since Lincoln?”

(06-22-2019 08:33 PM)J. Beckert Wrote:  

(06-22-2019 07:39 PM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  Slavery was the history of the world since the beginning of humanity. Finally, along came the Founding Fathers, who wrote one of the greatest documents ever that envisioned liberating humanity and providing equal opportunity for all, without regard to race (the word was never mentioned in the original constitution), wealth, religion, etc. But because it was a revolutionary new idea, some compromises had to be made at the outset, and the reality of living conditions in the country did not match what the constitution envisioned. It took a civil war, with great loss of (primarily non-slave) lives to correct a major flaw in the constitution, and women had to fight a long, hard battle to be able to vote.

Instead of applauding the progress made over the centuries after the birth of America, some seek to destroy this country because it was not perfect at its founding, and this original sin can never be rectified, in their estimation. These people are continually looking to the past and finding fault, instead of looking to the future with optimism. We now have a president who has done more for black people than any president since Lincoln, but do these people support our president? They don't even acknowledge that he is the legitimate president of this country!

Outstanding reply, Kate.

Agreed - 100%

---

(06-23-2019 07:50 AM)Rsmyth Wrote:  As Christine started this thread, I can only reiterate - sigh

Is that a slap at Christine or, I hope, a reflection that the situation is very complicated, not well-thought-out, and destined to continue for generations before people decide to move on?

"[T]he rebellion continues, and now that the election is over, may not all having a common interest reunite in a common effort to save our common country? For my own part, I have striven and shall strive to avoid placing any obstacle in the way. So long as I have been here I have not willingly planted a thorn in any man's bosom. While I am deeply sensible to the high compliment of a reelection, and duly grateful as I trust, to Almighty God for having directed my countrymen to a right conclusion, as I think, for their own good, it adds nothing to my satisfaction that any other man may be disappointed or pained by the result."

From a response to a serenade; Washington, D.C., Nov. 10, 1864 -- Complete Works, X, p. 264.

I do not doubt that the Russians interfered in the last presidential election to such an extent that it may well have affected the outcome of that election. And, yes, I do agree that there are some citizens who do not believe that Donald Trump is the legitimate president of this country and refuse to acknowledge the fact that he is the President of the United States. But Donald Trump is currently in his third year serving as President of the United States and is now actively running for a second term in office. I am not aware of any lawsuit currently making its way to the United States Supreme Court challenging the constitutional legitimacy of Donald Trump as President of the United States. This issue appears to me to be "a tempest in a tea pot."

(06-22-2019 09:49 AM)L Verge Wrote:  

(06-21-2019 09:50 AM)Christine Wrote:  A couple of thoughts I had this morning while out walking:

Did the federal government ever buy, sell, or hold slaves? Did any state government ever buy, sell, or hold slaves?

If the answer is no, then this begs a question. Can a government be held responsible for actions made by individual citizens? I am not asking this to be smart alecky or cause contention, I sincerely want a serious answer.

The government ordered Japanese citizens to be placed in internment camps during WW 11. I understand the reasons, but it still was a terrible policy. I believe reparations were made to those people and families.

The government ordered Native Americans placed on reservations, and we are still paying reparations for that, but the result has not been to help these wonderful people but has only 'enslaved' them in other ways.

Were the Jim Crow laws and government policies that caused so much racial disenfranchisement federal laws or were those state laws? Is the federal government responsible for terrible state laws enacted by individual states and their elected leaders?

Who decides who would receive these reparations? Having done a great deal of Civil War era genealogical research I know how difficult it is to find slave ancestors. What about the person who doesn't know his or her ancestry? Many people don't even know who their parents are, let alone their great great great grandparents. How would it be proven? After all, many African Americans here today came after the Civil War and did not have slave ancestors.

Who pays? My ancestors were not even in the United States during the slave period, so would I still be responsible to pay a tax to pay reparations for something my relatives had no part of?

And who decides how much reparation would be 'enough?' If a person received a pell grant for college, have they received enough reparation already? How about federal housing money? Or food stamps? Or welfare payments? Or Medicaid? Or subsidized child care? Has that money already received, much in consequence of the past injustices and terrible government policies that have kept poor people enslaved in another sense, already paid the debt?

I make no pretense to knowing the answers to any of these questions, however, one look at the immigration chaos shows that even for all of the problems in the United States of America, millions of people all over the world still think this is the best place to live to accomplish their hopes and dreams. Too bad many of the people who have lived here for generations have been told differently.

Bless you, Christine, for bringing out these very poignant, logical, and necessary questions and comments that need to be addressed. I live in a county right outside of the nation's capital that is approximately 85% African American, but also the wealthiest black county in the U.S. Except for pockets inside our infamous Beltway, our neighborhoods are flourishing, even though our schools are overcrowded and underachieving in some areas.

Our residents have taken advantage of incentives over the past fifty years and advanced. They are frequent visitors to Surratt House, volunteer as guides and visitors' center workers, and attend most of our monthly educational programs -- in good numbers, not just one or two folks. And, some of them don't understand this issue of reparations -- they believe in taking advantage of what has been offered to advance their position in life and working hard to stay there.

One of the best examples that I can offer is a young lady whose mother works in one of our nature centers. She told me about six or so years ago that her 16-year-old daughter was very interested in the Lincoln assassination. I told her she was too young to be a volunteer guide, but that she should join the Surratt Society in order to get the Surratt Courier newsletter - which she did. Two years later, she became a guide, even when away at college in Baltimore. This year, she had to resign because she was accepted into the law school at University of California, Berkeley. BTW: Her mother is a single mom. To me, they are fine examples of people who could have fallen in the economic/social gutter, but decided to use what has been made available to them as well as their own hard work and determination to better themselves and those around them.

One other comment: I went to college in the mountains of western Maryland - on the fringes of Appalachia. When you enter into those mountain pockets of desperate poverty, it is a very depressing sight. I wish that some of our ultra-liberal complainers would take on projects to improve those situations and similar ones for other ethnic groups. One does not have to be descended from enslaved persons in order to face prejudice, poverty, and depression.

All of these are excellent points and coming from my Southern background, I have listened to the stories of the slaves all of my life. We even keep their slave quarters behind some of our restored mansions of that period, as museums. I, myself, even live on the remnants of an old plantation property, that has been developed over the many centuries, since the old mansion was built in the 1800's. I understand wanting the horrible abuse to be recognized and even some reparations to be made. What I am not clear about is exactly what they are asking and there seems to be a quiet tug of war going on between those who are pushing for this and those that could do something about it. In all of the discussion that I listened to last week, I didn't hear a demand, just an argument. Unless I have missed something here, there has been no demands made, just the discussion of it. I am not sure that isn't just some ploy to get a financial settlement and while we probably shouldn't discuss this in polite company, however, I just feel that everyone is dancing around the obvious. There is a bigger picture, surrounding all of this and making it more possible for this discussion to continue. I am not convinced of the sincerity of either side to bring this to a good conclusion. Of course, we all have ideas of how this may be handled but as I said, I am not convinced yet either side is sincere enough to bring a good conclusion to this, that everyone will be satisfied with.

I hate to say this but this whole subject is just another political scam. Too many of us have seen this movie before.

When people are told enough times that they’re oppressed victims who need expansive government programs to address structural inequalities, they’re likely to start believing it—and sadly many in the Democrat base do.

All their candidates have expressed support for this but they know its not going to happen for all the excellent reasons that many of you have presented. If they were serious they would have passed it in Obama's first term when the Republicans could do nothing to stop it. But many in their base will vote for them on the slim chance that the Democrats will cut them a check.

And if by chance the Democrats win the next election, they'll tell their base that its the Republican's fault they couldn't pass it and sadly they will believe them.

A
Laurie, a slap at Christine? No of course not. Everyone has their opinions and I respect that. Slavery was 150 years + ago and those alive today had nothing to do with it; agreed. Yet you cherish the confederacy and the south of 150 years ago. Can you have it both ways? Hmmm

(06-23-2019 03:59 PM)Rsmyth Wrote:  A
Laurie, a slap at Christine? No of course not. Everyone has their opinions and I respect that. Slavery was 150 years + ago and those alive today had nothing to do with it; agreed. Yet you cherish the confederacy and the south of 150 years ago. Can you have it both ways? Hmmm

Now I have to ask if you are accusing me of being a neo-Confederate or a follower of the Lost Cause? If so, I object. If not, I suggest that you use third-person subjects, such as "Yet SOME cherish.... IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE IT BOTH WAYS?" Proper use of English can help to avoid misunderstandings and resulting temper flares. And, I would add that understanding the history and culture of the South might help to understand the situation - and no one asks you to condone it. I have worked for sixty years to understand the mindset of John Wilkes Booth, but I don't condone his act of murder.

Sad is when people have opposing views and are always accused of attacking someone. And I will not apologize for the grammar when typing on my phone.

I have absolutely no desire or interest in engaging in a political discussion on this or any other forum; however, I deplore the modern-day and intolerant tendency to attach a pejorative label to anyone who may hold a different opinion or view, whether that label be "a hater" or neo-Confederate. I would encourage those who post here to show respect for one another and for Roger by refraining from using or suggesting labels.