The Southern Strategy: then....and now

[Coyote]

4. What names have I called you?

the entire southern strategy conspiracy theory is nothing but calling republicans racist.

You talk about nuance as if you practice it. Your posts have been anything but. Broadbrushing the entire left.

For example, this statement. The Dems are certainly guilty of racist policies in the past, but you, and your cohort of Republicans are busy trying to erase your own party’s problematic history by calling the Southern Strategy (a long recognized and documented bit of history) a myth. In fact, while you are up in arms about the left toppling confederate statues you are busy rewriting your own history: what was right is now left, what history is now a hoax. It is a bit unreal.

And again, your lack of nuance. When the Republican Party adopted the strategy, they took on the racist mantle that tbe Democrats abandoned when Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights. You insist tbe Democrats need to acknowledge their past...but give a free pass here for Republicans?

Where the nuance problem comes in is here. ”You are calling Republicans racist”. No. First, Republicans are INDIVIDUALS. Second, like the Democrats, the Republican Party was split on this issue. And third, it was increasing political power as much if not more than the personal beliefs of politicians.

You are pushing the lie....and you have been exposed pushing the lie..........you can't lie without being called out on the lie....the parties did not switch, the democrat party simply accepted racists of all skin colors into their party......

So...the southern racists magically transformed their culture when they started voting Republican. That is a special kind of stupid.

 

[Coyote]

Indeed, in his 1968 campaign and afterward, Nixon used coded language, political symbolism and court interventions as signals to southern white voters.

The Southern Strategy was not a reversal of racism, that would have lost the majority of the Repoublican party leadership who almost unanimously supported Civil Rights for blacks.

The Republican Party was a lot smaller, and greatly outnumbered by the Democrats in both houses. They could not pass Civil Rights without substantial support by Democrats. At the same time, the Democrats were split, generally, on a north/south axis by Civil Rights. And the southern Democrats were a substantial block. I think it is pretty obvious that when it comes to political parties, political power outweighs principles, and that applies to both parties.

The Southern Strategy was one of Morality where Nixon campaigned on moral issues and changes in our Christian culture to a secular culture.

A “morality” that included the message that women and African Americans had a place, and that was below white males.

In her 1949 book, Killers of the Dream, Southern writer and activist Lillian Smith described a “grand bargain” that, as Maxwell and Shields explain, sustained “white supremacy, buttressed by paternalism and evangelicalism, whereby the Southern white masses relinquished political power to the few in exchange for maintaining their social status as better than the black man.” ​

​

It was this grand bargain that Republicans would exploit to gain power in a South that had been the exclusive purview of the Democrats since Reconstruction. “When that power was threatened by the civil rights revolutions,” Maxwell and Shields say, Southern politicians “struck another grand bargain—this time with the Grand Old Party—the terms of which have yet to expire.”​

“I think we just gave the Republicans the South”
- President Lyndon Johnson after signing the 1964 Civli Rights Act.

In 1964, upon the nomination of Goldwater as the Republican candidate, Martin Luther King expressed his unease:

“The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism...On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represents a philosophy that is morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulates a philosophy which gives 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 have 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 does not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.”​

From a journalist following the Goldwater campaign in a 1964 article.

These were not really political rallies—they were revels, they were pageants, they were celebrations. The aim of the revellers was not so much to advance a candidacy or a cause as to dramatize a mood, and the mood was a kind of joyful defiance, or defiant joy. By coming South, Barry Goldwater had made it possible for great numbers of unapologetic white supremacists to hold great carnivals of white supremacy. They were not troubled in the least over whether this would hurt the Republican Party in the rest of the country. They wanted to make—for their own satisfaction, if for no one else’s—a display of the fact that they had found and were enjoying membership in one organization that was secure against integration, because it had made itself secure against Negro aspirations; as long as they could put on shows of this kind, no Negro would ever want in. By far the most memorable of the shows was staged in Cramton Bowl, in Montgomery, Alabama, on the second night of Goldwater’s tour. Some unsung Alabama Republican impresario had hit upon an idea of breathtaking simplicity: to show the country the “lily-white” character of Republicanism in Dixie by planting the bowl with a great field of white lilies—living lilies, in perfect bloom and gorgeously arrayed. The night was soft; the stars and the moon were bright; the grass in the bowl was impossibly green, as if it were growing out of something far richer than dirt; the stadium lights did not destroy the colors and shadows of evening yet illuminated the turf so well that individual blades of grass could be seen. And springing from the turf were seven hundred Alabama girls in long white gowns, all of a whiteness as impossible as the greenness of the green.

Goldwater, who’s vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, appealed to southern voters. He and subsequent Republicans, campaigned on themes of strict state rights, that states should be allowed to control their own laws without federal intervention (such as those that allowed Jim Crowe to flourish). Poll taxes and literacy tests for voting were still legal in many states as were discriminatory practices like red lining. Anti-miscegenation laws were not struck down until 1967. You can see how a Republican Goldwater presidency would be a boon for the race conscious South angered at Civil Rights. He also campaigned on social conservatism and religious values which appealed to the white Protestant values of southerners at the time. The southern voters at the time were quite reactionary in their opposition to liberal social issues such as Civil Rights and Equal Rights, so much so that the liberal northern wing of the Democrat party were never able to act effectively against lynchings and other atrocities. The South was a substantial and coveted voting block. Goldwater’s positions also alienated the more moderate wing of the Republican Party, but it marks the beginning of the end of Democrat control over the South.

Goldwater only won 6 states, but 5 were five deep southern states, a Republican victory not seen in over a century.

This marks the beginning of the Republican’s Southern strategy, before Nixon.

All the Democrats that supported segregation in the 1950s and signed the Southern Manifesto remained Democrats till the day they died except for Strom Thurmon.

The are no codes, or dog whistles either.

Liberals are simply conflating a cultural strategy with racism.

Racism was embedded in that cultural strategy. It took a long time for shift, First with the South increasingly voting Republican for president, then representatives, Congress, governors and state houses.

You can't lie anymore......the posts that expose the lie are here in the thread...

As to Martin Luther King Jr.?.....he sold out his people to the racist, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and betrayed the actual Civil Rights hero Barry Goldwater.......and for that, blacks have been paying with the lives of their children, trapped in democrat party controlled cities...

Here.......this is the man Martin Luther King supported....

LBJ'S Democratic Plantation - American Greatness
Here is a man who, according to a memo filed by FBI agent William Branigan, seems to have been in the Ku Klux Klan. This memo was only revealed in recent months, with the release of the JFK Files.
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 | National Review

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
=============

This is the man Martin Luther King betrayed....you can't lie about this anymore........


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.

As usual, you miss the points...or maybe you just like to lie.

1. Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That is an indisputable fact. The reasons don’t really matter.

2. No where am I saying Goldwater himself held racist views. This is about the politics of Increasing party power.

3. Believing things like Jim Crowe, segregation, and associated violence would “soon buckle” under social pressure is little consolation to those who’s lives were brutally affected by it.

4. Look how long it actually took to change, and how durable cultural opposition to it was.

The reasons do matter......and Martin Luther King Jr. voted for the racist who ended up implementing racist policies that have cost the lives of millions of black children....

He picked the racist over the Civil Rights hero........and he condemned millions of black children to death in democrat party controlled cities...

That is the truth.

No. That is your opinion.

 

[Coyote]

Why is racism confined to the South after the Civil War has been over for almost a hundred and fifty years? Why does the cliche persist when racial unrest seems to have been a problem for the North for the last half century?

It is not confined to the South by any means, and to claim it would be dishonest as would claiming the south today is the same as the south back then. But I am talking about voting blocks and political power, and the South represented a culturally coherent and powerful voting block, that was not the case for other regions.

 

[Andylusion]

Political and historical revisionists have been busy lately, what with blatantly stupid or insensitive racial remarks from today's two presidential contenders, racial unrest over policing, the abuse of the "race card" by the left, or the empowerment of white supremacy by the right.

There has been a frantic, almost obsessive effort to portray each party as "the party of racism". There has even been a completely retarded bit of political theatre aimed at "banning" the Democrat Party (seriously - we pay these jokers for this?).

Historically, neither party is the party of the past. Today's Republicans do not in any way resemble the Party of Lincoln, and today's Democrats do not in any way resemble the party of George Wallace. Parties are not ideologies. Parties change their ideologies - not completely, but sufficiently in order to achieve their main aim: winning votes.

That is where the Southern Strategy comes in. The south represented and still represents a substantial largely conservative voting block and one that DIVIDED the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party long held it, reversing the gains made after emancipation and supporting southern landowners in maintaining their racial caste system through a host of new laws that robbed black people of their newly realized rights.

That changed though, with the Civil Rights Movement. Between 1950 and 1968, the government passed 4 bills that were collectively known as the Civil Rights Acts. Both the Democrats and the Republicans voted to pass them. In those votes, the Republicans were more unified than the Democrats. It's a mistake to assume the Democrats were a "united party", they were far less united then than now. The Democrats were divided, with southern Democrats holding the south, the remainder spread throughout the US and the voting for these pieces of legislation reflected that division. This is important to remember because broad brushing either party as "the party of racism" is both dishonest and unhelpful.

So what about the Southern Strategy? What is or was it? It was a political strategy, initially formed by Nixon, to turn the Democrat stronghold in the south to Republican. Was it racist? Yes...in that it played on racial divides. Does that mean Nixon was racist? No...this isn't necessarily about personal feelings about race. Early on, Nixon was a strong proponent for desegregation, then he pivoted, drawing back from it and altering his policies when he developed the Southern Strategy.

Ironically - this is where the latest bit of historical revisionism comes in, with Talking Heads opining:

Candace Owen: "The Southern Strategy is a myth that never happened"...a claim rated as totally false by Politifact.

It's really about the POLITICS of PARTY CONTROL. What would it take (and is it even possible) to gain control of this substantial region?

Southern Strategy - Southern Cultures

www.southerncultures.org

​

In his 1991 book, One of Us: Richard Nixon and the American Dream,New York Times columnist Tom Wicker captures the political two-step that Nixon danced as he sought to govern and to carry out a strategy to turn the South into a Republican-dominated region as it had been a “solid Democratic South’’ for much of the twentieth century. Wicker gave Nixon credit for “a spectacular advance in desegregation’’ in 1970. “Perhaps the most significant achievement of his administration’s domestic actions,” Wicker wrote, came as “the Nixon administration had appeared in retreat from desegregation, while actively courting the white vote.”​

​

Indeed, in his 1968 campaign and afterward, Nixon used coded language, political symbolism and court interventions as signals to southern white voters. In the aftermath of city riots in 1967 and 1968, as well as Vietnam War protests, Nixon said he was for “law and order.’’ His administration went to court to slow down school desegregation. Nixon tried to install two so-called strict-constructionist conservatives, Clement F. Haynesworth Jr. of South Carolina and G. Harrold Carswell of Florida, on the Supreme Court, but the Senate turned down both nominees...​

​

In their book, The Southern Strategy, published shortly after the 1970 mid-term elections, Atlanta journalists Reg Murphy and Hal Gulliver wrote a detailed—and critical—account of the strategy in practice. “It was a cynical strategy, this catering in subtle ways to the segregationist leanings of white Southern voters,’’ Murphy and Gulliver wrote, “yet pretending with high rhetoric that the real aim was simply to treat the South fairly, to let it become part of the nation again.”​

​

White voters got the message. Along the New Orleans motorcade route, a Nixon supporter held up a hand-lettered sign that read, “I am for Nixon . . . Less Federal Control. Equal Treatment for the South.”​

So, while the Democrats were pandering to the newly enfranchised black voters, the Republicans were pandering to the southern white voters unhappy with desegregation and other Civil Rights legislation that they felt "disempowered" them.

That's the history, in part. No one has clean hands in regards to race.

But what about now? Well...the Southern Strategy is still going on. The Democrats are playing to the regions black population and it's more liberal urban white population. The Republicans are pivoting harder towards a more substantial rural and suburban white population, conflating the Confederacy, its monuments and it's flag, with honor and patriotism and an attack on our culture, while making an appeal to authoritarian law and order in the wake of racial unrest and social upheaval. Today's Southern Strategy still capitalizes on the same fears of disenfranchisement but adds some new (and, newly revived old) enemies: immigrants, Mexicans, communists, Marxists.

It has little to do with racism...and a lot to do with party control.

And yes...the Republican Party is still at it. As are the Democrats.

Yeah, I'm a little tired of people spinning in circle trying to find everything they can to be offended about.

Here's a thought.... stop being offended. Stop digging up things from over 100 years ago, and playing them off as if they have any validity today.

They don't. Get over it. Stop whining. Stop crying. Stop complaining about stuff that doesn't exist, and hasn't for an entire generation of people.

People do not hate Legal Immigrants. Or Mexicans. That is not a thing. Yeah, there are pockets of people like that.... get over it. They don't represent the majority of the country and never have.

The really pathetic part is, Trump is growing in support by immigrants and minorities in the US. I have yet to find a single legal immigrant anywhere in this country, that supports illegal immigration.

 

[Andylusion]

Indeed, in his 1968 campaign and afterward, Nixon used coded language, political symbolism and court interventions as signals to southern white voters.

The Southern Strategy was not a reversal of racism, that would have lost the majority of the Repoublican party leadership who almost unanimously supported Civil Rights for blacks.

The Republican Party was a lot smaller, and greatly outnumbered by the Democrats in both houses. They could not pass Civil Rights without substantial support by Democrats. At the same time, the Democrats were split, generally, on a north/south axis by Civil Rights. And the southern Democrats were a substantial block. I think it is pretty obvious that when it comes to political parties, political power outweighs principles, and that applies to both parties.

The Southern Strategy was one of Morality where Nixon campaigned on moral issues and changes in our Christian culture to a secular culture.

A “morality” that included the message that women and African Americans had a place, and that was below white males.

In her 1949 book, Killers of the Dream, Southern writer and activist Lillian Smith described a “grand bargain” that, as Maxwell and Shields explain, sustained “white supremacy, buttressed by paternalism and evangelicalism, whereby the Southern white masses relinquished political power to the few in exchange for maintaining their social status as better than the black man.” ​

​

It was this grand bargain that Republicans would exploit to gain power in a South that had been the exclusive purview of the Democrats since Reconstruction. “When that power was threatened by the civil rights revolutions,” Maxwell and Shields say, Southern politicians “struck another grand bargain—this time with the Grand Old Party—the terms of which have yet to expire.”​

“I think we just gave the Republicans the South”
- President Lyndon Johnson after signing the 1964 Civli Rights Act.

In 1964, upon the nomination of Goldwater as the Republican candidate, Martin Luther King expressed his unease:

“The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism...On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represents a philosophy that is morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulates a philosophy which gives 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 have 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 does not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.”​

From a journalist following the Goldwater campaign in a 1964 article.

These were not really political rallies—they were revels, they were pageants, they were celebrations. The aim of the revellers was not so much to advance a candidacy or a cause as to dramatize a mood, and the mood was a kind of joyful defiance, or defiant joy. By coming South, Barry Goldwater had made it possible for great numbers of unapologetic white supremacists to hold great carnivals of white supremacy. They were not troubled in the least over whether this would hurt the Republican Party in the rest of the country. They wanted to make—for their own satisfaction, if for no one else’s—a display of the fact that they had found and were enjoying membership in one organization that was secure against integration, because it had made itself secure against Negro aspirations; as long as they could put on shows of this kind, no Negro would ever want in. By far the most memorable of the shows was staged in Cramton Bowl, in Montgomery, Alabama, on the second night of Goldwater’s tour. Some unsung Alabama Republican impresario had hit upon an idea of breathtaking simplicity: to show the country the “lily-white” character of Republicanism in Dixie by planting the bowl with a great field of white lilies—living lilies, in perfect bloom and gorgeously arrayed. The night was soft; the stars and the moon were bright; the grass in the bowl was impossibly green, as if it were growing out of something far richer than dirt; the stadium lights did not destroy the colors and shadows of evening yet illuminated the turf so well that individual blades of grass could be seen. And springing from the turf were seven hundred Alabama girls in long white gowns, all of a whiteness as impossible as the greenness of the green.

Goldwater, who’s vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, appealed to southern voters. He and subsequent Republicans, campaigned on themes of strict state rights, that states should be allowed to control their own laws without federal intervention (such as those that allowed Jim Crowe to flourish). Poll taxes and literacy tests for voting were still legal in many states as were discriminatory practices like red lining. Anti-miscegenation laws were not struck down until 1967. You can see how a Republican Goldwater presidency would be a boon for the race conscious South angered at Civil Rights. He also campaigned on social conservatism and religious values which appealed to the white Protestant values of southerners at the time. The southern voters at the time were quite reactionary in their opposition to liberal social issues such as Civil Rights and Equal Rights, so much so that the liberal northern wing of the Democrat party were never able to act effectively against lynchings and other atrocities. The South was a substantial and coveted voting block. Goldwater’s positions also alienated the more moderate wing of the Republican Party, but it marks the beginning of the end of Democrat control over the South.

Goldwater only won 6 states, but 5 were five deep southern states, a Republican victory not seen in over a century.

This marks the beginning of the Republican’s Southern strategy, before Nixon.

All the Democrats that supported segregation in the 1950s and signed the Southern Manifesto remained Democrats till the day they died except for Strom Thurmon.

The are no codes, or dog whistles either.

Liberals are simply conflating a cultural strategy with racism.

Racism was embedded in that cultural strategy. It took a long time for shift, First with the South increasingly voting Republican for president, then representatives, Congress, governors and state houses.

You can't lie anymore......the posts that expose the lie are here in the thread...

As to Martin Luther King Jr.?.....he sold out his people to the racist, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and betrayed the actual Civil Rights hero Barry Goldwater.......and for that, blacks have been paying with the lives of their children, trapped in democrat party controlled cities...

Here.......this is the man Martin Luther King supported....

LBJ'S Democratic Plantation - American Greatness
Here is a man who, according to a memo filed by FBI agent William Branigan, seems to have been in the Ku Klux Klan. This memo was only revealed in recent months, with the release of the JFK Files.
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 | National Review

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
=============

This is the man Martin Luther King betrayed....you can't lie about this anymore........


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.

As usual, you miss the points...or maybe you just like to lie.

1. Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That is an indisputable fact. The reasons don’t really matter.

2. No where am I saying Goldwater himself held racist views. This is about the politics of Increasing party power.

3. Believing things like Jim Crowe, segregation, and associated violence would “soon buckle” under social pressure is little consolation to those who’s lives were brutally affected by it.

4. Look how long it actually took to change, and how durable cultural opposition to it was.

The reasons do matter......and Martin Luther King Jr. voted for the racist who ended up implementing racist policies that have cost the lives of millions of black children....

He picked the racist over the Civil Rights hero........and he condemned millions of black children to death in democrat party controlled cities...

That is the truth.

No. That is your opinion.

Backed by fact. One of the problems with people today, is that they look at intentions, rather than results.

The bottom line is, the break down of the black family happened after the civil rights movement led by Dr. King. Facts over opinion. We can see the number of children born out of wedlock, was a fraction before the 60s, and quickly became the norm.

you want to debate what King said or did, that's fine. The results are what they are. Blacks were worse off.

 

[Jitss617]

Was it racist? Yes.

Lol Nixon went to the Democrat unions and told them to hire black ppl.. or he would shut them down.. real racist. .. go away with your garbage

 

[Coyote]

Indeed, in his 1968 campaign and afterward, Nixon used coded language, political symbolism and court interventions as signals to southern white voters.

The Southern Strategy was not a reversal of racism, that would have lost the majority of the Repoublican party leadership who almost unanimously supported Civil Rights for blacks.

The Republican Party was a lot smaller, and greatly outnumbered by the Democrats in both houses. They could not pass Civil Rights without substantial support by Democrats. At the same time, the Democrats were split, generally, on a north/south axis by Civil Rights. And the southern Democrats were a substantial block. I think it is pretty obvious that when it comes to political parties, political power outweighs principles, and that applies to both parties.

The Southern Strategy was one of Morality where Nixon campaigned on moral issues and changes in our Christian culture to a secular culture.

A “morality” that included the message that women and African Americans had a place, and that was below white males.

In her 1949 book, Killers of the Dream, Southern writer and activist Lillian Smith described a “grand bargain” that, as Maxwell and Shields explain, sustained “white supremacy, buttressed by paternalism and evangelicalism, whereby the Southern white masses relinquished political power to the few in exchange for maintaining their social status as better than the black man.” ​

​

It was this grand bargain that Republicans would exploit to gain power in a South that had been the exclusive purview of the Democrats since Reconstruction. “When that power was threatened by the civil rights revolutions,” Maxwell and Shields say, Southern politicians “struck another grand bargain—this time with the Grand Old Party—the terms of which have yet to expire.”​

“I think we just gave the Republicans the South”
- President Lyndon Johnson after signing the 1964 Civli Rights Act.

In 1964, upon the nomination of Goldwater as the Republican candidate, Martin Luther King expressed his unease:

“The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism...On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represents a philosophy that is morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulates a philosophy which gives 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 have 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 does not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.”​

From a journalist following the Goldwater campaign in a 1964 article.

These were not really political rallies—they were revels, they were pageants, they were celebrations. The aim of the revellers was not so much to advance a candidacy or a cause as to dramatize a mood, and the mood was a kind of joyful defiance, or defiant joy. By coming South, Barry Goldwater had made it possible for great numbers of unapologetic white supremacists to hold great carnivals of white supremacy. They were not troubled in the least over whether this would hurt the Republican Party in the rest of the country. They wanted to make—for their own satisfaction, if for no one else’s—a display of the fact that they had found and were enjoying membership in one organization that was secure against integration, because it had made itself secure against Negro aspirations; as long as they could put on shows of this kind, no Negro would ever want in. By far the most memorable of the shows was staged in Cramton Bowl, in Montgomery, Alabama, on the second night of Goldwater’s tour. Some unsung Alabama Republican impresario had hit upon an idea of breathtaking simplicity: to show the country the “lily-white” character of Republicanism in Dixie by planting the bowl with a great field of white lilies—living lilies, in perfect bloom and gorgeously arrayed. The night was soft; the stars and the moon were bright; the grass in the bowl was impossibly green, as if it were growing out of something far richer than dirt; the stadium lights did not destroy the colors and shadows of evening yet illuminated the turf so well that individual blades of grass could be seen. And springing from the turf were seven hundred Alabama girls in long white gowns, all of a whiteness as impossible as the greenness of the green.

Goldwater, who’s vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, appealed to southern voters. He and subsequent Republicans, campaigned on themes of strict state rights, that states should be allowed to control their own laws without federal intervention (such as those that allowed Jim Crowe to flourish). Poll taxes and literacy tests for voting were still legal in many states as were discriminatory practices like red lining. Anti-miscegenation laws were not struck down until 1967. You can see how a Republican Goldwater presidency would be a boon for the race conscious South angered at Civil Rights. He also campaigned on social conservatism and religious values which appealed to the white Protestant values of southerners at the time. The southern voters at the time were quite reactionary in their opposition to liberal social issues such as Civil Rights and Equal Rights, so much so that the liberal northern wing of the Democrat party were never able to act effectively against lynchings and other atrocities. The South was a substantial and coveted voting block. Goldwater’s positions also alienated the more moderate wing of the Republican Party, but it marks the beginning of the end of Democrat control over the South.

Goldwater only won 6 states, but 5 were five deep southern states, a Republican victory not seen in over a century.

This marks the beginning of the Republican’s Southern strategy, before Nixon.

All the Democrats that supported segregation in the 1950s and signed the Southern Manifesto remained Democrats till the day they died except for Strom Thurmon.

The are no codes, or dog whistles either.

Liberals are simply conflating a cultural strategy with racism.

Racism was embedded in that cultural strategy. It took a long time for shift, First with the South increasingly voting Republican for president, then representatives, Congress, governors and state houses.

You can't lie anymore......the posts that expose the lie are here in the thread...

As to Martin Luther King Jr.?.....he sold out his people to the racist, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and betrayed the actual Civil Rights hero Barry Goldwater.......and for that, blacks have been paying with the lives of their children, trapped in democrat party controlled cities...

Here.......this is the man Martin Luther King supported....

LBJ'S Democratic Plantation - American Greatness
Here is a man who, according to a memo filed by FBI agent William Branigan, seems to have been in the Ku Klux Klan. This memo was only revealed in recent months, with the release of the JFK Files.
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 | National Review

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
=============

This is the man Martin Luther King betrayed....you can't lie about this anymore........


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.

As usual, you miss the points...or maybe you just like to lie.

1. Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That is an indisputable fact. The reasons don’t really matter.

2. No where am I saying Goldwater himself held racist views. This is about the politics of Increasing party power.

3. Believing things like Jim Crowe, segregation, and associated violence would “soon buckle” under social pressure is little consolation to those who’s lives were brutally affected by it.

4. Look how long it actually took to change, and how durable cultural opposition to it was.

The reasons do matter......and Martin Luther King Jr. voted for the racist who ended up implementing racist policies that have cost the lives of millions of black children....

He picked the racist over the Civil Rights hero........and he condemned millions of black children to death in democrat party controlled cities...

That is the truth.

No. That is your opinion.

Backed by fact. One of the problems with people today, is that they look at intentions, rather than results.

The bottom line is, the break down of the black family happened after the civil rights movement led by Dr. King. Facts over opinion. We can see the number of children born out of wedlock, was a fraction before the 60s, and quickly became the norm.

you want to debate what King said or did, that's fine. The results are what they are. Blacks were worse off.

I think that oversimplifies the issue and It is difficult to prove correlation equals causation. To me, stating that the civil rights movement created the break up of the black family ignores the broader social movements going on at tbe time, but would really be a whole other topic.

 

[Coyote]

Was it racist? Yes.

Lol Nixon went to the Democrat unions and told them to hire black ppl.. or he would shut them down.. real racist. .. go away with your garbage

Was what racist?

Jit, you so altered my quote it has no meaning.

 

[Andylusion]

Indeed, in his 1968 campaign and afterward, Nixon used coded language, political symbolism and court interventions as signals to southern white voters.

The Southern Strategy was not a reversal of racism, that would have lost the majority of the Repoublican party leadership who almost unanimously supported Civil Rights for blacks.

The Republican Party was a lot smaller, and greatly outnumbered by the Democrats in both houses. They could not pass Civil Rights without substantial support by Democrats. At the same time, the Democrats were split, generally, on a north/south axis by Civil Rights. And the southern Democrats were a substantial block. I think it is pretty obvious that when it comes to political parties, political power outweighs principles, and that applies to both parties.

The Southern Strategy was one of Morality where Nixon campaigned on moral issues and changes in our Christian culture to a secular culture.

A “morality” that included the message that women and African Americans had a place, and that was below white males.

In her 1949 book, Killers of the Dream, Southern writer and activist Lillian Smith described a “grand bargain” that, as Maxwell and Shields explain, sustained “white supremacy, buttressed by paternalism and evangelicalism, whereby the Southern white masses relinquished political power to the few in exchange for maintaining their social status as better than the black man.” ​

​

It was this grand bargain that Republicans would exploit to gain power in a South that had been the exclusive purview of the Democrats since Reconstruction. “When that power was threatened by the civil rights revolutions,” Maxwell and Shields say, Southern politicians “struck another grand bargain—this time with the Grand Old Party—the terms of which have yet to expire.”​

“I think we just gave the Republicans the South”
- President Lyndon Johnson after signing the 1964 Civli Rights Act.

In 1964, upon the nomination of Goldwater as the Republican candidate, Martin Luther King expressed his unease:

“The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism...On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represents a philosophy that is morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulates a philosophy which gives 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 have 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 does not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.”​

From a journalist following the Goldwater campaign in a 1964 article.

These were not really political rallies—they were revels, they were pageants, they were celebrations. The aim of the revellers was not so much to advance a candidacy or a cause as to dramatize a mood, and the mood was a kind of joyful defiance, or defiant joy. By coming South, Barry Goldwater had made it possible for great numbers of unapologetic white supremacists to hold great carnivals of white supremacy. They were not troubled in the least over whether this would hurt the Republican Party in the rest of the country. They wanted to make—for their own satisfaction, if for no one else’s—a display of the fact that they had found and were enjoying membership in one organization that was secure against integration, because it had made itself secure against Negro aspirations; as long as they could put on shows of this kind, no Negro would ever want in. By far the most memorable of the shows was staged in Cramton Bowl, in Montgomery, Alabama, on the second night of Goldwater’s tour. Some unsung Alabama Republican impresario had hit upon an idea of breathtaking simplicity: to show the country the “lily-white” character of Republicanism in Dixie by planting the bowl with a great field of white lilies—living lilies, in perfect bloom and gorgeously arrayed. The night was soft; the stars and the moon were bright; the grass in the bowl was impossibly green, as if it were growing out of something far richer than dirt; the stadium lights did not destroy the colors and shadows of evening yet illuminated the turf so well that individual blades of grass could be seen. And springing from the turf were seven hundred Alabama girls in long white gowns, all of a whiteness as impossible as the greenness of the green.

Goldwater, who’s vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, appealed to southern voters. He and subsequent Republicans, campaigned on themes of strict state rights, that states should be allowed to control their own laws without federal intervention (such as those that allowed Jim Crowe to flourish). Poll taxes and literacy tests for voting were still legal in many states as were discriminatory practices like red lining. Anti-miscegenation laws were not struck down until 1967. You can see how a Republican Goldwater presidency would be a boon for the race conscious South angered at Civil Rights. He also campaigned on social conservatism and religious values which appealed to the white Protestant values of southerners at the time. The southern voters at the time were quite reactionary in their opposition to liberal social issues such as Civil Rights and Equal Rights, so much so that the liberal northern wing of the Democrat party were never able to act effectively against lynchings and other atrocities. The South was a substantial and coveted voting block. Goldwater’s positions also alienated the more moderate wing of the Republican Party, but it marks the beginning of the end of Democrat control over the South.

Goldwater only won 6 states, but 5 were five deep southern states, a Republican victory not seen in over a century.

This marks the beginning of the Republican’s Southern strategy, before Nixon.

All the Democrats that supported segregation in the 1950s and signed the Southern Manifesto remained Democrats till the day they died except for Strom Thurmon.

The are no codes, or dog whistles either.

Liberals are simply conflating a cultural strategy with racism.

Racism was embedded in that cultural strategy. It took a long time for shift, First with the South increasingly voting Republican for president, then representatives, Congress, governors and state houses.

You can't lie anymore......the posts that expose the lie are here in the thread...

As to Martin Luther King Jr.?.....he sold out his people to the racist, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and betrayed the actual Civil Rights hero Barry Goldwater.......and for that, blacks have been paying with the lives of their children, trapped in democrat party controlled cities...

Here.......this is the man Martin Luther King supported....

LBJ'S Democratic Plantation - American Greatness
Here is a man who, according to a memo filed by FBI agent William Branigan, seems to have been in the Ku Klux Klan. This memo was only revealed in recent months, with the release of the JFK Files.
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 | National Review

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
=============

This is the man Martin Luther King betrayed....you can't lie about this anymore........


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.

As usual, you miss the points...or maybe you just like to lie.

1. Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That is an indisputable fact. The reasons don’t really matter.

2. No where am I saying Goldwater himself held racist views. This is about the politics of Increasing party power.

3. Believing things like Jim Crowe, segregation, and associated violence would “soon buckle” under social pressure is little consolation to those who’s lives were brutally affected by it.

4. Look how long it actually took to change, and how durable cultural opposition to it was.

The reasons do matter......and Martin Luther King Jr. voted for the racist who ended up implementing racist policies that have cost the lives of millions of black children....

He picked the racist over the Civil Rights hero........and he condemned millions of black children to death in democrat party controlled cities...

That is the truth.

No. That is your opinion.

Backed by fact. One of the problems with people today, is that they look at intentions, rather than results.

The bottom line is, the break down of the black family happened after the civil rights movement led by Dr. King. Facts over opinion. We can see the number of children born out of wedlock, was a fraction before the 60s, and quickly became the norm.

you want to debate what King said or did, that's fine. The results are what they are. Blacks were worse off.

I think that oversimplifies the issue and It is difficult to prove correlation equals causation. To me, stating that the civil rights movement created the break up of the black family ignores the broader social movements going on at tbe time, but would really be a whole other topic.

Perhaps, but it seems rather odd, that so many aspects went the wrong way, all at the same time.

 

[Jitss617]

Was it racist? Yes.

Lol Nixon went to the Democrat unions and told them to hire black ppl.. or he would shut them down.. real racist. .. go away with your garbage

Was what racist?

Jit, you so altered my quote it has no meaning.

I’m making fun of you.. there was no Strategy

 

[Coyote]

Indeed, in his 1968 campaign and afterward, Nixon used coded language, political symbolism and court interventions as signals to southern white voters.

The Southern Strategy was not a reversal of racism, that would have lost the majority of the Repoublican party leadership who almost unanimously supported Civil Rights for blacks.

The Republican Party was a lot smaller, and greatly outnumbered by the Democrats in both houses. They could not pass Civil Rights without substantial support by Democrats. At the same time, the Democrats were split, generally, on a north/south axis by Civil Rights. And the southern Democrats were a substantial block. I think it is pretty obvious that when it comes to political parties, political power outweighs principles, and that applies to both parties.

The Southern Strategy was one of Morality where Nixon campaigned on moral issues and changes in our Christian culture to a secular culture.

A “morality” that included the message that women and African Americans had a place, and that was below white males.

In her 1949 book, Killers of the Dream, Southern writer and activist Lillian Smith described a “grand bargain” that, as Maxwell and Shields explain, sustained “white supremacy, buttressed by paternalism and evangelicalism, whereby the Southern white masses relinquished political power to the few in exchange for maintaining their social status as better than the black man.” ​

​

It was this grand bargain that Republicans would exploit to gain power in a South that had been the exclusive purview of the Democrats since Reconstruction. “When that power was threatened by the civil rights revolutions,” Maxwell and Shields say, Southern politicians “struck another grand bargain—this time with the Grand Old Party—the terms of which have yet to expire.”​

“I think we just gave the Republicans the South”
- President Lyndon Johnson after signing the 1964 Civli Rights Act.

In 1964, upon the nomination of Goldwater as the Republican candidate, Martin Luther King expressed his unease:

“The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism...On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represents a philosophy that is morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulates a philosophy which gives 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 have 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 does not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.”​

From a journalist following the Goldwater campaign in a 1964 article.

These were not really political rallies—they were revels, they were pageants, they were celebrations. The aim of the revellers was not so much to advance a candidacy or a cause as to dramatize a mood, and the mood was a kind of joyful defiance, or defiant joy. By coming South, Barry Goldwater had made it possible for great numbers of unapologetic white supremacists to hold great carnivals of white supremacy. They were not troubled in the least over whether this would hurt the Republican Party in the rest of the country. They wanted to make—for their own satisfaction, if for no one else’s—a display of the fact that they had found and were enjoying membership in one organization that was secure against integration, because it had made itself secure against Negro aspirations; as long as they could put on shows of this kind, no Negro would ever want in. By far the most memorable of the shows was staged in Cramton Bowl, in Montgomery, Alabama, on the second night of Goldwater’s tour. Some unsung Alabama Republican impresario had hit upon an idea of breathtaking simplicity: to show the country the “lily-white” character of Republicanism in Dixie by planting the bowl with a great field of white lilies—living lilies, in perfect bloom and gorgeously arrayed. The night was soft; the stars and the moon were bright; the grass in the bowl was impossibly green, as if it were growing out of something far richer than dirt; the stadium lights did not destroy the colors and shadows of evening yet illuminated the turf so well that individual blades of grass could be seen. And springing from the turf were seven hundred Alabama girls in long white gowns, all of a whiteness as impossible as the greenness of the green.

Goldwater, who’s vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, appealed to southern voters. He and subsequent Republicans, campaigned on themes of strict state rights, that states should be allowed to control their own laws without federal intervention (such as those that allowed Jim Crowe to flourish). Poll taxes and literacy tests for voting were still legal in many states as were discriminatory practices like red lining. Anti-miscegenation laws were not struck down until 1967. You can see how a Republican Goldwater presidency would be a boon for the race conscious South angered at Civil Rights. He also campaigned on social conservatism and religious values which appealed to the white Protestant values of southerners at the time. The southern voters at the time were quite reactionary in their opposition to liberal social issues such as Civil Rights and Equal Rights, so much so that the liberal northern wing of the Democrat party were never able to act effectively against lynchings and other atrocities. The South was a substantial and coveted voting block. Goldwater’s positions also alienated the more moderate wing of the Republican Party, but it marks the beginning of the end of Democrat control over the South.

Goldwater only won 6 states, but 5 were five deep southern states, a Republican victory not seen in over a century.

This marks the beginning of the Republican’s Southern strategy, before Nixon.

All the Democrats that supported segregation in the 1950s and signed the Southern Manifesto remained Democrats till the day they died except for Strom Thurmon.

The are no codes, or dog whistles either.

Liberals are simply conflating a cultural strategy with racism.

Racism was embedded in that cultural strategy. It took a long time for shift, First with the South increasingly voting Republican for president, then representatives, Congress, governors and state houses.

You can't lie anymore......the posts that expose the lie are here in the thread...

As to Martin Luther King Jr.?.....he sold out his people to the racist, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and betrayed the actual Civil Rights hero Barry Goldwater.......and for that, blacks have been paying with the lives of their children, trapped in democrat party controlled cities...

Here.......this is the man Martin Luther King supported....

LBJ'S Democratic Plantation - American Greatness
Here is a man who, according to a memo filed by FBI agent William Branigan, seems to have been in the Ku Klux Klan. This memo was only revealed in recent months, with the release of the JFK Files.
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 | National Review

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
=============

This is the man Martin Luther King betrayed....you can't lie about this anymore........


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.

As usual, you miss the points...or maybe you just like to lie.

1. Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That is an indisputable fact. The reasons don’t really matter.

2. No where am I saying Goldwater himself held racist views. This is about the politics of Increasing party power.

3. Believing things like Jim Crowe, segregation, and associated violence would “soon buckle” under social pressure is little consolation to those who’s lives were brutally affected by it.

4. Look how long it actually took to change, and how durable cultural opposition to it was.

The reasons do matter......and Martin Luther King Jr. voted for the racist who ended up implementing racist policies that have cost the lives of millions of black children....

He picked the racist over the Civil Rights hero........and he condemned millions of black children to death in democrat party controlled cities...

That is the truth.

No. That is your opinion.

Backed by fact. One of the problems with people today, is that they look at intentions, rather than results.

The bottom line is, the break down of the black family happened after the civil rights movement led by Dr. King. Facts over opinion. We can see the number of children born out of wedlock, was a fraction before the 60s, and quickly became the norm.

you want to debate what King said or did, that's fine. The results are what they are. Blacks were worse off.

I think that oversimplifies the issue and It is difficult to prove correlation equals causation. To me, stating that the civil rights movement created the break up of the black family ignores the broader social movements going on at tbe time, but would really be a whole other topic.

Perhaps, but it seems rather odd, that so many aspects went the wrong way, all at the same time.

There was a lot going then....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

4. What names have I called you?

the entire southern strategy conspiracy theory is nothing but calling republicans racist.

You talk about nuance as if you practice it. Your posts have been anything but. Broadbrushing the entire left.

For example, this statement. The Dems are certainly guilty of racist policies in the past, but you, and your cohort of Republicans are busy trying to erase your own party’s problematic history by calling the Southern Strategy (a long recognized and documented bit of history) a myth. In fact, while you are up in arms about the left toppling confederate statues you are busy rewriting your own history: what was right is now left, what history is now a hoax. It is a bit unreal.

And again, your lack of nuance. When the Republican Party adopted the strategy, they took on the racist mantle that tbe Democrats abandoned when Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights. You insist tbe Democrats need to acknowledge their past...but give a free pass here for Republicans?

Where the nuance problem comes in is here. ”You are calling Republicans racist”. No. First, Republicans are INDIVIDUALS. Second, like the Democrats, the Republican Party was split on this issue. And third, it was increasing political power as much if not more than the personal beliefs of politicians.

You are pushing the lie....and you have been exposed pushing the lie..........you can't lie without being called out on the lie....the parties did not switch, the democrat party simply accepted racists of all skin colors into their party......

So...the southern racists magically transformed their culture when they started voting Republican. That is a special kind of stupid.

No they died out again except for President the South was solidly democrat until 1994.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Facts are simply that EVERY FEDERAL law passed from 1965 to 1994 was done so BY DEMOCRATS, you want to whine about crime bills that effected blacks disproportional then blame democrats. You want to complain about systemic racism then BLAME democrats because they controlled the Congress.

 

[Correll]

Indeed, in his 1968 campaign and afterward, Nixon used coded language, political symbolism and court interventions as signals to southern white voters.

The Southern Strategy was not a reversal of racism, that would have lost the majority of the Repoublican party leadership who almost unanimously supported Civil Rights for blacks.

The Republican Party was a lot smaller, and greatly outnumbered by the Democrats in both houses. They could not pass Civil Rights without substantial support by Democrats. At the same time, the Democrats were split, generally, on a north/south axis by Civil Rights. And the southern Democrats were a substantial block. I think it is pretty obvious that when it comes to political parties, political power outweighs principles, and that applies to both parties.

The Southern Strategy was one of Morality where Nixon campaigned on moral issues and changes in our Christian culture to a secular culture.

A “morality” that included the message that women and African Americans had a place, and that was below white males.

In her 1949 book, Killers of the Dream, Southern writer and activist Lillian Smith described a “grand bargain” that, as Maxwell and Shields explain, sustained “white supremacy, buttressed by paternalism and evangelicalism, whereby the Southern white masses relinquished political power to the few in exchange for maintaining their social status as better than the black man.” ​

​

It was this grand bargain that Republicans would exploit to gain power in a South that had been the exclusive purview of the Democrats since Reconstruction. “When that power was threatened by the civil rights revolutions,” Maxwell and Shields say, Southern politicians “struck another grand bargain—this time with the Grand Old Party—the terms of which have yet to expire.”​

“I think we just gave the Republicans the South”
- President Lyndon Johnson after signing the 1964 Civli Rights Act.

In 1964, upon the nomination of Goldwater as the Republican candidate, Martin Luther King expressed his unease:

“The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism...On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represents a philosophy that is morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulates a philosophy which gives 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 have 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 does not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.”​

From a journalist following the Goldwater campaign in a 1964 article.

These were not really political rallies—they were revels, they were pageants, they were celebrations. The aim of the revellers was not so much to advance a candidacy or a cause as to dramatize a mood, and the mood was a kind of joyful defiance, or defiant joy. By coming South, Barry Goldwater had made it possible for great numbers of unapologetic white supremacists to hold great carnivals of white supremacy. They were not troubled in the least over whether this would hurt the Republican Party in the rest of the country. They wanted to make—for their own satisfaction, if for no one else’s—a display of the fact that they had found and were enjoying membership in one organization that was secure against integration, because it had made itself secure against Negro aspirations; as long as they could put on shows of this kind, no Negro would ever want in. By far the most memorable of the shows was staged in Cramton Bowl, in Montgomery, Alabama, on the second night of Goldwater’s tour. Some unsung Alabama Republican impresario had hit upon an idea of breathtaking simplicity: to show the country the “lily-white” character of Republicanism in Dixie by planting the bowl with a great field of white lilies—living lilies, in perfect bloom and gorgeously arrayed. The night was soft; the stars and the moon were bright; the grass in the bowl was impossibly green, as if it were growing out of something far richer than dirt; the stadium lights did not destroy the colors and shadows of evening yet illuminated the turf so well that individual blades of grass could be seen. And springing from the turf were seven hundred Alabama girls in long white gowns, all of a whiteness as impossible as the greenness of the green.

Goldwater, who’s vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, appealed to southern voters. He and subsequent Republicans, campaigned on themes of strict state rights, that states should be allowed to control their own laws without federal intervention (such as those that allowed Jim Crowe to flourish). Poll taxes and literacy tests for voting were still legal in many states as were discriminatory practices like red lining. Anti-miscegenation laws were not struck down until 1967. You can see how a Republican Goldwater presidency would be a boon for the race conscious South angered at Civil Rights. He also campaigned on social conservatism and religious values which appealed to the white Protestant values of southerners at the time. The southern voters at the time were quite reactionary in their opposition to liberal social issues such as Civil Rights and Equal Rights, so much so that the liberal northern wing of the Democrat party were never able to act effectively against lynchings and other atrocities. The South was a substantial and coveted voting block. Goldwater’s positions also alienated the more moderate wing of the Republican Party, but it marks the beginning of the end of Democrat control over the South.

Goldwater only won 6 states, but 5 were five deep southern states, a Republican victory not seen in over a century.

This marks the beginning of the Republican’s Southern strategy, before Nixon.

All the Democrats that supported segregation in the 1950s and signed the Southern Manifesto remained Democrats till the day they died except for Strom Thurmon.

The are no codes, or dog whistles either.

Liberals are simply conflating a cultural strategy with racism.

Racism was embedded in that cultural strategy. It took a long time for shift, First with the South increasingly voting Republican for president, then representatives, Congress, governors and state houses.

goldwater's issues with the civil rights act were not based on racism and were not enacted into policy.

that is a very weak reed to build a large conspiracy theory on.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

The only exception being the election of Jimmy Carter who was the first southerner to win the WH since the Civil War. He proved too liberal for the Segregationists.

Let us remember that the first southerner to win the WH since the Civil War was not Jimmy Carter but ... Woodrow Wilson.

I live here, and see no evidence the racists went to the Republicans. Southern racists want the old ways back and the old ways were Democrats. The racists I see were born a Democrat, their daddy was born a Democrat, their grand pappy. And they'll die a Democrat.

Where exactly do you live? Most whites in southern states vote Republican today, for a variety of reasons. Right? The backbone of the southern Democratic Party is largely African American. If we are talking about “white racists” today in the southern states we are talking about ... folks who vote Republican. Isn’t that obvious? Who their grand-daddies voted for is interesting and historically important, but it doesn’t necessarily determine who they vote for. I don’t mean these people are self-consciously racist, nor that the majority of whites in the south are racist. But the majority of “white racists” in the south sure as hell are not ... Democrats.

How would Republicans even make the case in the south that they are the party that racists should go to? It doesn't make sense. Democrats have a stranglehold on Southern racism.

You have your tense all wrong. But then perhaps you are talking about so-called “black racists”?

It's the racism part that doesn't hold water. Republicans went after the South with religion, gun rights and fiscal conservatism. Democrats held all the cards with racists. The KKK, Jim Crow, slavery and segregation were all Democrats. It defies logic that racism was their strategy when the Democrats owned that, while Republicans owned the issues that mattered to Southerners.

A lot of unnecessary denial here. The “Republican ‘Southern Strategy’” worked very well, on many levels. Your points explain precisely why it took time for this change to work itself out organizationally over a whole generation. Black civil rights activists in the south in the 1960s also started their political life fighting to get into the sole real institutional party there, the Democratic Party — and were at first strongly rebuffed. The appeal to long-standing white racism (the backlash to Civil Rights for blacks and in a few areas to genuine overreaching measures like “busing”) was not just a “Southern Strategy” of course. It aimed at ethnic white workers in the north too who felt threatened in their jobs and neighborhoods. It was particularly successful in the south because it was mixed with “states rights” and old time religion, “gun rights” and also with “Lost Cause” nostalgia and tradition. “It defies logic” — Not really. But let us recall our country is not exactly “logical” in all its many obsessions.

Historically your argument is circular. Democrats are the party of slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, the KKK. How would Republicans even make the case in the south that they are the party that racists should go to? It doesn't make sense. Democrats have a stranglehold on Southern racism.

I’ve already pointed out that this transition has already occurred, and you have your tenses all mixed up. It was never exclusively or obviously a change based on racism, which exists in both parties and all over the country, often taking new and even subtle forms.

 

[flacaltenn]

Facts are simply that EVERY FEDERAL law passed from 1965 to 1994 was done so BY DEMOCRATS, you want to whine about crime bills that effected blacks disproportional then blame democrats. You want to complain about systemic racism then BLAME democrats because they controlled the Congress.

..And in that same period 1965 to 1994 (or 1996) ONLY ONE Dem Senate seat in the south that voted against the CRA was LOST to Repubs.. MOST of the 20 that remained, had the ORIGINAL "racist" butts still in them

"Southern Strategy was a hair brained OPINION.. And if it was EVER an "operating theory" of the Repub party --- IT FAILED miserably..

The gradual switch was due the DEM party KILLING AND EXTERMINATING the modern Blue Dog Dems that wouldn't toe the more lefty party lines on spending, defense, govt growth of power.. Party wouldn't support them.. Punished them for being difficult..

The SWITCH WAS -- Dem leadership and voters BADMOUTHING and generalizing about Southerners. AND the fact the South's acceptance of racial reconciliation made the 150 YEARS of racist DEM dominance in the South embarrassing..

 

[Correll]

4. What names have I called you?

the entire southern strategy conspiracy theory is nothing but calling republicans racist.

You talk about nuance as if you practice it. Your posts have been anything but. Broadbrushing the entire left.

nuance is sometimes called for, and sometimes not. in this case, generalizing about the actions of the entire left, is completely appropriate.

For example, this statement. The Dems are certainly guilty of racist policies in the past, but you, and your cohort of Republicans are busy trying to erase your own party’s problematic history by calling the Southern Strategy (a long recognized and documented bit of history) a myth. In fact, while you are up in arms about the left toppling confederate statues you are busy rewriting your own history: what was right is now left, what history is now a hoax. It is a bit unreal.

i see that you supported your conclusion, with a strong assertion. indeed, you assert your position basically four times there.


what you do not do, is support your conclusion with anything new. "coded language" is still your "evidence".

and by that i mean, the phrase, "coded language".


you haven't actually shown us any of that "language" that was so powerful as to sway the voting of millions of people over generations.

And again, your lack of nuance. When the Republican Party adopted the strategy, they took on the racist mantle that tbe Democrats abandoned when Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights. You insist tbe Democrats need to acknowledge their past...but give a free pass here for Republicans?

there, you not only asserted your position again, you also, called republicans "racist".

still no actual explanation or examples.

Where the nuance problem comes in is here. ”You are calling Republicans racist”. No. First, Republicans are INDIVIDUALS. Second, like the Democrats, the Republican Party was split on this issue. And third, it was increasing political power as much if not more than the personal beliefs of politicians.

republicans are individuals. the republican party is a group, a formal group, that regularly defines itself with a platform of positions and policies.


the republican party, as a group, under goldwater, opposed one civil rights bill, based on issues with the constitutional role of the federal government.

other than that, one slightly grey area, the gop, as a group, has clearly and formally been in favor of greater or equal rights for blacks and opposed to racism, for the entirety of it's existence.


the claim of the southern strategy, is a lie.


a vile lie that smears the republican party as a group and republican party members and voters as individuals.



nothing about that is confusing.




you have done nothing to support your conclusion about the southern strategy, other than to say, "coded language" and to make a lot of strong assertions, and saying "racist" several times.

 

[flacaltenn]

4. What names have I called you?

the entire southern strategy conspiracy theory is nothing but calling republicans racist.

You talk about nuance as if you practice it. Your posts have been anything but. Broadbrushing the entire left.

For example, this statement. The Dems are certainly guilty of racist policies in the past, but you, and your cohort of Republicans are busy trying to erase your own party’s problematic history by calling the Southern Strategy (a long recognized and documented bit of history) a myth. In fact, while you are up in arms about the left toppling confederate statues you are busy rewriting your own history: what was right is now left, what history is now a hoax. It is a bit unreal.

And again, your lack of nuance. When the Republican Party adopted the strategy, they took on the racist mantle that tbe Democrats abandoned when Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights. You insist tbe Democrats need to acknowledge their past...but give a free pass here for Republicans?

Where the nuance problem comes in is here. ”You are calling Republicans racist”. No. First, Republicans are INDIVIDUALS. Second, like the Democrats, the Republican Party was split on this issue. And third, it was increasing political power as much if not more than the personal beliefs of politicians.

You are pushing the lie....and you have been exposed pushing the lie..........you can't lie without being called out on the lie....the parties did not switch, the democrat party simply accepted racists of all skin colors into their party......

So...the southern racists magically transformed their culture when they started voting Republican. That is a special kind of stupid.

Racial reconcilation in the SOUTH (outside of politics) progressed more rapidly here than in the North.. The southern "racists" were your people. If flying the Confederate flag and donating to Daughter of Confederacy are the marker for racist.. Once the schools got integrated, -- sports, music, southern cooking, RELIGION and regional culture were so much more common value between races here - it was FASTER to realize how MANY Southern values and traditions the races had in common.. Not the same regional culture dynamic as in the more amorphically north...

 

[Correll]

4. What names have I called you?

the entire southern strategy conspiracy theory is nothing but calling republicans racist.

You talk about nuance as if you practice it. Your posts have been anything but. Broadbrushing the entire left.

For example, this statement. The Dems are certainly guilty of racist policies in the past, but you, and your cohort of Republicans are busy trying to erase your own party’s problematic history by calling the Southern Strategy (a long recognized and documented bit of history) a myth. In fact, while you are up in arms about the left toppling confederate statues you are busy rewriting your own history: what was right is now left, what history is now a hoax. It is a bit unreal.

And again, your lack of nuance. When the Republican Party adopted the strategy, they took on the racist mantle that tbe Democrats abandoned when Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights. You insist tbe Democrats need to acknowledge their past...but give a free pass here for Republicans?

Where the nuance problem comes in is here. ”You are calling Republicans racist”. No. First, Republicans are INDIVIDUALS. Second, like the Democrats, the Republican Party was split on this issue. And third, it was increasing political power as much if not more than the personal beliefs of politicians.

You are pushing the lie....and you have been exposed pushing the lie..........you can't lie without being called out on the lie....the parties did not switch, the democrat party simply accepted racists of all skin colors into their party......

So...the southern racists magically transformed their culture when they started voting Republican. That is a special kind of stupid.

good strawman.


none. the south slowly became less racist with time and as that happened the strategy of using racism to hold the south, bythe dems became less successful and eventually failing.


this has been well documented and discussed.


nothing magical about it. long trends leading to sudden changes in who wins elections.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Biden's not racist in the sense that he hates blacks or is afraid of them. But he certainly has a bigoted view of them. He's way too consistent to say it's a slip at this point. Saying you ain't black and blacks are monolithic is a clear pattern. Then there's that Obama cleans up nicely for a black. But no, he doesn't hate them. But prejudice is more than just hating someone

Biden is the kind of racist that our Oligarchs are; condescending, dismissive, low expectations, Patrician racists.

IT shows in their protest against Voter ID laws (blacks are too stupid to get a voter ID), their opposition to law and order campaigns as racist (most blacks are criminals in their view), and I could go on.

Biden does not hate blacks, he just has no respect for them and thinks that without the Democrat Patricians to guide them they would perish.