Are the Democrats Historically the Party of Civil Rights?

from JoeUser Forums
OK, I have been challenged on another thread in my assertion that the Republicans were the frontrunners in the civil rights movement, rather than the Democrats. What follows are statements from an article from "the National Review" on January 9, 2003 written by John Fonte and entitled "Conservatives Can be Proud of their Civil Rights Record". While one can challenge the editorial slant of the piece, the congressional votes are a matter of public record and can be verified with relative ease. I will quote the article where applicable...

"In the 1950s, while Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce the Supreme Court's school-desegregation ruling, Senator John Sparkman of Alabama (Democrat presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson's former vice-presidential running mate) protested this desegregation decision by signing the congressional "Southern Manifesto" attacking the court's ruling. In 1957 the Eisenhower administration, led by Republican Attorney General Herbert Brownell, steered through Congress the first civil-rights bill since Reconstruction. In that fight over protecting voting rights, veteran civil-rights lobbyist Harry L. Kingman described Republican Senate Leader William Knowland of California (a strong conservative) as a "key man in the victory." Clearly, Republican leader Knowland took a stronger pro-civil-rights stand than Democrat Senate Leader Lyndon Johnson of Texas, who at the time was accused by some civil-rights groups of introducing amendments that weakened the bill. "

In the question of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Fonte notes "bipartisan support", but mentions the following in response to the praise that has historically been heaped on the Democratic Party for passage of the bill:

"However, much of the hard work of advancing the legislation was done by congressional Republicans — conservative stalwarts including Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois, Charles Halleck of Indiana, William McCulloch of Ohio, Robert Griffin of Michigan, Robert Taft Jr. of Ohio, Clarence Brown of Ohio, Roman Hruska of Nebraska, and moderates such as Thomas Kuchel of California, Kenneth Keating of New York, and Clark MacGregor of Minnesota. All of these Republicans served as major leaders of the pro-civil-rights coalition either as floor managers or captains for different sections of the bill."

Fonte also goes on to note that, although both houses of Congress were controlled by the Democrats, a larger percentage of Republicans (136-35, a 79% majority) than Democrats (153-91, a 63% margin) in the House supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In the infamous filibuster of the act, a 2/3 majority vote was needed to break the filibuster. Republicans voted 21-6, or 81.1% to break the filibuster, while the Democrats vote was 65.5%, or 44-23. Thus, if the Democrats' voting record decided the issue, the filibuster would have held and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have failed.

There is more to this article that does not relate to my argument, which is that the Republicans have not historically been the civil rights villains they have often been portrayed to be, nor have Democrats historically been the civil rights heroes they have been portrayed to be. It IS revisionism to cast the Republicans as the villains in the Civil Rights battle and give undue credit to the Democrats. Earlier legislation in the 1950's actually shows a Democratic party that strongly OPPOSED Civil Rights legislation.

respectfully submitted,

Gideon MacLeish
politics
17,808 views 60 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gideon... does that article also talk about Strom Thurmond and the origins of "the southern strategy"?

With Harry Dent, a key aide who later worked for President Richard M. Nixon, Thurmond helped devise the “southern strategy” that paved the way for a Republican majority in the South. Its essence was an appeal to white resentment of court-ordered school desegregation and similar developments.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Not really, it's more a counter to the claims that Republicans have held the roadblocks to civil rights.
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

Let's be real here as it's pretty straight forward:

In 1865 the Republicans were the party of Abolition and the Democrats the party of slavery.

The Democrats then became the party of segregation and Jim Crowe laws.

It wasn't a Republican governor standing in the doorway trying to prevent blacks from getting into the school.

It wasn't Democrats trying to get the right to vote for women.

It wasn't Democrats who passed the Civil Rights act - it was Republicans. Johnson gets the credit because he happened to be President (just like Clinton gets credit for welfare reform) but it was a Republican agenda item.

Democrats being interested in equal rights is a relatively recent phenomenon.

The ONLY thing Democrats have pushed for is Affirmative action.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
draginol,

Absolutely right. The only reason Johnson signed it into law, in my opinion, was the fact that Congress had the votes for an override (thanks to the REPUBLICAN support; as noted above, the Democrats couldn't even muster a 2/3 majority among their party), as well as the fact it was an election year.

The assertion I challenged on the other thread was the claim that the democrats pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Of course, Barry Goldwater famously opposed both the sending of troops to help integrate the school system in Little Rock and the Civil Rights Act in 1964, and sort of became an iconic conservative Republican.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
It was LBJ who came up with the concept of the Civil Rights act. Not the repubs...Look it up guys! He felt that as a southerner and a former dixiecrat he was obligated to pursue this as a legacy for JFK, who was planning on pushing the act in his second term. But we all know what happened to JFK.

Historically, The repubs were the party of civil rights, and yes a large contingent of dems (known as dixiecrats) were on the other side of the fence. But, dems from northern states were traditionally pro civil rights. I really think the drastic change was in the mid to late 60's after the civil rights act took effect. After Strom and a few of his cohorts migrated over to the repubs (taking millions of their constiuents with them), Nixon took office, Goldwater came out and declared himself an ultraconservative and Vietnam went south, turning minorities again tricky Dick and the repubs because they were the party in power at that time.. The major players that brought the minorities to the democratic party were JFK, RFK, and McGovern. Followed by Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Tip O'neill and folks like Rev. Jesse Jackson in the 70's (although Jesse was deply involved in the civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's he did not obtain political clout until the 70's), and Dianne Feinstien and John Kerry in the 80's. It was in the 70's when the repubs truly abandoned minorities. Although Reagan did in my opinion care about the issue, he faced stiff resistance from the conservative elements of the republican party, making new legislation virtually impossible within his party.

So in esscence, we're both right. But this ain't the 1860's or the 1960's. It's 2004. And the repubs haven't authored any major civil rights legislation since the emancipation proclamation.

The dems can say otherwise!
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
It was LBJ who came up with the concept of the Civil Rights act. Not the repubs...Look it up guys! He felt that as a southerner and a former dixiecrat he was obligated to pursue this as a legacy for JFK, who was planning on pushing the act in his second term. But we all know what happened to JFK.


oneguy,

I don't have time to pursue this at the moment, but I hope to get back to it! Your historical analysis is interesting, to say the least.
Reply #8 from PolMach Forums Top
What Wikipedia has to say about American Civil Rights [LINK]

Pouring through and searching through information it turns out and looks like President John F. Kennedy wrote the original Civil Rights Act, LBJ who though to continue that legacy, as well as some pressure on the issue had a revised version done, which went through it's historical voyage, a key note is that the bill supposedly would have not passed the Senate if one amendment was not added as well, the clause which gave rights to women as well, that's right, the original only gave rights to minorities, not women, but male minorities, so after the final amendment was added to the revised stronger version which LBJ had done it passed and became law when LBJ signed it. Just an F.Y.I. thing. Don't believe me please pour through the information and tell me so.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
ShoZan is correct. The version JFK wanted was a weaker version. LBJ's was more inclusive. Sorry for not pointing that out in the post earlier.

I'll be around Gid!
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
The reason this has happened is that the democrats and the republicans have flipped. Abraham lincoln was of the party that eventually became known as the Republican Party. Jimmy Carter was a democrat, Clinton was a democrat, and they were both very pro-choice pro civil rights leaders, although I admit they are more recent than the '60s.
Reply #11 from PolMach Forums Top
Yeah thanks I was going to say that. The thread starter is missing this part. This is the real story about both parties. I am a Christian and I am pro-life but there is no way I will support the GOP they are all in everyone pockets. Look at Pat Roberts and Jerry Falwell all are in it for the money. Now I am off topic here..

Lincoln views are like the Democrats.. The parties did a totaly reversal many years ago. Look at that one Senator Bird there, he used to be a Ku Klux Clan Grand Pupa or whatever they were. Dixie-crats are really what the guy is talking about.. Interesting all these threads on politics.. I should have visited here reading the threads a long time ago. It is a good time reading these different thoughts. Thanks.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually, I did a followup thread, desert. I honestly don't think a wilkipedia entry is a comprehensive study of the civil rights movement.

On my followup thread, you will note that several prominent dixiecrats did NOT leave the Democratic party, including Al Gore Sr. and William Fullbright.

Desert, you obviously haven't read many of my posts if you think that I am a GOP supporter in ANY sense whatsoever. I think people who follow either the Democratic Party OR the GOP are blindsided and really need to examine the facts more closely. However, I am also no fan of historical revisionism, and to deny the GOP of the 1950's and 60's their rightful place in the civil rights movement is a gross injustice (note that the Democrats couldn't even muster the votes to bust Thurmond's filibuster without an INCREDIBLE show of Republican support; if the filibuster stood, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was dead in its tracks).
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

If you think Lincoln would be a Democrat today then I feel real saddness towards your ignorance.

Republicans are just as much if not more pro-civil rights today than Democrats.  The difference is that Republicans don't view affirmative action as "civil rights".  Republicans see it as reverse-discrmination and worse, a form of bigotry - a message to african americans that they aren't as good.

The last major civil rights act, the one in the 60s, signed by Johnson was passed because of Republicans DESPITE Democrats. That is a historical fact. No amount of spinning changes that.

Again: It's like arguing that Democrats are for welfare reform simply because Clinton signed the welfare reform bill into law.  Johnson/Kennedy deserve a great deal of credit for their work, but giving their party credit of the civil rights bill is absurd.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Drag? To say that the repubs see affirmative action is a message to african americans that they are inferior is ludicrious.Nice rationalization! They dont like AA because they feel it forces them to show preference to others above their constituents. Of which the vast majority are white folks.

Affirmative action was needed at the time of its passing into law. Nowadays i think it needs to be modified a bit to fit the climate. But the repubs did abandon the civil rights cause in the late 60's. Mainly because minorities turned against them, and the repubs focused on representing rich white folks. Which is the case to this very day. That is not to say that some repubs do not care about civil rights nowadays. But to sit there and say that the dems are not the banner carriers of the movement today is just stupid.

The proof is in the pudding folks. What has Bush 2.0 done for minorities in his 4 years? Nothing! Bush 1.0? Same! How about the congressional leadership of the GOP. Delay? Ditto. Gingrich? Ditto. Frist? Ditto. Hatch? OH HELL NO! What about in the current administration? Ashcroft? TRIPLE DITTO! The only Repub that i can think of offhand that even seems to care is Olympia Snowe.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
The republicans dont support the ACLU. Further, the democrats that voted against it were from the slave states, and they would lose the next election if they voted for it.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
They dont like AA because they feel it forces them to show preference to others above their constituents.



No, they oppose it because it gives preferential treatment to a particular group because of their race, which is exactly what the civil rights movement was intended to end.

Affirmative Action only changes the color of the preferred race. To pretend it's not bias because the new preferred race is more 'deserving' of preferential treatment is ludicrous.

I'm sure the business's back before the civil rights laws were enacted felt whites were more deserving also, thus getting preferential treatment.

No one deserves preferential treatment because of their race.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Pictoratus,

The majority of them are white. It's a fact. I also didnt say it wasn't biased, hence my statement about tweaking it to fit modern times. So back it up a bit ok?

And i agree. nobody should be put over anybody else because of race, religion, creed, political persuasion, or sexual preference. You should be equal to everybody else.

Too bad money is what determines who is more equal nowadays.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry, I didn't mean to push on you.

It's just I get tired of hearing so many say it's not bias, because it's for a good cause or whatever the rational is, when the fact is, they feel it is justified bias. I happen to believe any race based bias is wrong, especially when sanctioned and enforced by the government.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Double post edit
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
The republicans dont support the ACLU.


The Republicans have a problem with the ACLU because of some of the ACLU's highly publicized cases. When the ACLU supports pedophiles (and they have...they picked up the NAMBLA case), when the ACLU supports the efforts of certain antitheists to prohibit the free exercise of religion when it is STUDENT LED within the schools (and they have done this also), and issues such as this, then the distaste of the GOP for the ACLU becomes at least a little more understandable. For the record, there are conservative civil rights organizations (the ACLJ, for one), and the lawyers with these organizations have, at certain times, worked side by side with the ACLU.

While I am not Republican, I can certainly understand the distaste many of them have for the ACLU.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Republicans don't support abortion. That is a huge civil rights issue. ACLU supports it. They don't.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sandy,

For one, no, abortion isn't a civil rights issue. You just made a mockery of everything the civil rights movement is and was by that statement. You also are resulting to throwing red herrings out on a credible article that I have written (as well as a followup) detailing the GOP's historical position on civil rights. I almost took it, to my own discredit.

You consider yourself a centrist, sandy, yet every single post you have written has detailed the right as pure evil with no concessions to what they have done, and a staunch defense of the left. I would hardly call that centrist. A centrist tends to see and acknowledge both good and bad of BOTH positions.
Reply #24 from PolMach Forums Top
First of all, that is NO REASON at all to be a Republican/Democrat in current times. The Democrats and Republicans both changed their platforms around the 80s. Why the 80s you ask? It seems that Ronald Reagan was the birth of this 'right-wing conspiracy', and others like Tom Daschle, Howard Dean, and others started this left-wing stuff. Zell Miller is classified as a 'southern Democrat'. He is into some of the right-wing Republicans. But, most Northern Democrats believed in banning slavery...oh, I don't know.

It is true the Democrats did believe in slavery, and the Jim Crow laws, etc. but I don't think the Republicans really had an debate on this. The only Republican who had talked in-depth about this was Abraham Lincoln, and he didn't do enough to assure that slavery was to be outlawed (most likely because he didn't live that long after the Civil War ended).
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Deaniac,

I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, I am just correcting a flawed historical analysis.