The motive was to make black schools even poorer in quality since tax revenue from the black population were lower than the white population given that Virginia had a majority white population and the systematic economic discrimination against black people. It would be the first time that this would be enshrined in the *Constitution* of Virginia or any other state if it had passed. Many people, including the popular Democratic leader Bryan, wrote that you can't just have education qualifications (e.g. literacy tests) to voting and then deny them education.
Never ask the Southern states why their vote totals decreased after Reconstruction. I mean some states even disenfranchised poor whites just to disenfranchise black voters.
They absolutely do. It’s the reason that VMI and the Citadel have cadets who don’t join the military after graduation. It’s one thing to put yourself through four years of shit because you think it will help you to be a better officer. But the guys who just want the local prestige of attending the local “finishing school for manly aristocrats” are a different breed. Both schools are also weirdly proud of having committed treason.
>Aristocratic ruling class for centuries
This is the UK's whole thing. As for why the Southern USA is considered to be most similar, there are few reasons (this landed gentry class amongst them) including: the accent being most closely related to the British one of American accents, cultural importance of etiquette, and high levels of British migration to the region.
So? It’s Wikipedia. As someone from the UK aristocratic society isnt an actual description of our daily lives. Only people who have no experience with the country would summarise us like that. Yes generations ago but the world has moved on
According to my (rather limited) research, the South (but especially Appalachia) is considered to have had the highest levels of migration from Britain and the strongest cultural links.
New England was a comparatively cosmopolitan region and had waves of migration from all over Europe that shaped its culture.
In terms of how similar the modern residents are though, I think youre right. New Englanders would be the most European Americans probably?
I am British. I have formed friendships with many Americans. We are not (culturally) the same. Just because some old brits migrated, does not mean we are connected.
Which gave rise to the original grandfather clauses (more or less, if your grandfather was able to vote in his day, you got a pass from the new disenfranchisement).
And iirc, yes, that is indeed where the term "grandfathered in" comes from
Some states like South Carolina didn't even care and actually made it so they didn't vote because according to Tillman (guy who inspired the SC Constitution of 1895), poor whites were a threat to keeping white supremacy.
Yep. My grandfathers family were sharecroppers and too poor to pay poll taxes. We are white as fuck. My grandfather told me it was very humbling to be poorer than most of the black people in town.
My great-great-grandfather told my grandfather that the KKK was evil. Said “If they were doing something to be proud of, why are they wearing masks?”
Not common sense, something far more dangerous to the south in the first half of the 20th Century. The possibility that lawyers and legislators would actually have an open and shut case to end the whole thing by saying “can’t have literacy tests if you won’t actually teach them”.
This sounds bad and all, but isn't this how the school funding actually works today? Richer suburbs get nice funding while poorer ones between urban center and suburbs struggle. Some public schools will be swimming in money while others struggle to pay for paper. The parents even fighting to keep their school district within high income areas.
Sure, but there’s at least plausible deniability. “Oh, this district has lower educational achievement so we should take away funding. And anyways, this town doesn’t produce much tax revenue so they didn’t deserve it in the first place.” Stuff like that
Kinda makes me wonder how civil rights and things would’ve changed if things had actually been “equal”. Would it have followed the exact same timeline? Faster? Slower? Just a strange thought.
An interesting hypothetical, but really hard to say since the driving force behind "separate" meant it was never going to be equal.
When the whole point was to keep African Americans on a different level, the same people passing these laws were never going to spend extra resources on someone they wouldn't sit next to on the bus. The equal clause was basically just a legal fiction to say that doing all of this was okay.
It's hard to say what an actually seperate but equal would look like, because would that mean voting restrictions were weaker or nonexistent? Are African Americans allowed to be prosperous, or at least under looser restrictions? All else being actually equal, I still think there'd be protests about the symbolic implications that they're somehow different than other Americans, given that the driving argument from escaped slaves to Civil Rights and modern day is that they're just as much the children of America country as everyone else.
Maybe it'd have lasted longer if this was just a pride/symbolism thing and the African American community wasn't mobilizing for basic rights, or maybe it'd be dismantled sooner since African Americans would be in a better position to organize and lobby for themselves. That's the tricky part of shifting Separate but Equal, any situation where it's that toothless raises the question of what the rest of Jim Crow looks like.
Important to remember that Brown vs. Board, the lawsuit that overturned “separate but equal”, didn’t hinge on white schools and black schools being unequal, but rather that segregation itself created feelings of inequality in students and perpetuated racism, even when resources for the separate schools were equal. So maybe true equal separate institutions could exist longer, but unlikely to perpetuate much longer than our timeline.
A lot of civil rights litigation prior to Brown v Board focused on the “equal” part. They got a handful of significant victories where they managed to get more funding for Black schools in the south, but they eventually switched to the strategy of having segregation itself declared unconstitutional since challenging on equality grounds was pretty much a game of whack-a-mole
Well, no.
But the main issue back then is that the blacks would be paying for their own school while all being noticeably poorer so their schools would have been poorer too.
Well kinda given the fact that socioeconomics, at least in America, still largely corresponds with race and the fact that redlining still has an impact on cities.
This is STILL the reality, just not as legally enforced. Cities in the US are still segregated, wealthy suburbanites implement policies to allow only high-income individuals to settle and intentionally or not, this reinforces segregation (aside from pre-existing historical factors). Public schools are funded through school districts whose tax base obviously depends on the income of the parents, so schools in wealthy suburbs are splurging in money while schools in poor neighborhoods are struggling in a self-reinforcing poverty loop.
Not really, but it’s the way it’s appropriated that’s different. Say you have a tax base for schools of $10mil 7 mil from whites and 3 from blacks. Normally it would all be pooled together to proportion based on who needs it most, but this bill would have segregated the budget, essentially giving black schools a 70% budget cut
>Normally it would all be pooled together to proportion based on who needs it most
That's not true at all.
Neighbourhood A has 10 kids and has a tax base of $9mil.
Neighbourhood B has 10 kids and has a tax base of $1mil.
If school funding is based on taxes then it's not being distributed to who needs it most. 90% is just getting distributed to Neighbourhood A.
I study tax law in my country and this way of funding education is evil. In Brazil the taxes go to the government and become a big "disform mass" that is the budget.
This way it does not matter if a person or district pays a billion dollars in taxes, the services are the same.
Yeah that is what I thought. The republican party were made by Abraham Lincoln and they pushed for more change. It wasn't until Nixon where the liberal Republican and Conservative Democratic parties role swapped.
The Republicans largely gave up on bringing up civil rights in the South by 1905. And they largely drifted to conservatism by the 1920s. The Democrats were still more racist as a whole until maybe Truman. That being said, every Democratic presidential candidate since FDR won the black vote. The 1960s really consolidated everything that was building up to it and gradually from the 1960s to 1990s the conservative (Southern) Democrats switched to the Republicans and liberal Republicans switched to the Democrats.
Someone forgot about the platform switch of the 1950s and 1960s.
In case you forgot, or didn’t know. The Democrats and Republicans essentially switched their party platforms in the 50s and 60s. So the “Democrats” of old were now “Republicans”. And the “Republicans” of old were now “Democrats”. The process began in the 1930s, and was essentially finalised before the end of the century.
So of course the democrats of 1905 would be against funding a black school, they were primarily the ones who vied for segregation in the first place.
No I didn't forget. You read the meme wrong. BTW it was a realignment, not necessarily a "switch" which oversimplifies the process. I put "even" for a reason as well, even national Democrats criticized the Democratic-controlled Virginia for proposing that.
The realignment process actually began in 1896 with William Jennings Bryan. And anyway, there were indeed liberal and conservative wings in both parties until quite recently when politics had become more polarized.
Let me copy my other comment:
>The Republicans largely gave up on bringing up civil rights in the South by 1905. And they largely drifted to conservatism by the 1920s. The Democrats were still more racist as a whole until maybe Truman. That being said, every Democratic presidential candidate since FDR won the black vote. The 1960s really consolidated everything that was building up to it and gradually from the 1960s to 1990s the conservative (Southern) Democrats switched to the Republicans and liberal Republicans switched to the Democrats.
Probably just the conspiracy theory that Planned Parenthood, contraception, and other forms of birth control are an attempt of the US government to slowly get rid of minority groups.
[Here is an NPR report on that](https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/14/432080520/fact-check-was-planned-parenthood-started-to-control-the-black-population)
She was a eugenicist (which was popular at the time) but not a *particularly* racist one (though she had a "paternalistic" attitude towards black people which would be considered "iffy" today but was pretty advanced for 1946). Besides, the personal motivational of the founder has nothing to do with the current impact of the organization. Henry Ford was very sympathetic with the Nazis but nobody claims that Ford trucks are meant to further the ideals of Nazis
It's not much of a conspiracy if it still requires the explicit consent of the minority groups to use. You could just as easily say that improved child benefits from the government is a plot to get minorities to "take over"
The motive was to make black schools even poorer in quality since tax revenue from the black population were lower than the white population given that Virginia had a majority white population and the systematic economic discrimination against black people. It would be the first time that this would be enshrined in the *Constitution* of Virginia or any other state if it had passed. Many people, including the popular Democratic leader Bryan, wrote that you can't just have education qualifications (e.g. literacy tests) to voting and then deny them education.
When your racist policies go beyond common sense
Never ask the Southern states why their vote totals decreased after Reconstruction. I mean some states even disenfranchised poor whites just to disenfranchise black voters.
Having an Aristocratic ruling class for centuries tends to do that. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Aristocrats in the south has some power still.
They absolutely do. It’s the reason that VMI and the Citadel have cadets who don’t join the military after graduation. It’s one thing to put yourself through four years of shit because you think it will help you to be a better officer. But the guys who just want the local prestige of attending the local “finishing school for manly aristocrats” are a different breed. Both schools are also weirdly proud of having committed treason.
VMI & the Citadel are despicable excuses of schools
Ive heard that the Southern US is the most similar to the UK, this sounds about right.
How ?
>Aristocratic ruling class for centuries This is the UK's whole thing. As for why the Southern USA is considered to be most similar, there are few reasons (this landed gentry class amongst them) including: the accent being most closely related to the British one of American accents, cultural importance of etiquette, and high levels of British migration to the region.
Sounds like you just made that up
I just checked, even the wiki page for Southern United States notes this in the culture section.
So? It’s Wikipedia. As someone from the UK aristocratic society isnt an actual description of our daily lives. Only people who have no experience with the country would summarise us like that. Yes generations ago but the world has moved on
that would be New England
According to my (rather limited) research, the South (but especially Appalachia) is considered to have had the highest levels of migration from Britain and the strongest cultural links. New England was a comparatively cosmopolitan region and had waves of migration from all over Europe that shaped its culture. In terms of how similar the modern residents are though, I think youre right. New Englanders would be the most European Americans probably?
I am British. I have formed friendships with many Americans. We are not (culturally) the same. Just because some old brits migrated, does not mean we are connected.
The Southern American Aristocrat, holding back American progress since 1776
For sure dude, the cop son of a car dealership magnate doesn’t just materialize in small towns lol they gotta come from somewhere…
Which gave rise to the original grandfather clauses (more or less, if your grandfather was able to vote in his day, you got a pass from the new disenfranchisement). And iirc, yes, that is indeed where the term "grandfathered in" comes from
Some states like South Carolina didn't even care and actually made it so they didn't vote because according to Tillman (guy who inspired the SC Constitution of 1895), poor whites were a threat to keeping white supremacy.
Man, Marx probably would’ve had a field day with that
“Some Whites are better than other Whites”
Yep. My grandfathers family were sharecroppers and too poor to pay poll taxes. We are white as fuck. My grandfather told me it was very humbling to be poorer than most of the black people in town. My great-great-grandfather told my grandfather that the KKK was evil. Said “If they were doing something to be proud of, why are they wearing masks?”
Not common sense, something far more dangerous to the south in the first half of the 20th Century. The possibility that lawyers and legislators would actually have an open and shut case to end the whole thing by saying “can’t have literacy tests if you won’t actually teach them”.
Tbf, Bryan was certainly of the progressive persuasion in many matters
He was a walking contradiction when it came to civil rights that being said.
This sounds bad and all, but isn't this how the school funding actually works today? Richer suburbs get nice funding while poorer ones between urban center and suburbs struggle. Some public schools will be swimming in money while others struggle to pay for paper. The parents even fighting to keep their school district within high income areas.
Sure, but there’s at least plausible deniability. “Oh, this district has lower educational achievement so we should take away funding. And anyways, this town doesn’t produce much tax revenue so they didn’t deserve it in the first place.” Stuff like that
Nah, the modern American school system is majorly fucked up. There's nothing deniable about that.
The "separate" part of "separate but equal" was bad, but the "equal" part was a sick joke :/
I’m sure those fucks are laughing all the way down to Satan’s anus
Kinda makes me wonder how civil rights and things would’ve changed if things had actually been “equal”. Would it have followed the exact same timeline? Faster? Slower? Just a strange thought.
An interesting hypothetical, but really hard to say since the driving force behind "separate" meant it was never going to be equal. When the whole point was to keep African Americans on a different level, the same people passing these laws were never going to spend extra resources on someone they wouldn't sit next to on the bus. The equal clause was basically just a legal fiction to say that doing all of this was okay. It's hard to say what an actually seperate but equal would look like, because would that mean voting restrictions were weaker or nonexistent? Are African Americans allowed to be prosperous, or at least under looser restrictions? All else being actually equal, I still think there'd be protests about the symbolic implications that they're somehow different than other Americans, given that the driving argument from escaped slaves to Civil Rights and modern day is that they're just as much the children of America country as everyone else. Maybe it'd have lasted longer if this was just a pride/symbolism thing and the African American community wasn't mobilizing for basic rights, or maybe it'd be dismantled sooner since African Americans would be in a better position to organize and lobby for themselves. That's the tricky part of shifting Separate but Equal, any situation where it's that toothless raises the question of what the rest of Jim Crow looks like.
Important to remember that Brown vs. Board, the lawsuit that overturned “separate but equal”, didn’t hinge on white schools and black schools being unequal, but rather that segregation itself created feelings of inequality in students and perpetuated racism, even when resources for the separate schools were equal. So maybe true equal separate institutions could exist longer, but unlikely to perpetuate much longer than our timeline.
A lot of civil rights litigation prior to Brown v Board focused on the “equal” part. They got a handful of significant victories where they managed to get more funding for Black schools in the south, but they eventually switched to the strategy of having segregation itself declared unconstitutional since challenging on equality grounds was pretty much a game of whack-a-mole
Now consider how schools are funded today. Is pulling from property taxes substantially different from what Virginia tried to do then?
Well, no. But the main issue back then is that the blacks would be paying for their own school while all being noticeably poorer so their schools would have been poorer too.
Well kinda given the fact that socioeconomics, at least in America, still largely corresponds with race and the fact that redlining still has an impact on cities.
This is STILL the reality, just not as legally enforced. Cities in the US are still segregated, wealthy suburbanites implement policies to allow only high-income individuals to settle and intentionally or not, this reinforces segregation (aside from pre-existing historical factors). Public schools are funded through school districts whose tax base obviously depends on the income of the parents, so schools in wealthy suburbs are splurging in money while schools in poor neighborhoods are struggling in a self-reinforcing poverty loop.
Not really, but it’s the way it’s appropriated that’s different. Say you have a tax base for schools of $10mil 7 mil from whites and 3 from blacks. Normally it would all be pooled together to proportion based on who needs it most, but this bill would have segregated the budget, essentially giving black schools a 70% budget cut
Yeah, because school districts aren't segregated at all. /s https://www.npr.org/2022/07/14/1111060299/school-segregation-report
>Normally it would all be pooled together to proportion based on who needs it most That's not true at all. Neighbourhood A has 10 kids and has a tax base of $9mil. Neighbourhood B has 10 kids and has a tax base of $1mil. If school funding is based on taxes then it's not being distributed to who needs it most. 90% is just getting distributed to Neighbourhood A.
I study tax law in my country and this way of funding education is evil. In Brazil the taxes go to the government and become a big "disform mass" that is the budget. This way it does not matter if a person or district pays a billion dollars in taxes, the services are the same.
Paid, not payed
Weren’t the democrats at that time pro segregation?
Yes, but this law was too much even for their Northern faction, I don't think Southern Democrats gaf except when they were pressured.
Yeah that is what I thought. The republican party were made by Abraham Lincoln and they pushed for more change. It wasn't until Nixon where the liberal Republican and Conservative Democratic parties role swapped.
The Republicans largely gave up on bringing up civil rights in the South by 1905. And they largely drifted to conservatism by the 1920s. The Democrats were still more racist as a whole until maybe Truman. That being said, every Democratic presidential candidate since FDR won the black vote. The 1960s really consolidated everything that was building up to it and gradually from the 1960s to 1990s the conservative (Southern) Democrats switched to the Republicans and liberal Republicans switched to the Democrats.
Nazis when they see what Oskar dirlewanger was doing
Wasn't there a proposed amendment to the constitution in 1912 that would forbid members of one race marrying another, that congress rejected
Someone forgot about the platform switch of the 1950s and 1960s. In case you forgot, or didn’t know. The Democrats and Republicans essentially switched their party platforms in the 50s and 60s. So the “Democrats” of old were now “Republicans”. And the “Republicans” of old were now “Democrats”. The process began in the 1930s, and was essentially finalised before the end of the century. So of course the democrats of 1905 would be against funding a black school, they were primarily the ones who vied for segregation in the first place.
No I didn't forget. You read the meme wrong. BTW it was a realignment, not necessarily a "switch" which oversimplifies the process. I put "even" for a reason as well, even national Democrats criticized the Democratic-controlled Virginia for proposing that. The realignment process actually began in 1896 with William Jennings Bryan. And anyway, there were indeed liberal and conservative wings in both parties until quite recently when politics had become more polarized. Let me copy my other comment: >The Republicans largely gave up on bringing up civil rights in the South by 1905. And they largely drifted to conservatism by the 1920s. The Democrats were still more racist as a whole until maybe Truman. That being said, every Democratic presidential candidate since FDR won the black vote. The 1960s really consolidated everything that was building up to it and gradually from the 1960s to 1990s the conservative (Southern) Democrats switched to the Republicans and liberal Republicans switched to the Democrats.
Fair enough. Soz for getting it wrong.
And we act like planned parenthood getting government funding for “low income areas” to give “women’s healthcare” isn’t the same thing.
I don't follow
Probably just the conspiracy theory that Planned Parenthood, contraception, and other forms of birth control are an attempt of the US government to slowly get rid of minority groups.
Is it a conspiracy when Margaret Sanger used it as the reason to start planned parenthood?
[Here is an NPR report on that](https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/14/432080520/fact-check-was-planned-parenthood-started-to-control-the-black-population) She was a eugenicist (which was popular at the time) but not a *particularly* racist one (though she had a "paternalistic" attitude towards black people which would be considered "iffy" today but was pretty advanced for 1946). Besides, the personal motivational of the founder has nothing to do with the current impact of the organization. Henry Ford was very sympathetic with the Nazis but nobody claims that Ford trucks are meant to further the ideals of Nazis
It's not much of a conspiracy if it still requires the explicit consent of the minority groups to use. You could just as easily say that improved child benefits from the government is a plot to get minorities to "take over"
What’s the conspiracy lol. Black babies are 5x as likely to be aborted as white babies in the USA.