The GOP and Civil Rights

from JoeUser Forums
This is a continuation of an earlier discussion. For those who know me, acting as an apologist for the GOP is roughly akin to eating a bile pizza on "Fear Factor"; however, the Republican record on civil rights has been so badly distorted by Democratic revisionists that I do feel a correction is in order. I will probably have more information on the more recent Republican record later, however, this applies principally to the Civil Rights Movement of the 50's and 60's.

First, in defense of the Democrats, Harry Truman did order the integration of the military in 1948. But his opponent, Thomas Dewey was "as strong a proponent for that effort as any Democrat" (source link to follow).

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

Link

The apologists for the Democratic party will point to the fact that a prominent Democrat turned Dixiecrat, Strom Thurmond, defected later to the GOP. But they will ignore the fact that many other prominent Dixiecrats, including Richard Russell, Mendell Rivers, Clinton's mentor William Fulbright, Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. remained Democrats for the rest of their lives, despite their record of consistently voting against civil rights legislation.

It is argued that John F. Kennedy was a longtime civil rights activists, however, his voting record as a senator shows otherwise. It is also important to note that the platform of civil rights was notably absent during his 1960 campaign for the White House.

If anything was responsible for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it was most likely public opinion, not the political conviction of the prominent Democrats (my own personal opinion is that the 1963 murder of Medgar Evers, one of the first martyrs of the civil rights movement, was a major factor in the change). I quote the following (source link same as above):

The climate of opinion had changed dramatically between World War II and 1964. Various efforts by groups of Protestant and Catholic clergy, along with the Urban League, NAACP, Congress of Racial Equality, black activists, individuals both white and black and, of course, Martin Luther King Jr., as well as other subsets of his movement, are what forced civil rights to be crafted into federal law.

The National Opinion Research Center discovered that by 1963 the number of Americans who approved neighborhood integration had risen 30 percent in 20 years, to 72 percent. Americans supporting school integration had risen even more impressively, to 75 percent.

The efforts of politicians were needed to write all the changes and efforts into law. Politicians did not lead charge on civil rights – again, they just took credit, especially the Democrats.

I would again like to note that, without the 81% Republican voting record for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the infamous filibuster, led by Strom Thurmond, would have succeeded (as a 2/3 majority was needed and the Democratic party's 65.5% was not quite adequate enough to override). It's clear that Johnson had no choice but to sign the act into law; both House and Senate had shown they had adequate votes to override a presidential veto.

The Civil Rights legislation of the 1960's was long overdue, and a good deal of credit should be given to those who stood up and made a difference, both Democrat and Republican. But the Democratic Party has long been lauded for their "progressive stance", despite being historically the party of Bull Conner, George Wallace, Al Gore Sr., the KKK, Jim Crow laws, and Senator Robert Byrd, as well as the Democratic judges of the south who strove to keep blacks out of the polling booth.

To say that the party has changed as much as the Democratic Party has claimed is to deny the fact that many of the men responsible for the Democratic Party's opposition to civil rights were mentors to many of the prominent Democrats of today.

Other source links:




Link



Link



respectfully submitted,

Gideon MacLeish
politics
4,044 views 12 replies
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

If anything was responsible for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it was most likely public opinion, not the political conviction of the prominent Democrats

as much as i dislliked lbj before and after he came president, the civil rights act of 1964--and the voting rights act of 1965 which may actually be the more important of the two--are johnson's legacy.  altho jfk had lined up republican support for what would become the 64 act--and lbj was able to draw on post-assassintation feelings for jfk--its passage required johnson to put his future on the line and exert all of his considerable influence. 

TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

the infamous filibuster, led by Strom Thurmond, would have succeeded (as a 2/3 majority was needed and the Democratic party's 65.5% was not quite adequate enough to override). It's clear that Johnson had no choice but to sign the act into law; both House and Senate had shown they had adequate votes to override a presidential veto.


kennedy proposed enacting a civil rights bill in the summer of 63 and johnson was in full agreement with him.   if you're suggesting johnson was forced to sign it youre totally incorrect.  to ensure its passage, both jfk and lbj  conspired with republicans to get it passed.  johnson had to call upon everett dirksen for help in breaking the filibuster and signed it into law almost immediately after the vote


Link


"Despite Kennedy’s assassination in November of 1963, his proposal culminated in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson just a few hours after Senate approval on July 2, 1964. The act outlawed segregation in businesses such as theaters, restaurants, and hotels. It banned discriminatory practices in employment and ended segregation in public places such as swimming pools, libraries, and public schools.


Passage of the act was not easy. House opposition bottled up the bill in the House Rules Committee. In the Senate, opponents attempted to talk the bill to death in a filibuster. In early 1964, House supporters overcame the Rules Committee obstacle by threatening to send the bill to the floor without committee approval. The Senate filibuster was overcome through the floor leadership of Senator Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, the considerable support of President Lyndon Johnson, and the efforts of Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen of Illinois, who convinced Republicans to support the bill."

(the javascript popup in the quoted text above will not work here of course; go to the link above the quote)

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
King,

For one thing, the primary purpose of this article was to counter the claims that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was given to us by the Democrats. It wasn't. If anything, it was a bipartisan effort.

I stand by my statements on LBJ. While he did become more of a civil rights advocate as his career progressed, the fact does remain that, if he had vetoed the Civil Rights Act, his veto would have been overridden, not because of the Democrats (they didn't have the 2/3 majority) but because of the Republicans (who overwhelmingly supported the bill).

For the sake of argument here, I'll concede the possible purity of LBJ's motives. They are not relevant enough to my argument to hold to it, and I accept a different historical analysis of LBJ than you, in part because of my opinions. However, I stand by all of the FACTS I presented in this and the previous post. They are all a matter of public record.
Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top
It's funny how history works.

It was W who gave us the "big spending" No Child Left Behind education reform
It was Clinton who gave us the "conservative" Welfare Reform.
It was Bush Sr. who gave us the "liberal" ADA.
It was Carter who gave us air lines deregulation.
It was Nixon who got us out of Vietnam and into China.
It was Eisenhower who spent like crazy to get us the Interstate Highway system.

Just because the person in the White House signed the bill, doesn't mean he should receive the credit for getting it passed. Actually, the bill may say very little about the person's values, other than their desire to be bi-partisan.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
excellent points, enk. As I stated before and proved in these articles, the bill would never have even reached LBJ's desk without Republican support.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

that, if he had vetoed the Civil Rights Act


why would lbj want to veto a bill he advocated?

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

It was Nixon who got us out of Vietnam and into China.


it was nixon--and the china lobby with whom he was very closely associated--who created the climate in which it was nearly impossibl to negotiate with the proc in the first place.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
King,

Frankly, I'm more of a cynic than you when it comes to LBJ. While I hold a more ambiguous stance on Kennedy (I don't feel he lives long enough for us to fully understand what his legacy would have been), I feel that LBJ was a politician of expediency, and that the political climate had more to do with his agenda than did personal conviction. I may be wrong on this, as you may be with your political interpretation; without knowing the mind of LBJ (and even biographers have taken conflicting stances), we will never know for sure. This will have to be an area in which we agree to disagree.

What I DO know is this: without the overwhelming support of the GOP, the matter would have never gotten to Johnson's desk. Certainly, as the Democrats held the majority, their support was needed as well, but historically, they've received their credit, while the GOP has been repeatedly villainized by a revisionist understanding of their role.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

Frankly, I'm more of a cynic than you when it comes to LBJ


that would require a lot of cyncism on your part gid.  on your other thread i put it this way:


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.


did johnson ultimately redeem (or at least make sufficient restitution for) himself?  barbara garson's 'macbird' seems to me more perceptive than satiric now.  he's one more victim--but one of the very few who can't blame anyone except himself--of the war in vietnam. 

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
King,
how in the world did China have anything to do with our withdrawal from Vietnam?
I believe they fought a little war with over 200,000 casualties in the late 70's early 80's.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

how in the world did China have anything to do with our withdrawal from Vietnam?

i wasnt suggesting the two things were related (nor do i think enkydu meant it that way).  the irony of nixon being credited with opening the door to relations with china is that he helped to close and nail that door shut only 20 years previously.  as a young senator, nixon--in conjunction with senator mccarthy--took up the cause of the pro-generalissimo chiang kai-shek 'china lobby'.  claimed mao's revolution had prevailed over the nationalists with help from treasonous pro-communist moles in the state department.  for years the us refused to recognize any chinese government but the one on taiwan because noone with any sense of self-preservation was willing to risk the china lobby's wrath or the stigma of being seen as 'soft on communism'.   nixon was--for all practical purposes--the only politician who didnt have that concern since it wasnt likely hed turn on himself.