The Plain Dealer & Ohio’s First Black Judge
From the PD:
The records tell many half-stories.
They show that somebody stole the foundry wages Perry B. Jackson saved to attend Adelbert College.
They don’t tell how Jackson managed to enter anyway. They merely show that he worked his way through college as a hat checker, busboy and waiter, and that he graduated with high honors in 1919.
A bust of Jackson, who went on to become Ohio’s first black judge, will be unveiled Thursday at his law school, now part of Case Western Reserve University.
Read the rest of the post from the Plain Dealer, you will find that the liberal newspaper doesn’t mention that Judge Jackson is a Republican. I suppose a Republican has to be deeply involved in scandal for his party affiliation to matter to the PD.
Yes, he was. Of course, that’s back when being a member of the NAACP didn’t qualify someone as a RINO and the Ohio Republican Party was competitve in urban areas like Cleveland.
Of course, I find it ironicthat you embrace his former membership of your party given that your past writings indicate that you would have sided with the hotel that denied him service based on his race and that you abhor the very civil rights laws he championed.
How do you explain, then, Virgil Brown being the first black elected countywide (during the ’80s) in Cuyahoga County to a partisan office?
Also, if you try to discredit Jackson’s involvement with the Republican party, do you not claim as Democrats guys like Fulbright (who voted against the Civil Rights act, but was Clinton’s mentor)?
Who said I was trying to discount Jackson’s involvement with the Republican Party? What I DID say was that Jackson would not be welcomed in the current Republican Party which has all but written off urban voters and members of the NAACP. Am I wrong or did the Ohio GOP not discount their losses this year in urban areas by declaring that they can’t be expected to compete with urban voters?
Matt, on this very site, has advocated against federal civil rights legislation which ended “Jim Crow” laws calling them a constitutional infringement on business’ property rights. You know, the very type of laws that Jackson fought for.
Yes, there are Democrats in the political graveyard (some of whom later became Republicans before dying, like Strom Thurmond) who forty years ago advocated against the passage of federal civil rights laws. That particular segment of our party were often referred to as the Dixiecrats, a group in our party that held views on civil rights that was in sharp contrast to the rest of our party.
That was forty years ago. You have on this site someone (who is reflective of a segment of the conservative wing today) who wants to cry about a biographical story failing to mention a person’s party affiliation, but conveniently ignores that the Republican Party at that time is nothing like the present Republican Party.
Forty years ago Fulbright voted against the Civil Rights Act. This year, Matt Naugle has advocated that those civil rights laws should have been declared constitutional and it should be the constitutional right for a hotel to deny service to someone like the late Judge Jackson based on his race.
So which is more offensive? The fact that forty years ago there were some Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act or the fact that Naugle believes it is objectionable that laws which prohibit businesses from denying service based on race haven’t been declared unconstitutional today, but finds it offensive that a paper fail to mention that any story about a prominent African-American used to be a member of the Republican Party?
Seems like Naugle is only upset when his party is denied the opportunity to use Jackson’s memory to portray the Republican party as diverse even though he currently believes the antithesis of everything Judge Jackson stood for and finds it objectionable that an “activist” court would fine a business for denying Judge Jackson service because of the color of his skin. He’s a hypocrite.
The Republican Party today isn’t the Republican Party it was forty years ago or during Reconstruction, nor is the Democratic Party. That why it’s largely irrelevent for the parties to concern themselves with who was and wasn’t a member of their party forty to eighty years ago. It’s a meaningless comparison.
Modern, you say that the Democrat bigots are in the political graveyard, but Klansman Byrd is still around.
Further, Al Sharpton, a vicious anti-Semite, is welcomed onstage when he runs for Prez, is given convention speech time, and generally gets his butt kissed by your Party. So at least some forms of bigotry are welcome on your team.