Gideon MacLeish Gideon MacLeish

Are the Democrats Historically the Party of Civil Rights?

▼

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
17,809 views 60 replies
Reply #26 from PolMach Forums Top
Gideon, abortion is a civil rights issue.

Here, the definition of abortion: (from Dictionary.com)

Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival.
Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced abortion.

Now, you see it is the 'termination' of a pregnancy...okay...
So, what does this have to do with civil rights? Everything. First of all, it shouldn't be outlawed because it should be the women's right to choose, because:

1) Accidential Pregnancies happen...I will not go into details, because it isn't my place to talk about these things.
2) A sickly pregnant person could give birth to a sickly baby...an abortion will stop this baby from coming alive, and then shortly dying.
3) A sickly pregnant person could actually die when giving birth...which means an abortion should be the automatic procedure.

These are just three reasons why Former President Bill Clinton said that Abortion is a 'choosy issue', in which it is.

'Women's right'...that involves 'civil rights', doesn't it??? It is the women's right. She has the right (because she is in America) to choose. There you go: that is civil rights. Women's rights is civil rights. Abortion is women's rights. It all connects together.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
Deaniac,

First of all, I am politically prochoice, though I am personally completely opposed to abortion. However, I stand by my original statement.

I will say, however, that this discussion is a hijack of the original thread, and I would like to return to the topic at hand. This is about the HISTORICAL place of the GOP in civil rights, and the subject doesn't belong. If you would like to see a thread go in this direction, I would invite you to start one of your own. If I see it, I will participate.
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #28 from PolMach Forums Top
Lets not forget, that Republicans wanted the Bill of Rights. (i.e. the Republicans were called back then Wigs, or the most popular name, Anti-Federalists.) We wanted to make sure that the American citizen had rights that the government couldn't touch. Democrats (i.e. Federalists) didn't want this document at all.
Reply #29 from PolMach 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.


Yeah I know it's not but it gives some basic information, or at least a basis for further study into American Civil Rights. Probably have to find some professor who did a Thesis paper on the American Civil Rights movement to get a comprehensive guide.

I think a problem with civil rights is that we have a lot fo conflicting national association (excuse I could be wording this wrong), i.e. I am Hispanic American, Puerto Rican because my Mother is 100% Puerto Rican, born in Ponce, and I identify with both the United States Flag, because I was born here, and the Puerto Rican Flag, because it is my heritage, and the problem is how to deal with this, most people can't see beyond races, in fact when I see a fellow american, I see just that a fellow american (whether he is white, black, blue, or polkadot), than again it could be me, I am shutting up now.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gideon,

I had tried to post this earlier but my internet was not cooperating.

One or your tools for reasoning that the democrats were not in favor of the civil rights movement was that a democratic congressman from alabama fillibustered against desegregation. What did you excpect him to do? Usher it in? Alabama was against it and as Alabama's representitive he had to do what his constitutients wanted or fear not being re-elected. Im not saying what he did was right, but I'm saying that he did it for a political reason. The democrats controlled the south, and this is the reason that the democrats had a smaller majority voting in favor of these civil rights issues. The slave states were against them, and continue to be often more rascist and non pro-choice and pro-civil rights. Because of the Democratic president, who publically supported the civil rights act, the democrats lost the southern states anyways, meaning they no longer had a political reason to not be in favor of the civil rights movements. The rest of the democrats were in favor of it and more civil rights issues. The republicans used to be the party of the north and the Democrats the party of the south. This changed after the civil rights movement when the democrat president was in favor of the civil rights act and the democrats lost the south. Further, Reagan ended the republican-fiscal conservative ideals, which were adopted by the democrats. Now we clearly see Bush is not a fiscal conservative, while Clinton was, with his surplus.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

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.


in june, 1963, jfk made a speech to the nation on tv to address the conflict in birmingham, alabama which was heavily covered by tv news; images of kids being brutalized by police attack dogs and firemen with high pressure hoses were being broadcast daily evoked outrage and concern throughout the country.  kennedy asserted a need for federal legislation that would supercede state laws responsible for institutionalized segregation and guaranty equal access/equal protection to all citizens regardless of race.  several weeks later, kennedy proposed creation of such a bill and asked both houses to support its passage.  prior to his assassination, kennedy--who was very clearly aware hed need republican votes--actively solicited republican support.  following the assassination, lbj made the civil rights act a cornerstone of his 'great society' initiative.  republicans who voted for the civil rights act deserve more credit than youre attributing to them by virtue of the fact they didnt let partisanship or party lines stop them from supporting both the 1964 and 1965 acts as advanced by the jfk/lbj adminstrations.

its extremely important to remember there was virtually no such thing as an elected southern republican until the racists bolted the democratic party in 1964.  the best data i can find is from 1951-52, but should suffice.  in that year, 100% of all southern governors, senators, and other statewide elected officials were democrats as were 98% of all southern members of the us house of representatives.

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
One or your tools for reasoning that the democrats were not in favor of the civil rights movement was that a democratic congressman from alabama fillibustered against desegregation.


My argument does not hinge simply on Thurmond's filibuster; it also points out the fact (repeatedly, to the point where I can now accuse you of selective reading) that the Democratic vote fell short of the 2/3 necessary to override the filibuster, and was dependent on the overwhelming public support of the Republicans.

As to what I feel Thurmond should have done, well, voting against it is a far cry from filibustering against it, for one thing. If he had voted against it, a simple majority would have carried it, rather than the 2/3 necessary.

And yes, I DO believe in matters of conscience that it is proper for a representative to vote against the majority opinion.
Reply #33 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.

Uh excuse me but who the hell are you to tell me WHY I oppose affirmative action?  I don't like affirmative action because it puts in place a system that essentially tells one group that they are not as good and hence need a special break.

Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
king,

I feel on this and the followup post that I made a very compelling case for the GOP's historical support of civil rights. I will concede my OPINION on the Democratic Party's historical stance, at least in the years 1963-1965, is not as strong, and is more open to interpretation. However, I have seen you and others gut the irrefutable FACTS of my argument in favor of your interpretation of the Democratic Party's stance. This isn't like you.

If you feel that I have not made a compelling case for either thesis (in this post, basically, whether the Democrats have been unduly lauded as the authors of what was at best a BIPARTISAN effort [which definitely had a Republican lean, however, as shown by the numbers; in the other post, whether the GOP has been unduly demonized as the villains of the civil rights movement), then please show me where my argument fails to have merit. Because, honestly, I feel both pieces were fairly well researched, and I stand firmly behind the information I presented.

As a final note (and I thank you for realizing this much), this isn't about the GOP's current or more recent stance on civil rights; I may do a couple articles on those (the research has definitely been fun), this is about the genesis of the civil rights legislation, for which I believe the GOP deserves more credit than it receives.

As for the history, however, I will concede that, as Kerry's military service from 30 years ago bears no relevance as to his fitness for office, so the votes of sitting senators from 40 years ago who are not part of the present Congress bears no relevance to the current party members' fitness for office.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top

Republicans don't support abortion. That is a huge civil rights issue. ACLU supports it. They don't.

Republicans would totally agree - it is a huge civil rights issue. The murder of the unborn is quite a civil rights issue.

(incidentally, I'm pro-choice but that is how a pro-lifer would respond).

Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
(repeatedly, to the point where I can now accuse you of selective reading)


I read that part and responded to it, in case you didn't see.

As I posted earlier:
The democrats controlled the south, and this is the reason that the democrats had a smaller majority voting in favor of these civil rights issues


The slave states were against them, and continue to be often more rascist and non pro-choice and pro-civil rights. Because of the Democratic president, who publically supported the civil rights act, the democrats lost the southern states anyways, meaning they no longer had a political reason to not be in favor of the civil rights movements.


Who is reading select portions of the text. I don't know, but I don't think it's me.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
The murder of the unborn is quite a civil rights issue.


The constitution doesn't grant rights to the unborn, now does it.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top

then please show me where my argument fails to have merit.


my feeling is there were/are no 'good guys' lurking in the shadows of america's sorry history of racial injustice.  there are some 'better guys' but all in all, not one is defensible without some qualification involving the phrase 'for that time'.  having said that, i agree that prior to fdr's election, the republican party did less damage to and was a more consistent advocate of minority rights. 
the democratic party in the south thru the 60s drew its strength from racism and exercised its power to maintain the status quo.


there's no disputing the fact that jfk/lbj originally proposed, propelled and signed the 64/65 civil rights and voting acts into law.  they couldnt have done that without support from republicans but neither act was a republican iniative.

Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
Who is reading select portions of the text. I don't know, but I don't think it's me.


Oh, I'm definitely not selectively reading here, sandy. You are the one who is essentially refusing to acknowledge the role Republicans played in the civil rights movement. If you will note on the other thread, I go more in depth about the historical support the Republicans showed while the dems remained fierce opponents. I have given some dems their due (although I don't think it's necessary, as they've been overcredited to begin with), but you have refused to even acknowledge the Republicans' role. 81 percent is hard to refute.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
Republicans would totally agree - it is a huge civil rights issue. The murder of the unborn is quite a civil rights issue.


Right, draginol, there is the irony.

If the fetus is a person, they have civil rights and its a civil rights issue, therefore the Republican party is the ONLY one that supports civil rights legislation.

If the fetus is a mass of tissue, then it's a surgical procedure and no more a civil rights issue than cancer treatment.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
If the fetus is a mass of tissue, then it's a surgical procedure and no more a civil rights issue than cancer treatment.


Oh, so I see. So denying someone cancer treatment would not be a violation of civil rights?

I will admit I haven't read your other post (I can't seem to find it), and I am willing to give some republicans credit, but for you to state that the republicans are the ones that have in the past and continue to uphold civil rights, you are mistaken as I have shown.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
So denying someone cancer treatment would not be a violation of civil rights?


No, it wouldn't. It would be morally wrong, yes, but it wouldn't be a civil rights violation unless the treatment were denied based on one of several CLEARLY defined criteria.

Your definition of civil rights is overly broad.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
You have a civil right to make the choice to get cancer treatment. So maybe the right word isn't civil right. Maybe you have the constitutional right. The natural right.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
but for you to state that the republicans are the ones that have in the past and continue to uphold civil rights,


You GROSSLY misquoted me there, sandy...a pattern I've noticed in your responses on other people's threads.

I have repeated so often that I am tired of typing the same damn words that my presentation is based on the HISTORICAL position of the GOP on civil rights, NOT THE CURRENT POSITION!

I will repeat the above statement, as it's my hope you GET IT so I don't have to repeat it again....NOT THE CURRENT POSITION.

Got it? Good, then we can move on.

Show me ONE FACT--in the ARTICLES THEMSELVES, NOT THE RESPONSES, that is in error, and link me to the source that proves it is in error. I have referenced every one of my sources on these two articles, if you are going to rebut them, you owe me the same courtesy.
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
Maybe you have the constitutional right. The natural right.


The latter terminology I would agree with, the former I would not.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have given you the reasons more than once why the republicans supported the bill and the democrats did not.
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
What? GOP supports civil rights more then the DEMS? okay I heard it all now. This is one HUGE falsehood but if you think it is true fine. Look how diverse the GOP is.. Man where did the slave loving Dixiecrats go with? That says it all right there.. There was a role reversal years ago that took place. Today the DEMS are the supporters for civil rights while the GOP Mis busy trying to take it away. Funny stuff.. Stop in at NeoTech in my political forums we all could use a good joke or two!!

Sorry no offense everyone is entitled to their opinions.. It is all in the spirit of entertainment to me.. I do take it seriously but posting comments in here is fun in my eyes!
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
GOP supports civil rights more then the DEMS?


Desert,

READ THE DAMNED ARTICLE BEFORE YOU COMMENT ON IT! THEN COME BACK AND SHOW ME, WITH CREDIBLE CITATIONS, ONE FACT THAT IS NOT TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
Desert,

You might want to also read the followup post and prove to me that the Dixiecrats that I mention in that post (Al Gore Sr. and William Fullbright among them) didn't really stay with the Democratic Party, but rather became Republicans, as you imply. The fact is, many dixiecrats stayed with the democratic party.

I have given you two articles with factual, cited, well researched analysis....and yet, with the sole exception of kingbee, you have not credibly and consistently addressed the analysis. You have instead, filled the responses with red herring after red herring.
Reply #50 from PolMach Forums Top
Damn that Red Herring, you know Freddie was looking for him, oh well, guess he needs work since "A Pup Named Scooby-Doo" got canceled and put into syndication.