OohPooPahDoo
Gold Member
Sure, its just a total coincidence that southerns voters overwhelmingly against the CRA64 and non-southerns voted overwhelmingly for it. Right.How is it that the party of Lincoln, a party that led the way in opposing slavery, Jim Crow laws, lynching, the KKK, poll taxes, led the way on integration and voting rights for black Americans, and percentage wise, voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act in greater numbers than Democrats is now only getting about 10% of the black vote?
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was divided more on geographical lines than party lines. Non-Southerners in both parties voted in favor of the bill by a large majority, while the opposite occured (for both parties) in the South. The Southern Democrats were so pissed at Johnson for signing the CRA that over several decades they migrated to the Republican Party - and the Republican Party welcomed them.
Now Congressional Republicans like Ron Paul want to do away with the Civil Rights Act. Yet I can't think of a single Democrat that would do the same. Quite literally, over the past 50 years or so, the parties have switched sides with regard to the issue of civil rights for blacks.Geography has absolutely nothing to do with the hearts or minds of people.The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was divided more on geographical lines than party lines.
Really? LOL! So Strom Thurmond - who voted AGAINST CRA64 - switched from Democrat to Republican - because he was FOR CRA64? YEah that makes sense! Lord you're a moron.Southerners who joined the Republican Party did so because they were sick of racism and the KKK.