Did Democrats or Republicans Support the Civil Rights Act?

H

Howey

Banned
Some posters on this forum are convinced that the Civil Rights Act was solely a Republican cause, using archaic quotes from the champion of the Act, President Lyndon Johnson, as proof. As I've tried to explain, to little avail, the Republican Party of those days is nothing like the Republican Party of today, whereas the Democratic Party has remained a bastion of civil rights for decades.

What was similar between both parties in the Party Platforms of 1960 was their unwavering support of equal rights for all Americans, regardless of race (and not surprisingly, support of free immigration).

Another significant factor was the historic geographic concepts of racism. Going all the way back to the founding of our country, racism was more prevalent in the South than other regions of the country.

The South, in those days, was overwhelmingly Democrat - and racist. The Northern States and Midwest were led by liberal Republicans and liberal Democrats, both of whom were staunchly anti-segregation. In fact, support for the Civil Rights Act by non-Southern Democrats eclipsed that of Republicans. Following the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and continuing through the Nixon years, a concerted effort to recruit disavowed former Democrats into the Republican Party became Job 1 for the Republican Party and to this day the Republican Party has become the face of racism.

This was, of course, called "The Southern Strategy".

It was under Nixon that the “Southern Strategy” was born. The idea was simple: Millions of white Southern voters who had been raised to vote straight Democratic tickets were feeling more and more alienated from the national Democratic Party. They were up for grabs — Goldwater had proven it. But Goldwater had also gone too far: His explicit rejection of the Civil Rights Act played well in Dixie, but made him a monster to the rest of the country. The trick, then, was to wink and nod at white Southerners with signals that were simultaneously nebulous and unmistakable. Instead of arguing against civil rights, Nixon talked about “law and order” and, later, busing. In the fall of ’68 his task was complicated by the presence of Wallace, who ran a baldly racist third party campaign and won five Southern states. But Nixon managed to peel off Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and South Carolina. He ended up with 301 electoral votes, but without those 43 from the South, he would have fallen short of the magic 270 mark.

As president, Nixon continued to court Southerners aggressively. Slowly, Republican candidates began winning races for the U.S. House and Senate in Southern states. Nixon swept the region in his 1972 reelection campaign — although he swept the rest of the country too, winning 49 states over George McGovern. It was against this backdrop that Democrats were so elated by Carter’s victory in 1976. Given the chance to vote for one of its own, the South had returned to the Democratic fold. Maybe Dixie could be saved after all.
Click to expand...

I certainly hope this quells misconceptions offered by certain persons of our forum.
 
The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress."[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party
 
Most white churches in the south supported slavery. And were against civil rights.
Just an interesting tidbit.
Gos was on the whites side. well according to them.
 
All you have to do is look at the votes.....about 39% or Democrats supported the Civil Rights Act....

compared to 80% of Republicans that supported it.....THAT should clear up any misconceptions about the question.

history speaks for itself....I don't need any left wing spin from liberal revisionists to explain it to me.....
 
bravo said:
All you have to do is look at the votes.....about 39% or Democrats supported the Civil Rights Act....

compared to 80% of Republicans that supported it.....THAT should clear up any misconceptions about the question.

history speaks for itself....I don't need any left wing spin from liberal revisionists to explain it to me.....
Click to expand...
Do you just make things up in your head?

When broken down by party, 61 percent of Democratic lawmakers voted for the bill (152 yeas and 96 nays), and a full 80 percent of the Republican caucus supported it (138 yeas and 34 nays).

When the Senate passed the measure on June 19, 1964, -- nine days after supporters mustered enough votes to end the longest filibuster in Senate history -- the margin was 73-27. Better than two-thirds of Senate Democrats supported the measure on final passage (46 yeas, 21 nays), but an even stronger 82 percent of Republicans supported it (27 yeas, 6 nays).



This pattern showed clearly in the House vote. Northern Democrats backed the Civil Rights Act by a margin even larger than that of Republicans -- 141 for, just four against -- while Southern Democrats were strongly opposed, by a margin of 11 yeas to 92 nays.
Click to expand...

It's not "liberal revisionists" coming up with those numbers...it's the Congressional Record.
 
Sativa said:
The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress."[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party
Click to expand...

A Southern Democrat. An avowed racist. I know that. I've said all along southern democrats were against it, there's never been a dispute. The dispute is that the greatest majority of those democrats, with one or two exceptions, changed parties. Why can't you concede the numbers I posted? Or are you here merely to argue incessantly about minutae?

Did you read the two platforms from 1960 of the two parties? What's your take on them? Are they "liberal revisionism"?


Oh. Wait. I guess I need to go check wiki to make sure you didn't just edit your "source".
 
Howey said:
Some posters on this forum are convinced that the Civil Rights Act was solely a Republican cause, using archaic quotes from the champion of the Act, President Lyndon Johnson, as proof. As I've tried to explain, to little avail, the Republican Party of those days is nothing like the Republican Party of today, whereas the Democratic Party has remained a bastion of civil rights for decades.

What was similar between both parties in the Party Platforms of 1960 was their unwavering support of equal rights for all Americans, regardless of race (and not surprisingly, support of free immigration).

Another significant factor was the historic geographic concepts of racism. Going all the way back to the founding of our country, racism was more prevalent in the South than other regions of the country.

The South, in those days, was overwhelmingly Democrat - and racist. The Northern States and Midwest were led by liberal Republicans and liberal Democrats, both of whom were staunchly anti-segregation. In fact, support for the Civil Rights Act by non-Southern Democrats eclipsed that of Republicans. Following the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and continuing through the Nixon years, a concerted effort to recruit disavowed former Democrats into the Republican Party became Job 1 for the Republican Party and to this day the Republican Party has become the face of racism.

This was, of course, called "The Southern Strategy".



I certainly hope this quells misconceptions offered by certain persons of our forum.
Click to expand...
Excellent post Howey.
 
Sativa said:
The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress."[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party
Click to expand...
Uhhh....maybe it may have escaped your notice but Strom Thurmond switched party affiliation and became a Republican in 1964 when Johnson signed the CRA of 1964.
 
Howey said:
Some posters on this forum are convinced that the Civil Rights Act was solely a Republican cause, using archaic quotes from the champion of the Act, President Lyndon Johnson, as proof. As I've tried to explain, to little avail, the Republican Party of those days is nothing like the Republican Party of today, whereas the Democratic Party has remained a bastion of civil rights for decades.

What was similar between both parties in the Party Platforms of 1960 was their unwavering support of equal rights for all Americans, regardless of race (and not surprisingly, support of free immigration).

Another significant factor was the historic geographic concepts of racism. Going all the way back to the founding of our country, racism was more prevalent in the South than other regions of the country.

The South, in those days, was overwhelmingly Democrat - and racist. The Northern States and Midwest were led by liberal Republicans and liberal Democrats, both of whom were staunchly anti-segregation. In fact, support for the Civil Rights Act by non-Southern Democrats eclipsed that of Republicans. Following the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and continuing through the Nixon years, a concerted effort to recruit disavowed former Democrats into the Republican Party became Job 1 for the Republican Party and to this day the Republican Party has become the face of racism.

This was, of course, called "The Southern Strategy".



I certainly hope this quells misconceptions offered by certain persons of our forum.
Click to expand...

What did you expect?

You cannot counter the ignorance of the truly stupid, no matter how hard you try, with any amount of factual information.

It just can't be done.
 
Sativa said:
you have both dems and pubs against it howey. stop trying to act as if it was just republicans.
Click to expand...

I Love America said:
Faulty premise
Click to expand...

The Kicker of Elves said:
wtf? damnit I guess we have our first bug...
Click to expand...

I hope you fix it. The posts above are why "we" wanted the problem with trolls corrected. A reasonable, intelligent, well-thought post ruined by people who don't read what's presented to them. I don't know what it is about "some" members of the right, but it's ok to admit one is wrong or that there's more to a story than one assumes.

Another glitch, btw, is what I told you Yurt would do:

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...ats-did-not-support-the-civil-rights-movement

Of course, he did this before, but now it's not just trolling, it's a slap in the face of Damo and you.

It's a shame we can't share intelligent conversation and debate.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Uhhh....maybe it may have escaped your notice but Strom Thurmond switched party affiliation and became a Republican in 1964 when Johnson signed the CRA of 1964.
Click to expand...

Guess he wanted to be with the party that REALLY supported the CRA by a full 80%........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top