every businessman has the right to use dsicretion when determining who to provide service to
I will provide services to those I want to gotta' problem with it - call the police On May 25, 4:50 pm, Bruce Majors <[email protected]> wrote: > http://www.american.com/archive/2010/may/progressives-jim-crow-and-se... > > <http://www.american.com/archive/2010/may/progressives-jim-crow-and-se...>Progressives, > Jim Crow, and Selective Amnesia > > By John E. > Calfee<http://www.american.com/author_search?Creator=John%20E.%20Calfee>Tuesday, > May 25, 2010 > > Filed under: Government & > Politics<http://www.american.com/topics/government-and-politics> > , Culture <http://www.american.com/topics/culture>, Public > Square<http://www.american.com/topics/public-square> > The Rand Paul episode reveals a drastic misreading of history and of the > government’s role in ending racial discrimination in this nation. > > Rand Paul is a physician who recently won a primary to become the Republican > Senate candidate in the November election to replace Republican Jim Bunning, > who is not running for reelection. Rand Paul is the son of Ron Paul, also a > physician, who for many years has represented the 14th Congressional > District of Texas. Like his father, Rand Paul (henceforth referred to simply > as Paul) is a libertarian. Like most libertarians, Paul advocates a minimal > role for government and harbors doubts about the value of such mainstays as > Social Security, Medicare, the Department of Education, and the Federal > Reserve. But unlike his father, Paul has spent very little time talking to > the press on the record—far less than the typical successful Senate primary > candidate. In one of his first post-primary press outings, a TV interview > with liberal MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow, Paul expressed doubts about the > wisdom of an important element of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, > namely, the provision that ended racial discrimination in public > accommodations such as restaurants. > > Press reports <http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37597.html> indicate > that Paul’s basic argument was that we should beware of giving government > too strong a role in running private businesses. This is true even when we > wish to prevent racial discrimination—a goal for which Paul quickly > announced fervent support. The media reaction was quick and somewhat > vicious. Much of it argued that Paul had stumbled into an area in which the > positive contribution of government, especially the all-powerful federal > government, was simply beyond doubt and without a rational alternative. In a > strongly worded editorial, for example, the New York Times declared > that<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/22/opinion/22sat4.html> > : > > As a longtime libertarian, he espouses the view that personal freedom should > supersede all government intervention. . . . The freedom of a few people to > discriminate meant generations of less freedom for large groups of others. > It was only government power that ended slavery and abolished Jim Crow, > neither of which would have been eliminated by a purely free market. > > The suggestion is that Paul is grossly ignorant of the simple fact that > government action was necessary to end the notorious “Jim Crow” system, > which from the late 19th century through more than half of the 20th century > had suppressed blacks in the South by maintaining racial segregation in > public institutions such as schools and hospitals, as well as in private > facilities such as restaurants. Paul himself quickly stated that he > supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act and would have voted for it at the time. > > ‘Jim Crow laws’ were indeed laws, i.e., requirements that persons and > businesses and government agencies must practice racial discrimination or > face civil or criminal penalties. > > The Times editorial and other media pronouncements have perpetuated a > drastic misreading of history and of government’s role in ending racial > discrimination in this nation. This history is far more nuanced than is > widely assumed. At the center of the Jim Crow system lay the “Jim Crow > laws.” They were indeed laws, i.e., requirements that persons and businesses > and government agencies must practice racial discrimination or face civil or > criminal penalties. In other words, government had bolstered discrimination > instead of suppressing it. For example, the famous 1896 Supreme Court > decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, which endorsed “separate but equal” > treatment in railroad travel and eventually in other spheres such as public > education, was about whether an 1890 state law in Louisiana requiring > segregation was constitutional. The court said it was. > > The Jim Crow system did not start in the South. It first arose in the North > (although the term dates only from the early 20th century) as a way to deal > with free blacks, including ex-slaves. After the Civil War ended slavery in > the South, some politicians rallied poor whites and newly freed blacks in > support of economic populism, while others sought different forms of > accommodation that stopped well short of systematic, state-enforced racial > separation. It was only in the last two decades or so of the 19th > century—especially in the 1890s—that the Southern states enacted laws to > force a level of segregation that had not arisen spontaneously, creating the > rigid legal apparatus that some people still remember from the first half of > the 20th century. Far from forming the vanguard of segregation, businesses > tended to lag, with the railroads particularly notable for their persistence > in maintaining a substantial degree of integration until forced by law to > halt their practices. > > The Jim Crow system did not start in the South. It first arose in the North. > > Thus by the 20th century, the Jim Crow system was vastly diminished in the > North but had become thoroughly embedded in the South—through government > action—despite the incentives of many business owners to reap the economies > of scale and consequent profit from treating all customers alike. The > central elements of this story plus much more were described in The Strange > Career of Jim > Crow<http://www.amazon.com/Strange-Career-Jim-Crow/dp/0195146905>, > published in 1955 by the celebrated historian C. Vann Woodward. Later > described by Martin Luther King as “the historical bible of the Civil Rights > movement<http://c/Documents%20and%20Settings/joy.pavelski/Local%20Settings/Tem...> > ,” The Strange Career of Jim Crow had an extraordinary intellectual impact > on the history profession (as I discovered as a graduate student in American > history in the late 1960s). It should give pause to anyone who is ready to > assume that government power is bound to do good when it reins in business > for social purposes, but I fear that Vann Woodward’s masterpiece has > exercised too little influence in recent years. (Clay Risen provided a > good retrospective > assessment<http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/07/17/strange_ca...> > of Strange Career.) > > One might ask why it was that in 1964, a century after slavery and the Civil > War had ended, there was still pervasive discrimination by fiat in most of > the South. > > Thus Paul’s instinctive doubts about government as the solution to most if > not all racial problems are rooted in American history even if he did not > cite that history in recent interviews. But one might ask why it was that in > 1964, a century after slavery and the Civil War had ended, there was still > pervasive discrimination by fiat in most of the South. I suspect the answer > lies not in the minds of restaurant owners and their customers, but in > voting rights. > > The end of the Civil War and the overwhelming Republican victory in the 1866 > election ushered in the Reconstruction Era, in which southern blacks gained > the vote with the support of federal martial law, which kept white > intimidation of blacks in check. But Reconstruction began to lose force > after the 1868 election, and martial law was gradually relaxed in many > states. In the 1876 presidential election, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes > won by a single electoral vote, but the popular vote in three southern > states was bitterly disputed. A commission created by Congress to adjudicate > the disputed election eventually awarded the decisive electoral votes to > Hayes. But this result—the “Compromise of 1877”—entailed a political deal > between northern Republicans and southern Democrats whereby Hayes was > allowed to become president in exchange for pulling the remaining federal > troops from the old confederacy. As a result, the disenfranchisement of > southern black voters through intimidation and discriminatory legislation > was enabled to continue apace and was essentially complete by the 1890s. > This left blacks powerless to head off the Jim Crow system of pervasive > mandated segregation. > > The historic role and power of the 1965 Voting Rights Act was to affirm and > enforce the right to vote for blacks in the face of entrenched bureaucratic > resistance and the constant threat of violence. Proving counter-factuals is > impossible, of course, but it seems safe to say that government-enforced > racial discrimination in the South would not have lasted long after the 1965 > act took effect. After all, segregation by mandate had largely ceased to > exist in the North, where black voting rights had long been respected to at > least a tolerable degree—and blacks comprised a far smaller proportion of > the electorate in the North than they would in the South after 1965. Black > enfranchisement, a principle on which all libertarians would surely agree, > arguably trumped narrower measures such as the public accommodations > provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. > > One particular political party should recall, painful as it is, that when > people spoke for decades of the ‘Solid South,’ they referred to a reality in > which Democratic politicians could be counted on to keep blacks from voting > in the states of the former Confederacy. > > The Rand Paul brouhaha over governments and racism should subside quickly if > anyone pays attention to the very mixed history of the relationship between > government and racism. But four useful things should come of this episode. > First, anyone who ... > > read more » -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
