First the Republicans write legislation singling out one specific group, educators, to silence. Now they change the rules to limit debate and questions in the House! What are the Republicans afraid of? Is their creditability and integrity so questionable that they feel compelled to silence all potential opposition? But, maybe it is not opposition they fear, but reason!
What is going on with the Mississippi Republican Party? Why are they so set on shaping Mississippi in their image? Why does a Republican leader pen legislation that goes against the very Constitution Republicans say they support? Why are they so insistent that only the Republican voice be heard? A state with only one voice is dangerous and borders on tyranny. Perhaps, the people of Mississippi should ask the Republicans if they want to serve the people or rule the people. They might be surprised by the answer, but in light of the actions of some Republicans in Mississippi, their intent seems
…show more content…
Republicans want to silence those who challenge them or speak out against them;
3. Republicans hate public schools;
4. Republicans have little respect for educators;
5. Republicans take from the needy (public schools) and give to the well to do’s (private and charter schools);
6. Republicans do not mind throwing deceptions and smokescreens;
7. Republicans claim absolute allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, yet they orchestrate bills to take away the First Amendment rights of state citizens; and
8. Republicans always have enough money to do the things they want to do.
I am not against the Mississippi Republican Party, but with the way they have been handling themselves lately, I find it hard to see how anyone who believes in personal liberties and what is right can stand by them. However, maybe, the Republicans are not guilty of any of the above, and they are simply being vilified by a few out of control bullies. Either way, a once Grand Old Party is not what it once
The main point of this article is that Charles J. Faulkner challenged the Radical Republican-controlled West Virginia government on the requirement for lawyers to take a loyalty oath which led to the downfall of Radical Republican Reconstruction. The article talked about how the subject of test oaths, belligerent rights, and Confederate money were major issues in the courts. The test oath had eliminated any ex-Confederates from accessing the courts and only allowed them to do so as defendants. Radical Republicans wanted to make it so that former Confederates could not play a part in the new West Virginia government. The Radical Republicans tried doing this by not allowing former Confederates to vote or hold office.
The south was made up politicians that were democrats but who switched to republicans in order to obtain a vote.
They changed their minds and decided they didn't want equal rights after all. “Northern voters grew indifferent to events in the SOuth.” (Doc C Paragraph One) Like I said their points are valid but as the South was active and violent the north published a few articles and ignored. If somebody is to blame for the end of Reconstruction its is the South and their violent ways of rebelling.
Since it’s very beginning the United States has been a nation founded on the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, a system of segregation existed in the states that denied these basic principles to the African American population. So organizations such as Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) were created in order to combat this inequality. Yet, as the civil rights movement changed so too did SNCC; transforming itself from a local grass-roots project to an organized nation-wide project.
Radical Republicans are a coalition of northern representatives in Congress. The group’s goal was to protect and promote the interests of Black Southerners and to punish white Southerners for the Civil War. However, the president and Congress were not on the same page. After the war ended there was tension in the White House because black southerners could not vote yet and the southern white aristocrats came back to reclaim their seats. The Radical Republicans declared that the southern white did not have the right to say anything unless they sworn to the Union’s allegiance.
When Congress passed Amendments XIII, XIV, and XV the plan was to legalize privileges granted to all parties in the reconstruction process, and to make known consequences if not followed. Unfortunately these precepts were not strictly enforced and the white south reverted to previous behaviors. Conveniently Mississippi devised their own plan to control the lives of the black populace. The Mississippi plan spells out the intentions of the white south to curb the influence of the black population.
Republican ideas on the consent of the governed were also embraced and exemplified through the limitation of the government. As seen in both Document I and the Bill of Rights, at least the idea to limit the government to prevent any abuses of power against the people was taken into account. However, on the other hand, politics, in a way, didn’t change after the war as well. Even after the war and the propagation of egalitarian ideas, only rich, protestant, land-owning, white men participated, if not dominated, politics. In the post-revolution confederacy, it was only rich, white men who could and did occupy positions of political power, and more often
To try and register as many African-American voters in Mississippi as they could. SNCC, CORE, and NAACP leaders along with hundreds of volunteers went from city to city in Mississippi convincing locals to register to
Klansmen trying to restrict a Freedmen of his civil right to vote for president by telling him not to vote for a Radical Republican or let one of them vote in his place is the most significant problem on how the south resistance for the death of Reconstruction because they did not want to allow African American the rights the newly ratified fifteenth amendment and a Radical Republican as president because he supports Freedmen rights and the punishment of former
More than six hundred serves as state legislators and sixteen as congressmen. Southern Republicans, reconstruction governments eliminated property qualifications for the vote and abolished the Black Codes. Their state constitutions expanded the rights of married women, enabling them to hold property and wages independent of their husbands. The sought to diversify the economy beyond cotton agriculture and the poured money into railroads and other buildings projects to expand the regions busted economy. Southern Republicans brought the
The One Party State- Texas had been governed by the Democratic party for over 100 years. But the pattern was broken when a competition
Briefly, in the evolution of the Texas political system, Texas’s history has been through many situations that shaped the political structure in Texas to become to what it is today. Many changes were responsible for the impact in the history of Texas such as the Texas revolution, the Alamo war with Mexico, military reconstruction act in 1867, etc. Before the war with Mexico, one of the most important impact in Texas history was the Republic of Texas Constitution in 1836. Texas and Mexico have an escalating tension and is responsible for the new change in the Texas state constitution. For the cause of the Republic of Texas Constitution in 1836, Texas begins by declaring its independence in 1836, established the Republic of Texas, and decided to adopt the new constitution.
The Republicans as of today are very different, yet similar to the other,
Republicans all over the country are upset about Donald Trump being the republican nominee. Many people have stated that the republicans do not have anyone to blame but themselves. The republicans have elected people to congress who have not done their jobs. Many people have been elected multiple times. Some people also believe that the republicans are one of the reasons that wealth inequality is a major problem in this country.
The MFDP deeply considered the compromise, but Hamer believed it was unacceptable. A vote was taken, and the MFDP voted no to Johnson’s compromise because they were not going to accept anything less than Edith Green’s compromise “which proposed, ‘that each individual on both Mississippi delegations should be offered the chance to sign a loyalty oath, that any member of either delegation who signed should be seated, all others rejected, and the total number of Mississippi votes split among all those signed and were seated’” (Lee 90). Since Hamer was disliked by