Quantcast

REPUBLICANS VS DEMOCRATS AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS HISTORY

Found this post and wanted to share cuz it answered a lot of questions I had...

by Christopher Cook

It's 2006—election time again.

As with any election year, the commentariat has begun issuing their analysis and many predictions. And, just as they do on any day whose name ends in "day," they'll soon be gracing us all with their many pearls of "conventional wisdom."

One of those many pieces of conventional wisdom—known at this point to just about all of us—is that black Americans vote for Democrats. Overwhelmingly so.

In fact, they vote in greater percentages—usually around 90%—for one political party than any other major demographic group. To have a demographic group vote so overwhelmingly for one party is rather amazing, and so I decided to look into the history of the two political parties to see if I could discover why.

One of the first things I discovered in my research is that there was a demographic group in America's past that—believe it or not—actually gave their votes to one political party in even greater percentages.

The demographic group was the same: black Americans.

The percentage was 100%.

The party that enjoyed those levels of support? The Republican Party.

Huh?

I know, I know, but wait... it gets even weirder. The Democratic Party is, today, thought of as the political champion and proponent of the interests of black Americans. But for almost all of the history of this country, the Democrats were the party of slavery, secession, Jim Crow, lynching, segregation, and opposition to nearly every piece of civil rights legislation ever passed.

And...

The Republicans were the party of abolition and emancipation. They opposed segregation, lynching, and Jim Crow. And they were the sole authors of nearly every civil rights legislation and amendment passed in the United States!

No, I am not smoking anything.

And cling tightly to your caps, because there's more. The Democrats were the creators of the Ku Klux Klan, which they founded with the expressed purpose of using violence to purge Republicans from Southern politics. Essentially, the KKK began its existence as the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party.

Now let's all just take a deep breath—I am NOT making this stuff up.

At this point in my study, I had more questions than I did answers, so I decided to be a bit more systematic. Whether we be Democrats, Republicans, or something else, we should all share a devotion to what is historically true. And so, I have put together a little timeline on this subject. These things may not be widely discussed, taught, or known today, but they are historical facts that are not generally in dispute. Personally, I found them quite surprising, and I think you might too.

_______



In 1789, Congress passes, and George Washington signs into law, a bill stating that no territory could become a state if it allowed slavery.

In 1792, the Democrat Party is formed. They are the party that promotes and seeks the continuance of slavery.

In 1808, Congress abolishes the slave trade in America.

In 1818, the Democrats become the majority in Congress. Using their majority, they begin to undo the 1808 and other anti-slavery decisions.

In 1820, the Democrat Party passes the Missouri Compromise, institutionalizing slavery in half of the territories.

For thirty years, Democrats pass multiple laws promoting and protecting slavery, culminating in 1850 with the Fugitive Slave Law. This law takes away all rights to jury trials, representation, and habeas corpus from any black who is so much as accused of being a slave.

In 1854, Democrats pass the Kansas-Nebraska act, opening up those territories to slavery, thus exceeding even the limits of the Missouri Compromise.

In 1854, the Republican party is formed to end slavery. Six of the nine planks in their fledgling platform statement deal with civil rights issues.

In 1857, the Supreme Court rules in Dred Scott v. Sanford that blacks are considered inferior and thus not covered by the phrase "all men" in the Declaration of Independence; that they are property covered by the 5th Amendment; and that no black—not even a free black—could ever become a citizen of the United States. The Democrats support the decision.

In 1861, Abraham Lincoln is inaugurated, and the anti-slavery Republican Party now controls the Executive Branch. The Democrat Party, in complete control of the South, splits the nation asunder and causes a war in order to maintain slavery. Innumerable horrors and 650,000 deaths are required to free the slaves and restore the union.

In 1865, Republicans pass the 13th Amendment, ending slavery.
100% of Republicans vote for it.
Even among northern Democrats, it receives the support of only 23%.

In spite of the 13th Amendment, Southern Democrats continue to deny blacks their citizenship rights, so...

In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed, establishing citizenship and equal protection for all in Federal law.
100% of Republicans vote for it.
0% of Democrats vote for it.

In spite of the 14th Amendment, Southern Democrats continue to prevent blacks from enjoying the real fruits of this citizenship, especially the right to vote, so...

In 1869, the 15th Amendment is passed, establishing the right to vote for all people, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
98% of Republicans vote for it.
3% of Democrats vote for it.

From 1866–1875, the Republican Congress passes 19 civil rights laws. Democrats oppose them all.

In 1875, in order to counter the Democrats' passage of Jim Crow laws, Republicans pass the most sweeping civil rights legislation ever—the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Eight years later, the Supreme Court (mostly Democrat appointees) declares the act unconstitutional.

In 1876, Democrats take control of the House of Representatives. No more meaningful civil rights legislation is passed until 1964.

In 1892, Democrats take control of the White House and the Senate, and they keep control of the House. They immediately begin establishing Jim Crow laws and repealing all civil rights legislation passed by the Republicans. Any laws or amendments they cannot repeal, they skirt with poll taxes and literacy tests.

Beginning after the War, and thenceforward until 1935, ALL blacks elected to Congress are Republicans. In addition to those elected to Federal office, hundreds of blacks—all of them Republicans—are elected to state legislatures in the South.

In 1866, Democrats form the KKK with the express purpose of preventing the election of Republicans in the South. Democrats admit—under oath in Congressional hearings in 1872—that the Klan is a Democrat creation intended to restore Democrat control of the South. The Klan carries out this plan by means of a series of massacres at Republican Party meetings.

In 1901, Republican President Theodore Roosevelt invites Booker T. Washington to the White House. Democrats and the media are outraged.

In the 1920s, Republicans propose anti-lynching legislation. The legislation passes the house but is killed by the Democrat-controlled Senate.

In 1947, Republican businessman Branch Rickey, owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers, hires Jackie Robinson (also a Republican), thus integrating Major League Baseball.

In 1954, Republican Chief Justice Earl Warren (appointed by Republican Dwight Eisenhower) authors the desegregation decision of Brown v. Board of Education.

In 1956, Democrats express their opposition to Brown v. Board of Education in the "Southern Manifesto." One hundred and one members of Congress—all but four of them Democrats—sign the manifesto.

In 1957, Republican President Eisenhower authors a Civil Rights Bill, hoping to repair the damage done to blacks and their civil rights by Democrats since 1892. Passage of the bill is blocked by Senate Democrats. When the bill finally goes through, it is significantly weakened due to lack of support from Democrats.

In 1960, Republican Senator Everett Dirksen authors a Voting Rights Bill, again, in an effort to undo the disenfranchisement of blacks by Democrats through poll taxes, literacy tests, and threats of violence by the KKK. And once again, Senate Democrats attempt (though in the end unsuccessfully) to block passage of the bill.

In 1964, Congress passes, and President Lyndon Johnson signs into law, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is essentially the law originally authored by Eisenhower in 1957. Democrats, including still-serving Senator Robert Byrd (a former KKK member), employ a filibuster of the bill. Once the filibuster is overcome, a larger percentage of Republicans vote for passage than do Democrats.

In 1965, Congress passes, and President Lyndon Johnson signs into law, the Voting Rights Act of 1964. This is the law originally authored by Eisenhower in 1959. A filibuster is prevented, and passage of this bill also enjoys support from a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats.

_________


So here we are at 1965, right around the time when black American voters completed the big migration to the Democrats. 100% Republican when they first began voting, 90% Democrat now—what the heck happened?

I kept studying.



Though the sea change occurred in the 1960s, there were, earlier, a couple of small fractures in the 100% support once enjoyed by the Republicans.

First, there was the controversial election of Republican President Rutherford B. Hayes, who won in the Electoral College but lost the popular vote. Though Hayes himself was not involved, there were numerous placative deals made with the Democrats to get them to support his election—including, unfortunately, a relaxing of Republican support for Reconstruction. This was a small crack in what had otherwise been the Republicans' unwavering record of championing the rights of black Americans.

Then, there was the Great Depression, which hit lower-income blacks very hard. Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt, with the many anti-poverty and work programs he supported, was seen as a champion of the "little guy." Rightly or wrongly, this caused another diminution in the monolithic support from blacks that had been previously enjoyed by Republicans.

But it was the mid-60s when the big shift took place, and there are three big reasons for that shift.



Kennedy and King:

The 1960s roiled with questions of equality and civil rights. Marches and protests were taking place across the country—it truly was the defining issue of the early 1960s.

John F. Kennedy, recognizing the need to place himself on the correct side of the cilvil rights question, employed the talents of Senator Harris Wofford to pursue this aim. Among other initiatives, Wofford encouraged Kennedy to make a comforting phone call to Coretta Scott King when her husband was in jail. This had a deep effect on Martin Luther King Jr.'s father, who had previously been a Republican and Nixon supporter. King, Sr. very publicly switched his support to Kennedy, and said he would bring "a suitcase full of votes" with him. And he did. When the father of the nation's most prominent civil rights leader switched parties, it was only natural that many would switch with him.



Civil Rights Legislation:

The 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act were passed by a Congress wherein Democrats were the majority, and they were signed into law by a Democratic president. This had a powerful effect on public opinion.

The ironies involved were many. Both pieces legislation had essentially been authored by Republicans. As a percentage of the party, a greater percentage of Republicans voted for both bills than did Democrats. And a cadre of Democrats filibustered the 1964 bill in an attempt to prevent its passage.

Simply put, both bills could not have been passed without the actions of Republicans... not to mention that both were just modern versions of civil rights legislation that Republicans had passed—and Democrats had systematically undone—100 years earlier.



This, however, was not the broad public perception, and Barry Goldwater—with one action—made that perception significantly worse for Republicans. In the course of the debate on the 1964 Civil Rights legislation, he found an element of the bill not to his liking, and voted against it.

Oops.

Barry Goldwater—a man who, using his own money, twice kept the Arizona chapter of the NAACP from going bankrupt—was not a racist. And his vote was a principled one, in that it was a provision of the bill that he opposed, rather than its overall aim. And yet it may have been the most costly electoral mistake ever made. Barry Goldwater was the Republican nominee for president. The standard-bearer of the Republican Party had voted against civil rights legislation. The perception might as well have been carved in stone.




The Southern Strategy:

The electoral reality for any presidential candidate is that he (or she, someday soon) must appeal to a majority of voters in enough states to win. It's a complex game, involving hundreds of calculations and very deliberate strategies. Resources are carefully allocated by state or region, in an effort to secure the most electoral votes. In the presidential election of 1960, the Nixon campaign decided to go after votes in the South. The South had been, from the beginning of the country, solidly Democrat, but fractures had begun to appear in this monolithic support, and the Nixon campaign felt they could make enough headway there to turn the tide. This was called the "Southern Strategy." Nixon's campaign and Republicans contended that they were appealing to traditional American values. Their Democrat opponents countered that they were appealing to underlying racism pervasive in the South.

Whatever the truth was, the Democrats' characterization of the Southern Strategy gained enough traction to have an effect. Ironically, there was still institutionalized racism in the South at that time, but it was still being expressed almost exclusively by Democrats. Southern Democrat governors, such as Faubus of Arkansas, Wallace of Alabama, and Barnett of Mississippi, were standing in doorways of schools, calling out the National Guard, and even closing them all down for a year to prevent their integration.

_______


So, here in 2006, where does this leave us?

Democrats will likely respond to all of this by saying, "that was then and this is now." They will argue that today's Democratic Party is nothing like the way it was. Some will go further, and argue that the roles have reversed—that today, it is the Republicans who are the racists, and the Democrats who are the champions of minorities.

In response, a fair-minded Republican must grant that the Democratic Party has indeed changed—and dramatically so—from its pro-slavery, secessionist, segregationist past. But that Republican then would likely go on to argue that the Republican Party did not change at all vis-a-vis civil rights—that they still continue to promote the same general ideas of colorblindness that they always have: that everyone should be treated equally, and that everyone should be allowed to get as rich as possible, regardless of who they are.


Where does the truth lie? Which party's policies are more beneficial to the interests of black Americans today? And, if all of this is a matter of historical record, why haven't Republicans been shouting it from the rooftops?

If you ask a thousand people to answer those questions, you just might get a thousand different answers. But somewhere in there is the truth, and it's a truth we're going to need to find as we continue to examine this question.

For now, we've taken the first step. For indeed, in order to understand where we are now and where we may be going, it is important that we first understand where we've been.
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • observer 2012/12/12 11:57:13
    observer
    +8
    How come the majority in the South during all of the 20th century has been with the party that opposes civil rights the most? I guess that few blacks vote, and most white voters don't like civil rights
    I this this is a very sad feature of american politics.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • philip.rigney 2014/04/30 19:01:17
  • observer 2012/12/12 11:57:13
    observer
    +8
    How come the majority in the South during all of the 20th century has been with the party that opposes civil rights the most? I guess that few blacks vote, and most white voters don't like civil rights
    I this this is a very sad feature of american politics.
  • Maranatha2022 2012/08/30 03:18:11
    Maranatha2022
    Where do you you get off saying lincoln and the first republicans were liberals? The liberals were trying to push eugenics and kill all the slaves. They were interpreting the Bible to say slavery was ok just like liberals today and homosexuals.
  • DIXIE PASSION 2012/08/30 03:00:57
    DIXIE PASSION
    I really wish you had stated why Goldwater objected to the civil rights act
  • Maranatha2022 2012/08/30 01:29:15
    Maranatha2022
    Interesting to see the liberal respnse to the facts presented. The fairytale that the parties "switched sides". The conservatives have always a stance to conserve the literal interpretation of the constitution, all men are created equal. Where the liberals would take a liberal or loose interpretation, slaves aren't men but property.

    The Democratic policies make much more sense in light of the party's history. Through entitlements they are trying to male slaves of the whole lower class and blacks in particular. Along with planned parenthood, the democrats have killed off 30% of the black population since roe v wade. Under the democrat party policy the state is the new slave owner.

    Thank you for the blog!
  • lbrochon 2012/03/09 19:37:43
    lbrochon
    +3
    Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, but he was also a Liberal. It's about philosophy, not party. Democrats of the past were conservatives who protested civil rights and fought for segregation, however the Democratic party of today is Liberal. In essence, we need to put away the party labels and look at the philosophies of the people themselves. There has been sort of a role reversal over the years. When we look at political parties, we need to be like Janet Jackson and ask "What have you done for me lately?"
  • lokeshyadav 2011/05/02 10:37:30
    lokeshyadav
    ya its true
  • ProudProgressive 2011/05/01 14:39:06 (edited)
    ProudProgressive
    +1
    What this nonsense fails to take into account is that, while there is no doubt that prior to the Civil Rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s the Republican party WAS the party that actually cared about human rights, it was that very revolution that drove the ignorant racist corporatist America haters into the welcome arms of the Republican party where they have made a nice home for themselves ever since. Strom Thurmond, racist, segregationist and "slave f**ker" extraordinaire led the migration in 1948 when he ran for President on a platform of "segregation now, segregation forever", and the migration of the racists further and further to the Right has continued unabated ever since. The delusional racist "birthers" are merely the latest manifestation of this ugly "movement", and the corporate created teabaggers are merely the embodiment of the worst kind of ignorant "I don't care if America fails, i just can't live with a black guy in the White House" mentality. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican. But both of these Progressive Leaders would be as appalled at the ignorant, hateful racist rhetoric that is the core of Republican "philosophy" as are all of us who are sane human beings.

    hateful racist rhetoric core republican philosophy sane human beings thurmond segregation
  • Larry Brown 2011/05/01 08:06:46
    Larry Brown
    I It isn't the parties. It's the ideology and the philosophy that defines the parties.
  • Larry Brown 2011/05/01 08:05:37
    Larry Brown
    +2
    Everything you posted is factually true. But there is something much deeper and more profound than what appears on the surface. It isn't about the parties. It really never was. It's actually about the ideology or philosophy that identifies the parties as what they are. Remember this. The party doesn't define the ideology. The ideology defines the parties. What this has ALWAYS been about is not Democrat vs. Republican. It's been about Liberal philosophy vs. Conservatie ideology. I'll demonstrate what I mean.

    Most people think of the parties as monolithic in the way they appear today. But they weren't always this way. Throughout the years prior to the Civil Rights Act the Republican Party like the Democratic Party was mixed with both conservatives and liberals. There were liberal Republicans, mostly in the northeast such as Nelson Rockefeller, William Scranton, Jacob Javits, Kenneth Keating. And there were Conservative Democrats like Strom Thurmond, and virtually every other southern Senator and congressman.

    Other prominent figures in the GOP's Rockefeller wing included Pennsylvania Governor Raymond P. Shafer, Illinois Senator Charles H. Percy, Oregon Senator Mark Hatfield, Arkansas Governor Winthrop Rockefeller, Nelson's younger brother (who was somewhat of an aberration in ...























































    Everything you posted is factually true. But there is something much deeper and more profound than what appears on the surface. It isn't about the parties. It really never was. It's actually about the ideology or philosophy that identifies the parties as what they are. Remember this. The party doesn't define the ideology. The ideology defines the parties. What this has ALWAYS been about is not Democrat vs. Republican. It's been about Liberal philosophy vs. Conservatie ideology. I'll demonstrate what I mean.

    Most people think of the parties as monolithic in the way they appear today. But they weren't always this way. Throughout the years prior to the Civil Rights Act the Republican Party like the Democratic Party was mixed with both conservatives and liberals. There were liberal Republicans, mostly in the northeast such as Nelson Rockefeller, William Scranton, Jacob Javits, Kenneth Keating. And there were Conservative Democrats like Strom Thurmond, and virtually every other southern Senator and congressman.

    Other prominent figures in the GOP's Rockefeller wing included Pennsylvania Governor Raymond P. Shafer, Illinois Senator Charles H. Percy, Oregon Senator Mark Hatfield, Arkansas Governor Winthrop Rockefeller, Nelson's younger brother (who was somewhat of an aberration in a conservative, heavily Democratic Southern state).
    Historically, Rockefeller Republicans were moderate or liberal on domestic and social policies. They typically favored New Deal programs and a social safety net; they sought to run these programs more efficiently than the Democrats. Rockefeller Republicans also saw themselves as champions of "good government", contrasting themselves to the often corrupt machine politics of the Democratic Party (particularly in large cities).

    There are NO liberals within today's Republican Party.

    Democratic President Harry S. Truman's support of the civil rights movement, combined with the adoption of a civil rights plank in the 1948 Democratic platform, prompted many Southerners to walk out of the Democratic National Convention and form the Dixiecrat Party. This splinter party played a significant role in the 1948 election; the Dixiecrat candidate, Strom Thurmond, carried Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. In the elections of 1952 and 1956, the popular Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower carried several border southern states, with especially strong showings in the new suburbs.

    The South has always been Conservative in their views. They still are today. The difference today is that the South is completely Republican. Did their conservative views change? No.They changed the color of their ties. But not their conservatism. There are no liberals in the Republican Party today, and the South which used to be all blue states, today is completely RED.

    Here is the breakdown of the historical vote on the Civil Rights Act.

    Vote totalsTotals are in "Yea-Nay" format:

    The original House version: 290-130 (69%–31%).
    Cloture in the Senate: 71-29 (71%–29%).
    The Senate version: 73-27 (73%–27%).
    The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%–30%).

    By party
    The original House version:
    Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
    Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

    Cloture in the Senate:
    Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
    Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

    The Senate version:

    Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
    Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
    The Senate version, voted on by the House:

    Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
    Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)

    On the surface it seems very clear that the Republican Party was more supportive of Civil Rights, and as a party that's true. But ideologically, the Conservatives lost the fight.

    Here is the breakdown by party and region Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

    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%)

    The Senate version:

    Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5%–95%)
    Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0%–100%)
    Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%–2%)
    Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%–16%)

    The Southern Conservatives (the DixieCrats) left the Democratic Party and turned to the Republicans. Strom Thurmond didn't suddenly have an epiphony and become racially enlightened when he switched parties. He brought his segregationist view with him as did all the others.

    The parties were mixed back then. They aren't today. As the Democrats became the more liberal party, the conservatives within it left, and moved into the Republicans bringing their conservative views with them. The Republicans today have become completely "Southernized." Today we see the Republican Party as Conservative, and the Democratic Party as liberal, even though there are still conservative elements within it (the Blue Dogs)
    (more)
  • Billo 2010/07/09 17:55:53
    Billo
    "100% Republican when [African-Americans] first began voting, 90% Democrat now—what the heck happened? I kept studying... it was the mid-60s when the big shift took place..."

    Keep studying.

    The majority of blacks began voting Democratic in the 1930s, even before FDR integrated all federal hiring.

    Harry Truman enjoyed solid black support even before he integrated the Armed Services.

    Which helped give John Kennedy so much support among African-Americans, even before he sent what would become the 1964 Civil Rights Act to the House to become the law of the land.

    No, the "big shift" occurred in the 1930s. That is when more than 50 percent of black Americans began voting Democratic. What followed was a smaller shift.
  • NJSal Billo 2010/09/14 03:35:14
    NJSal
    +1
    Kennedy voted against that bill you tool
  • Larry B... NJSal 2011/05/01 08:26:55
    Larry Brown
    >"Kennedy voted against that bill you tool"<

    JFK was pulled (reluctantly I think) into the Civil Rights frey when he made sure that James Meridith was admitted to Ole Miss. He was further committed by the actions of Bull Connor in Birmingham and desegregated Alabama. But I've never been impressed with his stance and always had a more cynical view of why he committed to it.

    Kennedy was also aware that southern Democrats were still powerful in the party and their wishes could not be totally ignored if the party was not to be split apart - or if Kennedy was not to get the party’s nomination for the 1964 election. However, there is no doubt that the violence that occurred in the South during his presidency horrified and angered him.

    Johnson was far more committed to it even knowing that the Democrats would lose the south for generations. He did the right thing regardless of the politics of his party.
  • Billo 2010/07/09 17:41:12
    Billo
    Let us not forget that, though few in numbers, the southern Republican congressional delegation voted with the southern Democrat minority in their mutual attempt to defeat the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

    Got that? Southern Republicans opposed the 1964 CRA.

    Meanwhile, Democrats overwhelmingly approved the 1964 Civil Rights Act:

    Among House Democrats, the vote was 152 to 96 for passage, and Senate Democrats voted 46 to 21 for passage.

    Only in the 2/3 cloture vote needed to end the southern Democrat filibuster were pro-CRA Republican votes crucial.

    Converting fellow Republicans to his side was not easy for Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen. Despite the halo painted by revisionists, Republicans balked at Dirksen's call for support.

    Even with Dirksen pushing, on repeated test votes, a whole raft of Republicans resolutely backed the filibuster -- and then voted against final passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

    "On ideological grounds," GOP revisionists claim.

    ________________

    By the GOP count, no southern Democrat shared Republican "ideological" motives in voting against the CRA --

    -- And that in view of Barry Goldwater openly admitting on Meet the Press that he would actively seek the southern segregationist vote.

    Goldwater would "go hunt where the ducks are,...



































    Let us not forget that, though few in numbers, the southern Republican congressional delegation voted with the southern Democrat minority in their mutual attempt to defeat the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

    Got that? Southern Republicans opposed the 1964 CRA.

    Meanwhile, Democrats overwhelmingly approved the 1964 Civil Rights Act:

    Among House Democrats, the vote was 152 to 96 for passage, and Senate Democrats voted 46 to 21 for passage.

    Only in the 2/3 cloture vote needed to end the southern Democrat filibuster were pro-CRA Republican votes crucial.

    Converting fellow Republicans to his side was not easy for Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen. Despite the halo painted by revisionists, Republicans balked at Dirksen's call for support.

    Even with Dirksen pushing, on repeated test votes, a whole raft of Republicans resolutely backed the filibuster -- and then voted against final passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

    "On ideological grounds," GOP revisionists claim.

    ________________

    By the GOP count, no southern Democrat shared Republican "ideological" motives in voting against the CRA --

    -- And that in view of Barry Goldwater openly admitting on Meet the Press that he would actively seek the southern segregationist vote.

    Goldwater would "go hunt where the ducks are," as he bragged on national TV in 1964.

    What ideology was Goldwater espousing? Goldwater won five segregated southern states and his home state in the presidential election. Period.

    But revisionists claim Goldwater voted against the 1964 CRA "on ideological grounds." Sure -- where the ideological ducks are.

    ________________

    Of the 172 House Republicans, 38 of them, more than 1 in 5, voted to defeat the CRA.

    And 1 in 6 Senate Republicans, north and south, joined southern Democrats and opposed final Senate passage.

    Proudly, among the 145 non-southern House Democrats, only 4 voted against passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

    Is there a statistical difference between the 20% of Republicans and the 2.7% of non-southern Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

    Meanwhile, Senate Democrats overwhelmingly approved the final passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, with 69 percent voting aye.

    All of which must be sand in the revisionist baloney sandwich.

    SOURCE FOR THE ABOVE VOTING STATISTICS: The Everett Dirksen Congressional Center, Pekin, Illinois

    ___________________

    While segregationist Democrats made up the biggest bloc of votes against passage of the 1964 CRA, the political shift in southern politics that began with Strom Thurmond and carried through in the campaigns of Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan saw the same segregationists who voted 'no' in 1964 move to the Republican Party when it became clearer that from Truman forward, the national Democrats would forcefully champion black civil rights.

    Had Democrat segregationists who later jumped ship already made their moves to the GOP in 1964, then the vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act would have been approximately 90 percent 'aye' from the Democrats, and approximately 50 percent 'no' from the Republicans.

    But it is amazing how a political party that denies so vehemently that it is racist can be so darned segregated in the 21st century.

    While black Americans occupy one in every eight homes in the USA, black Republicans occupy ZERO of 535 seats in the U.S. House and Senate.

    And many of the state delegations to the Republican National Convention in the past several elections have been absolutely free of black faces --ZERO black delegates chosen to help select the Republican candidates for the U.S. presidency.

    That is more than a shame. In fact, it is a racist shame.

    The partisan Republican solution? Dredge up and desecrate the dead heroes of the civil rights movement -- revise, smear, lie, revise...
    (more)
  • BryanJ Billo 2010/11/02 02:32:15
    BryanJ
    +1
    Billo is trying to rewrite history; some republicans opposed the 1964 CRA because it was and is over reaching. The constitution does not allow the sort of meddling in private business the CRA contains.
  • Larry B... BryanJ 2011/05/01 08:35:46
    Larry Brown
    >"The constitution does not allow the sort of meddling in private business the CRA contains."<

    Yes it does. The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

    The CRA is actually based on Interstate Commerce laws.The wide interpretation of the scope of the Commerce Clause continued following the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which aimed to prevent business from discriminating against black customers. The United States Supreme Court issued several opinions which supported this use of the Commerce Clause. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), ruled that Congress could regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers. Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969), ruled that the federal government could regulate a recreational facility because three out of the four items sold at its snack bar were purchased from outside the state.
  • Wendy Beach 2010/03/30 17:00:53
    Wendy Beach
    +3
    Okay, but, true to current Republican convention, you neglect to mention (and/or are purposefully deceitful, or perhaps ignorant?) that over the past few hundred years, what we now call the Republican and Democrat parties are not reflective of what they have been through the years. The meanings behind the descriptors "Republican" and "Democrat" have changed throughout history according to what person(s) was more/less in charge at the time. As a result, the ideals held by the current Republican party are traced throughout history to pro-business (slavery) and to placing human rights far down a list of priorities. Conversely, currently Democratic ideals are traced through the so-called "Republican" President Abraham Lincoln, and those wanting freedoms for individuals--including slaves--and curtailing growth of monopolies and excessive rights of corporations over individuals.
  • Thatche... Wendy B... 2010/05/21 22:41:33
    Thatcherite
    +1
    Woodrow Wilson reintroduced segregation into the federal government which had been non-existent since the 1860s. Black employees were fired, demoted and everything from the cafeteria to the bathrooms were segregated once again. White men could no longer report to black men as their superiors. Let there be little doubt that the modern day Democrat Party is one with a history of vitriolic racism. Moreover, if you think that modern day Democrat ideals are based on individualism rather than collectivism, then I'd say you have much to learn.
  • Larry B... Thatche... 2011/05/01 09:33:17
    Larry Brown
    >"Let there be little doubt that the modern day Democrat Party is one with a history of vitriolic racism."<

    That's true. But it was conservatism that owned the party back then. It no longer does. It ownes the Republican Party today.

    >"Moreover, if you think that modern day Democrat ideals are based on individualism rather than collectivism, then I'd say you have much to learn."<

    I'd disagree with that. Today's Democrats see that there is a time for both. We all function as individuals, but we all understand that we are members of a society that makes up a nation, and that means responsibilities to the nation. I put the needs of my nation before those of myself. Considering that our own military does the very same thing, I'd say it's a commendable thing to keep in mind. It ain't all about me. That's the difference between the Democrat and the Republican today. One group thinks that giving back to the country that provides us with all the great things that we have here, is a small price to pay for the kind of society that we have. The other group feels no such obligation and resents any expectation being placed on them for what they receive.

    Today's Repubs are suckers for Ayn Rand. The budget plan for example is written by Paul Ryan who is an Ayn Rand disciple. She's the rea...



    >"Let there be little doubt that the modern day Democrat Party is one with a history of vitriolic racism."<

    That's true. But it was conservatism that owned the party back then. It no longer does. It ownes the Republican Party today.

    >"Moreover, if you think that modern day Democrat ideals are based on individualism rather than collectivism, then I'd say you have much to learn."<

    I'd disagree with that. Today's Democrats see that there is a time for both. We all function as individuals, but we all understand that we are members of a society that makes up a nation, and that means responsibilities to the nation. I put the needs of my nation before those of myself. Considering that our own military does the very same thing, I'd say it's a commendable thing to keep in mind. It ain't all about me. That's the difference between the Democrat and the Republican today. One group thinks that giving back to the country that provides us with all the great things that we have here, is a small price to pay for the kind of society that we have. The other group feels no such obligation and resents any expectation being placed on them for what they receive.

    Today's Repubs are suckers for Ayn Rand. The budget plan for example is written by Paul Ryan who is an Ayn Rand disciple. She's the reason he got into politics. Rand Paul was named after her. I have to wonder how Republicans reconcile her atheism and her pro-abortion rights position with their base? Rand was quick to castigate anyone getting subsidies from the Government who she claimed was a leach and a lower form of life. Far-right ideologue, Ayn Rand wrote of moral absolutism: “There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction.” However Rand, who spent her life deploring the New Deal, Social Security, the Great Society and every other form of government aid to the poor and elderly ended up taking *GASP* government “handouts” herself in the form of Social Security and almost Medicare, too when she was diagnosed with lung cancer and found that her book sales couldn't pay her medical expenses.

    It was revealed in the recent 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand by Scott McConnell (founder of the media department at the Ayn Rand Institute) that in the end Ayn was a vip-dipper as well. An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand’s law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand’s behalf she secured Rand’s Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O’Connor (husband Frank O’Connor).

    As Pryor said, “Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out” without the aid of these two government programs. Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn “despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently… She didn’t feel that an individual should take help. She rationalized it claiming she was recovering stolen funds. However..she received this in another persons name in order to cover her ass since it obviosly contradicted her philosophy.
    (more)
  • Liberty... Wendy B... 2010/07/05 21:34:29
    LibertyMark
    +2
    This is the standard Liberal meme in this subject of discussion. "The Democrats weren't Democrats, they were really Republicans." This is a very weak argument. This is revisionist history at its "finest". I point to one example of undeniable truth: Robert Byrd filibustered the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Was he a closet Republican? Or, as Spin Dr. Billary said, "he was just trying to get elected."

    Please don't insult clear thinkers with convenient newspeak. Thank you.

About Me

XGOP - IN GOD I TRUST

XGOP - IN GOD I TRUST

Miami, FL, US

2008/09/01 14:48:15

View complete profile

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals

The Latest From SodaHead

News

Politics