[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Segregation Question (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 2/3/2010 9:25:33 AM EDT
|
I am involved in an on going argument with a cousin of mine about the segregation of whites and blacks and I need some help. I've always thought that the republicans / conservatives were on the side of desegregation and wanted to give rights to blacks. The problem is that I have no solid proof and who knows, I may be way off the mark on this one. It also doesn't help that my cousin has a PHD in Political Science and is a huge lib.
So whether I am right or wrong, can someone point me in the right direction with solid proof in either direction to who was on the right side of history on this issue? I'm specifically looking for links from good sources that I can use. Thanks for any help. |
|
Quoted:
I understand that the Republicans were on the right side of history during the 1800s but I'm talking about the 1960s. Were the Republicans even linked with being conservative back then? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservative eta: the Dixiecrats were the ones who wanted to "conserve" the status quo. |
|
Civil Rights Act votes:
By party The original House version:[9] Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%) Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%) Cloture in the Senate:[10] Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%-34%) Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%) The Senate version:[9] Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%) Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%) The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9] Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%) Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%) By region: The original House version: Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%) Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%) Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%) Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%) This helps a lot. There were a lot more Democrats in the South that voted no. |
|
Quoted: Civil Rights Act votes: By party The original House version:[9] Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%) Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%) Cloture in the Senate:[10] Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%-34%) Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%) The Senate version:[9] Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%) Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%) The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9] Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%) Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%) By region: The original House version: Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%) Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%) Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%) Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%) This helps a lot. There were a lot more Democrats in the South that voted no. In before the southerners say that this is just northern propaganda. |
|
Quoted:
I understand that the Republicans were on the right side of history during the 1800s but I'm talking about the 1960s. Were the Republicans even linked with being conservative back then? MLK was a republican...republicans pushed the civil rights act (al gore sr. voted against it iirc) the dixiecrats..southern democrats were the main opposition...barak belongs to the party that favored segregation.... 
|
|
So it seems that the Democratic Party was more torn over the issue than Republicans. Were Southern Democrats considered conservative? Kind of like the Blue Dogs of today?
When my cousin started the argument he said conservatives, not Republicans specifically. Was MLK really a Republican? I remember one of the NAACP people saying that he was a Socialist not too long ago. |
|
Quoted:
So it seems that the Democratic Party was more torn over the issue than Republicans. Were Southern Democrats considered conservative? Kind of like the Blue Dogs of today? When my cousin started the argument he said conservatives, not Republicans specifically. Was MLK really a Republican? I remember one of the NAACP people saying that he was a Socialist not too long ago. Yes, Southern Democrats were conservative on many issues. There was always a pretty fair correlation between Republican/Democrat and Right/Left, FDR and Socialism etc. Democrats and unions... But until after the 1960's things weren't nearly as clear-cut and polarized as they are now. There was much more cross-over. |
|
Quoted:
I am involved in an on going argument with a cousin of mine about the segregation of whites and blacks and I need some help. I've always thought that the republicans / conservatives were on the side of desegregation and wanted to give rights to blacks. The problem is that I have no solid proof and who knows, I may be way off the mark on this one. It also doesn't help that my cousin has a PHD in Political Science and is a huge lib. So whether I am right or wrong, can someone point me in the right direction with solid proof in either direction to who was on the right side of history on this issue? I'm specifically looking for links from good sources that I can use. Thanks for any help. 
|
|
Quoted:
Abraham Lincoln was a republican IIRC. I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. ABRAHAM LINCOLN, SEPTEMBER 18, 1858. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
So it seems that the Democratic Party was more torn over the issue than Republicans. Were Southern Democrats considered conservative? Kind of like the Blue Dogs of today? When my cousin started the argument he said conservatives, not Republicans specifically. Was MLK really a Republican? I remember one of the NAACP people saying that he was a Socialist not too long ago. Yes, Southern Democrats were conservative on many issues. There was always a pretty fair correlation between Republican/Democrat and Right/Left, FDR and Socialism etc. Democrats and unions... But until after the 1960's things weren't nearly as clear-cut and polarized as they are now. There was much more cross-over. Ok, I'm going to have to research the prominant indivduals that tried to stop the CRA now and see where they stood on the rest of the issues. I feel like I'm moving in the right direction now. Thanks for the help everyone. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am involved in an on going argument with a cousin of mine about the segregation of whites and blacks and I need some help. I've always thought that the republicans / conservatives were on the side of desegregation and wanted to give rights to blacks. The problem is that I have no solid proof and who knows, I may be way off the mark on this one. It also doesn't help that my cousin has a PHD in Political Science and is a huge lib. So whether I am right or wrong, can someone point me in the right direction with solid proof in either direction to who was on the right side of history on this issue? I'm specifically looking for links from good sources that I can use. Thanks for any help.
Are you kidding me? This is a legit question and i've gotten a lot of great answers so far. Thanks for adding nothing to this conversation. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am involved in an on going argument with a cousin of mine about the segregation of whites and blacks and I need some help. I've always thought that the republicans / conservatives were on the side of desegregation and wanted to give rights to blacks. The problem is that I have no solid proof and who knows, I may be way off the mark on this one. It also doesn't help that my cousin has a PHD in Political Science and is a huge lib. So whether I am right or wrong, can someone point me in the right direction with solid proof in either direction to who was on the right side of history on this issue? I'm specifically looking for links from good sources that I can use. Thanks for any help.
Are you kidding me? This is a legit question and i've gotten a lot of great answers so far. Thanks for adding nothing to this conversation. Just a question: Are you sure we're not really doing your homework for you? It just kinda has that vibe to it, especially with your join date. |
|
Have your friend read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South |
|
Quoted: Eisenhower sent the federal troops to Little Rock Arkansas to desegregate the school and support the Supreme Court's decision.Quoted: Abraham Lincoln was a republican IIRC. Lyndon Johnson sand JFK did all of the civil rights legislation. Segregation is primarily the public school system and it was the Court that struck down segregation laws. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Abraham Lincoln was a republican IIRC. Lyndon Johnson sand JFK did all of the civil rights legislation. And Robert Byrd filibustered it. LBJ wasn't interested in equal rights for blacks, it was a convenient issue to gain more political power. He couldn't have given two hoots about a poor man or a black man. |
|
Quoted: I remember reading somewhere that LBJ signed the CRA because he just wanted the black vote for Dems. Any truth or evidence to this? there are always going to be political factors, but LBJ knew that he was going to take an immense political hit for it. direct quote to a colleague: "i think we just handed the south to the republican party for your lifetime and mine." a couple of other points: -lincoln wasn't just a republican, he was the first presidential candidate for the new party, which was expressly set up in opposition to slavery. -yes, there was heavy democratic opposition to civil right legislation. the opposition came from a group of southern lawmakers known as the "dixie-crats", headed by barry goldwater. they migrated en mass to the republican party after '64, and much of the GOP's shift away from a CR platform can be traced to these senior legislators and their antipathy towards blacks. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I remember reading somewhere that LBJ signed the CRA because he just wanted the black vote for Dems. Any truth or evidence to this? there are always going to be political factors, but LBJ knew that he was going to take an immense political hit for it. direct quote to a colleague: "i think we just handed the south to the republican party for your lifetime and mine." a couple of other points: -lincoln wasn't just a republican, he was the first presidential candidate for the new party, which was expressly set up in opposition to slavery. -yes, there was heavy democratic opposition to civil right legislation. the opposition came from a group of southern lawmakers known as the "dixie-crats", headed by barry goldwater. they migrated en mass to the republican party after '64, and much of the GOP's shift away from a CR platform can be traced to these senior legislators and their antipathy towards blacks. Look up "yellow dog Democrat". It is the term that the current "blue dog" is based on. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I remember reading somewhere that LBJ signed the CRA because he just wanted the black vote for Dems. Any truth or evidence to this? there are always going to be political factors, but LBJ knew that he was going to take an immense political hit for it. direct quote to a colleague: "i think we just handed the south to the republican party for your lifetime and mine." a couple of other points: -lincoln wasn't just a republican, he was the first presidential candidate for the new party, which was expressly set up in opposition to slavery. -yes, there was heavy democratic opposition to civil right legislation. the opposition came from a group of southern lawmakers known as the "dixie-crats", headed by barry goldwater. they migrated en mass to the republican party after '64, and much of the GOP's shift away from a CR platform can be traced to these senior legislators and their antipathy towards blacks. God save us from public schools. Barry Goldwater was never a "dixie-crat" and never ever freaking Democrat to start with. Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act because on it was a intrusion affairs of states he was no segregationist and supported other civil rights legislation. ETA: And contrary to what some think the Souths shift to Republicans was far more about the radicalization of the Democratic Party during the Vietnam War, economics, and law and order issues and had very little to do with race. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am involved in an on going argument with a cousin of mine about the segregation of whites and blacks and I need some help. I've always thought that the republicans / conservatives were on the side of desegregation and wanted to give rights to blacks. The problem is that I have no solid proof and who knows, I may be way off the mark on this one. It also doesn't help that my cousin has a PHD in Political Science and is a huge lib. So whether I am right or wrong, can someone point me in the right direction with solid proof in either direction to who was on the right side of history on this issue? I'm specifically looking for links from good sources that I can use. Thanks for any help.
Are you kidding me? This is a legit question and i've gotten a lot of great answers so far. Thanks for adding nothing to this conversation. Just a question: Are you sure we're not really doing your homework for you? It just kinda has that vibe to it, especially with your join date. Fuck the "Join Date Nazis". I've been shooting black rifles since '01 but just stumbled onto this site last year. No shit my cousin has a PhD in poly sci and challenged me saying that the conservatives were against desegregation. I've lived on the west coast my whole life, we don't deal what that stuff much over here. Sure I could go to Wiki and quote some shit to him but once again he is a professor (the only thing that you can do with a poly sci degree). They don't take Wiki at face value. I figured that someone in here would have a better source. And no I'm not in school. Thank you to everyone else for helping me understand this. |
Goldwater was:
He did have a very principled opposition to the use of the 10th amendment as the basis of the 1964 act, and against it's stifling of freedom of association. This was used by an opportunistic Johnson to paint him as a white supremacist. |
| The Southern democrats were for segregation. The old GA flag which incorporated the old rebel battle flag was created in the 1950s by governor Talmadge, who was a strong segregationist. How do I know this? My best friend is Herman Talmadge's grandson. By no means was segregation a product of the republican party, at least in the south. |
|
Quoted:
The Southern democrats were for segregation. The old GA flag which incorporated the old rebel battle flag was created in the 1950s by governor Talmadge, who was a strong segregationist. How do I know this? My best friend is Herman Talmadge's grandson. By no means was segregation a product of the republican party, at least in the south. There were virtually no Republican representatives in the South outside a very few isolated area, Republicans had nothing to do with Jim Crow and segregation that was strictly a creation of Democrats and the National Democratic Party went along for decades wink wink nudge nudge.. |
|
Good points on Eisenhower/Little Rock troops & Byrd on the record length filibuster, iirc Thurmond (D) also filibustered the CRA 59. And do not forget modern points. Clinton cabinet had few Black,- he fired Elder, Brown was killed, West resigned. GW put Powell closest to Pres succession (resigned), then Condi rode it out. And the Dems didnt want to confrim Gonzales, a Bush appointee. Did someone mention Byrd's KKK documented past? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I remember reading somewhere that LBJ signed the CRA because he just wanted the black vote for Dems. Any truth or evidence to this? there are always going to be political factors, but LBJ knew that he was going to take an immense political hit for it. direct quote to a colleague: "i think we just handed the south to the republican party for your lifetime and mine." a couple of other points: -lincoln wasn't just a republican, he was the first presidential candidate for the new party, which was expressly set up in opposition to slavery. -yes, there was heavy democratic opposition to civil right legislation. the opposition came from a group of southern lawmakers known as the "dixie-crats", headed by barry goldwater. they migrated en mass to the republican party after '64, and much of the GOP's shift away from a CR platform can be traced to these senior legislators and their antipathy towards blacks. God save us from public schools. Barry Goldwater was never a "dixie-crat" and never ever freaking Democrat to start with. Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act because on it was a intrusion affairs of states he was no segregationist and supported other civil rights legislation. ETA: And contrary to what some think the Souths shift to Republicans was far more about the radicalization of the Democratic Party during the Vietnam War, economics, and law and order issues and had very little to do with race. oh crap––what a goof up on goldwater! timeframe confusion...mea culpa.  however, your assertion that the south's shift to republican had very little to do with race is either naive or blindly parochial. prior to '64, the south was a democratic bastion––don't you find it a bit coincidental that this changed drastically immediately following the MFDP incident in '64? and to what exactly do you attribute the split and the consequent leftward shift of the democratic party, which occurred in the immediate aftermath of the same event? remember, the problem didn't begin in '68, or even '64––MFDP was simply a flashpoint. if you are trying to suggest that an influx of well-established, powerful democratic lawmakers with a strongly anti-black bias into the ranks of the republican party did not affect the overall party stance WRT race issues, something is very wrong with your reasoning. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am involved in an on going argument with a cousin of mine about the segregation of whites and blacks and I need some help. I've always thought that the republicans / conservatives were on the side of desegregation and wanted to give rights to blacks. The problem is that I have no solid proof and who knows, I may be way off the mark on this one. It also doesn't help that my cousin has a PHD in Political Science and is a huge lib. So whether I am right or wrong, can someone point me in the right direction with solid proof in either direction to who was on the right side of history on this issue? I'm specifically looking for links from good sources that I can use. Thanks for any help.
Are you kidding me? This is a legit question and i've gotten a lot of great answers so far. Thanks for adding nothing to this conversation. Just a question: Are you sure we're not really doing your homework for you? It just kinda has that vibe to it, especially with your join date. Fuck the "Join Date Nazis". I've been shooting black rifles since '01 but just stumbled onto this site last year. No shit my cousin has a PhD in poly sci and challenged me saying that the conservatives were against desegregation. I've lived on the west coast my whole life, we don't deal what that stuff much over here. Sure I could go to Wiki and quote some shit to him but once again he is a professor (the only thing that you can do with a poly sci degree). They don't take Wiki at face value. I figured that someone in here would have a better source. And no I'm not in school. Thank you to everyone else for helping me understand this. Dude, I did help you and I am not a join date Nazi. It's just that you post this within a day from when you joined; that's a bit of a coincidence; don't you think? It seems to imply that joining was for the purpose of the posting, that's all. Calm down. You'll last longer. Before you blast someone for not helping, look up to see if he had indeed answered your question first. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I remember reading somewhere that LBJ signed the CRA because he just wanted the black vote for Dems. Any truth or evidence to this? there are always going to be political factors, but LBJ knew that he was going to take an immense political hit for it. direct quote to a colleague: "i think we just handed the south to the republican party for your lifetime and mine." a couple of other points: -lincoln wasn't just a republican, he was the first presidential candidate for the new party, which was expressly set up in opposition to slavery. -yes, there was heavy democratic opposition to civil right legislation. the opposition came from a group of southern lawmakers known as the "dixie-crats", headed by barry goldwater. they migrated en mass to the republican party after '64, and much of the GOP's shift away from a CR platform can be traced to these senior legislators and their antipathy towards blacks. God save us from public schools. Barry Goldwater was never a "dixie-crat" and never ever freaking Democrat to start with. Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act because on it was a intrusion affairs of states he was no segregationist and supported other civil rights legislation. ETA: And contrary to what some think the Souths shift to Republicans was far more about the radicalization of the Democratic Party during the Vietnam War, economics, and law and order issues and had very little to do with race. oh crap––what a goof up on goldwater! timeframe confusion...mea culpa.
however, your assertion that the south's shift to republican had very little to do with race is either naive or blindly parochial. prior to '64, the south was a democratic bastion––don't you find it a bit coincidental that this changed drastically immediately following the MFDP incident in '64? and to what exactly do you attribute the split and the consequent leftward shift of the democratic party, which occurred in the immediate aftermath of the same event? remember, the problem didn't begin in '68, or even '64––MFDP was simply a flashpoint. if you are trying to suggest that an influx of well-established, powerful democratic lawmakers with a strongly anti-black bias into the ranks of the republican party did not affect the overall party stance WRT race issues, something is very wrong with your reasoning. You are not honest about what I said as well as ignorant of the facts... I never said the Republican Party was not affected on race issues. What I did say was the shift in the South was primary motivated by factors other than race and it was. No there is absolutely not one thing wrong with my reasoning but there is something wrong with your predictably false assumptions and lack of reason and understanding of the subject on any level... but then what would you expect from some one who thinks Goldwater was a Democrat, racist, and Dixie-crat... and no I am not buying you made a time frame mistake because that fits right in with your other statement and is a common slander among those that do not understand the issue, history, and the resulting outcomes.. The end of exaggeration was excepted far more quickly in the South than many suppose and was a dead issue by 1968, The South except at the fringes knew there was no going back. Contrary to the predictable claims the South shifted because of race the issue is far more complicated than that falsehood made up for simpletons. The South voted for Richard Nixon twice... Richard Nixon that supported every piece of civil rights legislation he every saw before he was President AND after he was President including wrongfully pushing affirmative action. Of course some Jim Crow Democrats went to the Republican Party but many never did ... can you say Al Gore Sr or Robert Byrd . The left always want to blame racism for their self inflicted wounds the Souths shift was caused by the Democratic Party shift away from itself.... the Souths shift to Republicans was far more about the radicalization of the Democratic Party during the Vietnam War, economics, and law and order issues and had very little to do with race. ETA: No one should underestimate the contempt and sense of betrayal many felt in the South towards the Democratic Party after the Tet Offensive and the Democratic Partys disarray and abandonment of the War by the Partys left wing. The Vietnam War was never unpopular in the South (and most of rural America) and the Southern Democrats were staunchly radically anti-Communist. As the events of 1968 dragged on and the radicalization of the Democrats left became apparent the feeling the Democratic Party was going to abandoning the War effort became a irritant in the South that cannot be underestimate and that was thing that made inevitable the breaking the Democrats hold on the South… those events were not about race. |
|
Dude, I did help you and I am not a join date Nazi. It's just that you post this within a day from when you joined; that's a bit of a coincidence; don't you think? It seems to imply that joining was for the purpose of the posting, that's all. Calm down. You'll last longer. Before you blast someone for not helping, look up to see if he had indeed answered your question first. I believe he joined in Feb of 2009. |
|
Quoted:
Dude, I did help you and I am not a join date Nazi. It's just that you post this within a day from when you joined; that's a bit of a coincidence; don't you think? It seems to imply that joining was for the purpose of the posting, that's all. Calm down. You'll last longer. Before you blast someone for not helping, look up to see if he had indeed answered your question first. I believe he joined in Feb of 2009. The I suppose we can completely disregard the previous question. I ususally get the year chage figured out about May. |
|
Quoted:
The segregation issue was more of a North/South thing than a Republican/Democrat divide. I'm not saying that segregation didn't exist in the north, just that the politicians were pretty clearly divided by location moreso than party. Want to hear something funny? I was a child in Virginia Beach when busing/desegregation was implemented, and my social context was a black neighborhood though I went to a white school. The local blacks and whites were equally against the action, though none of them were violent or demonstrated about it. It's not just the whites that didn't want busing done. |
|
Quoted:
The segregation issue was more of a North/South thing than a Republican/Democrat divide. I'm not saying that segregation didn't exist in the north, just that the politicians were pretty clearly divided by location moreso than party. Segregation absolutely existed in the North it was just not institutionalized like in the South and Blacks did have more workplace opportunity but in housing very little. The desegregation fight of the 1970s was in the North, it got very ugly in Boston when school desegregation started... then white flight started (self segregation) as a result the North today is more segregated that the South today. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The segregation issue was more of a North/South thing than a Republican/Democrat divide. I'm not saying that segregation didn't exist in the north, just that the politicians were pretty clearly divided by location moreso than party. Want to hear something funny? I was a child in Virginia Beach when busing/desegregation was implemented, and my social context was a black neighborhood though I went to a white school. The local blacks and whites were equally against the action, though none of them were violent or demonstrated about it. It's not just the whites that didn't want busing done. No one White or Black wanted to see their kids bused for hours and miles away from their homes. The only people in favor of busing were pointy headed intellectuals and radicals |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I remember reading somewhere that LBJ signed the CRA because he just wanted the black vote for Dems. Any truth or evidence to this? there are always going to be political factors, but LBJ knew that he was going to take an immense political hit for it. direct quote to a colleague: "i think we just handed the south to the republican party for your lifetime and mine." a couple of other points: -lincoln wasn't just a republican, he was the first presidential candidate for the new party, which was expressly set up in opposition to slavery. -yes, there was heavy democratic opposition to civil right legislation. the opposition came from a group of southern lawmakers known as the "dixie-crats", headed by barry goldwater. they migrated en mass to the republican party after '64, and much of the GOP's shift away from a CR platform can be traced to these senior legislators and their antipathy towards blacks. God save us from public schools. Barry Goldwater was never a "dixie-crat" and never ever freaking Democrat to start with. Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act because on it was a intrusion affairs of states he was no segregationist and supported other civil rights legislation. ETA: And contrary to what some think the Souths shift to Republicans was far more about the radicalization of the Democratic Party during the Vietnam War, economics, and law and order issues and had very little to do with race. oh crap––what a goof up on goldwater! timeframe confusion...mea culpa. however, your assertion that the south's shift to republican had very little to do with race is either naive or blindly parochial. prior to '64, the south was a democratic bastion––don't you find it a bit coincidental that this changed drastically immediately following the MFDP incident in '64? and to what exactly do you attribute the split and the consequent leftward shift of the democratic party, which occurred in the immediate aftermath of the same event? remember, the problem didn't begin in '68, or even '64––MFDP was simply a flashpoint. if you are trying to suggest that an influx of well-established, powerful democratic lawmakers with a strongly anti-black bias into the ranks of the republican party did not affect the overall party stance WRT race issues, something is very wrong with your reasoning. You are dishonest as well as ignorant of the facts... I never said the Republican Party was not affected on race issues. What I did say was the shift in the South was primary motivated by factors other than race and it was. No there is absolutely not one thing wrong with my reasoning but there is something wrong with your predictably false assumptions and lack of reason and understanding of the subject on any level... but then what would you expect from some one who thinks Goldwater was a Democrat, racist, and Dixie-crat... and no I am not buying you made a time frame mistake because that fits right in with your other statement and is a common slander among those that do not understand the issue, history, and the resulting outcomes.. The end of exaggeration was excepted far more quickly in the South than many suppose and was a dead issue by 1968, The South except at the fringes knew there was no going back. Contrary to the predictable claims the South shifted because of race the issue is far more complicated than that falsehood made up for simpletons. The South voted for Richard Nixon twice... Richard Nixon that supported every piece of civil rights legislation he every saw before he was President AND after he was President including wrongfully pushing affirmative action. Of course some Jim Crow Democrats went to the Republics Party but many never have ... can you say Al Gore Sr. The left always want to blame racism for their self inflicted wounds the Souths shift was caused by the Democratic Party shift away from itself.... the Souths shift to Republicans was far more about the radicalization of the Democratic Party during the Vietnam War, economics, and law and order issues and had very little to do with race. ETA: No one should underestimate the contempt and sense of betrayal many felt in the South towards the Democratic Party after the Tet Offensive and the Democratic Partys disarray and abandonment of the War by the Partys left wing. The Vietnam War was never unpopular in the South (and most of rural America) and the Southern Democrats were staunchly radically anti-Communist. As the events of 1968 dragged on and the radicalization of the Democrats left became apparent the feeling the Democratic Party was going to abandoning the War effort became a irritant in the South that cannot be underestimate and that was thing that made inevitable the breaking the Democrats hold on the South… those events were not about race. ok, i'm failing to see exactly what you're arguing with. let's go back and look at the original post that you're objecting to post: 1. goldwater. i was wrong, and acknowledged it. 2. the dixiecrats migrated into the ranks of the republican party after '64. you certainly can't argue with this. 3. the shift of the GOP's race relations tone and platform can be traced to this influx. not only can't you argue with this, you've actually reiterated it. so you get a gold star for pointing out my gold water error in your answering post. as for the rest, i don't see what you're arguing about. you then made the assertion that the south's sudden, post '64 shift to the right "had very little to do with race". now, this is irrelevant to anything i posted, but it is certainly your prerogative to post what you wish. you claim that it was "far more about the radicalization of the democratic party". but here's where a shallow assessment and a narrow view of history yield bad results. see, that radicalization didn't happen all by itself, ex nihilo. the party didn't wake up one day and say "our views are too centrist––let's move leftwards a bit, just because". that party-level shift was caused directly by the identity crisis caused by '64, which culminated in the disaster of '68 and the fragmentation of the democratic party. and this identity crisis (along with the fragmentation and consequent leftward consolidation) was most certainly catalyzed along the lines of the CR issue. the resulting democratic party began to take on the "progressive activism" opposition style that we're familiar with today, and the party identifying itself with race/gender rights and anti-war agitation. so when you say that the southern shift to the right was a result fo radicalization, you are unwillingly (and unwittingly) agreeing with me. i suspect that you think i'm attacking the GOP as inherently racist, which i'm certainly not. if you want to argue with a voice inside your head, have at it, but please make sure that your attributions are correct. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I remember reading somewhere that LBJ signed the CRA because he just wanted the black vote for Dems. Any truth or evidence to this? there are always going to be political factors, but LBJ knew that he was going to take an immense political hit for it. direct quote to a colleague: "i think we just handed the south to the republican party for your lifetime and mine." a couple of other points: -lincoln wasn't just a republican, he was the first presidential candidate for the new party, which was expressly set up in opposition to slavery. -yes, there was heavy democratic opposition to civil right legislation. the opposition came from a group of southern lawmakers known as the "dixie-crats", headed by barry goldwater. they migrated en mass to the republican party after '64, and much of the GOP's shift away from a CR platform can be traced to these senior legislators and their antipathy towards blacks. God save us from public schools. Barry Goldwater was never a "dixie-crat" and never ever freaking Democrat to start with. Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act because on it was a intrusion affairs of states he was no segregationist and supported other civil rights legislation. ETA: And contrary to what some think the Souths shift to Republicans was far more about the radicalization of the Democratic Party during the Vietnam War, economics, and law and order issues and had very little to do with race. oh crap––what a goof up on goldwater! timeframe confusion...mea culpa.
however, your assertion that the south's shift to republican had very little to do with race is either naive or blindly parochial. prior to '64, the south was a democratic bastion––don't you find it a bit coincidental that this changed drastically immediately following the MFDP incident in '64? and to what exactly do you attribute the split and the consequent leftward shift of the democratic party, which occurred in the immediate aftermath of the same event? remember, the problem didn't begin in '68, or even '64––MFDP was simply a flashpoint. if you are trying to suggest that an influx of well-established, powerful democratic lawmakers with a strongly anti-black bias into the ranks of the republican party did not affect the overall party stance WRT race issues, something is very wrong with your reasoning. You are dishonest as well as ignorant of the facts... I never said the Republican Party was not affected on race issues. What I did say was the shift in the South was primary motivated by factors other than race and it was. No there is absolutely not one thing wrong with my reasoning but there is something wrong with your predictably false assumptions and lack of reason and understanding of the subject on any level... but then what would you expect from some one who thinks Goldwater was a Democrat, racist, and Dixie-crat... and no I am not buying you made a time frame mistake because that fits right in with your other statement and is a common slander among those that do not understand the issue, history, and the resulting outcomes.. The end of exaggeration was excepted far more quickly in the South than many suppose and was a dead issue by 1968, The South except at the fringes knew there was no going back. Contrary to the predictable claims the South shifted because of race the issue is far more complicated than that falsehood made up for simpletons. The South voted for Richard Nixon twice... Richard Nixon that supported every piece of civil rights legislation he every saw before he was President AND after he was President including wrongfully pushing affirmative action. Of course some Jim Crow Democrats went to the Republics Party but many never have ... can you say Al Gore Sr. The left always want to blame racism for their self inflicted wounds the Souths shift was caused by the Democratic Party shift away from itself.... the Souths shift to Republicans was far more about the radicalization of the Democratic Party during the Vietnam War, economics, and law and order issues and had very little to do with race. ETA: No one should underestimate the contempt and sense of betrayal many felt in the South towards the Democratic Party after the Tet Offensive and the Democratic Partys disarray and abandonment of the War by the Partys left wing. The Vietnam War was never unpopular in the South (and most of rural America) and the Southern Democrats were staunchly radically anti-Communist. As the events of 1968 dragged on and the radicalization of the Democrats left became apparent the feeling the Democratic Party was going to abandoning the War effort became a irritant in the South that cannot be underestimate and that was thing that made inevitable the breaking the Democrats hold on the South… those events were not about race. ok, i'm failing to see exactly what you're arguing with. let's go back and look at the original post that you're objecting to post: 1. goldwater. i was wrong, and acknowledged it. 2. the dixiecrats migrated into the ranks of the republican party after '64. you certainly can't argue with this. 3. the shift of the GOP's race relations tone and platform can be traced to this influx. not only can't you argue with this, you've actually reiterated it. so you get a gold star for pointing out my gold water error in your answering post. as for the rest, i don't see what you're arguing about. you then made the assertion that the south's sudden, post '64 shift to the right "had very little to do with race". now, this is irrelevant to anything i posted, but it is certainly your prerogative to post what you wish. you claim that it was "far more about the radicalization of the democratic party". but here's where a shallow assessment and a narrow view of history yield bad results. see, that radicalization didn't happen all by itself, ex nihilo. the party didn't wake up one day and say "our views are too centrist––let's move leftwards a bit, just because". that party-level shift was caused directly by the identity crisis caused by '64, which culminated in the disaster of '68 and the fragmentation of the democratic party. and this identity crisis (along with the fragmentation and consequent leftward consolidation) was most certainly catalyzed along the lines of the CR issue. the resulting democratic party began to take on the "progressive activism" opposition style that we're familiar with today, and the party identifying itself with race/gender rights and anti-war agitation. so when you say that the southern shift to the right was a result fo radicalization, you are unwillingly (and unwittingly) agreeing with me. i suspect that you think i'm attacking the GOP as inherently racist, which i'm certainly not. if you want to argue with a voice inside your head, have at it, but please make sure that your attributions are correct. Nice dance rhetorical Sparky... Now you are claiming to say things you never said, you were the one who proposed a narrow cause for the shift while ignoring the many other causes and now you are dishonestly dancing all around that, and you just flat out lied again about what I said, I never said there was a shift of the GOP's race relations tone and platform that can be traced to this influx of anyone. This repeated willful distortion and/or your lack of capability to understand what is posted along with your other gross historical factual errors pretty do wrap it up. |