Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Flogging

2012-07-04T12:22:14Z

Casanova: Created page with "Delaware a "liberal" state? I do not really think so. For example, it has a very pro-business corporation code. It limits the liability of, and sometimes immunizes, the direct..."

Delaware a "liberal" state? I do not really think so. For example, it has a very pro-business corporation code. It limits the liability of, and sometimes immunizes, the directors of the corporation from their own wrongdoing, and, comparatively speaking, provides shareholders with little to no protection, all of which is the typical Republican business regulation model.

From the perspective of constitutional law, moreover, there was, for many years, serious doubt that the Eighth Amendment was even applicable to the state. Those who favored whipping were also against civil rights, believing that whipping was essential to control the "colored" population that might be passing through the State of Delaware.

Flogging

2012-06-19T19:09:13Z

Casanova:

'''Flogging''' was a punishment for crimes most common in ancient times. It involved whipping, usually on the back, with long strands of leather hide sometimes embedded with bone or glass to rip flesh. In the Jewish custom, 40 lashes was the most that was allowed as anything beyond this was considered to put the life of the recipient in danger. In practice Jews stopped at 39 lashes in case there was a miscount. Roman flogging knew no such limits and it was not uncommon for prisoners to die from flogging alone.

[[Jesus]] was flogged by the Romans. The number of lashes received is unknown. Under Roman law, scourging was a preliminary to crucifixion in every case, and its primary purpose was to weaken the prisoner, lessen his resistance, and hasten his death. The only practical limitation on the number of lashes was that he had to be kept alive for the crucifixion.

The last U.S. state to abolish whipping as a punishment for crime was Delaware, which eliminated the practice in 1972. The last flogging occurred in 1952, when John P. Barbieri, then about 21, received 20 lashes of the cat-o-nine tails on his bare back for breaking and entering.

In the early 1960's, there was talk of reinstituting whipping in Delaware, and Barbieri's case was mentioned in the newspapers. Naturally, he was chagrined and embarrassed to have all his neighbors and friends find out that he was last person to be horsewhipped in the State of Delaware, so he sued the newspaper for invasion of privacy. The Supreme Court of Delaware ruled against him, holding that his punishment was a matter of public concern, both at the time he received it and later on, when the practice was being discussed in the newspaper and elsewhere. Barbieri v. News-Journal Co., 56 Del. 67, 189 A.2d 773 (1963).

For various offenses, the Delaware statute authorized or directed the court to impose a sentence of "stripes," consisting of not less than five nor more than sixty lashes to be "well laid" on the prisoner's bare back. In jurisdictions where whipping was imposed as a punishment, the prisoner typically was required to strip to the waist and was bound by his wrists to a post or other device while the whipping was administered. Whipping was commonly used in the 19th century, particularly in frontier jurisdictions that had inadequate jail facilities.

[[category:Punishment]]

Jimmy Carter

2012-06-19T19:01:37Z

Casanova: /* Governor of Georgia */

{{Officeholder
|name=Jimmy Carter
|image=Carter.jpg
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=Rosalynn Carter
|religion=[[Baptist]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=39th
|terms=January 20, 1977 – January 20, 1981
|vp=[[Walter Mondale]]
|preceded=[[Gerald Ford]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Ronald Reagan]]
}}
{{Officeholder/governor
|number=76th
|state=Georgia
|terms=January 12, 1971 – January 14, 1975
|preceded=Lester Maddox
|former=y
|succeeded=George Busbee
}}
}}
'''Jimmy Carter''' (formally James Earl Carter, Jr., born 1924) was the 39th [[President of the United States of America]], defeating Republican [[Gerald Ford]] in 1976. Carter was a [[Democrat]] who served from 1977-1981, after being a one-term Governor of [[Georgia]]. At that time, the Georgia Constitution did not permit the Governor to succeed himself. After a failed presidency marked by disasters in the economy and foreign affairs, and poor leadership, Carter was defeated for reelection in 1980 by [[Ronald Reagan]], as the nation moved sharply more [[conservative]].

Coming out of nowhere in 1976, Carter promised a restoration of honesty to Washington after [[Watergate]], and built a coalition that included most of the South, thanks to his strong support among blacks and his considerable support (in 1976 only) among fellow white Baptists.

In an October 2000 survey of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science, Carter's presidency was rated in the "Below Average" group; he ranked 30th, with a mean score of 2.47 out of 5.00.<ref>''Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House'' (Wall Street Journal Book, 2004)</ref> This survey, sponsored by the ''Wall Street Journal'' and the conservative Federalist Society, ranked Carter ahead of Richard Nixon, and below George H.W. Bush.

Carter has been unusually active as an ex-president, serving as an election monitor in many emerging democracies, working with [[Habitat for Humanity]], and as a self-proclaimed "peace advocate", was recognized with the [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]]. Carter considers himself "superior" to other former presidents.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017049-503544.html Jimmy Carter: I'm A Superior Ex-President], [[CBS]].com , September 20, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32895021/ns/politics-cq_politics/ Obama, Racism, and Jimy Carter,] By Jeff Stein, CQ Politics, 9/17/2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v09n1/eugenics.html The Roots of the I.Q. Debate, Eugenics and Social Control], By Margaret Quigley, [[Political Research Associates]].
</ref> In recent years, he has become very controversial because of his vicious attacks against [[Israel]] and his alleged [[Anti-Semitism|anti-semitic]] sentiments.

==Early Life==
Carter was born and raised on his father's farm in Georgia. He entered the Naval Academy at [[Annapolis]] and graduated from there in 1946. Shortly afterwards, on July 7, he married Rosalynn Smith. Carter worked in submarines, attaining the rank of [[lieutenant]], until he resigned in 1953. He became a peanut farmer afterwards. <ref>[[Encyclopedia of Presidents, Jimmy Carter]], by Linda R. Wade, Children's Press, Chicago, 1989, pp. 11-33. </ref> Carter entered politics by running for the Georgia State Senate. He almost lost a close race against Homer Moore, but Carter beat him in the final tally.

==Governor of Georgia==

In 1966 Carter unsuccessfully sought the Democrat nomination for [[Governor]] of Georgia. This failure significantly affected Carter personally by influencing him to turn to [[religion]] for comfort, convincing him that he had been "born again."<ref>The Presidents by Richard Kirkendall, pg. 552</ref> Carter did succeed in his second bid for Governor in 1970. [[Racism]] was a major factor in his campaign, in which he criticized his primary challenger Carl Sanders for paying tribute to [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], in an effort to depress Sanders's white vote. Carter said "I have no trouble pitching for [George] Wallace votes and black votes at the same time, I can win this election without a single black vote." <ref>http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Jimmy-Carters-racist-campaign-of-1970-59499482.html</ref> Carter was elected governor, with almost no [[African American]] support. For the next four years he presided over state affairs. He presented himself as a [[populist]], the representative of the people as opposed to special interests. Carter emphasized [[welfare]] reform, [[education]]al advance and budget reform. Once [[pro-life]], he [[abortion betrayal|changed his position]] and supported the legalization of [[abortion]] and worked to replace [[capital punishment]] in Georgia with life in prison. In 1974, the Georgia Constitution prohibited the Governor from seeking a consecutive term, and Carter was succeeded by Joe Frank Harris. The Georgia Constitution was amended in 1976 to permit the Governor to serve two consecutive terms, and Harris was re-elected in 1978.

==1976 Presidential Campaign==

''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 1976]]''

Carter had decided well before his term as Governor ended to run for the Presidency in 1976. His campaign, which began in early 1975, stressed Washington's defects such as the [[Watergate affair]] in 1974. He campaigned on a widespread call for [[change]]. In the Democrat primary, Carter was able to defeat [[George Wallace]] in the southern primaries and established himself as a person who could win the south and reestablish Democrat control of the [[White House]]. He won the primary because of his inspiring and well organized campaign. <ref>The American Vision, pg. 966</ref> Running against President [[Gerald Ford]] in the general election, Carter had little experience in national politics, however he used that to his benefit by promising to restore honesty and morality to [[government]]. On election day, Carter edged out Ford with 50 percent of the vote to 48 percent.

==Presidency (1977-1981)==
[[Image:Carter1977.jpg‎|thumb|250px|President Carter's inauguration, 01/20/77]]On taking office Carter proposed radical energy programs, redistributive tax reform, public campaign financing, a consumer protection agency (that Ralph Nader had long championed), labor law reform, and enactment of the [[Equal Rights Amendment]]. He fought with fellow Democrats in [[Congress]] and achieved little or nothing. Meanwhile "stagflation" hit the economy hard, as energy shortages, slow growth, escalating inflation and very high interest rates sapped the economy.

It was worse in foreign affairs. Carter did broker a temporary peace in the Middle East, but was forced to abandon détente when the Russians began to exploit American weaknesses around the globe. Carter was forced to restart the [[Cold War]] when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, but his belated actions validated the complaints of conservatives that he offered too little too late. Meanwhile the nation was humiliated in [[Iran]], where militants held American diplomats captive for 444 days, while Carter proved helpless.
[[Image:000carter.jpg|thumb|400px|]]
===Administration===

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Office
! Name
! Term
|-
| [[President]]
| Jimmy Carter
| 1977-1981
|-
| [[Vice President of the United States of America|Vice President]]
| [[Walter Mondale]]
| 1977-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of State]]
| [[Cyrus Vance]]
| 1977-1980
|-
|
| [[Edmund Muskie]]
| 1980-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Treasury]]
| [[W. Michael Blumenthal]]
| 1977-1979
|-
|
| [[G. William Miller]]
| 1979-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Defense]]
| [[Harold Brown]]
| 1977-1981
|-
| [[Attorney General]]
| [[Griffin Bell]]
| 1977-1979
|-
|
| [[Benjamin R. Civiletti]]
| 1979-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Interior]]
| [[Cecil D. Andrus]]
| 1977-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Commerce]]
| [[Juanita M. Kreps]]
| 1977-1979
|-
|
| [[Philip M. Klutznick]]
| 1979-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Labor]]
| [[Ray Marshall]]
| 1977-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Agriculture]]
| [[Robert Bergland]]
| 1977–1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare]]
| [[Joseph A. Califano, Jr.]]
| 1977-1979
|-
| [[Secretary of Health and Human Services]]
| [[Patricia R. Harris]]
| 1979-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Education]]
| [[Shirley M. Hufstedler]]
| 1977-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Housing and Urban Development]]
| [[Patricia R. Harris]]
| 1977-1979
|-
|
| [[Maurice Landrieu]]
| 1979-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Transportation]]
| [[Brock Adams]]
| 1977-1979
|-
|
| [[Neil E. Goldschmidt]]
| 1979-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Energy]]
| [[James R. Schlesinger]]
| 1977–1979
|-
|
| [[Charles W. Duncan]]
| 1979-1981
|-
|}

=== Economic Crisis ===

[[Image:001carter.jpg‎|thumb|250px|left|President Carter during White House Press Conference.]]Carter inherited a [[recession]] when taking office. First he tried to reduce unemployment by both increasing government spending and cutting [[tax]]es. However, when [[inflation]] skyrocketed in 1978 he changed his mind. He delayed tax cuts and vetoed the spending programs that he himself proposed to the [[Congress]]. Carter then tried to ease inflation by reducing [[money]] supply and raising [[interest rates]]. All of his efforts proved to be unsuccessful. Inflation and interest rates soon reached their highest levels since [[World War II]].

The rapid change in interest rates led to disintermediation of bank deposits, which sowed the seeds of the Savings and Loan crisis. Investments in fixed income were becoming less valuable. Holders of both bonds, and pensions being paid to retired people had their life savings wiped out. The stagnant growth of the economy (causing unemployment), in combination with a high rate of inflation, has often been called stagflation, an unprecedented situation in American economics. By 1979, public opinion polls had Carter's popularity lower then [[Richard Nixon]]'s during Watergate, partly because of his inexperience and difficulties working with [[Congress]].

=== Energy Crisis ===

Carter proposed a national energy program to conserve [[oil]] and promote the use of coal and renewable energy sources. He also persuaded Congress to create the Department of Energy, and asked Americans to personally reduce their energy consumption. Although oil companies were insisting on deregulation of the energy industry, Carter advocated a "windfall profits tax" to prevent oil companies from overcharging consumers. Carter's plan did not solve the country's energy crisis. In the summer of 1979 a major oil shortage in the [[United States]] took place because of instability in the middle east. After increasing pressure to act, Carter gave several televised address' where he complained that there was a "crisis of confidence that had struck at the very heart and soul of our national will." Although Carter meant the speech to be a timely warning, many Americans interpreted it as President Carter blaming the public for his failures. Critics dubbed it Carter's "malaise speech."

=== Foreign Policy ===
[[Image:Decline1978.jpg|thumb|290px|The nation feared it was losing its world power, as this magazine cover shows, Nov. 1978]]

In contrast to Carter's economic policies which were uncertain and left the public confused, his foreign policy was more clearly defined, although foreign policy is where Jimmy Carter suffered his worst defeats. In his inaugural speech he stated that "our commitment to human rights must be absolute." He singled out the [[Soviet Union]] as a violator of human rights and strongly condemned the country for arresting its citizens for political protests. However, he was criticized for not doing enough to promote his proclaimed human rights foreign policy stance in his administration, such as continuing to support the Indonesian government even while it was implicated in the commission of acts of genocide in the occupation of [[East Timor]].

Carter also tried to remove the U.S. image of interventionism by giving Panamanians control of the [[Panama Canal]]. Over conservative opposition he did so--but Panama fell into the hands of a dictator who threatened Americans and had to be overthrown by an American invasion in 1989.

Détente with the Soviet Union collapsed when Soviet troops invaded [[Afghanistan]] in December 1979. President Carter responded by imposing an [[embargo]] on the sale of grain to the Soviet Union, humiliating Moscow by orchestrating a western boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympic Games in Moscow, and start funding and arming the anti-Soviet forces inside Afghanistan. The policy of détente that was established by President Nixon was over and the "Second Cold War" began.

=== Camp David Accords ===

Carter's greatest and arguably only triumph while in office was a historic peace [[treaty]] known as the Camp David Peace Accords, between [[Israel]] and [[Egypt]], two nations that had been bitter enemies for decades. [[Image:Iran1979.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Blindfolded American hostages being paraded before the public by their Iranian captors, November 5, 1979.]] The treaty was formally signed in 1979, with most middle eastern countries opposed to it.

=== Iran Hostage Crisis ===

In 1979, a new radical [[Islamic]] regime lead by [[Ayatollah Khomeini]] in [[Iran]] overthrew America's close ally Shah. Thousands of modernizers were arrested, expelled or executed. In November 1979 student revolutionaries stormed into the American embassy in [[Tehran]] and captured 52 United States diplomats as hostages. The US seized all Iranian assets and tried to bargain, a process that dragged on for 444 days. Despite pressure to use military action Carter tried to negotiate with Iran, which proved to be unsuccessful. In April 1980 President Carter approved a rescue attempt (over the opposition of [[Secretary of State]] [[Cyrus Vance]]). To the nations dismay, the attempt failed when several helicopters malfunctioned. Eight serviceman died in the accident. Carter's negotiations with Iran continued throughout 1980. Ironically, the hostages were released just after Carter left office on January 20, 1981, as they were fearful of what President Reagan might do.

==1980 Reelection Campaign==

''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 1980]]''

By the time of President Carter's reelection campaign, the country was plagued by problems, including high levels of unemployment, inflation, interest rates and the Iranian hostage crisis. Although incumbent Presidents usually win their party's nomination easily, Carter faced a primary challenge from the more [[liberal]] [[Massachusetts]] Senator [[Ted Kennedy]]. Carter was able to maintain a lead over Kennedy and defeated him with 51 percent of the vote to 38 percent. In the general election, Carter faced two opponents: [[Conservative]] and charismatic [[California]] Governor [[Ronald Reagan]] as the Republican nominee and moderate [[Illinois]] Congressman [[John Anderson]] running as an [[Independent]]. Reagan locked the election in late October of the campaign when, at the Presidential debate, he asked the voters, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" His relaxed performance helped to dispel fears from the Carter camp that Reagan was a war monger. Reagan won by a large margin, 43.9 million votes for Reagan and 35.5 million votes for Carter. Democrats maintained control of the [[House of Representatives]] but by a narrower margin, and lost control of the [[United States Senate]].

Carter left office disappointed and unhappy. He became the first elected President since [[Herbert Hoover]] to lose a bid for a second term.

==Post Presidency==
[[Image:Palestine peace not apartheid.jpg|right|thumb|150px|Cover of Jimmy Carter's book, ''Peace Not Apartheid'', which accuses [[Israel]] of practicing racism.]]
Carter has been active in foreign affairs since his presidency. His continued work mediating international disputes, organizing election observations, and working with organizations on disease and hunger were cited when he was awarded the 2002 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]]. In his Nobel lecture, Carter declared his support for "international law":

<blockquote>
Our President, [[Woodrow Wilson]], was honored here for promoting the [[League of Nations]], whose two basic concepts were profoundly important: "collective security" and "self-determination." Now they are embedded in international law. Violations of these premises during the last half-century have been tragic failures, as was vividly demonstrated when the Soviet Union attempted to conquer Afghanistan and when Iraq invaded Kuwait. <ref>[http://jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/nobel.phtml Text of Carter's Nobel Lecture] Jimmy Carter Library and Museum, 2002.</ref>
</blockquote>

In one book, "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid", he made the point that any peace accords reached would fundamentally have to be accompanied by the ceasing of terrorist activity towards Israel, he wrote:
<blockquote>
It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.
</blockquote>
The sentiment was widely criticized. He apologized for the wording of that sentence, but not for his larger message.<ref>Washington Post, January 24, 2007 [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/23/AR2007012301668.html?nav=rss_artsandliving/books]</ref>

*His 2006 book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," caused a top aide to resign. Professor Kenneth Stein resigned from the Carter Center because of its depiction of Israel through three decades of diplomatic and military dealings with the Palestinians. Mr. Stein had served as an aide to Mr. Carter during most of those years and considers the book deceitful and malicious. As the book's title suggests, Carter compares Israel with the white supremacist regime of old South Africa. Fourteen members of the Carter Center's advisory board have resigned over the book.

In September 2009, Carter caused controversy when he stated that conservative criticisms of [[Barack Obama]] are due to racism.

"I think, an overwhelming portion, of the intensely demonstrated animosity towed President Barack Obama, is based on the fact that he is a black man. That he's African American...because of a belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African Americans are not qualified to lead this great country." <ref>http://erickbrockway.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/the-new-radicals-vs-the-new-racists/</ref>

[[John McCain]] responded to Carter's remarks, "I'm deeply disturbed by those accusations because it's an unfair and untrue commentary on the American people, and them exercising their God-given rights to disagree with the administration. '''It seems to me that President Carter has earned his place as, if not the worst president in history, certainly the worst in the 20th century.'''" <ref>[http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2009/09/mccain-jimmy-carter-worst-president.html McCain:Jimmy Carter worst president ever, freedomeden.blogspot.com, September 18, 2009]</ref>

As President, Carter expressed a goal of making government "competent and compassionate." In pursuit of that vision, he has been involved in a variety of national and international public policy, conflict resolution, human rights and charitable causes.

He founded The Carter Center in 1982 which has the goal of alleviating human suffering. The Center promotes democratic elections and has programmes to improve health in developing countries through the control of parasitic diseases such as Guinea Worm. It is fair to say that ex-President Carter is probably much more respected outside the United States than in his home country.
{{Clear}}

== UFO Sighting ==

[[Image:Carter Sighting Report 2.gif|thumb|right|Jimmy Carter's UFO report.]] Carter reported seeing an unidentified flying object [[UFO]] in 1969. He later recalled, "A light appeared and disappeared in the sky . . . I think the light was beckoning me to run in the California primary." <ref>[http://www.presidentialufo.com/jimmy.htm Jimmy Carter UFO] </ref> Astronomers generally concur that he actually saw the planet Venus.<ref>Val Morgan, et al. '''Rumor''' (1984).</ref>

==See also==
* [[Carter Doctrine]]
* [[Essay:Criticism of Jimmy Carter]]

==Basic further reading==
* Bourne, Peter G. ''Jimmy Carter: A Comprehensive Biography from Plains to Post-Presidency'' (1997).
* Brinkley, Douglas. ''The Unfinished Presidency: Jimmy Carter's Journey beyond the White House'' (1998). [http://www.amazon.com/Unfinished-Presidency-Carters-Journey-Beyond/dp/0140276165/ref=sr_1_18?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249620205&sr=1-18 excerpt and text search]
*Fink, Gary M. and Hugh Davis Graham, eds. ''The Carter Presidency: Policy Choices in the Post-New Deal Era'' (1998)
* Gaillard, Frye. ''Prophet from Plains: Jimmy Carter and His Legacy'' (2007). [http://www.amazon.com/Prophet-Plains-Jimmy-Carter-Legacy/dp/0820333328/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249619928&sr=1-7 excerpt and text search]
* Hargrove, Erwin C. ''Jimmy Carter as President: Leadership and the Politics of the Public Good'' (1988).
* Kaufman, Burton Ira. ''The Presidency of James Earl Carter, Jr.'' (1993), the best survey of his administration
* Kaufman, Burton Ira. ''The Carter Years'' (2006), short biographies of all the major players
* Morris, Kenneth E. ''Jimmy Carter, American Moralist'' (1996).
* Venezia, Mike. ''Jimmy Carter: Thirty-Ninth President'' (Getting to Know the US Presidents) (2008), for middle schools [http://www.amazon.com/Jimmy-Carter-Thirty-Ninth-President-Presidents/dp/0516259717/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249620205&sr=1-24 excerpt and text search]
* Wilentz, Sean. ''The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Age-Reagan-History-1974-2008-American/dp/0060744812/ref=pd_sim_b_1 excerpt and text search]

==Specialized Bibliography==
===Biography, personality and rhetoric===
*Bourne, Peter G. ''Jimmy Carter: A Comprehensive Biography From Plains to Post-Presidency'' (1997)
*Flint, Andrew R. and Joy Porter. "Jimmy Carter: The re-emergence of faith-based politics and the abortion rights issue. " ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' (March 2005) 35#1 pp. 28–51
* Gaillard, Frye. ''Prophet from Plains: Jimmy Carter and His Legacy'' (2007). [http://www.amazon.com/Prophet-Plains-Jimmy-Carter-Legacy/dp/0820333328/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249619928&sr=1-7 excerpt and text search]
*Hahn, Dan F. "The rhetoric of Jimmy Carter, 1976–1980" in Theodore Windt and Beth Ingold, eds. ''Essays in Presidential Rhetoric'' (3rd ed. 1992) pp. 331–365
* Mattson, Kevin. '''What the Heck Are You Up To, Mr. President?': Jimmy Carter, America's 'Malaise,' and the Speech that Should Have Changed the Country'' (2009)
*Ribuffo, Leo P. "God and Jimmy Carter" in M. L. Bradbury and James B. Gilbert, eds. ''Transforming Faith: The Sacred and Secular in Modern American History'' (1989) pp. 141–159, by conservative historian
*Ribuffo, Leo P. "'Malaise' revisited: Jimmy Carter and the crisis of confidence" in John Patrick Diggins, ed. ''The Liberal Persuasion: Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. and the Challenge of the American Past'' (1997) by conservative historian
* Stuckey, Mary E. ''Jimmy Carter, Human Rights, and the National Agenda'' (2009) on Presidential rhetoric

===Domestic policy===
* Biven, W. Carl ''Jimmy Carter's Economy: Policy in an Age of Limits'' (2002) [http://www.questia.com/read/110717331?title=Jimmy%20Carter's%20Economy%3a%20%20Policy%20in%20an%20Age%20of%20Limits online edition]
* Campagna, Anthony S. ''Economic Policy in the Carter Administration'' (1995) 216 pp [http://www.questia.com/read/27443313?title=Economic%20Policy%20in%20the%20Carter%20Administration online edition]
*Dumbrell, John, ed. ''The Carter Presidency: A Re-evaluation'' (2nd ed. 1995), British perspective
*Fink, Gary M. and Hugh Davis Graham, eds. ''The Carter Presidency: Policy Choices in the Post-New Deal Era'' (1998)
*Kaufman, Burton I. ''The Presidency of James Earl Carter, Jr'' (1993), the standard scholarly survey
*Rosenbaum, Herbert D. and Alexej Ugrinsky, eds. ''The Presidency and Domestic Policies of Jimmy Carter'' (1994), essays by experts [http://www.questia.com/read/27232781?title=The%20Presidency%20and%20Domestic%20Policies%20of%20Jimmy%20Carter online edition]

===Politics===
* Aronoff, Yael S., "In Like a Lamb, Out Like a Lion: The Political Conversion of Jimmy Carter," ''Political Science Quarterly,'' 121 (Fall 2006), 425–49.
* Busch, Andrew E. ''Reagan's Victory: The Presidential Election of 1980 and the Rise of the Right,'' (2005) [http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1103/article_detail.asp online review by Michael Barone]
* Fink, Gary M. ''Prelude to the Presidency: The Political Character and Legislative Leadership Style of Governor Jimmy Carter'' (1980). [http://www.questia.com/read/34288553?title=Prelude%20to%20the%20Presidency%3a%20The%20Political%20Character%20and%20Legislative%20Leadership%20Style%20of%20Governor%20Jimmy%20Carter online edition]
* Freedman, Robert. "The Religious Right and the Carter Administration." ''Historical Journal'' 2005 48(1): 231-260. Issn: 0018-246x Fulltext: in Swetswise
*Gillon, Steven M. ''The Democrats' Dilemma: Walter F. Mondale and the Liberal Legacy'' (1992)
* Hargrove, Erwin C. ''Jimmy Carter as President: Leadership and the Politics of the Public Good'' (1988).
*Jones, Charles O. ''The Trusteeship Presidency: Jimmy Carter and the United States Congress'' (1988)
*Kaufman, Burton I. ''The Presidency of James Earl Carter, Jr'' (1993), the standard scholarly survey
* Kaufman, Burton Ira. ''The Carter Years'' (2006), short biographies of all the major players
* Morgan, Iwan. "Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and the New Democratic Economics." ''Historical Journal'' 2004 47(4): 1015-1039. Issn: 0018-246x Fulltext: in Swetswise
* Pomper, Gerald M., ed. ''The Election of 1980: Reports and Interpretations'' (1981)
* Ranney, Austin, ed. ''The American Elections of 1980'' (1982), essays by political scientists
*Strong, Robert A. "Recapturing leadership: The Carter administration and the crisis of confidence," ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' (Fall 1986) 16#3 pp 636–650
*White, Theodore H. ''America in Search of Itself: The Making of the President, 1956–1980'' (1982), classic narrative of presidential campaigns
*Witcover, Jules. ''Marathon: The Pursuit of the Presidency, 1972–1976'' (1977), very detailed narrative

===Foreign Policy===
* Berggren, D. Jason and Rae, Nicol C. "Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush: Faith, Foreign Policy, and an Evangelical Presidential Style." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 2006 36(4): 606-632. Issn: 0360-4918 Fulltext: in Swetswise and Ingenta
* Clymer, Kenton. "Jimmy Carter, Human Rights, and Cambodia." ''Diplomatic History'' 2003 27(2): 245-278. Issn: 0145-2096 Fulltext: in Swetswise, Ingenta and Ebsco
*Dumbrell, John, ed. ''The Carter Presidency: A Re-evaluation'' (2nd ed. 1995), British perspective
*Harris, David. ''The Crisis: the President, the Prophet, and the Shah—1979 and the Coming of Militant Islam'' (2004}
* Houghton, David Patrick. ''US Foreign Policy and the Iran Hostage Crisis'' (2001) [http://www.questia.com/SM.qst?act=adv&contributors=David Patrick Houghton&dcontributors=David%20Patrick%20Houghton online edition]
*Kaufman, Burton I. ''The Presidency of James Earl Carter, Jr'' (1993), the standard scholarly survey
*Rosenbaum, Herbert D. and Alexej Ugrinsky, eds. ''Jimmy Carter: Foreign Policy and Post-Presidential Years'' (1994), essays by experts [http://www.questia.com/read/14250706?title=Jimmy%20Carter%3a%20Foreign%20Policy%20and%20Post-Presidential%20Years online edition]
* Schmitz, David F. and Vanessa Walker. "Jimmy Carter and the Foreign Policy of Human Rights: the Development of a Post-cold War Foreign Policy." ''Diplomatic History'' 2004 28(1): 113-143. Issn: 0145-2096 Fulltext: in Swetswise, Ingenta and Ebsco
* Skidmore, David. ''Reversing Course: Carter's Foreign Policy, Domestic Politics, and the Failure of Reform'' (1996).
* Stein, Kenneth W. ''Heroic Diplomacy: Sadat, Kissinger, Carter, Begin and the Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/SM.qst?act=adv&contributors=Kenneth W. Stein&dcontributors=Kenneth%20W.%20Stein online edition]
*Strong, Robert A. ''Working in the World: Jimmy Carter and the Making of American Foreign Policy'' (2000)
* Thornton, Richard C. ''The Carter Years: Toward a New Global Order'' (1991) 572 pp. [http://www.questia.com/read/10415810?title=The%20Carter%20Years%3a%20Toward%20a%20New%20Global%20Order online edition]

===Post-presidential years===
* Brinkley, Douglas. ''The Unfinished Presidency: Jimmy Carter's Journey beyond the White House'' (1998). [http://www.amazon.com/Unfinished-Presidency-Carters-Journey-Beyond/dp/0140276165/ref=sr_1_18?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249620205&sr=1-18 excerpt and text search]
* Dershowitz, Alan. ''The Case Against Israel's Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Israels-Enemies-Exposing/dp/0470490055/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249619928&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* Evans, Mike. ''Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos: A Carter/Obama Plan That Will Not Work'' (2009), conservative critique

==Primary sources==
* [http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/ERP/ Council of Economic Advisors, ''Economic Report of the President'' (annual 1947- )], complete series online; important analysis of current trends and policies, plus statistcial tables

===Books by aides===
* Califano, Joseph A., Jr. ''Governing America: An insider's report from the White House and the Cabinet''. 1981
* Jordan, Hamilton. ''Crisis: The Last Year of the Carter Presidency''. 1982
* Lance, Bert. ''The Truth of the Matter: My Life in and out of Politics''. 1991

==External links==
*[http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/jec/jcnavy.phtml Jimmy Carter's Naval Service]
*[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13265 Carter the worst ex-president -- Steven Hayward]
*[http://blogcentral.jpost.com/index.php?cat_id=7&blog_id=59&blog_post_id=935 Jimmy Carter is a liar], [[Alan Dershowitz]], ''Jerusalem Post'', March 13 2007.
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/19/AR2007011901541.html Jimmy Carter's Jewish Problem] by Deborah Lipstadt.
*[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,918293,00.html "A Man Among Old Friends"], ''Time''Sep. 06, 1976 (article on Carter's favorite books—says the important book in his life is the Bible.]

==References==
<references/>

{{USPresidents}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Carter, Jimmy}}
[[Category:Presidents of the United States|Carter, Jimmy]]
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Peace|Carter, Jimmy]]
[[Category:Georgia Governors]]
[[Category:Democratic Governors]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:Cold War]]
[[category:Middle East]]
[[category:Human Rights]]
[[Category:Anti-Semitism]]

Jimmy Carter

2012-06-19T18:59:18Z

Casanova: /* Governor of Georgia */

{{Officeholder
|name=Jimmy Carter
|image=Carter.jpg
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=Rosalynn Carter
|religion=[[Baptist]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=39th
|terms=January 20, 1977 – January 20, 1981
|vp=[[Walter Mondale]]
|preceded=[[Gerald Ford]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Ronald Reagan]]
}}
{{Officeholder/governor
|number=76th
|state=Georgia
|terms=January 12, 1971 – January 14, 1975
|preceded=Lester Maddox
|former=y
|succeeded=George Busbee
}}
}}
'''Jimmy Carter''' (formally James Earl Carter, Jr., born 1924) was the 39th [[President of the United States of America]], defeating Republican [[Gerald Ford]] in 1976. Carter was a [[Democrat]] who served from 1977-1981, after being a one-term Governor of [[Georgia]]. At that time, the Georgia Constitution did not permit the Governor to succeed himself. After a failed presidency marked by disasters in the economy and foreign affairs, and poor leadership, Carter was defeated for reelection in 1980 by [[Ronald Reagan]], as the nation moved sharply more [[conservative]].

Coming out of nowhere in 1976, Carter promised a restoration of honesty to Washington after [[Watergate]], and built a coalition that included most of the South, thanks to his strong support among blacks and his considerable support (in 1976 only) among fellow white Baptists.

In an October 2000 survey of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science, Carter's presidency was rated in the "Below Average" group; he ranked 30th, with a mean score of 2.47 out of 5.00.<ref>''Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House'' (Wall Street Journal Book, 2004)</ref> This survey, sponsored by the ''Wall Street Journal'' and the conservative Federalist Society, ranked Carter ahead of Richard Nixon, and below George H.W. Bush.

Carter has been unusually active as an ex-president, serving as an election monitor in many emerging democracies, working with [[Habitat for Humanity]], and as a self-proclaimed "peace advocate", was recognized with the [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]]. Carter considers himself "superior" to other former presidents.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017049-503544.html Jimmy Carter: I'm A Superior Ex-President], [[CBS]].com , September 20, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32895021/ns/politics-cq_politics/ Obama, Racism, and Jimy Carter,] By Jeff Stein, CQ Politics, 9/17/2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v09n1/eugenics.html The Roots of the I.Q. Debate, Eugenics and Social Control], By Margaret Quigley, [[Political Research Associates]].
</ref> In recent years, he has become very controversial because of his vicious attacks against [[Israel]] and his alleged [[Anti-Semitism|anti-semitic]] sentiments.

==Early Life==
Carter was born and raised on his father's farm in Georgia. He entered the Naval Academy at [[Annapolis]] and graduated from there in 1946. Shortly afterwards, on July 7, he married Rosalynn Smith. Carter worked in submarines, attaining the rank of [[lieutenant]], until he resigned in 1953. He became a peanut farmer afterwards. <ref>[[Encyclopedia of Presidents, Jimmy Carter]], by Linda R. Wade, Children's Press, Chicago, 1989, pp. 11-33. </ref> Carter entered politics by running for the Georgia State Senate. He almost lost a close race against Homer Moore, but Carter beat him in the final tally.

==Governor of Georgia==

In 1966 Carter unsuccessfully sought the Democrat nomination for [[Governor]] of Georgia. This failure significantly affected Carter personally by influencing him to turn to [[religion]] for comfort, convincing him that he had been "born again."<ref>The Presidents by Richard Kirkendall, pg. 552</ref> Carter did succeed in his second bid for Governor in 1970. [[Racism]] was a major factor in his campaign, in which he criticized his primary challenger Carl Sanders for paying tribute to [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], in an effort to depress Sanders's white vote. Carter said "I have no trouble pitching for [George] Wallace votes and black votes at the same time, I can win this election without a single black vote." <ref>http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Jimmy-Carters-racist-campaign-of-1970-59499482.html</ref> Carter was elected governor, with almost no [[African American]] support. For the next four years he presided over state affairs. He presented himself as a [[populist]], the representative of the people as opposed to special interests. Carter emphasized [[welfare]] reform, [[education]]al advance and budget reform. Once [[pro-life]], he [[abortion betrayal|changed his position]] and supported the legalization of [[abortion]] and worked to replace [[capital punishment]] in Georgia with life in prison. The [[Georgia Constitution]] prohibited Carter from seeking a consecutive term. The Constitution was amended in 1976.

==1976 Presidential Campaign==

''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 1976]]''

Carter had decided well before his term as Governor ended to run for the Presidency in 1976. His campaign, which began in early 1975, stressed Washington's defects such as the [[Watergate affair]] in 1974. He campaigned on a widespread call for [[change]]. In the Democrat primary, Carter was able to defeat [[George Wallace]] in the southern primaries and established himself as a person who could win the south and reestablish Democrat control of the [[White House]]. He won the primary because of his inspiring and well organized campaign. <ref>The American Vision, pg. 966</ref> Running against President [[Gerald Ford]] in the general election, Carter had little experience in national politics, however he used that to his benefit by promising to restore honesty and morality to [[government]]. On election day, Carter edged out Ford with 50 percent of the vote to 48 percent.

==Presidency (1977-1981)==
[[Image:Carter1977.jpg‎|thumb|250px|President Carter's inauguration, 01/20/77]]On taking office Carter proposed radical energy programs, redistributive tax reform, public campaign financing, a consumer protection agency (that Ralph Nader had long championed), labor law reform, and enactment of the [[Equal Rights Amendment]]. He fought with fellow Democrats in [[Congress]] and achieved little or nothing. Meanwhile "stagflation" hit the economy hard, as energy shortages, slow growth, escalating inflation and very high interest rates sapped the economy.

It was worse in foreign affairs. Carter did broker a temporary peace in the Middle East, but was forced to abandon détente when the Russians began to exploit American weaknesses around the globe. Carter was forced to restart the [[Cold War]] when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, but his belated actions validated the complaints of conservatives that he offered too little too late. Meanwhile the nation was humiliated in [[Iran]], where militants held American diplomats captive for 444 days, while Carter proved helpless.
[[Image:000carter.jpg|thumb|400px|]]
===Administration===

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Office
! Name
! Term
|-
| [[President]]
| Jimmy Carter
| 1977-1981
|-
| [[Vice President of the United States of America|Vice President]]
| [[Walter Mondale]]
| 1977-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of State]]
| [[Cyrus Vance]]
| 1977-1980
|-
|
| [[Edmund Muskie]]
| 1980-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Treasury]]
| [[W. Michael Blumenthal]]
| 1977-1979
|-
|
| [[G. William Miller]]
| 1979-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Defense]]
| [[Harold Brown]]
| 1977-1981
|-
| [[Attorney General]]
| [[Griffin Bell]]
| 1977-1979
|-
|
| [[Benjamin R. Civiletti]]
| 1979-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Interior]]
| [[Cecil D. Andrus]]
| 1977-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Commerce]]
| [[Juanita M. Kreps]]
| 1977-1979
|-
|
| [[Philip M. Klutznick]]
| 1979-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Labor]]
| [[Ray Marshall]]
| 1977-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Agriculture]]
| [[Robert Bergland]]
| 1977–1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare]]
| [[Joseph A. Califano, Jr.]]
| 1977-1979
|-
| [[Secretary of Health and Human Services]]
| [[Patricia R. Harris]]
| 1979-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Education]]
| [[Shirley M. Hufstedler]]
| 1977-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Housing and Urban Development]]
| [[Patricia R. Harris]]
| 1977-1979
|-
|
| [[Maurice Landrieu]]
| 1979-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Transportation]]
| [[Brock Adams]]
| 1977-1979
|-
|
| [[Neil E. Goldschmidt]]
| 1979-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Energy]]
| [[James R. Schlesinger]]
| 1977–1979
|-
|
| [[Charles W. Duncan]]
| 1979-1981
|-
|}

=== Economic Crisis ===

[[Image:001carter.jpg‎|thumb|250px|left|President Carter during White House Press Conference.]]Carter inherited a [[recession]] when taking office. First he tried to reduce unemployment by both increasing government spending and cutting [[tax]]es. However, when [[inflation]] skyrocketed in 1978 he changed his mind. He delayed tax cuts and vetoed the spending programs that he himself proposed to the [[Congress]]. Carter then tried to ease inflation by reducing [[money]] supply and raising [[interest rates]]. All of his efforts proved to be unsuccessful. Inflation and interest rates soon reached their highest levels since [[World War II]].

The rapid change in interest rates led to disintermediation of bank deposits, which sowed the seeds of the Savings and Loan crisis. Investments in fixed income were becoming less valuable. Holders of both bonds, and pensions being paid to retired people had their life savings wiped out. The stagnant growth of the economy (causing unemployment), in combination with a high rate of inflation, has often been called stagflation, an unprecedented situation in American economics. By 1979, public opinion polls had Carter's popularity lower then [[Richard Nixon]]'s during Watergate, partly because of his inexperience and difficulties working with [[Congress]].

=== Energy Crisis ===

Carter proposed a national energy program to conserve [[oil]] and promote the use of coal and renewable energy sources. He also persuaded Congress to create the Department of Energy, and asked Americans to personally reduce their energy consumption. Although oil companies were insisting on deregulation of the energy industry, Carter advocated a "windfall profits tax" to prevent oil companies from overcharging consumers. Carter's plan did not solve the country's energy crisis. In the summer of 1979 a major oil shortage in the [[United States]] took place because of instability in the middle east. After increasing pressure to act, Carter gave several televised address' where he complained that there was a "crisis of confidence that had struck at the very heart and soul of our national will." Although Carter meant the speech to be a timely warning, many Americans interpreted it as President Carter blaming the public for his failures. Critics dubbed it Carter's "malaise speech."

=== Foreign Policy ===
[[Image:Decline1978.jpg|thumb|290px|The nation feared it was losing its world power, as this magazine cover shows, Nov. 1978]]

In contrast to Carter's economic policies which were uncertain and left the public confused, his foreign policy was more clearly defined, although foreign policy is where Jimmy Carter suffered his worst defeats. In his inaugural speech he stated that "our commitment to human rights must be absolute." He singled out the [[Soviet Union]] as a violator of human rights and strongly condemned the country for arresting its citizens for political protests. However, he was criticized for not doing enough to promote his proclaimed human rights foreign policy stance in his administration, such as continuing to support the Indonesian government even while it was implicated in the commission of acts of genocide in the occupation of [[East Timor]].

Carter also tried to remove the U.S. image of interventionism by giving Panamanians control of the [[Panama Canal]]. Over conservative opposition he did so--but Panama fell into the hands of a dictator who threatened Americans and had to be overthrown by an American invasion in 1989.

Détente with the Soviet Union collapsed when Soviet troops invaded [[Afghanistan]] in December 1979. President Carter responded by imposing an [[embargo]] on the sale of grain to the Soviet Union, humiliating Moscow by orchestrating a western boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympic Games in Moscow, and start funding and arming the anti-Soviet forces inside Afghanistan. The policy of détente that was established by President Nixon was over and the "Second Cold War" began.

=== Camp David Accords ===

Carter's greatest and arguably only triumph while in office was a historic peace [[treaty]] known as the Camp David Peace Accords, between [[Israel]] and [[Egypt]], two nations that had been bitter enemies for decades. [[Image:Iran1979.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Blindfolded American hostages being paraded before the public by their Iranian captors, November 5, 1979.]] The treaty was formally signed in 1979, with most middle eastern countries opposed to it.

=== Iran Hostage Crisis ===

In 1979, a new radical [[Islamic]] regime lead by [[Ayatollah Khomeini]] in [[Iran]] overthrew America's close ally Shah. Thousands of modernizers were arrested, expelled or executed. In November 1979 student revolutionaries stormed into the American embassy in [[Tehran]] and captured 52 United States diplomats as hostages. The US seized all Iranian assets and tried to bargain, a process that dragged on for 444 days. Despite pressure to use military action Carter tried to negotiate with Iran, which proved to be unsuccessful. In April 1980 President Carter approved a rescue attempt (over the opposition of [[Secretary of State]] [[Cyrus Vance]]). To the nations dismay, the attempt failed when several helicopters malfunctioned. Eight serviceman died in the accident. Carter's negotiations with Iran continued throughout 1980. Ironically, the hostages were released just after Carter left office on January 20, 1981, as they were fearful of what President Reagan might do.

==1980 Reelection Campaign==

''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 1980]]''

By the time of President Carter's reelection campaign, the country was plagued by problems, including high levels of unemployment, inflation, interest rates and the Iranian hostage crisis. Although incumbent Presidents usually win their party's nomination easily, Carter faced a primary challenge from the more [[liberal]] [[Massachusetts]] Senator [[Ted Kennedy]]. Carter was able to maintain a lead over Kennedy and defeated him with 51 percent of the vote to 38 percent. In the general election, Carter faced two opponents: [[Conservative]] and charismatic [[California]] Governor [[Ronald Reagan]] as the Republican nominee and moderate [[Illinois]] Congressman [[John Anderson]] running as an [[Independent]]. Reagan locked the election in late October of the campaign when, at the Presidential debate, he asked the voters, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" His relaxed performance helped to dispel fears from the Carter camp that Reagan was a war monger. Reagan won by a large margin, 43.9 million votes for Reagan and 35.5 million votes for Carter. Democrats maintained control of the [[House of Representatives]] but by a narrower margin, and lost control of the [[United States Senate]].

Carter left office disappointed and unhappy. He became the first elected President since [[Herbert Hoover]] to lose a bid for a second term.

==Post Presidency==
[[Image:Palestine peace not apartheid.jpg|right|thumb|150px|Cover of Jimmy Carter's book, ''Peace Not Apartheid'', which accuses [[Israel]] of practicing racism.]]
Carter has been active in foreign affairs since his presidency. His continued work mediating international disputes, organizing election observations, and working with organizations on disease and hunger were cited when he was awarded the 2002 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]]. In his Nobel lecture, Carter declared his support for "international law":

<blockquote>
Our President, [[Woodrow Wilson]], was honored here for promoting the [[League of Nations]], whose two basic concepts were profoundly important: "collective security" and "self-determination." Now they are embedded in international law. Violations of these premises during the last half-century have been tragic failures, as was vividly demonstrated when the Soviet Union attempted to conquer Afghanistan and when Iraq invaded Kuwait. <ref>[http://jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/nobel.phtml Text of Carter's Nobel Lecture] Jimmy Carter Library and Museum, 2002.</ref>
</blockquote>

In one book, "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid", he made the point that any peace accords reached would fundamentally have to be accompanied by the ceasing of terrorist activity towards Israel, he wrote:
<blockquote>
It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.
</blockquote>
The sentiment was widely criticized. He apologized for the wording of that sentence, but not for his larger message.<ref>Washington Post, January 24, 2007 [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/23/AR2007012301668.html?nav=rss_artsandliving/books]</ref>

*His 2006 book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," caused a top aide to resign. Professor Kenneth Stein resigned from the Carter Center because of its depiction of Israel through three decades of diplomatic and military dealings with the Palestinians. Mr. Stein had served as an aide to Mr. Carter during most of those years and considers the book deceitful and malicious. As the book's title suggests, Carter compares Israel with the white supremacist regime of old South Africa. Fourteen members of the Carter Center's advisory board have resigned over the book.

In September 2009, Carter caused controversy when he stated that conservative criticisms of [[Barack Obama]] are due to racism.

"I think, an overwhelming portion, of the intensely demonstrated animosity towed President Barack Obama, is based on the fact that he is a black man. That he's African American...because of a belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African Americans are not qualified to lead this great country." <ref>http://erickbrockway.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/the-new-radicals-vs-the-new-racists/</ref>

[[John McCain]] responded to Carter's remarks, "I'm deeply disturbed by those accusations because it's an unfair and untrue commentary on the American people, and them exercising their God-given rights to disagree with the administration. '''It seems to me that President Carter has earned his place as, if not the worst president in history, certainly the worst in the 20th century.'''" <ref>[http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2009/09/mccain-jimmy-carter-worst-president.html McCain:Jimmy Carter worst president ever, freedomeden.blogspot.com, September 18, 2009]</ref>

As President, Carter expressed a goal of making government "competent and compassionate." In pursuit of that vision, he has been involved in a variety of national and international public policy, conflict resolution, human rights and charitable causes.

He founded The Carter Center in 1982 which has the goal of alleviating human suffering. The Center promotes democratic elections and has programmes to improve health in developing countries through the control of parasitic diseases such as Guinea Worm. It is fair to say that ex-President Carter is probably much more respected outside the United States than in his home country.
{{Clear}}

== UFO Sighting ==

[[Image:Carter Sighting Report 2.gif|thumb|right|Jimmy Carter's UFO report.]] Carter reported seeing an unidentified flying object [[UFO]] in 1969. He later recalled, "A light appeared and disappeared in the sky . . . I think the light was beckoning me to run in the California primary." <ref>[http://www.presidentialufo.com/jimmy.htm Jimmy Carter UFO] </ref> Astronomers generally concur that he actually saw the planet Venus.<ref>Val Morgan, et al. '''Rumor''' (1984).</ref>

==See also==
* [[Carter Doctrine]]
* [[Essay:Criticism of Jimmy Carter]]

==Basic further reading==
* Bourne, Peter G. ''Jimmy Carter: A Comprehensive Biography from Plains to Post-Presidency'' (1997).
* Brinkley, Douglas. ''The Unfinished Presidency: Jimmy Carter's Journey beyond the White House'' (1998). [http://www.amazon.com/Unfinished-Presidency-Carters-Journey-Beyond/dp/0140276165/ref=sr_1_18?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249620205&sr=1-18 excerpt and text search]
*Fink, Gary M. and Hugh Davis Graham, eds. ''The Carter Presidency: Policy Choices in the Post-New Deal Era'' (1998)
* Gaillard, Frye. ''Prophet from Plains: Jimmy Carter and His Legacy'' (2007). [http://www.amazon.com/Prophet-Plains-Jimmy-Carter-Legacy/dp/0820333328/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249619928&sr=1-7 excerpt and text search]
* Hargrove, Erwin C. ''Jimmy Carter as President: Leadership and the Politics of the Public Good'' (1988).
* Kaufman, Burton Ira. ''The Presidency of James Earl Carter, Jr.'' (1993), the best survey of his administration
* Kaufman, Burton Ira. ''The Carter Years'' (2006), short biographies of all the major players
* Morris, Kenneth E. ''Jimmy Carter, American Moralist'' (1996).
* Venezia, Mike. ''Jimmy Carter: Thirty-Ninth President'' (Getting to Know the US Presidents) (2008), for middle schools [http://www.amazon.com/Jimmy-Carter-Thirty-Ninth-President-Presidents/dp/0516259717/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249620205&sr=1-24 excerpt and text search]
* Wilentz, Sean. ''The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Age-Reagan-History-1974-2008-American/dp/0060744812/ref=pd_sim_b_1 excerpt and text search]

==Specialized Bibliography==
===Biography, personality and rhetoric===
*Bourne, Peter G. ''Jimmy Carter: A Comprehensive Biography From Plains to Post-Presidency'' (1997)
*Flint, Andrew R. and Joy Porter. "Jimmy Carter: The re-emergence of faith-based politics and the abortion rights issue. " ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' (March 2005) 35#1 pp. 28–51
* Gaillard, Frye. ''Prophet from Plains: Jimmy Carter and His Legacy'' (2007). [http://www.amazon.com/Prophet-Plains-Jimmy-Carter-Legacy/dp/0820333328/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249619928&sr=1-7 excerpt and text search]
*Hahn, Dan F. "The rhetoric of Jimmy Carter, 1976–1980" in Theodore Windt and Beth Ingold, eds. ''Essays in Presidential Rhetoric'' (3rd ed. 1992) pp. 331–365
* Mattson, Kevin. '''What the Heck Are You Up To, Mr. President?': Jimmy Carter, America's 'Malaise,' and the Speech that Should Have Changed the Country'' (2009)
*Ribuffo, Leo P. "God and Jimmy Carter" in M. L. Bradbury and James B. Gilbert, eds. ''Transforming Faith: The Sacred and Secular in Modern American History'' (1989) pp. 141–159, by conservative historian
*Ribuffo, Leo P. "'Malaise' revisited: Jimmy Carter and the crisis of confidence" in John Patrick Diggins, ed. ''The Liberal Persuasion: Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. and the Challenge of the American Past'' (1997) by conservative historian
* Stuckey, Mary E. ''Jimmy Carter, Human Rights, and the National Agenda'' (2009) on Presidential rhetoric

===Domestic policy===
* Biven, W. Carl ''Jimmy Carter's Economy: Policy in an Age of Limits'' (2002) [http://www.questia.com/read/110717331?title=Jimmy%20Carter's%20Economy%3a%20%20Policy%20in%20an%20Age%20of%20Limits online edition]
* Campagna, Anthony S. ''Economic Policy in the Carter Administration'' (1995) 216 pp [http://www.questia.com/read/27443313?title=Economic%20Policy%20in%20the%20Carter%20Administration online edition]
*Dumbrell, John, ed. ''The Carter Presidency: A Re-evaluation'' (2nd ed. 1995), British perspective
*Fink, Gary M. and Hugh Davis Graham, eds. ''The Carter Presidency: Policy Choices in the Post-New Deal Era'' (1998)
*Kaufman, Burton I. ''The Presidency of James Earl Carter, Jr'' (1993), the standard scholarly survey
*Rosenbaum, Herbert D. and Alexej Ugrinsky, eds. ''The Presidency and Domestic Policies of Jimmy Carter'' (1994), essays by experts [http://www.questia.com/read/27232781?title=The%20Presidency%20and%20Domestic%20Policies%20of%20Jimmy%20Carter online edition]

===Politics===
* Aronoff, Yael S., "In Like a Lamb, Out Like a Lion: The Political Conversion of Jimmy Carter," ''Political Science Quarterly,'' 121 (Fall 2006), 425–49.
* Busch, Andrew E. ''Reagan's Victory: The Presidential Election of 1980 and the Rise of the Right,'' (2005) [http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1103/article_detail.asp online review by Michael Barone]
* Fink, Gary M. ''Prelude to the Presidency: The Political Character and Legislative Leadership Style of Governor Jimmy Carter'' (1980). [http://www.questia.com/read/34288553?title=Prelude%20to%20the%20Presidency%3a%20The%20Political%20Character%20and%20Legislative%20Leadership%20Style%20of%20Governor%20Jimmy%20Carter online edition]
* Freedman, Robert. "The Religious Right and the Carter Administration." ''Historical Journal'' 2005 48(1): 231-260. Issn: 0018-246x Fulltext: in Swetswise
*Gillon, Steven M. ''The Democrats' Dilemma: Walter F. Mondale and the Liberal Legacy'' (1992)
* Hargrove, Erwin C. ''Jimmy Carter as President: Leadership and the Politics of the Public Good'' (1988).
*Jones, Charles O. ''The Trusteeship Presidency: Jimmy Carter and the United States Congress'' (1988)
*Kaufman, Burton I. ''The Presidency of James Earl Carter, Jr'' (1993), the standard scholarly survey
* Kaufman, Burton Ira. ''The Carter Years'' (2006), short biographies of all the major players
* Morgan, Iwan. "Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and the New Democratic Economics." ''Historical Journal'' 2004 47(4): 1015-1039. Issn: 0018-246x Fulltext: in Swetswise
* Pomper, Gerald M., ed. ''The Election of 1980: Reports and Interpretations'' (1981)
* Ranney, Austin, ed. ''The American Elections of 1980'' (1982), essays by political scientists
*Strong, Robert A. "Recapturing leadership: The Carter administration and the crisis of confidence," ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' (Fall 1986) 16#3 pp 636–650
*White, Theodore H. ''America in Search of Itself: The Making of the President, 1956–1980'' (1982), classic narrative of presidential campaigns
*Witcover, Jules. ''Marathon: The Pursuit of the Presidency, 1972–1976'' (1977), very detailed narrative

===Foreign Policy===
* Berggren, D. Jason and Rae, Nicol C. "Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush: Faith, Foreign Policy, and an Evangelical Presidential Style." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 2006 36(4): 606-632. Issn: 0360-4918 Fulltext: in Swetswise and Ingenta
* Clymer, Kenton. "Jimmy Carter, Human Rights, and Cambodia." ''Diplomatic History'' 2003 27(2): 245-278. Issn: 0145-2096 Fulltext: in Swetswise, Ingenta and Ebsco
*Dumbrell, John, ed. ''The Carter Presidency: A Re-evaluation'' (2nd ed. 1995), British perspective
*Harris, David. ''The Crisis: the President, the Prophet, and the Shah—1979 and the Coming of Militant Islam'' (2004}
* Houghton, David Patrick. ''US Foreign Policy and the Iran Hostage Crisis'' (2001) [http://www.questia.com/SM.qst?act=adv&contributors=David Patrick Houghton&dcontributors=David%20Patrick%20Houghton online edition]
*Kaufman, Burton I. ''The Presidency of James Earl Carter, Jr'' (1993), the standard scholarly survey
*Rosenbaum, Herbert D. and Alexej Ugrinsky, eds. ''Jimmy Carter: Foreign Policy and Post-Presidential Years'' (1994), essays by experts [http://www.questia.com/read/14250706?title=Jimmy%20Carter%3a%20Foreign%20Policy%20and%20Post-Presidential%20Years online edition]
* Schmitz, David F. and Vanessa Walker. "Jimmy Carter and the Foreign Policy of Human Rights: the Development of a Post-cold War Foreign Policy." ''Diplomatic History'' 2004 28(1): 113-143. Issn: 0145-2096 Fulltext: in Swetswise, Ingenta and Ebsco
* Skidmore, David. ''Reversing Course: Carter's Foreign Policy, Domestic Politics, and the Failure of Reform'' (1996).
* Stein, Kenneth W. ''Heroic Diplomacy: Sadat, Kissinger, Carter, Begin and the Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/SM.qst?act=adv&contributors=Kenneth W. Stein&dcontributors=Kenneth%20W.%20Stein online edition]
*Strong, Robert A. ''Working in the World: Jimmy Carter and the Making of American Foreign Policy'' (2000)
* Thornton, Richard C. ''The Carter Years: Toward a New Global Order'' (1991) 572 pp. [http://www.questia.com/read/10415810?title=The%20Carter%20Years%3a%20Toward%20a%20New%20Global%20Order online edition]

===Post-presidential years===
* Brinkley, Douglas. ''The Unfinished Presidency: Jimmy Carter's Journey beyond the White House'' (1998). [http://www.amazon.com/Unfinished-Presidency-Carters-Journey-Beyond/dp/0140276165/ref=sr_1_18?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249620205&sr=1-18 excerpt and text search]
* Dershowitz, Alan. ''The Case Against Israel's Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Israels-Enemies-Exposing/dp/0470490055/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249619928&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* Evans, Mike. ''Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos: A Carter/Obama Plan That Will Not Work'' (2009), conservative critique

==Primary sources==
* [http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/ERP/ Council of Economic Advisors, ''Economic Report of the President'' (annual 1947- )], complete series online; important analysis of current trends and policies, plus statistcial tables

===Books by aides===
* Califano, Joseph A., Jr. ''Governing America: An insider's report from the White House and the Cabinet''. 1981
* Jordan, Hamilton. ''Crisis: The Last Year of the Carter Presidency''. 1982
* Lance, Bert. ''The Truth of the Matter: My Life in and out of Politics''. 1991

==External links==
*[http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/jec/jcnavy.phtml Jimmy Carter's Naval Service]
*[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13265 Carter the worst ex-president -- Steven Hayward]
*[http://blogcentral.jpost.com/index.php?cat_id=7&blog_id=59&blog_post_id=935 Jimmy Carter is a liar], [[Alan Dershowitz]], ''Jerusalem Post'', March 13 2007.
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/19/AR2007011901541.html Jimmy Carter's Jewish Problem] by Deborah Lipstadt.
*[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,918293,00.html "A Man Among Old Friends"], ''Time''Sep. 06, 1976 (article on Carter's favorite books—says the important book in his life is the Bible.]

==References==
<references/>

{{USPresidents}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Carter, Jimmy}}
[[Category:Presidents of the United States|Carter, Jimmy]]
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Peace|Carter, Jimmy]]
[[Category:Georgia Governors]]
[[Category:Democratic Governors]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:Cold War]]
[[category:Middle East]]
[[category:Human Rights]]
[[Category:Anti-Semitism]]

Jimmy Carter

2012-06-18T04:22:20Z

Casanova:

{{Officeholder
|name=Jimmy Carter
|image=Carter.jpg
|party=[[Democrat]]
|spouse=Rosalynn Carter
|religion=[[Baptist]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=39th
|terms=January 20, 1977 – January 20, 1981
|vp=[[Walter Mondale]]
|preceded=[[Gerald Ford]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Ronald Reagan]]
}}
{{Officeholder/governor
|number=76th
|state=Georgia
|terms=January 12, 1971 – January 14, 1975
|preceded=Lester Maddox
|former=y
|succeeded=George Busbee
}}
}}
'''Jimmy Carter''' (formally James Earl Carter, Jr., born 1924) was the 39th [[President of the United States of America]], defeating Republican [[Gerald Ford]] in 1976. Carter was a [[Democrat]] who served from 1977-1981, after being a one-term Governor of [[Georgia]]. At that time, the Georgia Constitution did not permit the Governor to succeed himself. After a failed presidency marked by disasters in the economy and foreign affairs, and poor leadership, Carter was defeated for reelection in 1980 by [[Ronald Reagan]], as the nation moved sharply more [[conservative]].

Coming out of nowhere in 1976, Carter promised a restoration of honesty to Washington after [[Watergate]], and built a coalition that included most of the South, thanks to his strong support among blacks and his considerable support (in 1976 only) among fellow white Baptists.

In an October 2000 survey of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science, Carter's presidency was rated in the "Below Average" group; he ranked 30th, with a mean score of 2.47 out of 5.00.<ref>''Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House'' (Wall Street Journal Book, 2004)</ref> This survey, sponsored by the ''Wall Street Journal'' and the conservative Federalist Society, ranked Carter ahead of Richard Nixon, and below George H.W. Bush.

Carter has been unusually active as an ex-president, serving as an election monitor in many emerging democracies, working with [[Habitat for Humanity]], and as a self-proclaimed "peace advocate", was recognized with the [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]]. Carter considers himself "superior" to other former presidents.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20017049-503544.html Jimmy Carter: I'm A Superior Ex-President], [[CBS]].com , September 20, 2010.</ref><ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32895021/ns/politics-cq_politics/ Obama, Racism, and Jimy Carter,] By Jeff Stein, CQ Politics, 9/17/2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v09n1/eugenics.html The Roots of the I.Q. Debate, Eugenics and Social Control], By Margaret Quigley, [[Political Research Associates]].
</ref> In recent years, he has become very controversial because of his vicious attacks against [[Israel]] and his alleged [[Anti-Semitism|anti-semitic]] sentiments.

==Early Life==
Carter was born and raised on his father's farm in Georgia. He entered the Naval Academy at [[Annapolis]] and graduated from there in 1946. Shortly afterwards, on July 7, he married Rosalynn Smith. Carter worked in submarines, attaining the rank of [[lieutenant]], until he resigned in 1953. He became a peanut farmer afterwards. <ref>[[Encyclopedia of Presidents, Jimmy Carter]], by Linda R. Wade, Children's Press, Chicago, 1989, pp. 11-33. </ref> Carter entered politics by running for the Georgia State Senate. He almost lost a close race against Homer Moore, but Carter beat him in the final tally.

==Governor of Georgia==

In 1966 Carter unsuccessfully sought the Democrat nomination for [[Governor]] of Georgia. This failure significantly affected Carter personally by influencing him to turn to [[religion]] for comfort, convincing him that he had been "born again."<ref>The Presidents by Richard Kirkendall, pg. 552</ref> Carter did succeed in his second bid for Governor in 1970. [[Racism]] was a major factor in his campaign, in which he criticized his primary challenger Carl Sanders for paying tribute to [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], in an effort to depress Sanders's white vote. Carter said "I have no trouble pitching for [George] Wallace votes and black votes at the same time, I can win this election without a single black vote." <ref>http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Jimmy-Carters-racist-campaign-of-1970-59499482.html</ref> Carter was elected governor, with almost no [[African American]] support. For the next four years he presided over state affairs. He presented himself as a [[populist]], the representative of the people as opposed to special interests. Carter emphasized [[welfare]] reform, [[education]]al advance and budget reform. Once [[pro-life]], he [[abortion betrayal|changed his position]] and supported the legalization of [[abortion]] and worked to replace [[capital punishment]] in Georgia with life in prison. Carter declined to run for a second term in 1974.

==1976 Presidential Campaign==

''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 1976]]''

Carter had decided well before his term as Governor ended to run for the Presidency in 1976. His campaign, which began in early 1975, stressed Washington's defects such as the [[Watergate affair]] in 1974. He campaigned on a widespread call for [[change]]. In the Democrat primary, Carter was able to defeat [[George Wallace]] in the southern primaries and established himself as a person who could win the south and reestablish Democrat control of the [[White House]]. He won the primary because of his inspiring and well organized campaign. <ref>The American Vision, pg. 966</ref> Running against President [[Gerald Ford]] in the general election, Carter had little experience in national politics, however he used that to his benefit by promising to restore honesty and morality to [[government]]. On election day, Carter edged out Ford with 50 percent of the vote to 48 percent.

==Presidency (1977-1981)==
[[Image:Carter1977.jpg‎|thumb|250px|President Carter's inauguration, 01/20/77]]On taking office Carter proposed radical energy programs, redistributive tax reform, public campaign financing, a consumer protection agency (that Ralph Nader had long championed), labor law reform, and enactment of the [[Equal Rights Amendment]]. He fought with fellow Democrats in [[Congress]] and achieved little or nothing. Meanwhile "stagflation" hit the economy hard, as energy shortages, slow growth, escalating inflation and very high interest rates sapped the economy.

It was worse in foreign affairs. Carter did broker a temporary peace in the Middle East, but was forced to abandon détente when the Russians began to exploit American weaknesses around the globe. Carter was forced to restart the [[Cold War]] when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, but his belated actions validated the complaints of conservatives that he offered too little too late. Meanwhile the nation was humiliated in [[Iran]], where militants held American diplomats captive for 444 days, while Carter proved helpless.
[[Image:000carter.jpg|thumb|400px|]]
===Administration===

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Office
! Name
! Term
|-
| [[President]]
| Jimmy Carter
| 1977-1981
|-
| [[Vice President of the United States of America|Vice President]]
| [[Walter Mondale]]
| 1977-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of State]]
| [[Cyrus Vance]]
| 1977-1980
|-
|
| [[Edmund Muskie]]
| 1980-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Treasury]]
| [[W. Michael Blumenthal]]
| 1977-1979
|-
|
| [[G. William Miller]]
| 1979-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Defense]]
| [[Harold Brown]]
| 1977-1981
|-
| [[Attorney General]]
| [[Griffin Bell]]
| 1977-1979
|-
|
| [[Benjamin R. Civiletti]]
| 1979-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Interior]]
| [[Cecil D. Andrus]]
| 1977-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Commerce]]
| [[Juanita M. Kreps]]
| 1977-1979
|-
|
| [[Philip M. Klutznick]]
| 1979-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Labor]]
| [[Ray Marshall]]
| 1977-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Agriculture]]
| [[Robert Bergland]]
| 1977–1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare]]
| [[Joseph A. Califano, Jr.]]
| 1977-1979
|-
| [[Secretary of Health and Human Services]]
| [[Patricia R. Harris]]
| 1979-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Education]]
| [[Shirley M. Hufstedler]]
| 1977-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Housing and Urban Development]]
| [[Patricia R. Harris]]
| 1977-1979
|-
|
| [[Maurice Landrieu]]
| 1979-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Transportation]]
| [[Brock Adams]]
| 1977-1979
|-
|
| [[Neil E. Goldschmidt]]
| 1979-1981
|-
| [[Secretary of Energy]]
| [[James R. Schlesinger]]
| 1977–1979
|-
|
| [[Charles W. Duncan]]
| 1979-1981
|-
|}

=== Economic Crisis ===

[[Image:001carter.jpg‎|thumb|250px|left|President Carter during White House Press Conference.]]Carter inherited a [[recession]] when taking office. First he tried to reduce unemployment by both increasing government spending and cutting [[tax]]es. However, when [[inflation]] skyrocketed in 1978 he changed his mind. He delayed tax cuts and vetoed the spending programs that he himself proposed to the [[Congress]]. Carter then tried to ease inflation by reducing [[money]] supply and raising [[interest rates]]. All of his efforts proved to be unsuccessful. Inflation and interest rates soon reached their highest levels since [[World War II]].

The rapid change in interest rates led to disintermediation of bank deposits, which sowed the seeds of the Savings and Loan crisis. Investments in fixed income were becoming less valuable. Holders of both bonds, and pensions being paid to retired people had their life savings wiped out. The stagnant growth of the economy (causing unemployment), in combination with a high rate of inflation, has often been called stagflation, an unprecedented situation in American economics. By 1979, public opinion polls had Carter's popularity lower then [[Richard Nixon]]'s during Watergate, partly because of his inexperience and difficulties working with [[Congress]].

=== Energy Crisis ===

Carter proposed a national energy program to conserve [[oil]] and promote the use of coal and renewable energy sources. He also persuaded Congress to create the Department of Energy, and asked Americans to personally reduce their energy consumption. Although oil companies were insisting on deregulation of the energy industry, Carter advocated a "windfall profits tax" to prevent oil companies from overcharging consumers. Carter's plan did not solve the country's energy crisis. In the summer of 1979 a major oil shortage in the [[United States]] took place because of instability in the middle east. After increasing pressure to act, Carter gave several televised address' where he complained that there was a "crisis of confidence that had struck at the very heart and soul of our national will." Although Carter meant the speech to be a timely warning, many Americans interpreted it as President Carter blaming the public for his failures. Critics dubbed it Carter's "malaise speech."

=== Foreign Policy ===
[[Image:Decline1978.jpg|thumb|290px|The nation feared it was losing its world power, as this magazine cover shows, Nov. 1978]]

In contrast to Carter's economic policies which were uncertain and left the public confused, his foreign policy was more clearly defined, although foreign policy is where Jimmy Carter suffered his worst defeats. In his inaugural speech he stated that "our commitment to human rights must be absolute." He singled out the [[Soviet Union]] as a violator of human rights and strongly condemned the country for arresting its citizens for political protests. However, he was criticized for not doing enough to promote his proclaimed human rights foreign policy stance in his administration, such as continuing to support the Indonesian government even while it was implicated in the commission of acts of genocide in the occupation of [[East Timor]].

Carter also tried to remove the U.S. image of interventionism by giving Panamanians control of the [[Panama Canal]]. Over conservative opposition he did so--but Panama fell into the hands of a dictator who threatened Americans and had to be overthrown by an American invasion in 1989.

Détente with the Soviet Union collapsed when Soviet troops invaded [[Afghanistan]] in December 1979. President Carter responded by imposing an [[embargo]] on the sale of grain to the Soviet Union, humiliating Moscow by orchestrating a western boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympic Games in Moscow, and start funding and arming the anti-Soviet forces inside Afghanistan. The policy of détente that was established by President Nixon was over and the "Second Cold War" began.

=== Camp David Accords ===

Carter's greatest and arguably only triumph while in office was a historic peace [[treaty]] known as the Camp David Peace Accords, between [[Israel]] and [[Egypt]], two nations that had been bitter enemies for decades. [[Image:Iran1979.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Blindfolded American hostages being paraded before the public by their Iranian captors, November 5, 1979.]] The treaty was formally signed in 1979, with most middle eastern countries opposed to it.

=== Iran Hostage Crisis ===

In 1979, a new radical [[Islamic]] regime lead by [[Ayatollah Khomeini]] in [[Iran]] overthrew America's close ally Shah. Thousands of modernizers were arrested, expelled or executed. In November 1979 student revolutionaries stormed into the American embassy in [[Tehran]] and captured 52 United States diplomats as hostages. The US seized all Iranian assets and tried to bargain, a process that dragged on for 444 days. Despite pressure to use military action Carter tried to negotiate with Iran, which proved to be unsuccessful. In April 1980 President Carter approved a rescue attempt (over the opposition of [[Secretary of State]] [[Cyrus Vance]]). To the nations dismay, the attempt failed when several helicopters malfunctioned. Eight serviceman died in the accident. Carter's negotiations with Iran continued throughout 1980. Ironically, the hostages were released just after Carter left office on January 20, 1981, as they were fearful of what President Reagan might do.

==1980 Reelection Campaign==

''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 1980]]''

By the time of President Carter's reelection campaign, the country was plagued by problems, including high levels of unemployment, inflation, interest rates and the Iranian hostage crisis. Although incumbent Presidents usually win their party's nomination easily, Carter faced a primary challenge from the more [[liberal]] [[Massachusetts]] Senator [[Ted Kennedy]]. Carter was able to maintain a lead over Kennedy and defeated him with 51 percent of the vote to 38 percent. In the general election, Carter faced two opponents: [[Conservative]] and charismatic [[California]] Governor [[Ronald Reagan]] as the Republican nominee and moderate [[Illinois]] Congressman [[John Anderson]] running as an [[Independent]]. Reagan locked the election in late October of the campaign when, at the Presidential debate, he asked the voters, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" His relaxed performance helped to dispel fears from the Carter camp that Reagan was a war monger. Reagan won by a large margin, 43.9 million votes for Reagan and 35.5 million votes for Carter. Democrats maintained control of the [[House of Representatives]] but by a narrower margin, and lost control of the [[United States Senate]].

Carter left office disappointed and unhappy. He became the first elected President since [[Herbert Hoover]] to lose a bid for a second term.

==Post Presidency==
[[Image:Palestine peace not apartheid.jpg|right|thumb|150px|Cover of Jimmy Carter's book, ''Peace Not Apartheid'', which accuses [[Israel]] of practicing racism.]]
Carter has been active in foreign affairs since his presidency. His continued work mediating international disputes, organizing election observations, and working with organizations on disease and hunger were cited when he was awarded the 2002 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]]. In his Nobel lecture, Carter declared his support for "international law":

<blockquote>
Our President, [[Woodrow Wilson]], was honored here for promoting the [[League of Nations]], whose two basic concepts were profoundly important: "collective security" and "self-determination." Now they are embedded in international law. Violations of these premises during the last half-century have been tragic failures, as was vividly demonstrated when the Soviet Union attempted to conquer Afghanistan and when Iraq invaded Kuwait. <ref>[http://jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/nobel.phtml Text of Carter's Nobel Lecture] Jimmy Carter Library and Museum, 2002.</ref>
</blockquote>

In one book, "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid", he made the point that any peace accords reached would fundamentally have to be accompanied by the ceasing of terrorist activity towards Israel, he wrote:
<blockquote>
It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.
</blockquote>
The sentiment was widely criticized. He apologized for the wording of that sentence, but not for his larger message.<ref>Washington Post, January 24, 2007 [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/23/AR2007012301668.html?nav=rss_artsandliving/books]</ref>

*His 2006 book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," caused a top aide to resign. Professor Kenneth Stein resigned from the Carter Center because of its depiction of Israel through three decades of diplomatic and military dealings with the Palestinians. Mr. Stein had served as an aide to Mr. Carter during most of those years and considers the book deceitful and malicious. As the book's title suggests, Carter compares Israel with the white supremacist regime of old South Africa. Fourteen members of the Carter Center's advisory board have resigned over the book.

In September 2009, Carter caused controversy when he stated that conservative criticisms of [[Barack Obama]] are due to racism.

"I think, an overwhelming portion, of the intensely demonstrated animosity towed President Barack Obama, is based on the fact that he is a black man. That he's African American...because of a belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African Americans are not qualified to lead this great country." <ref>http://erickbrockway.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/the-new-radicals-vs-the-new-racists/</ref>

[[John McCain]] responded to Carter's remarks, "I'm deeply disturbed by those accusations because it's an unfair and untrue commentary on the American people, and them exercising their God-given rights to disagree with the administration. '''It seems to me that President Carter has earned his place as, if not the worst president in history, certainly the worst in the 20th century.'''" <ref>[http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2009/09/mccain-jimmy-carter-worst-president.html McCain:Jimmy Carter worst president ever, freedomeden.blogspot.com, September 18, 2009]</ref>

As President, Carter expressed a goal of making government "competent and compassionate." In pursuit of that vision, he has been involved in a variety of national and international public policy, conflict resolution, human rights and charitable causes.

He founded The Carter Center in 1982 which has the goal of alleviating human suffering. The Center promotes democratic elections and has programmes to improve health in developing countries through the control of parasitic diseases such as Guinea Worm. It is fair to say that ex-President Carter is probably much more respected outside the United States than in his home country.
{{Clear}}

== UFO Sighting ==

[[Image:Carter Sighting Report 2.gif|thumb|right|Jimmy Carter's UFO report.]] Carter reported seeing an unidentified flying object [[UFO]] in 1969. He later recalled, "A light appeared and disappeared in the sky . . . I think the light was beckoning me to run in the California primary." <ref>[http://www.presidentialufo.com/jimmy.htm Jimmy Carter UFO] </ref> Astronomers generally concur that he actually saw the planet Venus.<ref>Val Morgan, et al. '''Rumor''' (1984).</ref>

==See also==
* [[Carter Doctrine]]
* [[Essay:Criticism of Jimmy Carter]]

==Basic further reading==
* Bourne, Peter G. ''Jimmy Carter: A Comprehensive Biography from Plains to Post-Presidency'' (1997).
* Brinkley, Douglas. ''The Unfinished Presidency: Jimmy Carter's Journey beyond the White House'' (1998). [http://www.amazon.com/Unfinished-Presidency-Carters-Journey-Beyond/dp/0140276165/ref=sr_1_18?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249620205&sr=1-18 excerpt and text search]
*Fink, Gary M. and Hugh Davis Graham, eds. ''The Carter Presidency: Policy Choices in the Post-New Deal Era'' (1998)
* Gaillard, Frye. ''Prophet from Plains: Jimmy Carter and His Legacy'' (2007). [http://www.amazon.com/Prophet-Plains-Jimmy-Carter-Legacy/dp/0820333328/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249619928&sr=1-7 excerpt and text search]
* Hargrove, Erwin C. ''Jimmy Carter as President: Leadership and the Politics of the Public Good'' (1988).
* Kaufman, Burton Ira. ''The Presidency of James Earl Carter, Jr.'' (1993), the best survey of his administration
* Kaufman, Burton Ira. ''The Carter Years'' (2006), short biographies of all the major players
* Morris, Kenneth E. ''Jimmy Carter, American Moralist'' (1996).
* Venezia, Mike. ''Jimmy Carter: Thirty-Ninth President'' (Getting to Know the US Presidents) (2008), for middle schools [http://www.amazon.com/Jimmy-Carter-Thirty-Ninth-President-Presidents/dp/0516259717/ref=sr_1_24?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249620205&sr=1-24 excerpt and text search]
* Wilentz, Sean. ''The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Age-Reagan-History-1974-2008-American/dp/0060744812/ref=pd_sim_b_1 excerpt and text search]

==Specialized Bibliography==
===Biography, personality and rhetoric===
*Bourne, Peter G. ''Jimmy Carter: A Comprehensive Biography From Plains to Post-Presidency'' (1997)
*Flint, Andrew R. and Joy Porter. "Jimmy Carter: The re-emergence of faith-based politics and the abortion rights issue. " ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' (March 2005) 35#1 pp. 28–51
* Gaillard, Frye. ''Prophet from Plains: Jimmy Carter and His Legacy'' (2007). [http://www.amazon.com/Prophet-Plains-Jimmy-Carter-Legacy/dp/0820333328/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249619928&sr=1-7 excerpt and text search]
*Hahn, Dan F. "The rhetoric of Jimmy Carter, 1976–1980" in Theodore Windt and Beth Ingold, eds. ''Essays in Presidential Rhetoric'' (3rd ed. 1992) pp. 331–365
* Mattson, Kevin. '''What the Heck Are You Up To, Mr. President?': Jimmy Carter, America's 'Malaise,' and the Speech that Should Have Changed the Country'' (2009)
*Ribuffo, Leo P. "God and Jimmy Carter" in M. L. Bradbury and James B. Gilbert, eds. ''Transforming Faith: The Sacred and Secular in Modern American History'' (1989) pp. 141–159, by conservative historian
*Ribuffo, Leo P. "'Malaise' revisited: Jimmy Carter and the crisis of confidence" in John Patrick Diggins, ed. ''The Liberal Persuasion: Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. and the Challenge of the American Past'' (1997) by conservative historian
* Stuckey, Mary E. ''Jimmy Carter, Human Rights, and the National Agenda'' (2009) on Presidential rhetoric

===Domestic policy===
* Biven, W. Carl ''Jimmy Carter's Economy: Policy in an Age of Limits'' (2002) [http://www.questia.com/read/110717331?title=Jimmy%20Carter's%20Economy%3a%20%20Policy%20in%20an%20Age%20of%20Limits online edition]
* Campagna, Anthony S. ''Economic Policy in the Carter Administration'' (1995) 216 pp [http://www.questia.com/read/27443313?title=Economic%20Policy%20in%20the%20Carter%20Administration online edition]
*Dumbrell, John, ed. ''The Carter Presidency: A Re-evaluation'' (2nd ed. 1995), British perspective
*Fink, Gary M. and Hugh Davis Graham, eds. ''The Carter Presidency: Policy Choices in the Post-New Deal Era'' (1998)
*Kaufman, Burton I. ''The Presidency of James Earl Carter, Jr'' (1993), the standard scholarly survey
*Rosenbaum, Herbert D. and Alexej Ugrinsky, eds. ''The Presidency and Domestic Policies of Jimmy Carter'' (1994), essays by experts [http://www.questia.com/read/27232781?title=The%20Presidency%20and%20Domestic%20Policies%20of%20Jimmy%20Carter online edition]

===Politics===
* Aronoff, Yael S., "In Like a Lamb, Out Like a Lion: The Political Conversion of Jimmy Carter," ''Political Science Quarterly,'' 121 (Fall 2006), 425–49.
* Busch, Andrew E. ''Reagan's Victory: The Presidential Election of 1980 and the Rise of the Right,'' (2005) [http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1103/article_detail.asp online review by Michael Barone]
* Fink, Gary M. ''Prelude to the Presidency: The Political Character and Legislative Leadership Style of Governor Jimmy Carter'' (1980). [http://www.questia.com/read/34288553?title=Prelude%20to%20the%20Presidency%3a%20The%20Political%20Character%20and%20Legislative%20Leadership%20Style%20of%20Governor%20Jimmy%20Carter online edition]
* Freedman, Robert. "The Religious Right and the Carter Administration." ''Historical Journal'' 2005 48(1): 231-260. Issn: 0018-246x Fulltext: in Swetswise
*Gillon, Steven M. ''The Democrats' Dilemma: Walter F. Mondale and the Liberal Legacy'' (1992)
* Hargrove, Erwin C. ''Jimmy Carter as President: Leadership and the Politics of the Public Good'' (1988).
*Jones, Charles O. ''The Trusteeship Presidency: Jimmy Carter and the United States Congress'' (1988)
*Kaufman, Burton I. ''The Presidency of James Earl Carter, Jr'' (1993), the standard scholarly survey
* Kaufman, Burton Ira. ''The Carter Years'' (2006), short biographies of all the major players
* Morgan, Iwan. "Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and the New Democratic Economics." ''Historical Journal'' 2004 47(4): 1015-1039. Issn: 0018-246x Fulltext: in Swetswise
* Pomper, Gerald M., ed. ''The Election of 1980: Reports and Interpretations'' (1981)
* Ranney, Austin, ed. ''The American Elections of 1980'' (1982), essays by political scientists
*Strong, Robert A. "Recapturing leadership: The Carter administration and the crisis of confidence," ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' (Fall 1986) 16#3 pp 636–650
*White, Theodore H. ''America in Search of Itself: The Making of the President, 1956–1980'' (1982), classic narrative of presidential campaigns
*Witcover, Jules. ''Marathon: The Pursuit of the Presidency, 1972–1976'' (1977), very detailed narrative

===Foreign Policy===
* Berggren, D. Jason and Rae, Nicol C. "Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush: Faith, Foreign Policy, and an Evangelical Presidential Style." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 2006 36(4): 606-632. Issn: 0360-4918 Fulltext: in Swetswise and Ingenta
* Clymer, Kenton. "Jimmy Carter, Human Rights, and Cambodia." ''Diplomatic History'' 2003 27(2): 245-278. Issn: 0145-2096 Fulltext: in Swetswise, Ingenta and Ebsco
*Dumbrell, John, ed. ''The Carter Presidency: A Re-evaluation'' (2nd ed. 1995), British perspective
*Harris, David. ''The Crisis: the President, the Prophet, and the Shah—1979 and the Coming of Militant Islam'' (2004}
* Houghton, David Patrick. ''US Foreign Policy and the Iran Hostage Crisis'' (2001) [http://www.questia.com/SM.qst?act=adv&contributors=David Patrick Houghton&dcontributors=David%20Patrick%20Houghton online edition]
*Kaufman, Burton I. ''The Presidency of James Earl Carter, Jr'' (1993), the standard scholarly survey
*Rosenbaum, Herbert D. and Alexej Ugrinsky, eds. ''Jimmy Carter: Foreign Policy and Post-Presidential Years'' (1994), essays by experts [http://www.questia.com/read/14250706?title=Jimmy%20Carter%3a%20Foreign%20Policy%20and%20Post-Presidential%20Years online edition]
* Schmitz, David F. and Vanessa Walker. "Jimmy Carter and the Foreign Policy of Human Rights: the Development of a Post-cold War Foreign Policy." ''Diplomatic History'' 2004 28(1): 113-143. Issn: 0145-2096 Fulltext: in Swetswise, Ingenta and Ebsco
* Skidmore, David. ''Reversing Course: Carter's Foreign Policy, Domestic Politics, and the Failure of Reform'' (1996).
* Stein, Kenneth W. ''Heroic Diplomacy: Sadat, Kissinger, Carter, Begin and the Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/SM.qst?act=adv&contributors=Kenneth W. Stein&dcontributors=Kenneth%20W.%20Stein online edition]
*Strong, Robert A. ''Working in the World: Jimmy Carter and the Making of American Foreign Policy'' (2000)
* Thornton, Richard C. ''The Carter Years: Toward a New Global Order'' (1991) 572 pp. [http://www.questia.com/read/10415810?title=The%20Carter%20Years%3a%20Toward%20a%20New%20Global%20Order online edition]

===Post-presidential years===
* Brinkley, Douglas. ''The Unfinished Presidency: Jimmy Carter's Journey beyond the White House'' (1998). [http://www.amazon.com/Unfinished-Presidency-Carters-Journey-Beyond/dp/0140276165/ref=sr_1_18?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249620205&sr=1-18 excerpt and text search]
* Dershowitz, Alan. ''The Case Against Israel's Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Israels-Enemies-Exposing/dp/0470490055/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249619928&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* Evans, Mike. ''Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos: A Carter/Obama Plan That Will Not Work'' (2009), conservative critique

==Primary sources==
* [http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/ERP/ Council of Economic Advisors, ''Economic Report of the President'' (annual 1947- )], complete series online; important analysis of current trends and policies, plus statistcial tables

===Books by aides===
* Califano, Joseph A., Jr. ''Governing America: An insider's report from the White House and the Cabinet''. 1981
* Jordan, Hamilton. ''Crisis: The Last Year of the Carter Presidency''. 1982
* Lance, Bert. ''The Truth of the Matter: My Life in and out of Politics''. 1991

==External links==
*[http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/jec/jcnavy.phtml Jimmy Carter's Naval Service]
*[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13265 Carter the worst ex-president -- Steven Hayward]
*[http://blogcentral.jpost.com/index.php?cat_id=7&blog_id=59&blog_post_id=935 Jimmy Carter is a liar], [[Alan Dershowitz]], ''Jerusalem Post'', March 13 2007.
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/19/AR2007011901541.html Jimmy Carter's Jewish Problem] by Deborah Lipstadt.
*[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,918293,00.html "A Man Among Old Friends"], ''Time''Sep. 06, 1976 (article on Carter's favorite books—says the important book in his life is the Bible.]

==References==
<references/>

{{USPresidents}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Carter, Jimmy}}
[[Category:Presidents of the United States|Carter, Jimmy]]
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Peace|Carter, Jimmy]]
[[Category:Georgia Governors]]
[[Category:Democratic Governors]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:Cold War]]
[[category:Middle East]]
[[category:Human Rights]]
[[Category:Anti-Semitism]]

Plessy v. Ferguson

2012-06-15T00:32:19Z

Casanova: His name was "Homer" as appears from reading the official report of the case.

{{Caselaw|Plessy v. Ferguson|163 U.S. 537|1896}}
{{discrimlaw}}

'''''Plessy v. Ferguson''''' was a case handed down in 1896 by the Supreme Court. Homer Plessy, a man who did not consider himself "African American," but qualified as "black" under "1-drop rules," sued after being kicked out of a "whites only" car in a railroad. After winning his suit at all levels, the Supreme Court handed Plessy a loss for himself, and for the rights of Americans everywhere.

The holding of ''Plessy'' made clear that the equality guarantees of the newly passed [[Fourteenth Amendment]] were confined to rights of a civil and political nature. Social rights - such as equality in the public sphere - were not guaranteed. Specifically, ''Plessy'' held that the federal government, or state governments, may classify on the basis of race and perform [[social engineering]] activities designed to separate the races so long as they did not become inordinately oppressive. The majority of the Court did not define what ''would'' be inordinately oppressive.

Justice Harlan filed a blistering dissent, arguing for a color-blind constitution, and stating that he would have stricken down segregation over 50 years before the Court did in ''[[Brown v. Board of Education]]''.

==Text of the decision==
===Judgement of the Court===
Supreme Court of the United States,
No. 210, October Term, 1895.

Homer Adolph Plessy,
Plaintiff in Error,
vs.
J.H. Ferguson, Judge of Section "A"
Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans

In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana, and was argued by counsel.

On consideration whereof, It is now here ordered and adjudged by this Court that the judgement of the said Supreme Court, in this cause, be and the the same is hereby, affirmed with costs.

per Mr. Justice Brown,
May 18, 1896.

Dissenting:
Mr. Justice Harlan

===Opinion of the Court===
U.S. Supreme Court
PLESSY v. FERGUSON, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)

163 U.S. 537
PLESSY
v.
FERGUSON.
No. 210.

May 18, 1896.

This was a petition for writs of prohibition and certiorari originally filed in the supreme court of the state by Plessy, the plaintiff in error, against the Hon. John H. Ferguson, judge of the criminal district court for the parish of Orleans, and setting forth, in substance, the following facts:

That petitioner was a citizen of the United States and a resident of the state of Louisiana, of mixed descent, in the proportion of seven-eighths Caucasian and one-eighth African blood; that the mixture of colored blood was not discernible in him, and that he was entitled to every recognition, right, privilege, and immunity secured to the citizens of the United States of the white race by its constitution and laws; that on June 7, 1892, he engaged and paid for a first-class passage on the East Louisiana Railway, from New Orleans to Covington, in the same state, and thereupon entered a passenger train, and took possession of a vacant seat in a coach where passengers of the white race were accommodated; that such railroad company was incorporated by the laws of Louisiana as a common carrier, and was not authorized to distinguish between citizens according to their race, but, notwithstanding this, petitioner was required by the conductor, under penalty of ejection from said train and imprisonment, to vacate said coach, and occupy another seat, in a coach assigned by said company for persons not of the white race, and for no other reason than that petitioner was of the colored race; that, upon petitioner's refusal to comply with such order, he was, with the aid of a police officer, forcibly ejected from said coach, and hurried off to, and imprisoned in, the parish jail of New Orleans, and there held to answer a charge made by such officer to the effect that he was guilty of having criminally violated an act of the general assembly of the state, approved July 10, 1890, in such case made and provided.

The petitioner was subsequently brought before the recorder of the city for preliminary examination, and committed for trial to the criminal district court for the parish of Orleans, where an information was filed against him in the matter above set forth, for a violation of the above act, which act the petitioner affirmed to be null and void, because in conflict with the constitution of the United States; that petitioner interposed a plea to such information, based upon the unconstitutionality of the act of the general assembly, to which the district attorney, on behalf of the state, filed a [[demurrer]]; that, upon issue being joined upon such demurrer and plea, the court sustained the demurrer, overruled the plea, and ordered petitioner to plead over to the facts set forth in the information, and that, unless the judge of the said court be enjoined by a writ of prohibition from further proceeding in such case, the court will proceed to fine and sentence petitioner to imprisonment, and thus deprive him of his constitutional rights set forth in his said plea, notwithstanding the unconstitutionality of the act under which he was being prosecuted; that no appeal lay from such sentence, and petitioner was without relief or remedy except by writs of prohibition and certiorari. Copies of the information and other proceedings in the criminal district court were annexed to the petition as an exhibit.

Upon the filing of this petition, an order was issued upon the respondent to show cause why a writ of prohibition should not issue, and be made perpetual, and a further order that the record of the proceedings had in the criminal cause be certified and transmitted to the supreme court.

To this order the respondent made answer, transmitting a certified copy of the proceedings, asserting the constitutionality of the law, and averring that, instead of pleading or admitting that he belonged to the colored race, the said Plessy declined and refused, either by pleading or otherwise, to ad- mit that he was in any sense or in any proportion a colored man.

The case coming on for hearing before the supreme court, that court was of opinion that the law under which the prosecution was had was constitutional and denied the relief prayed for by the petitioner (Ex parte Plessy, 45 La. Ann. 80, 11 South. 948); whereupon petitioner prayed for a writ of error from this court, which was allowed by the chief justice of the supreme court of Louisiana.

Mr. Justice Harlan dissenting.

A. W. Tourgee and S. F. Phillips, for plaintiff in error.

Alex. Porter Morse, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice BROWN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.

This case turns upon the constitutionality of an act of the general assembly of the state of Louisiana, passed in 1890, providing for separate railway carriages for the white and colored races. Acts 1890, No. 111, p. 152.

The first section of the statute enacts 'that all railway companies carrying passengers in their coaches in this state, shall provide equal but separate accommodations for the white, and colored races, by providing two or more passenger coaches for each passenger train, or by dividing the passenger coaches by a partition so as to secure separate accommodations: provided, that this section shall not be construed to apply to street railroads. No person or persons shall be permitted to occupy seats in coaches, other than the ones assigned to them, on account of the race they belong to.'

By the second section it was enacted 'that the officers of such passenger trains shall have power and are hereby required to assign each passenger to the coach or compartment used for the race to which such passenger belongs; any passenger insisting on going into a coach or compartment to which by race he does not belong, shall be liable to a fine of twenty-five dollars, or in lieu thereof to imprisonment for a period of not more than twenty days in the parish prison, and any officer of any railroad insisting on assigning a passenger to a coach or compartment other than the one set aside for the race to which said passenger belongs, shall be liable to a fine of twenty-five dollars, or in lieu thereof to imprisonment for a period of not more than twenty days in the parish prison; and should any passenger refuse to occupy the coach or compartment to which he or she is assigned by the officer of such railway, said officer shall have power to refuse to carry such passenger on his train, and for such refusal neither he nor the railway company which he represents shall be liable for damages in any of the courts of this state.'

The third section provides penalties for the refusal or neglect of the officers, directors, conductors, and employees of railway companies to comply with the act, with a proviso that 'nothing in this act shall be construed as applying to nurses attending children of the other race.' The fourth section is immaterial.

The information filed in the criminal district court charged, in substance, that Plessy, being a passenger between two stations within the state of Louisiana, was assigned by officers of the company to the coach used for the race to which he belonged, but he insisted upon going into a coach used by the race to which he did not belong. Neither in the information nor plea was his particular race or color averred.

The petition for the writ of prohibition averred that petitioner was seven-eights Caucasian and one-eighth African blood; that the mixture of colored blood was not discernible in him; and that he was entitled to every right, privilege, and immunity secured to citizens of the United States of the white race; and that, upon such theory, he took possession of a vacant seat in a coach where passengers of the white race were accommodated, and was ordered by the conductor to vacate said coach, and take a seat in another, assigned to persons of the colored race, and, having refused to comply with such demand, he was forcibly ejected, with the aid of a police officer, and imprisoned in the parish jail to answer a charge of having violated the above act.

The constitutionality of this act is attacked upon the ground that it conflicts both with the thirteenth amendment of the constitution, abolishing slavery, and the fourteenth amendment, which prohibits certain restrictive legislation on the part of the states.

1. That it does not conflict with the thirteenth amendment, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except a punishment for crime, is too clear for argument. Slavery implies involuntary servitude,-a state of bondage; the ownership of mankind as a chattel, or, at least, the control of the labor and services of one man for the benefit of another, and the absence of a legal right to the disposal of his own person, property, and services. This amendment was said in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, to have been intended primarily to abolish slavery, as it had been previously known in this country, and that it equally forbade Mexican peonage or the Chinese coolie trade, when they amounted to slavery or involuntary servitude, and that the use of the word 'servitude' was intended to prohibit the use of all forms of involuntary slavery, of whatever class or name. It was intimated, however, in that case, that this amendment was regarded by the statesmen of that day as insufficient to protect the colored race from certain laws which had been enacted in the Southern states, imposing upon the colored race onerous disabilities and burdens, and curtailing their rights in the pursuit of life, liberty, and property to such an extent that their freedom was of little value; and that the fourteenth amendment was devised to meet this exigency.

So, too, in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 3 Sup. Ct. 18, it was said that the act of a mere individual, the owner of an inn, a public conveyance or place of amusement, refusing accommodations to colored people, cannot be justly regarded as imposing any badge of slavery or servitude upon the applicant, but only as involving an ordinary civil injury, properly cognizable by the laws of the state, and presumably subject to redress by those laws until the contrary appears. 'It would be running the slavery question into the ground,' said Mr. Justice Bradley, 'to make it apply to every act of discrimination which a person may see fit to make as to the guests he will entertain, or as to the people he will take into his coach or cab or car, or admit to his concert or theater, or deal with in other matters of intercourse or business.'

A statute which implies merely a legal distinction between the white and colored races-a distinction which is founded in the color of the two races, and which must always exist so long as white men are distinguished from the other race by color-has no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races, or re-establish a state of involuntary servitude. Indeed, we do not understand that the thirteenth amendment is strenuously relied upon by the plaintiff in error in this connection.

2. By the fourteenth amendment, all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are made citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside; and the states are forbidden from making or enforcing any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, or shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or deny to any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The proper construction of this amendment was first called to the attention of this court in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, which involved, however, not a question of race, but one of exclusive privileges. The case did not call for any expression of opinion as to the exact rights it was intended to secure to the colored race, but it was said generally that its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro, to give definitions of citizenship of the United States and of the states, and to protect from the hostile legislation of the states the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as distinguished from those of citizens of the states. The object of the amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but, in the nature of things, it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguish d from political, equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either. Laws permitting, and even requiring, their separation, in places where they are liable to be brought into contact, do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other, and have been generally, if not universally, recognized as within the competency of the state legislatures in the exercise of their police power. The most common instance of this is connected with the establishment of separate schools for white and colored children, which have been held to be a valid exercise of the legislative power even by courts of states where the political rights of the colored race have been longest and most earnestly enforced.

One of the earliest of these cases is that of Roberts v. City of Boston, 5 Cush. 198, in which the supreme judicial court of Massachusetts held that the general school committee of Boston had power to make provision for the instruction of colored children in separate schools established exclusively for them, and to prohibit their attendance upon the other schools. 'The great principle,' said Chief Justice Shaw, 'advanced by the learned and eloquent advocate for the plaintiff [Mr. Charles Sumner], is that, by the constitution and laws of Massachusetts, all persons, without distinction of age or sex, birth or color, origin or condition, are equal before the law. ... But, when this great principle comes to be applied to the actual and various conditions of persons in society, it will not warrant the assertion that men and women are legally clothed with the same civil and political powers, and that children and adults are legally to have the same functions and be subject to the same treatment; but only that the rights of all, as they are settled and regulated by law, are equally entitled to the paternal consideration and protection of the law for their maintenance and security.' It was held that the powers of the committee extended to the establish- ment of separate schools for children of different ages, sexes and colors, and that they might also establish special schools for poor and neglected children, who have become too old to attend the primary school, and yet have not acquired the rudiments of learning, to enable them to enter the ordinary schools. Similar laws have been enacted by congress under its general power of legislation over the District of Columbia (sections 281- 283, 310, 319, Rev. St. D. C.), as well as by the legislatures of many of the states, and have been generally, if not uniformly, sustained by the courts. State v. McCann, 21 Ohio St. 210; Lehew v. Brummell (Mo. Sup.) 15 S. W. 765; Ward v. Flood, 48 Cal. 36; Bertonneau v. Directors of City Schools, 3 Woods, 177, Fed. Cas. No. 1,361; People v. Gallagher, 93 N. Y. 438; Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 337; Dawson v. Lee, 83 Ky. 49.

Laws forbidding the intermarriage of the two races may be said in a technical sense to interfere with the freedom of contract, and yet have been universally recognized as within the police power of the state. State v. Gibson, 36 Ind. 389.

The distinction between laws interfering with the political equality of the negro and those requiring the separation of the two races in schools, theaters, and railway carriages has been frequently drawn by this court. Thus, in Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, it was held that a law of West Virginia limiting to white male persons 21 years of age, and citizens of the state, the right to sit upon juries, was a discrimination which implied a legal inferiority in civil society, which lessened the security of the right of the colored race, and was a step towards reducing them to a condition of servility. Indeed, the right of a colored man that, in the selection of jurors to pass upon his life, liberty, and property, there shall be no exclusion of his race, and no discrimination against them because of color, has been asserted in a number of cases. Virginia v. Rivers, 100 U.S. 313 ; Neal v. Delaware, 103 U.S. 370 ; ush v. Com., 107 U.S. 110 , 1 Sup. Ct. 625; Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 U.S. 565 , 16 Sup. Ct. 904. So, where the laws of a particular locality or the charter of a particular railway corporation has provided that no person shall be excluded from the cars on account of color, we have held that this meant that persons of color should travel in the same car as white ones, and that the enactment was not satisfied by the company providing cars assigned exclusively to people of color, though they were as good as those which they assigned exclusively to white persons. Railroad Co. v. Brown, 17 Wall. 445.

Upon the other hand, where a statute of Louisiana required those engaged in the transportation of passengers among the states to give to all persons traveling within that state, upon vessels employed in that business, equal rights and privileges in all parts of the vessel, without distinction on account of race or color, and subjected to an action for damages the owner of such a vessel who excluded colored passengers on account of their color from the cabin set aside by him for the use of whites, it was held to be, so far as it applied to interstate commerce, unconstitutional and void. Hall v. De Cuir, 95 U.S. 485 . The court in this case, however, expressly disclaimed that it had anything whatever to do with the statute as a regulation of internal commerce, or affecting anything else than commerce among the states.

In the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 , 3 Sup. Ct. 18, it was held that an act of congress entitling all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances, on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement, and made applicable to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude, was unconstitutional and void, upon the ground that the fourteenth amendment was prohibitory upon the states only, and the legislation authorized to be adopted by congress for enforcing it was not direct legislation on matters respecting which the states were prohibited from making or enforcing certain laws, or doing certain acts, but was corrective legislation, such as might be necessary or proper for counter-acting and redressing the effect of such laws or acts. In delivering the opinion of the court, Mr. Justice Bradley observed that the fourteenth amendment 'does not invest congress with power to legislate upon subjects that are within the domain of state legislation, but to provide modes of relief against state legislation or state action of the kind referred to. It does not authorize congress to create a code of municipal law for the regulation of private rights, but to provide modes of redress against the operation of state laws, and the action of state officers, executive or judicial, when these are subversive of the fundamental rights specified in the amendment. Positive rights and privileges are undoubtedly secured by the fourteenth amendment; but they are secured by way of prohibition against state laws and state proceedings affecting those rights and privileges, and by power given to congress to legislate for the purpose of carrying such prohibition into effect; and such legislation must necessarily be predicated upon such supposed state laws or state proceedings, and be directed to the correction of their operation and effect.'

Much nearer, and, indeed, almost directly in point, is the case of the Louisville, N. O. & T. Ry. Co. v. State, 133 U.S. 587 , 10 Sup. Ct. 348, wherein the railway company was indicted for a violation of a statute of Mississippi, enacting that all railroads carrying passengers should provide equal, but separate, accommodations for the white and colored races, by providing two or more passenger cars for each passenger train, or by dividing the passenger cars by a partition, so as to secure separate accommodations. The case was presented in a different aspe t from the one under consideration, inasmuch as it was an indictment against the railway company for failing to provide the separate accommodations, but the question considered was the constitutionality of the law. In that case, the supreme court of Mississippi (66 Miss. 662, 6 South. 203) had held that the statute applied solely to commerce within the state, and, that being the construction of the state statute by its highest court, was accepted as conclusive. 'If it be a matter,' said the court (page 591, 133 U. S., and page 348, 10 Sup. Ct.), 'respecting commerce wholly within a state, and not interfering with commerce between the states, then, obviously, there is no violation of the commerce clause of the federal constitution. ... No question arises under this section as to the power of the state to separate in different compartments interstate pas- sengers, or affect, in any manner, the privileges and rights of such passengers. All that we can consider is whether the state has the power to require that railroad trains within her limits shall have separate accommodations for the two races. That affecting only commerce within the state is no invasion of the power given to congress by the commerce clause.'

A like course of reasoning applies to the case under consideration, since the supreme court of Louisiana, in the case of State v. Judge, 44 La. Ann. 770, 11 South. 74, held that the statute in question did not apply to interstate passengers, but was confined in its application to passengers traveling exclusively within the borders of the state. The case was decided largely upon the authority of Louisville, N. O. & T. Ry. Co. v. State, 66 Miss. 662, 6 South, 203, and affirmed by this court in 133 U.S. 587 , 10 Sup. Ct. 348. In the present case no question of interference with interstate commerce can possibly arise, since the East Louisiana Railway appears to have been purely a local line, with both its termini within the state of Louisiana. Similar statutes for the separation of the two races upon public conveyances were held to be constitutional in Railroad v. Miles, 55 Pa. St. 209; Day v. Owen 5 Mich. 520; Railway Co. v. Williams, 55 Ill. 185; Railroad Co. v. Wells, 85 Tenn. 613; 4 S. W. 5; Railroad Co. v. Benson, 85 Tenn. 627, 4 S. W. 5; The Sue, 22 Fed. 843; Logwood v. Railroad Co., 23 Fed. 318; McGuinn v. Forbes, 37 Fed. 639; People v. King ( N. Y. App.) 18 N. E. 245; Houck v. Railway Co., 38 Fed. 226; Heard v. Railroad Co., 3 Inter St. Commerce Com. R. 111, 1 Inter St. Commerce Com. R. 428.

While we think the enforced separation of the races, as applied to the internal commerce of the state, neither abridges the privileges or immunities of the colored man, deprives him of his property without due process of law, nor denies him the equal protection of the laws, within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment, we are not prepared to say that the conductor, in assigning passengers to the coaches according to their race, does not act at his peril, or that the provision of the second section of the act that denies to the passenger compensa- tion in damages for a refusal to receive him into the coach in which he properly belongs is a valid exercise of the legislative power. Indeed, we understand it to be conceded by the state's attorney that such part of the act as exempts from liability the railway company and its officers is unconstitutional. The power to assign to a particular coach obviously implies the power to determine to which race the passenger belongs, as well as the power to determine who, under the laws of the particular state, is to be deemed a white, and who a colored, person. This question, though indicated in the brief of the plaintiff in error, does not properly arise upon the record in this case, since the only issue made is as to the unconstitutionality of the act, so far as it requires the railway to provide separate accommodations, and the conductor to assign passengers according to their race.

It is claimed by the plaintiff in error that, in an mixed community, the reputation of belonging to the dominant race, in this instance the white race, is 'property,' in the same sense that a right of action or of inheritance is property. Conceding this to be so, for the purposes of this case, we are unable to see how this statute deprives him of, or in any way affects his right to, such property. If he be a white man, and assigned to a colored coach, he may have his action for damages against the company for being deprived of his so-called 'property.' Upon the other hand, if he be a colored man, and be so assigned, he has been deprived of no property, since he is not lawfully entitled to the reputation of being a white man.

In this connection, it is also suggested by the learned counsel for the plaintiff in error that the same argument that will justify the state legislature in requiring railways to provide separate accommodations for the two races will also authorize them to require separate cars to be provided for people whose hair is of a certain color, or who are aliens, or who belong to certain nationalities, or to enact laws requiring colored people to walk upon one side of the street, and white people upon the other, or requiring white men's houses to be painted white, and colored men's black, or their vehicles or business signs to be of different colors, upon the theory that one side of the street is as good as the other, or that a house or vehicle of one color is as good as one of another color. The reply to all this is that every exercise of the police power must be reasonable, and extend only to such laws as are enacted in good faith for the promotion of the public good, and not for the annoyance or oppression of a particular class. Thus, in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 6 Sup. Ct. 1064, it was held by this court that a municipal ordinance of the city of San Francisco, to regulate the carrying on of public laundries within the limits of the municipality, violated the provisions of the constitution of the United States, if it conferred upon the municipal authorities arbitrary power, at their own will, and without regard to discretion, in the legal sense of the term, to give or withhold consent as to persons or places, without regard to the competency of the persons applying or the propriety of the places selected for the carrying on of the business. It was held to be a covert attempt on the part of the municipality to make an arbitrary and unjust discrimination against the Chinese race. While this was the case of a municipal ordinance, a like principle has been held to apply to acts of a state legislature passed in the exercise of the police power. Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U.S. 465 ; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Kentucky, 161 U.S. 677 , 16 Sup. Ct. 714, and cases cited on page 700, 161 U. S., and page 714, 16 Sup. Ct.; Daggett v. Hudson, 43 Ohio St. 548, 3 N. E. 538; Capen v. Foster, 12 Pick. 485; State v. Baker, 38 Wis. 71; Monroe v. Collins, 17 Ohio St. 665; Hulseman v. Rems, 41 Pa. St. 396; Osman v. Riley, 15 Cal. 48.

So far, then, as a conflict with the fourteenth amendment is concerned, the case reduces itself to the question whether the statute of Louisiana is a reasonable regulation, and with respect to this there must necessarily be a large discretion on the part of the legislature. In determining the question of reasonableness, it is at liberty to act with reference to the established usages, customs, and traditions of the people, and with a view to the promotion of their comfort, and the preservation of the public peace and good order. Gauged by this standard, we cannot say that a law which authorizes or even requires the separation of the two races in public conveyances is unreasonable, or more obnoxious to the fourteenth amendment than the acts of congress requiring separate schools for colored children in the District of Columbia, the constitutionality of which does not seem to have been questioned, or the corresponding acts of state legislatures.

We consider the u derlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it. The argument necessarily assumes that if, as has been more than once the case, and is not unlikely to be so again, the colored race should become the dominant power in the state legislature, and should enact a law in precisely similar terms, it would thereby relegate the white race to an inferior position. We imagine that the white race, at least, would not acquiesce in this assumption. The argument also assumes that social prejudices may be overcome by legislation, and that equal rights cannot be secured to the negro except by an enforced commingling of the two races. We cannot accept this proposition. If the two races are to meet upon terms of social equality, it must be the result of natural affinities, a mutual appreciation of each other's merits, and a voluntary consent of individuals. As was said by the court of appeals of New York in People v. Gallagher, 93 N. Y. 438, 448: 'This end can neither be accomplished nor promoted by laws which conflict with the general sentiment of the community upon whom they are designed to operate. When the government, therefore, has secured to each of its citizens equal rights before the law, and equal opportunities for improvement and progress, it has accomplished the end for which it was organized, and performed all of the functions respecting social advantages with which it is endowed.' Legislation is powerless to eradicate racial instincts, or to abolish distinctions based upon physical differences, and the attempt to do so can only result in accentuating the difficulties of the present situation. If the civil and political rights of both races be equal, one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane.

It is true that the question of the proportion of colored blood necessary to constitute a colored person, as distinguished from a white person, is one upon which there is a difference of opinion in the different states; some holding that any visible admixture of black blood stamps the person as belonging to the colored race (State v. Chavers, 5 Jones [N. C.] 1); others, that it depends upon the preponderance of blood ( Gray v. State, 4 Ohio, 354; Monroe v. Collins, 17 Ohio St. 665); and still others, that the predominance of white blood must only be in the proportion of three-fourths (People v. Dean, 14 Mich. 406; Jones v. Com., 80 Va. 544). But these are questions to be determined under the laws of each state, and are not properly put in issue in this case. Under the allegations of his petition, it may undoubtedly become a question of importance whether, under the laws of Louisiana, the petitioner belongs to the white or colored race.

The judgment of the court below is therefore affirmed.

Mr. Justice BREWER did not hear the argument or participate in the decision of this case.

Mr. Justice HARLAN dissenting.

By the Louisiana statute the validity of which is here involved, all railway companies (other than street-railroad companies) carry passengers in that state are required to have separate but equal accommodations for white and colored persons, 'by providing two or more passenger coaches for each passenger train, or by dividing the passenger coaches by a partition so as to secure separate accommodations.' Under this statute, no colored person is permitted to occupy a seat in a coach assigned to white persons; nor any white person to occupy a seat in a coach assigned to colored persons. The managers of the railroad are not allowed to exercise any discretion in the premises, but are required to assign each passenger to some coach or compartment set apart for the exclusive use of is race. If a passenger insists upon going into a coach or compartment not set apart for persons of his race, he is subject to be fined, or to be imprisoned in the parish jail. Penalties are prescribed for the refusal or neglect of the officers, directors, conductors, and employees of railroad companies to comply with the provisions of the act.

Only 'nurses attending children of the other race' are excepted from the operation of the statute. No exception is made of colored attendants traveling with adults. A white man is not permitted to have his colored servant with him in the same coach, even if his condition of health requires the constant personal assistance of such servant. If a colored maid insists upon riding in the same coach with a white woman whom she has been employed to serve, and who may need her personal attention while traveling, she is subject to be fined or imprisoned for such an exhibition of zeal in the discharge of duty.

While there may be in Louisiana persons of different races who are not citizens of the United States, the words in the act 'white and colored races' necessarily include all citizens of the United States of both races residing in that state. So that we have before us a state enactment that compels, under penalties, the separation of the two races in railroad passenger coaches, and makes it a crime for a citizen of either race to enter a coach that has been assigned to citizens of the other race.

Thus, the state regulates the use of a public highway by citizens of the United States solely upon the basis of race.

However apparent the injustice of such legislation may be, we have only to consider whether it is consistent with the constitution of the United States.

That a railroad is a public highway, and that the corporation which owns or operates it is in the exercise of public functions, is not, at this day, to be disputed. Mr. Justice Nelson, speaking for this court in New Jersey Steam Nav. Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. 344, 382, said that a common carrier was in the exercise 'of a sort of public office, and has public duties to perform, from which he should not be permitted to exonerate himself without the assent of the parties concerned.' Mr. Justice Strong, delivering the judgment of this court in Olcott v. Supervisors, 16 Wall. 678, 694, said: 'That railroads, though constructed by private corporations, and owned by them, are public highways, has been the doctrine of nearly all the courts ever since such conveniences for passage and transportation have had any existence. Very early the question arose whether a state's right of eminent domain could be exercised by a private corporation created for the purpose of constructing a railroad. Clearly, it could not, unless taking land for such a purpose by such an agency is taking land for public use. The right of eminent domain nowhere justifies taking property for a private use. Yet it is a doctrine universally accepted that a state legislature may authorize a private corporation to take land for the construction of such a road, making compensation to the owner. What else does this doctrine mean if not that building a railroad, though it be built by a private corporation, is an act done for a public use?' So, in Township of Pine Grove v. Talcott, 19 Wall. 666, 676: 'Though the corporation [a railroad company] was private, its work was public, as much so as if it were to be constructed by the state.' So, in Inhabitants of Worcester v. Western R. Corp., 4 Metc. (Mass.) 564: 'The establishment of that great thoroughfare is regarded as a public work, established by public authority, intended for the public use and benefit, the use of which is secured to the whole community, and constitutes, therefore, like a canal, turnpike, or highway, a public easement.' 'It is true that the real and personal property, necessary to the establishment and management of the railroad, is vested in the corporation; but it is in trust for the public.'

In respect of civil r ghts, common to all citizens, the constitution of the United States does not, I think, permit any public authority to know the race of those entitled to be protected in the enjoyment of such rights. Every true man has pride of race, and under appropriate circumstances, when the rights of others, his equals before the law, are not to be affected, it is his privilege to express such pride and to take such action based upon it as to him seems proper. But I deny that any legislative body or judicial tribunal may have regard to the race of citizens when the civil rights of those citizens are involved. Indeed, such legislation as that here in question is inconsistent not only with that equality of rights which pertains to citizenship, national and state, but with the personal liberty enjoyed by every one within the United States.

The thirteenth amendment does not permit the withholding or the deprivation of any right necessarily inhering in freedom. It not only struck down the institution of slavery as previously existing in the United States, but it prevents the imposition of any burdens or disabilities that constitute badges of slavery or servitude. It decreed universal civil freedom in this country. This court has so adjudged. But, that amendment having been found inadequate to the protection of the rights of those who had been in slavery, it was followed by the fourteenth amendment, which added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship, and to the security of personal liberty, by declaring that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside,' and that 'no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' These two amendments, if enforced according to their true intent and meaning, will protect all the civil rights that pertain to freedom and citizenship. Finally, and to the end that no citizen should be denied, on account of his race, the privilege of participating in the political control of his country, it was declared by the fifteenth amendment that 'the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.'

These notable additions to the fundamental law were welcomed by the friends of liberty throughout the world. They removed the race line from our governmental systems. They had, as this court has said, a common purpose, namely, to secure 'to a race recently emancipated, a race that through many generations have been held in slavery, all the civil rights that the superior race enjoy.' They declared, in legal effect, this court has further said, 'that the law in the states shall be the same for the black as for the white; that all persons, whether colored or white, shall stand equal before the laws of the states; and in regard to the colored race, for whose protection the amendment was primarily designed, that no discrimination shall be made against them by law because of their color.' We also said: 'The words of the amendment, it is true, are prohibitory, but they contain a necessary implication of a positive immunity or right, most valuable to the colored race,-the right to exemption from unfriendly legislation against them distinctively as colored; exemption from legal discriminations, implying inferiority in civil society, lessening the security of their enjoyment of the rights which others enjoy; and discriminations which are steps towards reducing them to the condition of a subject race.' It was, consequently, adjudged that a state law that excluded citizens of the colored race from juries, because of their race, however well qualified in other respects to dischar e the duties of jurymen, was repugnant to the fourteenth amendment. Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 306 , 307 S.; Virginia v. Rives, Id. 313; Ex parte Virginia, Id. 339; Neal v. Delaware, 103 U.S. 370 , 386; Bush v. Com., 107 U.S. 110, 116 , 1 S. Sup. Ct. 625. At the present term, referring to the previous adjudications, this court declared that 'underlying all of those decisions is the principle that the constitution of the United States, in its present form, forbids, so far as civil and political rights are concerned, discrimination by the general government or the states against any citizen because of his race. All citizens are equal before the law.' Gibson v. State, 162 U.S. 565 , 16 Sup. Ct. 904.

The decisions referred to show the scope of the recent amendments of the constitution. They also show that it is not within the power of a state to prohibit colored citizens, because of their race, from participating as jurors in the administration of justice.

It was said in argument that the statute of Louisiana does not discriminate against either race, but prescribes a rule applicable alike to white and colored citizens. But this argument does not meet the difficulty. Every one knows that the statute in question had its origin in the purpose, not so much to exclude white persons from railroad cars occupied by blacks, as to exclude colored people from coaches occupied by or assigned to white persons. Railroad corporations of Louisiana did not make discrimination among whites in the matter of commodation for travelers. The thing to accomplish was, under the guise of giving equal accommodation for whites and blacks, to compel the latter to keep to themselves while traveling in railroad passenger coaches. No one would be so wanting in candor as to assert the contrary. The fundamental objection, therefore, to the statute, is that it interferes with the personal freedom of citizens. 'Personal liberty,' it has been well said, 'consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation, or removing one's person to whatsoever places one's own inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law.' 1 Bl. Comm. *134. If a white man and a black man choose to occupy the same public conveyance on a public highway, it is their right to do so; and no government, proceeding alone on grounds of race, can prevent it without infringing the personal liberty of each.

It is one thing for railroad carriers to furnish, or to be required by law to furnish, equal accommodations for all whom they are under a legal duty to carry. It is quite another thing for government to forbid citizens of the white and black races from traveling in the same public conveyance, and to punish officers of railroad companies for permitting persons of the two races to occupy the same passenger coach. If a state can prescribe, as a rule of civil conduct, that whites and blacks shall not travel as passengers in the same railroad coach, why may it not so regulate the use of the streets of its cities and towns as to compel white citizens to keep on one side of a street, and black citizens to keep on the other? Why may it not, upon like grounds, punish whites and blacks who ride together in street cars or in open vehicles on a public road or street? Why may it not require sheriffs to assign whites to one side of a court room, and blacks to the other? And why may it not also prohibit the commingling of the two races in the galleries of legislative halls or in public assemblages convened for the consideration of the political questions of the day? Further, if this statute of Louisiana is consistent with the personal liberty of citizens, why may not the state require the separation in railroad coaches of native and naturalized citizens of the United States, or of Protestants and Roman Catholics?

The answer given at the argument to these questions was that regulations of the kind they suggest would be unreasonable, and could not, therefore, stand before the la . Is it meant that the determination of questions of legislative power depends upon the inquiry whether the statute whose validity is questioned is, in the judgment of the courts, a reasonable one, taking all the circumstances into consideration? A statute may be unreasonable merely because a sound public policy forbade its enactment. But I do not understand that the courts have anything to do with the policy or expediency of legislation. A statute may be valid, and yet, upon grounds of public policy, may well be characterized as unreasonable. Mr. Sedgwick correctly states the rule when he says that, the legislative intention being clearly ascertained, 'the courts have no other duty to perform than to execute the legislative will, without any regard to their views as to the wisdom or justice of the particular enactment.' Sedg. St. & Const. Law, 324. There is a dangerous tendency in these latter days to enlarge the functions of the courts, by means of judicial interference with the will of the people as expressed by the legislature. Our institutions have the distinguishing characteristic that the three departments of government are co-ordinate and separate. Each much keep within the limits defined by the constitution. And the courts best discharge their duty by executing the will of the law-making power, constitutionally expressed, leaving the results of legislation to be dealt with by the people through their representatives. Statutes must always have a reasonable construction. Sometimes they are to be construed strictly, sometimes literally, in order to carry out the legisla- tive will. But, however construed, the intent of the legislature is to be respected if the particular statute in question is valid, although the courts, looking at the public interests, may conceive the statute to be both unreasonable and impolitic. If the power exists to enact a statute, that ends the matter so far as the courts are concerned. The adjudged cases in which statutes have been held to be void, because unreasonable, are those in which the means employed by the legislature were not at all germane to the end to which the legislature was competent.

The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country. And so it is, in prestige, in achievements, in education, in wealth, and in power. So, I doubt not, it will continue to be for all time, if it remains true to its great heritage, and holds fast to the principles of constitutional liberty. But in view of the constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful. The law regards man as man, and takes no account of his surroundings or of his color when his civil rights as guarantied by the spreme law of the land are involved. It is therefore to be regretted that this high tribunal, the final expositor of the fundamental law of the land, has reached the conclusion that it is competent for a state to regulate the enjoyment by citizens of their civil rights solely upon the basis of race.

In my opinion, the judgment this day rendered will, in time, prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott Case.

It was adjudged in that case that the descendants of Africans who were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, were not included nor intended to be included under the word 'citizens' in the constitution, and could not claim any of the rights and privileges which that instrument provided for and secured to citizens of the United States; that, at time of the adoption of the constitution, they were 'considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the government might choose to grant them.' 17 How. 393, 404. The recent amendments of the constitution, it was supposed, had eradicated these principles from our institutions. But it seems that we have yet, in some of the states, a dominant race,-a superior class of citizens,-which assumes to regulate the enjoyment of civil rights, common to all citizens, upon the basis of race. The present decision, it may well be apprehended, will not only stimulate aggressions, more or less brutal and irritating, upon the admitted rights of colored citizens, but will encourage the belief that it is possible, by means of state enactments, to defeat the beneficent purposes which the people of the United States had in view when they adopted the recent amendments of the constitution, by one of which the blacks of this country were made citizens of the United States and of the states in which they respectively reside, and whose privileges and immunities, as citizens, the states are forbidden to abridge. Sixty millions of whites are in no danger from the presence here of eight millions of blacks. The destinies of the two races, in this country, are indissolubly linked together, and the interests of both require that the common government of all shall not permit the seeds of race hate to be planted under the sanction of law. What can more certainly arouse race hate, what more certainly create and perpetuate a feeling of distrust between these races, than state enactments which, in fact, proceed on the ground that colored citizens are so inferior and degraded that they cannot be allowed to sit in public coaches occupied by white citizens? That, as all will admit, is the real meaning of such legislation as was enacted in Louisiana.

The sure guaranty of the peace and security of each race is the clear, distinct, unconditional recognition by our governments, national and state, of every right that inheres in civil freedom, and of the equality before the law of all citizens of the United States, without regard to race. State enactments regulating the enjoyment of civil rights upon the basis of race, and cunningly devised to defeat legitimate results of the war, under the pretense of recognizing equality of rights, can have no other result than to render permanent peace impossible, and to keep alive a conflict of races, the continuance of which must do harm to all concerned. This question is not met by the suggestion that social equality cannot exist between the white and black races in this country. That argument, if it can be properly regarded as one, is scarcely worthy of consideration; for social equality no more exists between two races when traveling in a passenger coach or a public highway than when members of the same races sit by each other in a street car or in the jury box, or stand or sit with each other in a political assembly, or when they use in common the streets of a city or town, or when they are in the same room for the purpose of having their names placed on the registry of voters, or when they approach the ballot box in order to exercise the high privilege of voting.

There is a race so different from our own that we do not permit those belonging to it to become citizens of the United States. Persons belonging to it are, with few exceptions, absolutely excluded from our country. I allude to the Chinese race. But, by the statute in question, a Chinaman can ride in the same passenger coach with white citizens of the United States, while citizens of the black race in Louisiana, many of whom, perhaps, risked their lives for the preservation of the Union, who are entitled, by law, to participate in the political control of the state and nation, who are not excluded, by law or by reason of their race, from public stations of any kind, and who have all the legal rights that belong to white citizens, are yet declared to be criminals, liable to imprisonment, if they ride in a public coach occupied by citizens of the white race. It is scarcely just to say that a colored citizen should not object to occupying a public coach assigned to his own race. He does not object, nor, perhaps, would he object to separate coaches for his race if his rights under the law were recognized. But he does object, and he ought never to cease objecting, that citizens of the white and black races can be adjudged criminals because they sit, or claim the right to sit, in the same public coach on a public highway. The arbitrary separation of citizens, on the basis of race, while they are on a public highway, is a badge of servitude wholly inconsistent with the civil freedom and the equality before the law established by the constitution. It cannot be justified upon any legal grounds.

If evils will result from the commingling of the two races upon public highways established for the benefit of all, they will be infinitely less than those that will surely come from state legislation regulating the enjoyment of civil rights upon the basis of race. We boast of the freedom enjoyed by our people above all other peoples. But it is difficult to reconcile that boast with a state of the law which, practically, puts the brand of servitude and degradation upon a large class of our fellow citizens,-our equals before the law. The thin disguise of 'equal' accommodations for passengers in railroad coaches will not mislead any one, nor atone for the wrong this day done.

The result of the whole matter is that while this court has frequently adjudged, and at the present term has recognized the doctrine, that a state cannot, consistently with the constitution of the United States, prevent white and black citizens, having the required qualifications for jury service, from sitting in the same jury box, it is now solemnly held that a state may prohibit white and black citizens from sitting in the same passenger coach on a public highway, or may require that they be separated by a 'partition' when in the same passenger coach. May it not now be reasonably expected that astute men of the dominant race, who affect to be disturbed at the possibility that the integrity of the white race may be corrupted, or that its supremacy will be imperiled, by contact on public highways with black people, will endeavor to procure statutes requiring white and black jurors to be separated in the jury box by a 'partition,' and that, upon retiring from the court room to consult as to their verdict, such partition, if it be a movable one, shall be taken to their consultation room, and set up in such way as to prevent black jurors from coming too close to their brother jurors of the white race. If the 'partition' used in the court room happens to be stationary, provision could be made for screens with openings through which jurors of the two races could confer as to their verdict without coming into personal contact with each other. I cannot see but that, according to the principles this day announced, such state legislation, although conceived in hostility to, and enacted for the purpose of humiliating, citizens of the United States of a particular race, would be held to be consistent with the constitution.

I do not deem it necessary to review the decisions of state courts to which reference was made in argument. Some, and the most important, of them, are wholly inapplicable, because rendered prior to the adoption of the last amendments of the constitution, when colored people had very few rights which the dominant race felt obliged to respect. Others were made at a time when public opinion, in many localities, was dominated by the institution of slavery; when it would not have been safe to do justice to the black man; and when, so far as the rights of blacks were concerned, race prejudice was, practically, the supreme law of the land. Those decisions cannot be guides in the era introduced by the recent amendments of the supreme law, which established universal civil freedom, gave citizenship to all born or naturalized in the United States, and residing ere, obliterated the race line from our systems of governments, national and state, and placed our free institutions upon the broad and sure foundation of the equality of all men before the law.

I am of opinion that the state of Louisiana is inconsistent with the personal liberty of citizens, white and black, in that state, and hostile to both the spirit and letter of the constitution of the United States. If laws of like character should be enacted in the several states of the Union, the effect would be in the highest degree mischievous. Slavery, as an institution tolerated by law, would, it is true, have disappeared from our country; but there would remain a power in the states, by sinister legislation, to interfere with the full enjoyment of the blessings of freedom, to regulate civil rights, common to all citizens, upon the basis of race, and to place in a condition of legal inferiority a large body of American citizens, now constituting a part of the political community, called the 'People of the United States,' for whom, and by whom through representatives, our government is administered. Such a system is inconsistent with the guaranty given by the constitution to each state of a republican form of government, and may be stricken down by congressional action, or by the courts in the discharge of their solemn duty to maintain the supreme law of the land, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

For the reason stated, I am constrained to withhold my assent from the opinion and judgment of the majority.
----

==See also==
*[[Separate but equal]]

==Links==
*[http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?doc=52 Our Documents (US Gov. documents)]

[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

Politically correct

2012-06-14T17:41:36Z

Casanova: /* Examples */

'''Politically correct''' restrictions on what we can say and how we say it have been imposed by leftists on the American public to restrict debate and silence opposition.<ref>[http://www.theobamafile.com/_opinion/PoliticalCorrectness.htm The Obama File: Political Correctness]</ref>

{{cquote|'''...is the communal [[tyranny]] that erupted in the 1980s. It was a spontaneous declaration that particular ideas, expressions and behaviour, which were then legal, should be forbidden by law, and people who transgressed should be punished. (see [[Newspeak]]) It started with a few voices but grew in popularity until it became unwritten and written law within the community. With those who were publicly declared as being not politically correct becoming the object of persecution by the mob, if not prosecution by the state.'''}}
-Philip Atkinson <ref>[http://ourcivilisation.com/pc.htm Atkinson; "The Origin and Nature of Political Correctness"]</ref>

[[Image:PC-PILGRIM.JPG|thumb|400px|Horsey cartoon 11-22-2007 parodies PC]]

The modern politically correct movement began at the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]], which is one of the most liberal institutions in the United States. Political correctness is often viewed as a liberalist degrading of the [[First Amendment|freedom of speech]]. George Orwell's ''Nineteen Eighty-Four'' famously incorporated the notion of limiting thought through language (see [[Newspeak]]). Words or actions that violate '''political correctness''' are called politically incorrect.

At American universities, liberals began imposing '''political correctness''' to prevent recognition of differences among gender, religion, belief system, sexual orientation and nationality. In the 1960s, [[feminists]] began to demand that the neutral pronouns ''he'', ''him'' and ''his'' be replaced with expressions like "he or she", "him or her", "them", etc. They argued that no one would be able to understand that the masculine gender included the feminine gender in neutral contexts. But this was just part of their campaign to redefine the social roles traditionally associated with masculinity and femininity. In science, '''political correctness''' punishes anyone who criticizes the [[theory of evolution]], the [[theory of relativity]], or liberal dogma about [[global warming]].

'''Political correctness''' or '''P.C.''' also means the alteration of one's choice of words in order to avoid either offending a group of people or reinforcing a stereotype considered to be disadvantageous to the group. More specifically, groups which (or whose putative leaders or other activists) claim some status as systemically oppressed or discriminated against will periodically attempt to change the terms by which they are referred to and demand that society as a whole change its usage of words as well.

==Examples==

An example of political correctness is the changing terminology used to described handicapped people. In the past the term "crippled" was perfectly acceptable and not considered offensive. At some point, Americans like Senate Republican leader [[Bob Dole]] decided "crippled" was degrading and the preferred term changed to "handicapped." This, too, was eventually deemed offensive and "disabled" became the preferred term. Today, even "disabled" is considered degrading to some and "differently abled" and "physically challenged" are used by those people. The same can be said for the changing uses of terms for Black Americans: "Negro" and "colored," once perfectly acceptable terms, became offensive during the 1970s and "Afro-American" and "Black" came into use, which in turn gave way to "[[African Americans|African-American]]," and in broader usage, "people of color." One perceived problem with "Negro" is that many persons, especially Southerners, seemed to have trouble pronouncing it, enunciating it as "nigra."

The question of politically correct language has spilled over from the use of racially descriptive words and affected the use of traditional language. In 1999, an aide to the mayor of Washington DC described a budget decision as "niggardly" (a word meaning "stingy," unrelated to the racial slur). The aide immediately came under criticism and was forced to resign even though he had not said anything racially charged. However, his name was cleared within a matter of days and was offered to return to his previous position. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/williams/williams020499.htm</ref>

As well as language, political correctness discourages the use of racial or stereotypes in fiction out of concern that these stereotypes may become self-perpetuating. For example, frequently seeing the image black gang-members decked out in gold chains, carrying guns and listening to rap may pressure young black people into seeing this lifestyle as the more 'acceptable' choice for their racial group. The common image of female-dominated occupations (nurses, secretaries, care workers, etc) and of male-dominated occupations (IT workers, military, machinery operators, mechanics, etc.) can discourage individuals of either gender from considering those occupations traditionally belonging to the other. Additionally films like "The Siege" and "True Lies" have been criticized by pro-Islamic groups as having Muslims portrayed as terrorists, despite the fact that most current terrorists are in fact radical extremist Muslims. Thus, political correctness becomes the consideration of all public statements and media for their unintentional social impact.

Political correctness can even affect terminology that's viewed by secularists as too "pro-religion" or an alleged "violation of the separation of church and state" in the United States. The best example of this is the active promotion of the use of [[C.E.]] and [[B.C.E.]] as the abbreviations used after dates (instead of the commonly and traditionally used [[A.D.]] and [[B.C.]]). Additionally, [[atheists]] as school administrators or [[government]] [[Labor union|union]] workers at liberal schools use political correctness as a means for renaming terms they view as too pro-religious. For example, a [[Seattle]] student at a local elementary school volunteered to do a project as part of a community-service effort that she was doing through her school, supplying plastic eggs filled with jellybeans, called "Easter eggs." The student had an idea to fill little plastic eggs with treats and jelly beans and other candy to give to her classmates, but she was concerned how the teacher might react to the eggs after learning earlier in the week about "their abstract behavior rules."<ref>http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=459668</ref> After asking the teacher for permission, the student reportedly explained, "She said that I could do it as long as I called this treat '''spring spheres''.' I couldn't call them Easter eggs."<ref>http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2011/04/mystery_seattle_student_claims.php</ref><ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/04/easter_eggs_reportedly_renamed.html</ref>

==Differing Opinions==

Demands for politically correct language usage are rooted in the notion widely promoted among left-wing academics and sociologists that Western culture promotes systemic oppression against some groups by marginalizing them and excluding them from the "norm"; the groups thus supposedly systemically marginalized are referred to as "the Other" by these left-wing academics. The implication is that these groups are systemically excluded from the mainstream. "Colored people" is therefore deemed offensive because the order of words puts "colored" first, emphasizing their difference from the mainstream, while "people of color" is acceptable because putting the term "people" first emphasizes that they are people and thus does not emphasize their difference from the "norm".

Some people allege that instead of encouraging supposedly marginalized groups to integrate with and assimilate into the mainstream of Western culture, political correctness ironically encourages them to emphasize and indeed to wallow in their marginalization from society, and to make a public display of such. This is known as [[identity politics]]. According to this view, gays and lesbians are therefore encouraged to label themselves as "queer" and make public displays of "queerness" calculated to disturb the sensibilities of mainstream people, rather than integrate into the mainstream themselves; Black Americans are encouraged to adopt [[Afrocentrism]] and convert to [[Islam]] or to conform to stereotypical black behavior, etc.

==The Language Police==
Conservative scholar [[Robert Bork]] has charged that the educational system is a battleground where the future of America is being undermined and ill-served. He has counseled against the troubles which will ensue as a result of anti-religious policies in the schools, permissive attitudes toward [[homosexuality]] and [[abortion]], as well as welfare policies that have destroyed families since [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]'s War on Poverty. <ref> Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline. by Robert Bork published by Harper Collins (c) 1997</ref>

In her book "[[The Language Police]]", [[Diane Ravitch]] documents just how easy it is to get a word, phrase or idea banned from modern textbooks and references. Ravitch asserts that textbook producers are beholden to small non-elected educational boards in a few key states such as New York, Texas and California and that few citizens know anything about these boards or who holds the seats of power on these boards. It's not difficult for an interest group to mobilize a campaign to bombard the educational board. Meanwhile, the public is not even aware that their words or values are under attack from this corrupt system, while many ''elected'' Conservatives have rallied against this policy.

Presently, however, this may not be the case. In 2010, a group of conservatives on the Texas State Board of Education pushed the state to adopt educational standards that emphasized the role Christianity played in America's founding. Those educational standards also sought to counteract political correctness by removing parts of the curriculum that espoused political correctness and contradicted conservative values. As one of the largest states in the Union, Texas represents one of the largest markets for textbook publishers. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/magazine/14texbooks-t.html</ref>

Once a big state makes a textbook purchase, it's very difficult for a small state or any municipality to make any changes. Thus, profound changes can be inserted into textbooks and reference books by putting pressure on a handful of educational administrators. The work of textbook selection committees is sometimes done privately, to avoid politicizing textbooks, but the reverse has happened. <ref>The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Children Learn by [[Diane Ravitch]] (c) 2003 published by Knopf</ref> Ravitch has documented "''bias guidelines''" for major publishers of texts and tests. These "guidelines" consist of advice to writers and editors about words and topics that must be avoided.<ref>http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003695</ref>

[[Ryan Sorba]] has proposed changing the terminology used to refer to [[homosexual]]s to prevent the politically correct language police from controlling the debate.<ref>[http://www.americanindependent.com/178239/christian-conservatives-discuss-strategy-for-fighting-war-against-gays-start-with-semantics Christian conservatives discuss strategy for fighting war against gays: Start with semantics], from [[The American Independent]]</ref>

==Totalitarianism and Political Correctness==

The comprehensive and detailed control of all ideas, beliefs, and statements is one of the most problematic features of [[totalitarian]] regimes.[http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-3816(196002)22%3A1%3C68%3ATIAP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W]

Political correctness can trace its origins back to the world of 1920's Germany, where [[Communist]] academics sought to impose their [[Marxist]] views on students. It is now acceptable in many Universities to have courses on gender, [[homosexual]] and [[African American]] studies, which, in fact, encourage the mainstream public to become different to avoid criticism.

==Notes==

<references/>

==See also==
* [[Postmodernism]]
*[[Racial censorship]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.capc.co.uk The Campaign Against Political Correctness]
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=8olE_futZogC&pg=PA378&lpg=PA378&dq=communist+%22socially+correct%22&source=web&ots=DYD85Lsf1G&sig=pkoUxDOLFJZsme40QO13zakFZw4 The Chinese Have A Word For It]
*[http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=218 DiscoverTheNetworks.org - Political Correctness, Appeasement and Speech Codes in Academia]
*[http://www.theobamafile.com/_opinion/PoliticalCorrectness.htm Political correctness] The Obama File
[[Category:Political Terms]]
[[Category: Marxist terminology]]

Flogging

2012-06-14T17:36:12Z

Casanova:

Flogging

2012-06-14T17:34:38Z

Casanova:

'''Flogging''' was a punishment for crimes most common in ancient times. It involved whipping, usually on the back, with long strands of leather hide sometimes embedded with bone or glass to rip flesh. In the Jewish custom, 40 lashes was the most that was allowed as anything beyond this was considered to put the life of the recipient in danger. In practice Jews stopped at 39 lashes in case there was a miscount. Roman flogging knew no such limits and it was not uncommon for prisoners to die from flogging alone.

[[Jesus]] was flogged by the Romans. The number of lashes received is unknown. Under Roman law, scourging was a preliminary to crucifixion in every case, and its primary purpose was to weaken the prisoner, lessen his resistance, and hasten his death. The only practical limitation on the number of lashes was that he had to be kept alive for the crucifixion.

The last U.S. state to abolish whipping as a punishment for crime was Delaware, which eliminated the practice in 1972. The last flogging occurred in 1952, when John P. Barbieri, then about 21, received 20 lashes of the cat-o-nine tails on his bare back for breaking and entering.

In the early 1960's, there was talk of reinstituting whipping in Delaware, and Barbieri's case was mentioned in the newspapers. Naturally, he was chagrined and embarrassed to have all his neighbors and friends find out that he was last person to be horsewhipped in the State of Delaware, so he sued the newspaper for invasion of privacy. The Supreme Court of Delaware ruled against him, holding that his punishment was a matter of public concern, both at the time he received it and later on, when the practice was being discussed in the newspaper and elsewhere.<ref>Barbieri v. News-Journal Co., 56 Del. 67, 189 A.2d 773 (1963)</ref>

[[category:Punishment]]

==References==
{{ref list}}

Flogging

2012-06-14T17:33:54Z

Casanova:

'''Flogging''' was a punishment for crimes most common in ancient times. It involved whipping, usually on the back, with long strands of leather hide sometimes embedded with bone or glass to rip flesh. In the Jewish custom, 40 lashes was the most that was allowed as anything beyond this was considered to put the life of the recipient in danger. In practice Jews stopped at 39 lashes in case there was a miscount. Roman flogging knew no such limits and it was not uncommon for prisoners to die from flogging alone.

[[Jesus]] was flogged by the Romans. The number of lashes received is unknown. Under Roman law, scourging was a preliminary to crucifixion in every case, and its primary purpose was to weaken the prisoner, lessen his resistance, and hasten his death. The only practical limitation on the number of lashes was that he had to be kept alive for the crucifixion.

The last U.S. state to abolish whipping as a punishment for crime was Delaware, which eliminated the practice in 1972. The last flogging occurred in 1952, when John P. Barbieri, then about 21, received 20 lashes of the cat-o-nine tails on his bare back for breaking and entering.

In the early 1960's, there was talk of reinstituting whipping in Delaware, and Barbieri's case was mentioned in the newspapers. Naturally, he was chagrined and embarrassed to have all his neighbors and friends find out that he was last person to be horsewhipped in the State of Delaware, so he sued the newspaper for invasion of privacy. The Supreme Court of Delaware ruled against him, holding that his punishment was a matter of public concern, both at the time he received it and later on, when the practice was being discussed in the newspaper and elsewhere.<ref>Barbieri v. News-Journal Co., 56 Del. 67, 189 A.2d 773 (1963)</ref>

[[category:Punishment]]

Flogging

2012-06-14T13:43:57Z

Casanova:

'''Flogging''' was a punishment for crimes most common in ancient times. It involved whipping, usually on the back, with long strands of leather hide sometimes embedded with bone or glass to rip flesh. In the Jewish custom, 40 lashes was the most that was allowed as anything beyond this was considered to put the life of the recipient in danger. In practice Jews stopped at 39 lashes in case there was a miscount. Roman flogging knew no such limits and it was not uncommon for prisoners to die from flogging alone.

[[Jesus]] was flogged by the Romans. The number of lashes received is unknown. Under Roman law, [[scourging]] was a preliminary to crucifixion in every case, and its primary purpose was to weaken the prisoner, lessen his resistance, and hasten his death. The only practical limitation on the number of lashes was that he had to be kept alive for the crucifixion.

The last U.S. state to abolish whipping as a punishment for crime was Delaware, which eliminated the practice in 1972. The last flogging occurred in 1952, when John P. Barbieri, then about 21, received 20 lashes of the cat-o-nine tails on his bare back for breaking and entering.

In the early 1960's, there was talk of reinstituting whipping in Delaware, and Barbieri's case was mentioned in the newspapers. Naturally, he was chagrined and embarrassed to have all his neighbors and friends find out that he was last person to be horsewhipped in the State of Delaware, so he sued the newspaper for invasion of privacy. The Supreme Court of Delaware ruled against him, holding that his punishment was a matter of public concern, both at the time he received it and later on, when the practice was being discussed in the newspaper and elsewhere.

[[category:Punishment]]

Flogging

2012-06-14T06:56:17Z

Casanova: