CDZ Did the Democratic party really create Jim Crow laws and fight against Civil Rights?

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by John Baron, Aug 27, 2017.

?

Were Jim Crow laws part of a Democratic party strategy?

  1. Yes

    14 vote(s)
    93.3%
  2. No

    1 vote(s)
    6.7%
  3. Not sure

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. CrusaderFrank
    Offline

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    88,333
    Thanks Received:
    16,142
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +47,666
    The Monyihan Report on the NegroFamily made it quite clear that "Moynihan argued that the rise in black single-mother families was caused not by a lack of jobs (that would soon be the case, however, from the loss of jobs due to industrial restructuring) but by a destructive vein in ghetto culture, which could be traced to slavery times and continued discrimination in the American South under Jim Crow." So, of course, LBJ made the destruction of the black nuclear family the cornerstone of his strategy to make good on his promise to "have them ******* voting Democrat for the next 200 years"

    I give the Dems credit for going to any and all lengths to maintain political power and find a way to make us all pay for it
     
  2. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    53,244
    Thanks Received:
    9,189
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +36,007

    You have been lied to....but thanks to the internet the democrats can't get away with it anymore....

    First.....when blacks actually started voting for democrats...

     
  3. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    53,244
    Thanks Received:
    9,189
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +36,007

    And here.....another look at the lie about Nixon and the Southern strategy...

    blackquillandink.com - This website is for sale! - blackquillandink Resources and Information.


    Nixon’s Southern Strategy: The Democrat-Lie Keeping Their Control Over the Black Community | Black Quill and Ink


    Ken Raymond
    Jun 2011

    Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”, which the democrats say is the reason black people had to support them during the 1960′s–is a lie.

    And it’s probably the biggest lie that’s been told to the blacks since Woodrow Wilson segregated the federal government after getting the NAACP to support him.
    After talking with black voters across the country about why they overwhelmingly supports democrats, the common answer that’s emerges is the Southern Strategy.

    I’ve heard of the Southern Strategy too. But since it doesn’t make a difference in how I decide to vote, I never bothered to research it. But apparently it still influences how many African Americans vote today. That makes it worth investigating.

    For those that might be unfamiliar with the Southern Strategy, I’ll briefly review the story. After the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, most blacks registered as democrats and it’s been that way ever since.

    And that doesn’t make any sense when you consider the fact that it was the democrats that established, and fought for, Jim Crow laws and segregation in the first place. And the republicans have a very noble history of fighting for the civil rights of blacks.

    The reason black people moved to the democrats, given by media pundits and educational institutions for the decades, is that when republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon ran for president in 1968, he employed a racist plan that’s now infamously called the Southern Strategy.

    The Southern Strategy basically means Nixon allegedly used hidden code words that appealed to the racists within the Democrat party and throughout the south. This secret language caused a seismic shift in the electoral landscape that moved the evil racist democrats into the republican camp and the noble-hearted republicans into the democrat camp.

    And here’s what I found, Nixon did not use a plan to appeal to racist white voters.

    First, let’s look at the presidential candidates of 1968. Richard Nixon was the republican candidate; Hubert Humphrey was the democrat nominee; and George Wallace was a third party candidate.

    Remember George Wallace? Wallace was the democrat governor of Alabama from 1963 until 1967. And it was Wallace that ordered the Eugene “Bull” Connor, and the police department, to attack Dr. Martin Luther King

    Jr. and 2,500 protesters in Montgomery , Alabama in 1965. And it was Governor Wallace that ordered a blockade at the admissions office at the University of Alabama to prevent blacks from enrolling in 1963.

    Governor Wallace was a true racist and a determined segregationist. And he ran as the nominee from the American Independent Party, which was he founded.

    Richard Nixon wrote about the 1968 campaign in his book RN: the Memoirs of Richard Nixon originally published in 1978.

    In his book, Nixon wrote this about campaigning in the south, “The deep south had to be virtually conceded to George Wallace. I could not match him there without compromising on civil rights, which I would not do.”

    The media coverage of the 1968 presidential race also showed that Nixon was in favor of the Civil Rights and would not compromise on that issue. For example, in an article published in theWashington Post on September 15, 1968 headlined “Nixon Sped Integration, Wallace says” Wallace declared that Nixon agreed with Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren and played a role in ”the destruction of public school system.” Wallace pledged to restore the school system, in the same article, by giving it back to the states ”lock, stock, and barrel.”

    This story, as well as Nixon’s memoirs and other news stories during that campaign, shows that Nixon was very clear about his position on civil rights. And if Nixon was used code words only racists could hear, evidently George Wallace couldn’t hear it.

    Among the southern states, George Wallace won Arkansas , Mississippi , Alabama , Georgia and Louisiana . Nixon won North Carolina , South Carolina , Florida , Virginia , and Tennessee . Winning those states were part of Nixon’s plan.

    “I would not concede the Carolina ‘s, Florida , or Virginia or the states around the rim of the south,”Nixon wrote. ”These states were a part of my plan.”

    At that time, the entire southern region was the poorest in the country. The south consistently lagged behind the rest of the United States in income. And according to the

    “U.S. Regional Growth and Convergence,” by Kris James Mitchener and Ian W. McLean, per capita income for southerners was almost half as much as it was for Americans in other regions.

    Nixon won those states strictly on economic issues. He focused on increasing tariffs on foreign imports to protect the manufacturing and agriculture industries of those states. Some southern elected officials agreed to support him for the sake of their economies, including South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond.

    “I had been consulting privately with Thurmond for several months and I was convinced that he’d join my campaign if he were satisfied on the two issues of paramount concern to him: national defense and tariffs against textile imports to protect South Carolina ‘s position in the industry.”Nixon wrote in his memoirs.

    In fact, Nixon made it clear to the southern elected officials that he would not compromise on the civil rights issue.

    “On civil rights, Thurmond knew my position was very different from his,” Nixon wrote. “I was for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and he was against it. Although he disagreed with me, he respected my sincerity and candor.”

    The same scenario played out among elected officials and voters in other southern states won by Nixon. They laid their feelings aside and supported him because of his economic platform’”not because Nixon sent messages on a frequency only racists can hear.



    On the Southern Strategy lie itself......


    Nixon’s Southern Strategy: The Democrat-Lie Keeping Their Control Over the Black Community | Black Quill and Ink

    Believe it or not, the entire myth was created by an unknown editor at the New York Times who didn’t do his job and read a story he was given to edit.

    On May 17, 1970, the New York Times published an article written by James Boyd. The headline, written by our unknown editor, was “Nixon’s Southern Strategy: It’s All in the Charts.”

    The article was about a very controversial political analyst named Kevin Phillips. Phillips believed that everyone voted according to their ethnic background, not according to their individual beliefs. And all a candidate had to do is frame their message according to whatever moves a particular ethnic group.

    Phillips offered his services to the Nixon campaign. But if our unknown editor had bothered to read the story completely, he would’ve seen that Phillip’s and his theory was completely rejected!

    Boyd wrote in his article, “Though Phillips’s ideas for an aggressive anti-liberal campaign strategy that would hasten defection of the working-class democrats to the republicans did not prevail in the 1968 campaign, he won the respect John Mitchell.” (Mitchell was a well-known Washington insider at the time).

    A lazy, negligent editor partially read the story. And wrote a headline for it that attributed Nixon’s campaign success–to a plan he rejected.

    In fact, Phillips isn’t even mentioned in Nixon’s memoirs.

    Is all of this the result of a negligent copy editor at the New York Times? Or did they purposely work with the Democrat Party to create this myth? That has crossed my mind and it’s certainly not beyond the realm of possibility.



    ********

    Desegregation before brown…kevin d. williams

    on what Goldwater did for civil rights

    Desegregation, before Brown


    *********
    Red state article on Southern strategy myth…..detailed….good look

    The Southern Strategy Myth and the Lost Majority

    Goldwater had supported the 1957 and 1960 acts but believed that Title II and Title VII of the 1964 bill were unconstitutional, based in part on a 75-page brief from Robert Bork. But far from extending a welcoming hand to southern segregationists, he named as his running mate a New York representative, William E. Miller, who had been the co-author of Republican civil-rights legislation in the 1950s. The Republican platform in 1964 was hardly catnip for Klansmen: It spoke of the Johnson administration’s failure to help further the “just aspirations of the minority groups” and blasted the president for his refusal “to apply Republican-initiated retraining programs where most needed, particularly where they could afford new economic opportunities to Negro citizens.” Other planks in the platform included: “improvements of civil rights statutes adequate to changing needs of our times; such additional administrative or legislative actions as may be required to end the denial, for whatever unlawful reason, of the right to vote; continued opposition to discrimination based on race, creed, national origin or sex.” And Goldwater’s fellow Republicans ran on a 1964 platform demanding “full implementation and faithful execution of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all other civil rights statutes, to assure equal rights and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen.” Some dog whistle.
     
  4. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    40,472
    Thanks Received:
    5,302
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +15,249
    1964 was a watershed moment for both the Democratic and Republican Parties.

    In 1964 the Republicans nominated for President one of the few non-Southern Senators to vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act- the most important piece of Civil Rights legislation in the 20th century.

    And Martin Luther King Jr. correctly noted:

    The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.


    Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.


    Prescient- since the GOP proceeded to nominate two more Presidents who had opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
     
  5. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    53,244
    Thanks Received:
    9,189
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +36,007

    And King made the worst mistake of his life...siding with a racist democrat over a freedom loving Republican.......you keep posting this...go ahead...I will keep posting the truth about johnson, and Goldwater.....

    You defend a racist......and smear a good man.....you lie about what actually happened and think you are doing something of quality......dumb ass...

    Lyndon Johnson opposed every civil rights proposal considered in his first 20 years as lawmaker

    "He had been a congressman, beginning in 1937, for eleven years, and for eleven years he had voted against every civil rights bill –

    against not only legislation aimed at ending the poll tax and segregation in the armed services but even against legislation aimed at ending lynching: a one hundred percent record," Caro wrote.


    "Running for the Senate in 1948, he had assailed President" Harry "Truman’s entire civil rights program (‘an effort to set up a police state’)…Until 1957, in the Senate, as in the House, his record – by that time a twenty-year record – against civil rights had been consistent," Caro wrote.

    =========

    The Party of Civil Rights

    The Party of Civil Rights

    The depth of Johnson’s prior opposition to civil-rights reform must be digested in some detail to be properly appreciated.

    In the House, he did not represent a particularly segregationist constituency (it “made up for being less intensely segregationist than the rest of the South by being more intensely anti-Communist,” as the New York Times put it), but Johnson was practically antebellum in his views.

    Never mind civil rights or voting rights: In Congress, Johnson had consistently and repeatedly voted against legislation to protect black Americans from lynching.


    As a leader in the Senate, Johnson did his best to cripple the Civil Rights Act of 1957; not having votes sufficient to stop it, he managed to reduce it to an act of mere symbolism by excising the enforcement provisions before sending it to the desk of President Eisenhower.


    Johnson’s Democratic colleague Strom Thurmond nonetheless went to the trouble of staging the longest filibuster in history up to that point, speaking for 24 hours in a futile attempt to block the bill. The reformers came back in 1960 with an act to remedy the deficiencies of the 1957 act, and Johnson’s Senate Democrats again staged a record-setting filibuster.

    In both cases, the “master of the Senate” petitioned the northeastern Kennedy liberals to credit him for having seen to the law’s passage while at the same time boasting to southern Democrats that he had taken the teeth out of the legislation.



    Johnson would later explain his thinking thus: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us, since they’ve got something now they never had before: the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this — we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

    Read more at: The Party of Civil Rights
    =============

    Goldwater.....

    Barry M. Goldwater: The Most Consequential Loser in American Politics


    Goldwater treated all people the same. As a private citizen, he flew mercy missions to Navaho reservations, never asking for recognition or accepting payment. He felt that “the red man seemed as much—if not more—a part of Arizona and America as any white or black person.”[20] Moreover, a few weeks after Goldwater was discharged from the Army in November 1945, Democratic Arizona Governor Sidney Preston Osborn asked him to organize the Arizona Air National Guard. One of Goldwater’s first recommendations, soon approved, was to desegregate the unit. Goldwater’s integration of the state’s Air National Guard took place more than two years before President Harry Truman integrated the U.S. armed forces.
    Goldwater was an early member of the Arizona chapters of both the NAACP and the National Urban League, even making up the latter’s operating deficit when it was getting started. Later as a Senator, he desegregated the Senate cafeteria in 1953, demanding that his black legislative assistant, Kathrine Maxwell, be served along with every other Senate employee after learning she had been denied service.
    In the mid-1970s, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, investigating improper operations of the intelligence community in the United States, proposed that transcripts of the FBI tapes about Martin Luther King Jr.’s alleged indiscretions be published. An outraged Goldwater declared he would not be a party to destroying King’s reputation and strode out of the committee room. A fellow Senator recalled that Goldwater’s protest “injected some common sense into the proceedings,” and the electronic surveillance transcripts were not released.[21]

    That his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on constitutional grounds and not political considerations was underscored in the final week of the fall campaign.
    Speaking in Columbia, South Carolina, Goldwater condemned segregation and declared that government must treat “all men as equal in the arena of law and civil order.”[22] He pledged if elected President to implement all provisions of the act. His forthright pro-civil rights speech was televised on 87 stations throughout the South.
    ---
    NPR Wrong on Goldwater '64, Civil Rights, Say 4 Who Were There
    As for the Republican nominee's position on the Civil Rights Act, Goldwater had said he would vote for passage if Section II on public accommodations and Section VII on equal employment opportunity were removed. With his view reinforced by a detailed memorandum from Phoenix lawyer and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Goldwater felt these sections were unconstitutional, were unenforceable without a federal police force, and would lead to the creation of racial quotas and affirmative action.

    "He was absolutely right about [the two sections of the Civil Rights Act] and they did lead to precisely what Goldwater and most conservatives were afraid of," said Tom Winter, then executive editor of Human Events, who would join Ryskind as its co-owner a year later. As for the "extremism in the defense of liberty" speech, Winter recalled watching it from a San Francisco restaurant "and cheering it because it was clearly about freedom and fighting communism. I certainly didn't think it had anything to do with race."
    Urban Legend: Goldwater Against Civil Rights



    More specifically, Goldwater had problems with title II and title VII of the 1964 bill. He felt that constitutionally the federal government had no legal right to interfere in who people hired, fired; or to whom they sold their products, goods and services. He felt that “power” laid in the various states, and with the people. He was a strong advocate of the tenth amendment. Goldwater’s constitutional stance did not mean he agreed with the segregation and racial discrimination practiced in the South. To the contrary, he fought against these kinds of racial divides in his own state of Arizona. He supported the integration of the Arizona National guard and Phoenix public schools.[4] Goldwater was, also, a member of the NAACP and the Urban League.[5]

    His personal feelings about discrimination are enshrined in the congressional record where he states, “I am unalterably opposed to discrimination or segregation on the basis of race, color, or creed or on any other basis; not only my words, but more importantly my actions through years have repeatedly demonstrated the sincerity of my feeling in this regard…”[6]. And, he would continued to holdfast to his strongly felt convictions that constitutionally the federal government was limited in what it could do, believing that the amoral actions of those perpetuating discrimination and segregation would have to be judged by those in that community. Eventually, the states government and local communities would come to pressure people to change their minds. Goldwater’s view was that the civil disobedience by private citizens against those business establishments was more preferable than intervention by the feds. He, optimistically, believed that racial intolerance would soon buckle under the economic and societal pressure.
     
  6. Xelor
    Offline

    Xelor Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,968
    Thanks Received:
    996
    Trophy Points:
    210
    Location:
    D.C.
    Ratings:
    +3,560
    Quite frankly, I think given the GOP's adamantine devotion to big business, no matter how earnestly it may have tried, the task would have been Sisyphean. Occasionally one faces instances wherein one must choose among incompatible goals. In the mid and late 20th century, the notion that one could fulfill the expectations of both corporate America and black America was more preposterous than it is now.

    It's not so much a black thing or a racial thing as it is a poor-people thing. Quite simply, the profit motive is rarely better served by having to select employees from a better educated and more highly trained, thus more expensive labor force. That was especially so from the American Industrial Revolution to about 1990 because in that period, "production was king," which is to say, corporations overwhelmingly needed able bodies, not sharp minds.

    In that same period of time, what did blacks need to get ahead? Education, training, and experience, and comparatively speaking, a good deal more of each. (One might even argue that hasn't changed.) Well, that costs money on the front end and on the back; thus corporations weren't keen on initiatives that blacks wanted.

    Times have now changed. Technology has replaced most manual jobs and corporations what more highly educated, skilled and experienced workers. From a profit motive standpoint, the workers' race is of no matter. Accordingly it's in corporations' interest to increase the supply of highly educated workers because doing so lowers the incremental cost of employing them by diminishing the sums workers can command for having a degree.

    There're two basic approaches to doing that: increase the standards for what one must learn to graduate from high school or make higher education more accessible to more people. Under either approach, both of which have all sorts of variations and nuances, various service and product industries stand to gain. Whichever of them has the more convincing coalition of lobbyists will see its approach prevail.

    The key, however, is that at the moment it's conceivable for corporate America and poor America to have compatible goals. Insofar as blacks form a material share of poor (or at least poorer) America, their goals can dovetail nicely with big business'. Whether they do or not is a matter of execution, not potentiality.
     
  7. Picaro
    Offline

    Picaro Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    Messages:
    7,393
    Thanks Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +4,949
    Actually Moynihan did indeed point to the lack of jobs for Negro males, and was also ostracized for telling the truth in his report for the most part. Everything he said would happen in the future .did indeed come true

    lol nonsense, he did no such thing, nor did he ever say that last sentence. The legislation LBJ pushed for, the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts, was already passed before the Moynihan Report came out, for one, and it was Nixon who did most of the damage, especially re Affirmative Action and the EEOC; LBJ, Humphrey, and Moynihan all fought against turning it into something else, a quota system, and won that battle, only see to see Nixon revive and start quotas, in a ploy to regain black votes and with the enthusiastic support for not only that but the 'War On Drugs' by the NAACP and the Black Caucus.
     
  8. depotoo
    Offline

    depotoo Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Messages:
    19,902
    Thanks Received:
    4,266
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +11,406
    They did nothing for Blacks but continue and create misery.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. Picaro
    Offline

    Picaro Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    Messages:
    7,393
    Thanks Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +4,949
    Actually black politicians and the left wing radicals they put in key posts in the bureaucracies created the misery, and used the hood rats as weapons to get bennies and graft for themselves; Nixon just let them hang themselves; they controlled black schools and produced the generations of morons they're stuck with now all on their own, with plenty of money shoved at them.

    Republicans only supported Civil Rights because they had nothing to lose by doing so at the time, it merely allowed them to attack some Democrats in key states; they didn't give a rat's ass about blacks from 1855 to the 1950's, as blacks would vote for them no matter what anyway, so they took them for granted for most of their life as a Party, so they can't pretend to be black peoples' 'friends' and expect to be taken seriously.
     
  10. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    53,244
    Thanks Received:
    9,189
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +36,007

    Do you realize that big business is now firmly in the hands of the democrat party? Ever hear of Google....Facebook.....Elon Musk.....? And how many companies fell in line with obama on obamacare?
     

Share This Page