history of voting

9

As Susan B. Anthony’s name trends on Twitter — and as people blanket her Rochester, New York, grave in “I Voted” stickers — it’s worth remembering that Anthony’s legacy is a paragon of white feminism. Anthony’s pursuit of women’s rights came with a hefty dose of racism. On its website, the National Women’s History Museum is careful to emphasize that Anthony’s problem wasn’t with black men voting, per se.

follow @the-movemnt

Vernon Dahmer was a civil rights leader in the mid-1960s, when Mississippians were still required to pay a poll tax in order to register to vote. In January 1966, the successful farmer and businessman publicly offered to pay that tax for black people who couldn’t afford it.

That night his house was firebombed by the Ku Klux Klan. His wife and three of his children were at home.

“We didn’t think anybody would bother the children, but we were wrong, they intended to get all of us January the 10th, 1966,” Vernon’s widow, Ellie Dahmer, told their daughter Bettie during a recent visit to StoryCorps.

“That night, when I waked up, the house was on fire, and it was so bright and so hot. You was screaming to the top of your voice, ‘Lord have mercy. We’re going to get burned up in this house alive.’ I raised the windows up, and then your father was handing you out the window to me.”

What One Family Sacrificed To Help Black People Vote In 1966

Photo: StoryCorps
Caption: Ellie Dahmer holds a photo of her late husband, Vernon.

A week away from turning 99 years old, Frances Kolarek has a long view of life and presidential elections.

Born in 1917, three years before women won the right to vote, she cast her first presidential vote for Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Now, in 2016, she has cast her vote early for Hillary Clinton.

“I think she is undoubtedly the most qualified candidate for the presidency that we have seen in my lifetime,” she says from her home at the retirement community where she lives, independently, outside Washington, D.C.

Kolarek has bright blue eyes, an easy laugh, and a passion for words, especially The New York Times crossword.

“That’s the first thing I do. I cut the crossword puzzle out, put it on a clipboard and go to work. Sometimes I’ve already done half of it before I have a sip of coffee,” she says with a chuckle.

View From Nearly 99: Frances Kolarek Reflects On Politics And Change

Photo: Melissa Block/NPR

Inequality of rights is created by a combination in one part of the community to exclude another part from its rights. Whenever it be made an article of a constitution, or a law, that the right of voting, or of electing and being elected, shall appertain exclusively to persons possessing a certain quantity of property, be it little or much, it is a combination of the persons possessing that quantity to exclude those who do not possess the same quantity. It is investing themselves with powers as a self-created part of society, to the exclusion of the rest.

It is always to be taken for granted, that those who oppose an equality of rights never mean the exclusion should take place on themselves; and in this view of the case, pardoning the vanity of the thing, aristocracy is a subject of laughter.

Thomas Paine, Dissertation on the First Principles of Government, July, 1795

The fact that so many people are misinformed about the Dakota Pipeline and then use that misinformation to act as victims is hilarious and scary at the same time.

“The pipeline will create 8,000 IMMEDIATE jobs, but you’re against anyone earning their own pay and just want social projects, you commie.”

Great just made an ass of yourself. It’s great that it would create 8,000 jobs immediately, but what happens to that job after it’s built? It goes away and leaves that person/family strapped even more than before which guess what? Will lead to them needing government assistance.

“The pipeline isn’t over sacred grounds it’s someone else’s property that has already been signed away.“ 

Yeah it’s signed away illegally from Natives who want their land back after the government took it away illegally and signed it over to people who would sign it over immediately back to them.

"But studies have shown there is no sacred land there.”
Ok, let me go into your house take your cross, menorah what ever you hold sacred masturbate with it and defile it and say “Sorry it’s not sacred to me so I didn’t do anything wrong.”

“Donald Trump is not wrong for supporting this pipeline, he wants to boost the economy." 

NO he wants to boost his pocketbook and his paycheck. HE HAS SHARES IN IT WHICH MAKES IT A HUGE CONFLICT OF INTEREST IF HE ENACTS ANY LAWS OR OVERTURNS THE VERDICT OBAMA MADE FOR THE PIPELINE. You guys threw a huge fit when you found out about that Youtuber who was promoting a gambling site on his page without disclosing he owned it. Guess what? It’s the exact same thing here.

The fact that most of these people are justifying using UNCLEAN fuel sources in order to boost the economy for a short time is absolutely baffling. The fact that they say "Well, I’m the only one using unbiased media therefore I am right” and then use Fox News or whatever right funded media outlet and justify it. Of course, they are not going to out the bad implications because if Pipeline money goes so does the media outlets money. You were so upset that the left-funded media was doing this for Hillary, hiding the truth so that she would win, guess what? They’re hiding the truth so that you and your superiority complex would feel high and mighty for supporting something that the Democrats oppose. Contradicting yourself much, you hypocrite?

NEWS FLASH: If you are supporting a cause that has cost an innocent woman her hand, that sics attack dogs on peaceful protectors, that justifies raping the land for profit, THEN YOU ARE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY.

If you can give me any other reason BESIDES PROFIT AND ECONOMY (two factors in a 10 factor decision) that is a good reason and was not debunked up here with links from A NON-REPUBLICAN FUNDED SITE, I will gladly eat my words

Conversations about black people and elections did not begin in 1870, with the ratification of the 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They did not end in 1965, with Congress’s passage of the Voting Rights Act. These two pieces of American legislation do not serve as the boundaries for examining the disenfranchising of people of color. Voter suppression continued in the form of mandatory literacy tests, voter ID laws, and gerrymandering. While more than half a century separates us from these recordings, their messages could not be more relevant.