Talk:Jim Crow laws

Reference Typo

Under references, the reference #9 says "Full text of Korematsu v. Uniterd States opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com." As you can tell, the Uniterd needs to be changed to United. However, I am not sure if this is a typo, or a prank of some sort. I don't have an account to edit, just browsing through and caught it, so someone who can, please fix it. 4-26-08

Actually, that was number 11. It's fixed now. Thanks for pointing that out, I went right past it. Owlfalcon (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

jim crow

I believe you should look up and add how certain schools in Savanna Georgia did not desegregate completely till the early 1990's it would allow people to gain the scope of how close we still are to those "old" days

[NEW POST] Excuse me? De facto segregation did not end in the 1970s, nor the 1980s, nor the 1990s, nor the 2000s. Schools in the United States are still highly segregated, the reason being that neighborhoods, municipalities, counties, and states in the United States are highly segregated. People are still turned away from the schools of their choice for made-up reasons.

I don't have time to do the research, but Jonathon Kozol, Tavis Smiley (The Covenant with Black America, 2000?), and DeGruy Leary are good places to start!

Chaim1221 (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

White Democrat

Why is 'white' before democrat every time in this article? Were there any black democrats? No, blacks were mostly republican until FDR and not fully until JFK. I feel like the word 'white' is before every democrat because it is hard to explain in the current political world how can the party that supported slavery, Jim crow, and other racist views now be the party that acts like it is for minorities and that Republicans are racist even though Abe was a Republican as was MLK and so it would look strange to see the word democrat before all those racist policies. 98.234.110.66 00:08, September 20, 2009

COULD YOU create a post explaining how this happened cant find support online anywhere even it its looking at me in the face thank you 198.60.121.1 12:56, October 27, 2009

Your statements are completely biased and pro-"Republican" propaganda. Political parties change over time, and now most of the former slave states in the South vote with large Republican majorities. As for Abraham Lincoln, as you seem to be trying to clean him up, you would know if you read any real history that Abraham Lincoln was an open racist who did not "free" a single slave. Lincoln only cared about "saving the union" and he personally used racist language against blacks and wanted forcibly remove them from the United States and send them to Liberia in Africa. To quote from a speech of Abraham Lincoln himself; "There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man." Doesn't sound like the non-racist you and other alleged non-racist "Republican" propagandists try to proclaim he allegedly was; along with the Africans you try to deceive with your lies.--Historylover4 (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Reading the history before the Civil War, Reconstruction and after may be helpful to you. This article deals mostly with southern states and the Democratic Party in the South. It was only loosely a national party. In the South, the voting society was virtually all-white and Democrat before the Civil War, with representation in Congress supplemented by the southern slave population (counting as 3/5 of a person for voting representation of the South in Congressional apportionment.) After the Civil War, freedmen did tend to join the Republicans, the party of Lincoln, the Emancipation, and constitutional amendments giving them rights as citizens to vote - whether or not Republicans were less than fully unbiased.

After the Democrats (who were mostly white and had formerly been led by the planter elite) returned to political power in the South in the late 1870s, they virtually had one-party government for decades. They passed constitutional amendments and laws to disfranchise blacks and often poor whites (as in AL), a situation that persisted in some states until the civil rights legislation of the 1960s. The Democratic Party in the North was made up of different people- in the cities it attracted many new European immigrants, and got involved in labor and other issues. Yes, the parties have changed since then, and since the 1960s, as has the country. Republican candidates, starting at the national level,have attracted more votes in the South since the 1970s.Parkwells (talk) 22:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Just goes to show you, the Democrats are the plantation party. From Wilson up to the Civil Rights Act, blacks were considered "inferior". The Democrats fought the Civil Rights Act, but thankfully they lost and the "Act" was passed. That happened after back-room negotiations in D. C. when "black pastors" accepted President Lindon Johnson's deal for "black churches" to support Democrats.

The deal was, to ensure Federal funds would go to "black Americans" through social services. Basically, LBJ and those black pastors created a deal to put more and more black Americans on welfare.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was opposed to the deal.

But he got shot.

Today, those pastors, include Abernathy, Farrakhan, Jackson (who is not a pastor), and others are the modern day leaders of "Afro-Americans" who live on welfare.

The family of MLK, Jr does not support those "pastors" and they are Republican just like their dad. They support freedom and prosperity for all - no matter what the skin color may be.

Jim Crow lives today because of those "black pastors".

The One and Only Worldwise Dave Shaver 21:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization

In the "Origins of Jim Crow" section the 4th paragraphs first sentience is written as "In some cases Progressive measures to reduce". I know the paragraph later refers to "the Progressive Era (1890s" but does the word progressive need to be capitalized in the first sentience? 208.93.129.10 (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

William Gibbs McAdoo

{{editsemiprotected}} In the paragraph about Woodrow Wilson, the "acting Secretary of the Treasury" is quoted "in 1913". This must be William Gibbs McAdoo. I'm also not sure why he's "acting" at this point. Could someone please change "the acting Secretary of the Treasury" to "Secretary of the Treasury William Gibbs McAdoo" in the article text? --69.168.48.167 (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done - Darwinek (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I know this article is locked (for a good reason) but someone who has the ability to edit it really should re-read through it and fix some of the spelling, grammar, and general flow problems here. There are a few sentences that don't make logical sense due to structure and there are a few misspelled words. A couple of examples are: "disfranchised" isn't a word, the sentence "While public schools had been established by Reconstruction legislatures, those for black children were consistently underfunded, even within the strained finances of the South." doesn't make sense. If the last part of the sentence said "even with the plentiful abundance of money earmarked for education.", then it would make sense.

I wont pick and point out every mistake in the article. I just think that an article about this subject deserves a higher level of quality than what is currently present. Thanks. Rob 76.177.194.246 (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC) 76.177.194.246 (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

not contesting your general point but "disfranchised" is a word: past participle, past tense of dis·en·fran·chise (Verb)

1. Deprive (someone) of the right to vote.

2. Deprived of power; marginalized.

Merriam-Webster and I think the particular sentence would benefit from an addition of "when considered" as in: "While public schools had been established by Reconstruction legislatures, those for black children were consistently underfunded, even when considered within the strained finances of the South."Abby Kelleyite (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

World War II era Typo

The second sentence of the second paragraph is: "In its pivotal 1954 decision, the Court unanimously overturned the 1896 Plessy ruling. decision." (bold added). I imagine only one of those ("ruling" [which I would go for] or "decision") was really intended to be there. Just thought I would give you a heads up, for the same reason as the William Gibbs McAdoo contributor.

 Done Abby Kelleyite (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)