Tom Woods (Mises) vs. The Civil Rights Act of 1964

FrankRep

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Messages
28,885
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Which Only Wicked Oppressors Could Oppose, and For No Good Reason)


Tom Woods.com
May 21st, 2010


In light of the hysteria in recent days, here’s some valuable information from Thomas Sowell, from his indispensable book Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?

thomas-sowell.jpg

Thomas Sowell




Sowell notes that champions of the Official Version of History ignore already existing trends in black employment, well under way long before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, from which we are taught all blessings flowed. Writes Sowell: “In the period from 1954 to 1964, for example, the number of blacks in professional, technical, and similar high-level positions more than doubled. In other kinds of occupations, the advance of blacks was even greater during the 1940s — when there was little or no civil rights policy — than during the 1950s when the civil rights revolution was in its heyday.

“The rise in the number of blacks in professional and technical occupations in the two years from 1964 to 1966 (after the Civil Rights Act) was in fact less than in the one year from 1961 to 1962 (before the Civil Rights Act). If one takes into account the growing black population by looking at percentages instead of absolute numbers, it becomes even clearer that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 represented no acceleration in trends that had been going on for many years. The percentage of employed blacks who were managers and administrators was the same in 1967 as in 1964 — and 1960. Nor did the institution of ‘goals and timetables’ at the end of 1971 mark any acceleration in the long trend of rising black representation in these occupations. True, there was an appreciable increase in the percentage of blacks in professional and technical fields from 1971 to 1972, but almost entirely offset by a reduction in the percentage of blacks who were managers and administrators.”

Sowell further notes that Asians and Hispanics show similar long-term upward trends that had begun years before the passage of the 1964 Act, and which were not accelerated either by the Act itself or by the “affirmative action” programs that (inevitably) followed. Mexican-Americans’ incomes rose in relation to those of whites between 1959 and 1969, but not at a greater rate than between 1949 and 1959. Chinese and Japanese-American households had matched their white counterparts in income by 1959 (in spite of the fact that Japanese-Americans had been interned in concentration camps less than two decades before, and countless Americans blamed Japan for the loss of their sons).


SOURCE:
http://www.thomasewoods.com/blog/th...pressors-could-oppose-and-for-no-good-reason/
 
Last edited:
Thomas E. Woods Jr: The Civil Rights Act was UnConstitutional, Statist, and a Failure


Lecture by Thomas E. Woods Jr. presented at the Ludwig von Mises Institute's "History of Liberty" seminar held at the Institute in Auburn, Alabama, June 24-30, 2001. This Instructional Seminar of 23 lectures is modeled on the Mises University and presents a reinterpretation of the history of liberty from the ancient world--an ambitious agenda but a wonderfully successful conference.

http://www.mises.org/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyJypTVkWXg
 
Last edited:
YO! barackObama troll~lurkers, ARATUS has a class for "teachable" moments right here!

there were THREE civil rights acts, thusly 1866, 1875 and 1964!!!
http://www.studythepast.com/his378race_and_railroads/index.htm here it is!
the above link is to someone's history class and yes, a liberal bias but
it does have links to the statues in the late 1800s that have nuances
and a sequence of events behind them. rand paul is not a lawyer, even
so... d.c is full of lawyers. the above link gives a backdrop to the times.
http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com.../rand-paul-is-no-barry-goldwater-civil-rights the bartlett blog
hath paragraphs and almost swears! libertarianism is almost understood
by one & all! the issues brought up go past barry goldwater's tidy paragraphs,
however if one has not read barry goldwater's CONCIENCE OF A CONSERVATIVE,
then one has NO idea what rand was trying to say! its convoluded and complex!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
each decade in the late 1800s has an evolving outlook and its own unique high court battles!
the 1880s supreme court struck down the 1875 bill Sumner wrote that Grant's people passed.
the debate over the 1866 bill and the veto that andrew johnson did in part is why we have
the next two amendments after the 13th... namely the 14th and 15th in the way that we do.
the 1964 bill was more thorough than the earlier 1866 and 1875 bills and tied into the 13th,
14th and 15th amendments! the state laws & statues also were part of the late 1800s debate!
 
Last edited:
technically, inside the timeline of the late 1800s and the coming of age of the railways,
sometimes a law would be on the books with the fines as to the letter of the law but
local folks might or might not enforse it. a 'jim crow" law could be locally ignored as well
as the 13th, 14th or 15th amendment. sumner's 1875 bill was thought by he to be his
crowning achievement and was briefly law and thusly enforced. andrew johnson's trial
in the senate is not an event that one totally ignors and it makes poor rand's media for
instance of the other day seem like a dispassionate discussion by the olympian gods and
goddesses. the ultimate issue in terms of ole andy was over the extent of the power of
the presidency, and after his trial and acquittal by one vote, the power went to the majority
leader of the house insted of the president of the united states until bill mckinley drew the
control and prestige of the modern goldfish bowl presidency. seriously! bill mckinley is like
a modern JANUS for he looks back at the 1800s and anticipates 95% of the 20th century.
he dies about four years before albert einstein changed modern physics with a bright paper.
 
for good or ill, historians dump on and slam into bill mckinley quite often!

any logical legal attempt to overturn the CRA of 1964 entails extensive reading,
a sense of history, and a heck of alot of HOURs of legal work to prepare the brief!
 
prof. woodrow wilson even wrote a book on how controlling the legislatures were
after the civil war let alone how powerful the house and senate were in his lifetime.
woodrow wilson's book was read by a great many people and due to his introspective
analysis about how mckinley was changing the madisonain balance once more, he gets
namedropped and then seriously thought of by the cigar chomper machine politicians!
next thing you know, as the progressives are writing new laws, the princeton professor
gets elected to the highest public office in our land! i am giving a backdrop carefully!!!
 
the woman asked for rand's youthful take on the civil rights act of 1964 and he replied to her!
 
I think two points are beyond well settled in U.S. history.

#1 The present defacto United States corporation is not a lawful Republic operating within constitutional restraints or observing the checks and balances of federalism.

#2 Getting rid of an unlawful defacto tyrannical federal corporation, which fraudulently poses as constitutional, by any means necessary is not within the scope of treason when no lawful Republic exists.

To illustrate this point:
You follow the example of Lincoln and use coercion to get a bogus amendment. Then it's all good.
 
Politically Incorrect History


Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
November 20, 2004


The civil rights chapter discusses the key cases that transformed American society with regard to race, including Brown, Green, Swann, Griggs, Bakke, and Weber, and the fundamental lawlessness that characterized the process. It doesn’t take the line that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a wonderful, visionary piece of legislation that was mysteriously replaced by affirmative action quotas years later. It shows, first, that the act had far less impact on black employment than people typically suppose, and second, that the logic of the act (in spite of all its disclaimers) in fact led directly to affirmative action.


 
Back
Top