Actually at first you were skeptical there was proof of their intention to the point where I had to remind you three times and post the article…
And what about all the Jim Crow laws that were done at that time where they didn’t say they were doing it to stop black people but it’s obvious that was their intent? I just want to illustrate how tenuous your method is, all it would take for you to defend this law and claim it isn’t racist is if that guy had not said that was his intent, even if it was. Then there would be no definitive proof of racist intent even though it would be exceedingly obvious to all.