1964 Civil Rights Act Question

[Avonrepus]

As most freepers seem keen to remind Democrats, it was the latter that voted in greater numbers against the CRA. I couldn't find any articles to back this up but my old politics teacher always told me it was because of the Democrats being the party of the South, who obviously switched their allegience after 1964 and that they had supported the Democrats not because they were the party of racists but because they, through the New Deal, were the party that united the most number of voters (hence their dominance of Congress at the time). Any comments on this idea or are the Freepers right? :)

[tritsofme]

1. Southern Democrats of yesteryear are today's Republicans.

Great Democrats like Strom Thurmond voted against Civil Rights.

Remember that traditionally the Northeast was a pretty good place to be a Republican. That's obviously not true anymore.

[0rganism]

2. And it was a Texas Democrat who signed the CRA into law

Lyndon Johnson advanced the CRA as part of assasinated Democrat John F. Kennedy's legacy, and a centerpiece of his "Great Society".

This fight redefined the political landscape, as racist Southern Democrats (Dixiecrats) such as Strom Thurmond switched parties after the perceived "betrayal". Nixon reinforced and took advantage of this realignment to win in '68.

[Avonrepus]

3. thanks

Thats What i thought, I guess this kind of simple argument is too hard for Freepers like Coulter to comprehend.

[Red_Viking]

4. Did some Google searching

Found this site:

http://www.everythingmacosx.com/moi/archives/000030.html

Interesting posts re: Civil Rights Act and Republicans. One of the comments, posted by Todd Kurland, whoever he is, was far more eloquent than I could be. I quote:

"Facts are handy, but without context, they can be misleading.

It is true that prior to Nixon, politicians who favored segregation and were against civil rights for blacks, aligned themselves with, and were, democrats. Trent Lott, for example, was a proud democrat in those days.

It was around the time of Nixon that the Republican Party started to embrace these views in an effort to attact this base of voters. The Democratic party likewise started to embrace a more pro-civil rights platform. During this time Trent Lott, for example, switched parties and became a Republican.

Over the next few decades, the transition became complete, and the roles were reversed.

No one would dispute today that the Democratic party is more 'pro civil rights' than the Republican party. Otherwise, they would not be getting something like 80% of the black vote and a majority of the female vote.

It is not the party which makes the politicians, it is the politicians which make the party.

In 1950, pro-civil rights politicians found a home in the Republican Party. Today, those same politicians find their home in the Democratic party.

As party platforms drift away from the views of certain segments of their voters, they'll nevertheless try to retain those old voters (and politicians) for as long as they can.

People who don't follow the changing policies and platforms of their own party are at risk of voting for policies they don't agree with."


There is more; you should read it.

Good luck!

RV

[theboss]

5. It's a half-truth

The Democrats were the Party of the Segragationists from the end of Reconstruction until the mid 60s. The "Solid South" was consistently Democrat. Republicans were seen as the cause of the Civil War and the monsters who foisted Reconstruction on the South. If this were 1867, most DUers would have been Republicans.

By percentage, more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Democrats did.

Though it should be noted that this means next to nothing. A majority of Democrats voted for the Bill. And the votes by Democrats were much braver because they knew it meant - as LBJ said - losing the Solid South for at least a generation.

It should also be noted that the Republicans quickly sacrificed the Moral Highground by welcoming all the pissed-off Segragationists into their party with open arms in 1968 via Nixon's Southern Strategy.

Basically, 1964 showed the Democrats casting off their Segragationist coat while Republicans decided to put it on. Which Party came out of this better?

[Sandpiper]

6. What the Freepers don't realize

Or perhaps choose to ignore is that the Republican party was a very different animal back then. The reactionary conservative movement of that era did belong to the Democratic party. They were the dixiecrats and were part of FDR's New Deal coalition. Most of the Republicans of the 1960s were of the Rockefeller variety and would be considered liberal by the modern, Reaganite Republican party.

The dixiecrats eventually realigned with the GOP after the "Southern Strategy," of courting the white racist vote, that started with Nixon and saw its fulfillment with Reagan.

Here's a good article about it by Sidney Blumenthal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1080497,00.html

[bobbieinok]

7. have heard this a lot

Things to remember about the time....

...many democratic senators were segregationists and later became republicans - Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, etc

...Trent Lott as a young man worked for one of the most segregationist MS democrats. In 1980, he was a republican member of the House.

...LBJ had been senate majority leader for a LONG time; he knew all about the skeletons in the senators' closets and where to apply pressure. And he was furious when the bodies of Cheney, Swerner, and Goodman were found during Mississippi Summer (when there was a major push to get blacks registered to vote in MS).

I shut most freepers up when I say, 'Yeah, they all became republicans because the DEMOCRATS SUPPORTED AND STILL SUPPORT CIVIL RIGHTS FOR BLACKS.

[Christ was Socialist]

8. The democrats use to be the party of slavery

Thats why the republicans sprang up. The early republicans were liebrals, while the democrats, alined with the nra and kkk, to make sure blacks were unarmed. The southern democrats or dixie crats opposed all forms of civil rights. In fact fdr, truman were all rasicists themselves. Not until kennedy do we get someone progressive. Then lbj (although he was corrupt). One of the reasons i only have a tip toe in the democratic party is because of its hitsory. Today they are doing the same thing. They maginalise gays, voted for the patriot act, discard the left wing, which leads to the dsa and greens. The dems refuse to unite the left for a progressive country. A lot of us were mad after clinton showed himself to be a neo liberal. And refused to every speak to a dem canidate. Nader had a lot of black support, in fact the dems are losing it everywhere. Here is a brief history of the party

http://www.wsws.org/public_html/prioriss/iwb9-23/andre.htm

dems oppose the civil rights act
http://www.calpatriot.org/february03/erasing.html


http://www.americasvoices.org/archives2003/TurnerS/TurnerS_101103.htm

[Sandpiper]

10. The Republican Party lurched to the right

When Reagan was elected. He was considered an extremist by fellow Republicans Ford and Nixon.

Nixon would be considered a liberal by today's GOP. Had he not been a crook, we'd have had a national health insurance in place by the end of his second term.

[H2O Man]

9. The first 2 answers are correct.

Especially the Dixiecrat comment. It's important to remember that the republican power base of that era is long gone. Kevin Phillips, who was one of the people who anticipated the shift in parties for the southern democrats, and how that would benefit Nixon, is the author of "American Dynasty," one of the most important books to document the threat of bush to the ideals of American democratic process. The republican party, for all of it's many previous sins, was taken over by a diseased strain that has degenerated into the bush administration. They had nothing to do with the Civil Rights bill, etc. Check out the president's father's stand on civil rights. Enough said.