Setting the record straight on the the Civil Rights Act

[JoeB131]

So Obama and the Democrat's use of the IRS against their "enemies" and the NSA monitoring every domestic phone call and email simply carries forward their historic stance on Civil Rights

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

Obama and the Democrats actually looking out for Tax Fraud and carrying on Bush's policies has little to do with Civil Rights.

But that's okay, Frank, we know you can't keep on topic.

The Topic is the Dems Historic Lies on Civil Rights and my post brings the point home, Josef

NO, guy, the Topic is "After everyone kind of agreed Racism was a bad thing, why did the GOP outright embrace it!"

Now, the GOP should have figured out, when they lost 44 state in 1964 because Barry Goldwater was willing to embrace racism and was crazier than a shithouse rat, that the times had changed.

Instead, they realized the way to keep poor working white folks away from demanding that rich white folks pay their fair share was to villify non-white working folks.

And that got Nixon and Reagan elected twicce, but now it's backfiring on them, partially because non-whites are 30% of the electorate now, and partially because white people with a sense of decency are mortified by the whole thing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Any way you slice it, it was conservatives who opposed civil rights

They still do

Do you have proof?

Sure, here you go:

A greater percentage of Republicans, in both the House and Senate, voted for the Civil Rights Act, than the percentage of Democrats.

House Democrats: 152–96 (61%-39%)
House Republicans: 138–34 (80%–20%)

Senate Democrats: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Senate Republicans: 27-6 (82%-18%)

Even though Democrats were in the majority in both houses, they would not have been able to pass it at all, unless such large majorities of Republicans also voted to pass. Fortunately the Republicans came through and saved the bill from the defeat Democrats alone would have given it.

Democrats have always supported racism. From their founding of the KKK, to their current majority membership in it, to the majority support of racist legislation in Congress even today.

If I were a Democrat, I'd try to fake as many excuses for not associating racism with Democrats as I could, just as the leftists in this thread do. The truth is just too painful for Democrats... as usual. Oh...... oops.

The vote by Party and Region reveal that Northern and Western libs and mods in the Dems and the Pubs passed the bill aainst the far right conservative Southern dems and pubs.

Oops. Little Acorn, the schools and colleges teach the truth, not your garbage

 

[JakeStarkey]

Women make up more than 50% of the voters.

White men make up 34% of the electorate.

Non-whites make up 30% of the electorate.

The day of white male supremacy is over, forever.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, it is clear now that avgguy has lost this thread with some of the silliest argumentation one can find on the Board.

Let's move on.

 

[Pogo]

Thanks for making our point

George Corley Wallace Jr. (August 25, 1919 – September 13, 1998) was an American politician and the 45th governor of Alabama, having served two nonconsecutive terms and two consecutive terms as a Democrat: 1963–1967, 1971–1979 and 1983–1987.

George Wallace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/thread

Frank, you know what some posters bring in that really livens up their stuff?

Something called a "point".

Still waiting for that LBJ Thurgood Marshall thing btw...

"Son, when I appoint a ****** to the court, I want everyone to know he's a ******."

On the Way With L.B.J. - NYTimes.com

It's from a biography on LBJ by Robert Dallek

Robert Dallek - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thank you. That took forever. Just wanted to be sure you and I were looking at the same (sole) source.

Quotes should always come with their context:

>> When a young Texas attorney joining his staff suggested a fine but obscure black federal judge for the position, Johnson said, "Son, when I appoint a ****** to the court, I want everyone to know he's a ******." The attorney never heard him speak about blacks that way again and felt that Johnson was playing a part and trying to create a kind of rapport between two "good old Southern boys" at their first meeting. <<​

-- from "Lone Star Rising: Lyndon Johnson and his Times, 1908-1960" -- Robert Dallek (Oxford University Press 1991), p. 520 -- source reference "28" not available on Google, so we don't know what it is.

In any case, use of the word "******" between white Southerners in the 1960s doesn't necessarily denote racism in the context as described. Racism means a view that one race is inferior to another. This appears to be a vocabulary selected to build a relationship, something Johnson was known to do continuously.

And as you can see in context -- he's not talking about Thurgood Marshall anyway.

 

[Pogo]

almost negged you for being a complete lying scumbag

You were wise not to, my friend: the conservatives, Dem and Pub, in the South voted against the Civil Rights Act with very few exceptions.

Frank, you will not be allowed to reconstruct history: not gonna happen.

Oh no fuckhead, I didn't neg you because I'd much rather call you out publicly for parroting the lying Talking Points fed into the Dem Collective

C'mon Frank, where did you leave your brain? Democrat doesn't always mean either "liberal" or "leftist", just as Republican doesn't necessarily mean "conservative" or "right wing". They're independent of each other. So when you ask what party George Wallace ran with the answer is Democratic, but when you ask what his political ideology was, the answer is conservative. And he certainly wasn't on the "left" either.

The South has always been conservative. Still is. Call it the domain of the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the Birthday Party or no Party at all; conservatism is the constant.

 

[katsteve2012]

In the name of USMB conservatives, I declare victory in this thread. Nothin more to be said. Democrats was the party of racists and slavery and they still are with their confiscation of incomes. Republican s the party of freedom and prosperity for all - even liberals.

There was never a contest to win. The distribution of votes for and against passage of the Civil Rights act tell the whole story.

Should I post them again?

 

[katsteve2012]

The conservatives cannot get past the voting break down by party and region in the 1964 CRA.

Every history teach in America points that out in high school and college.

Actually it is being taught at the Middle Shool level as well.

 

[Jarlaxle]

It's important to note that the Republicans unanimously supported all Civil Rights legislation at the public level (public transportation, government buildings, etc.). The few that opposed the final Civil Rights legislation did so because they were opposed to the private sector being told what to do by government.

Not just that...some wondered where (and if) it would end. They were correct...recieved a couple hours ago...

Just a week or two ago, there was a much ballyhooed celebration of the 50th anniversary of the signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill by Lyndon B. Johnson. The newspapers and the internet showed Johnson signing it with a suitable array of civil rights leaders and other politicos watching, among them the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, who was campaigning for the Republican Presidential nomination had decided to vote against it because he had deep constitutional reservations about it. He stated and outlined, on the Senate floor, how the wording would lead to quotas in hiring. The New York Daily News’ headline read, famously, “Barry says no on civil rights.’

Minnesota Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey, who was jockeying for the Vice-presidential spot on Johnson’s presidential ticket, served as Johnson’s point man in the Senate to have the bill passed and scoffed at the idea, saying that if the bill led to quotas, he’d eat a copy of it on the Senate floor.

Goldwater had voted for every civil rights bill prior to that but was scorned for his opposition and portrayed as pandering to racism. He’d spearheaded the desegregation of the Arizona National Guard and when he helped found the Arizona Air Guard, he’d insisted on no segregation. The NAACP had personally and publicly thanked for his efforts.

The bill was passed despite the staunch opposition of southern Democrats due to the support of other Republicans. Johnson acknowledged that without Republican support, it would never have passed.

Humphrey was given the VP nod by Johnson and their ticket rolled to victory with but six states, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and his own Arizona, going for Goldwater. Humphrey never ate a copy of the bill on the Senate floor despite quotas becoming a fixture in employment. Goldwater became a pariah & Johnson who’d had a very spotty record on civil rights became a hero. Blacks completed their switch from their traditional Republican Party to the Democrats and have voted solidly Democratic since.

No matter the results, we should be more concerned with principles. It’s not always nice but it’s always worse when you ignore them.

No one has ever said that Goldwater was right for his reservations. I am now.


Roderick T. Beaman

 

[KNB]

It's important to note that the Republicans unanimously supported all Civil Rights legislation at the public level (public transportation, government buildings, etc.). The few that opposed the final Civil Rights legislation did so because they were opposed to the private sector being told what to do by government.

Not just that...some wondered where (and if) it would end. They were correct...recieved a couple hours ago...

Just a week or two ago, there was a much ballyhooed celebration of the 50th anniversary of the signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill by Lyndon B. Johnson. The newspapers and the internet showed Johnson signing it with a suitable array of civil rights leaders and other politicos watching, among them the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, who was campaigning for the Republican Presidential nomination had decided to vote against it because he had deep constitutional reservations about it. He stated and outlined, on the Senate floor, how the wording would lead to quotas in hiring. The New York Daily News’ headline read, famously, “Barry says no on civil rights.’

Minnesota Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey, who was jockeying for the Vice-presidential spot on Johnson’s presidential ticket, served as Johnson’s point man in the Senate to have the bill passed and scoffed at the idea, saying that if the bill led to quotas, he’d eat a copy of it on the Senate floor.

Goldwater had voted for every civil rights bill prior to that but was scorned for his opposition and portrayed as pandering to racism. He’d spearheaded the desegregation of the Arizona National Guard and when he helped found the Arizona Air Guard, he’d insisted on no segregation. The NAACP had personally and publicly thanked for his efforts.

The bill was passed despite the staunch opposition of southern Democrats due to the support of other Republicans. Johnson acknowledged that without Republican support, it would never have passed.

Humphrey was given the VP nod by Johnson and their ticket rolled to victory with but six states, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and his own Arizona, going for Goldwater. Humphrey never ate a copy of the bill on the Senate floor despite quotas becoming a fixture in employment. Goldwater became a pariah & Johnson who’d had a very spotty record on civil rights became a hero. Blacks completed their switch from their traditional Republican Party to the Democrats and have voted solidly Democratic since.

No matter the results, we should be more concerned with principles. It’s not always nice but it’s always worse when you ignore them.

No one has ever said that Goldwater was right for his reservations. I am now.


Roderick T. Beaman

That one word holds so much weight in all of this.

 

[hunarcy]

Do you have proof?

Sure, here you go:

A greater percentage of Republicans, in both the House and Senate, voted for the Civil Rights Act, than the percentage of Democrats.

House Democrats: 152–96 (61%-39%)
House Republicans: 138–34 (80%–20%)

Senate Democrats: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Senate Republicans: 27-6 (82%-18%)

Even though Democrats were in the majority in both houses, they would not have been able to pass it at all, unless such large majorities of Republicans also voted to pass. Fortunately the Republicans came through and saved the bill from the defeat Democrats alone would have given it.

Democrats have always supported racism. From their founding of the KKK, to their current majority membership in it, to the majority support of racist legislation in Congress even today.

If I were a Democrat, I'd try to fake as many excuses for not associating racism with Democrats as I could, just as the leftists in this thread do. The truth is just too painful for Democrats... as usual.

Oh...... oops.

Almost all of the nays were from the Southern States regardless of party.

That is because the Democrats controlled the South in 1964.

 

[Pogo]

Sure, here you go:

A greater percentage of Republicans, in both the House and Senate, voted for the Civil Rights Act, than the percentage of Democrats.

House Democrats: 152&#8211;96 (61%-39%)
House Republicans: 138&#8211;34 (80%&#8211;20%)

Senate Democrats: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Senate Republicans: 27-6 (82%-18%)

Even though Democrats were in the majority in both houses, they would not have been able to pass it at all, unless such large majorities of Republicans also voted to pass. Fortunately the Republicans came through and saved the bill from the defeat Democrats alone would have given it.

Democrats have always supported racism. From their founding of the KKK, to their current majority membership in it, to the majority support of racist legislation in Congress even today.

If I were a Democrat, I'd try to fake as many excuses for not associating racism with Democrats as I could, just as the leftists in this thread do. The truth is just too painful for Democrats... as usual.

Oh...... oops.

Almost all of the nays were from the Southern States regardless of party.

That is because the Democrats controlled the South in 1964.

More correctly, because the conservatives did, regardless of party. As they still do, it's a constant. And you can't say something happened "regardless of party" and then claim it's because one party dominated. That's contradictory.

Party names come and go but core values do not. And we did all this before -- over and over and over and over...

 

[hunarcy]

Almost all of the nays were from the Southern States regardless of party.

That is because the Democrats controlled the South in 1964.

More correctly, because the conservatives did, regardless of party. As they still do, it's a constant. And you can't say something happened "regardless of party" and then claim it's because one party dominated. That's contradictory.

Party names come and go but core values do not. And we did all this before -- over and over and over and over...

I never said something happened "regardless of party". I said that Democrats controlled the South and almost all of the nays were from the Democrat controlled South. In fact, until 2002, Democrats still had much control over Southern politics. It wasn't until the 1990s that Democratic control began to implode over Democratic support of Gays, starting with the elections of 1994, in which Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress, through the rest of the decade. The Democrats didn't realize that the political value of the race card had evaporated and that race baiting wouldn't keep the "Solid South" anymore.

 

[Pogo]

That is because the Democrats controlled the South in 1964.

More correctly, because the conservatives did, regardless of party. As they still do, it's a constant. And you can't say something happened "regardless of party" and then claim it's because one party dominated. That's contradictory.

Party names come and go but core values do not. And we did all this before -- over and over and over and over...

I never said something happened "regardless of party". I said that Democrats controlled the South and almost all of the nays were from the Democrat controlled South. In fact, until 2002, Democrats still had much control over Southern politics. It wasn't until the 1990s that Democratic control began to implode over Democratic support of Gays, starting with the elections of 1994, in which Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress, through the rest of the decade. The Democrats didn't realize that the political value of the race card had evaporated and that race baiting wouldn't keep the "Solid South" anymore.

You said "that is because" -- which accepts the validity of the premise. Next...

 

[Pogo]

Actually, rather than "next", let's go back to this previous bullshit:

Bullshit Factor One:

Any way you slice it, it was conservatives who opposed civil rights

They still do

Do you have proof?

Sure, here you go:

A greater percentage of Republicans, in both the House and Senate, voted for the Civil Rights Act, than the percentage of Democrats.

House Democrats: 152&#8211;96 (61%-39%)
House Republicans: 138&#8211;34 (80%&#8211;20%)

Senate Democrats: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Senate Republicans: 27-6 (82%-18%)

Here's the part you deliberately cherrypicked out, same source:

Southern Democrats: 7&#8211;87 (7&#8211;93%)
Southern Republicans: 0&#8211;10 (0&#8211;100%)
Northern Democrats: 145&#8211;9 (94&#8211;6%)
Northern Republicans: 138&#8211;24 (85&#8211;15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1&#8211;20 (5&#8211;95%)
Southern Republicans: 0&#8211;1 (0&#8211;100%)
Northern Democrats: 45&#8211;1 (98&#8211;2%)
Northern Republicans: 27&#8211;5 (84&#8211;16%)

I make it 283 for to 33 in the North, 7 to 97 in the South (House) and 72-6 (North) and 1 to 21 (South) in the Senate.

Thus, by party (combined Congress):
D - 198 for, 117 against (63%-37%)
R - 165 for, 40 against (66%-34%)

Clearly not a significant disparity -- however:

North: 355 for, 39 against (90%-10%)
South: 8 for, 118 against (6% - 94%)

NOW you have a pattern, and a significant stat. Run away from it all you like but it's history.

Even though Democrats were in the majority in both houses, they would not have been able to pass it at all, unless such large majorities of Republicans also voted to pass. Fortunately the Republicans came through and saved the bill from the defeat Democrats alone would have given it.

I think both 66% and 63% are majorities... what you mean is that Northerners came through and "saved" the bill from defeat that Southerners would have given it. That is, "saved" if the infamous three-fifths clause had still been in effect.

On to Bullshit Factor Two:

Democrats have always supported racism. From their founding of the KKK, to their current majority membership in it, to the majority support of racist legislation in Congress even today.

The reality: the KKK was founded by Confederate ex-soldiers, not by a political party -- one of several such insurrectionist vigilante groups that sprang up in the defeated South in the name of denialism. I even have these soldiers' names if you want them. There's no evidence they were even registered with a political party, let alone the party itself. This bullshit myth is propagated by you Eliminationists on the premise that if you keep hammering it, eventually the history books will change. But thanks to Gutenberg, we have records that don't change themselves as they sit.

Oh...... oops.

Uh huh.

 

[BlindBoo]

In the name of USMB conservatives, I declare victory in this thread. Nothin more to be said. Democrats was the party of racists and slavery and they still are with their confiscation of incomes. Republican s the party of freedom and prosperity for all - even liberals.

So you're crying "UNCLE"

I rate you 3 Cry-babies.

 

[BlindBoo]

Sure, here you go:

A greater percentage of Republicans, in both the House and Senate, voted for the Civil Rights Act, than the percentage of Democrats.

House Democrats: 152–96 (61%-39%)
House Republicans: 138–34 (80%–20%)

Senate Democrats: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Senate Republicans: 27-6 (82%-18%)

Even though Democrats were in the majority in both houses, they would not have been able to pass it at all, unless such large majorities of Republicans also voted to pass. Fortunately the Republicans came through and saved the bill from the defeat Democrats alone would have given it.

Democrats have always supported racism. From their founding of the KKK, to their current majority membership in it, to the majority support of racist legislation in Congress even today.

If I were a Democrat, I'd try to fake as many excuses for not associating racism with Democrats as I could, just as the leftists in this thread do. The truth is just too painful for Democrats... as usual.

Oh...... oops.

Almost all of the nays were from the Southern States regardless of party.

That is because the Democrats controlled the South in 1964.

I'm pretty sure the Democrats had significant support in the North in 1964 too.

Those do not change the fact that the vote was split North/South, not REP/DEM.

 

[hunarcy]

I'm pretty sure the Democrats had significant support in the North in 1964 too.

Those do not change the fact that the vote was split North/South, not REP/DEM.

But not the virtual total control they enjoyed in the South.

In most Southern States, if you won the Democratic primary, the election was over because Republicans didn't bother to run.

 

[Pogo]

I'm pretty sure the Democrats had significant support in the North in 1964 too.

Those do not change the fact that the vote was split North/South, not REP/DEM.

But not the virtual total control they enjoyed in the South.

In most Southern States, if you won the Democratic primary, the election was over because Republicans didn't bother to run.

Was there a point coming with this post?

 

[hunarcy]

I'm pretty sure the Democrats had significant support in the North in 1964 too.

Those do not change the fact that the vote was split North/South, not REP/DEM.

But not the virtual total control they enjoyed in the South.

In most Southern States, if you won the Democratic primary, the election was over because Republicans didn't bother to run.

Was there a point coming with this post?

Not for the willfully blind.