I have no idea what would have happened if they didn't have slaves -- it wouldn't be history.
Do you think there's slave owners that lost political power after having their slaves emancipated?
How about this then. Did they have that power and influence at least in some significant part because of their slave owning?
Absolutely, yes.
See that isn't hard.
And if some lost power, and then some retained power, what can you say about the causal power of owning slaves in regards to political power.
You can't come to a conclusion.
It's a garbage gotcha argument.
Again, "slavery" poisons every tinge of everything regardless of whether it has any connection or causal power to the outcome -- it's absolutely stupid.
I never said that owning slaves directly causes individuals to lobby for jim crow. I said that the ones that did lobby for jim crow owe much of their ability to do so to slavery.
That is a fact, sorry.
That doesn't follow at all -- if 90% of slave owners lost their political power due to the emancipation of slaves then it leads to believe that the retaining of political power has nothing to do with the owning of slaves in the first place at all.
It's simple. Let's again get concrete. Were the lobbyists and allies of the supreme court that struck down parts of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 influential at least in some significant way due to their owning slaves?
If you think it has nothing to do with slavery, and instead just some serious hard work and ambition towards segragation, then you can simply say "no" and I will disagree and that's that.
Name the lobbyists and allies of the specific case in the Supreme Court. You're just making stuff up at this point.
The civil war was actually about states rights smile
Anyway basically every justice except Justice John Marshall Harlan
While Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan had unsuccessfully pressured Senator Charles Sumner to drop the Civil Rights Act of 1875 while leader of the Kentucky Republican Party, his wife convinced him to dissent from holding the law unconstitutional.
The Wikipedia page says that at the time of passing, the Supreme Court thought it was unconstitutional in the first place!
turns out huber was just making shit up -- the one guy who dissented only did so because his wife told him to and he's on record for telling Sumner in 1874(?) that the law is unconstitutional
Women failed to ruin america for jones back then but later on really got their shit together.
The decision that the Reconstruction-era Civil Rights Acts were unconstitutional has not been overturned; on the contrary, the Supreme Court reaffirmed this limited reading of the Fourteenth Amendment in United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), in which it held that Congress did not have the authority to enact parts of the Violence Against Women Act.
I don't know how to find specific names, but my understanding is the cases were brought about by former slave owning business owners.