The truth about civil rights

[Misty]

"The Republican Party was not so badly split as the Democrats by the civil rights issue. Only one Republican senator participated in the filibuster against the bill. In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes."

http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64text.htm

 

[bodecea]

"The Republican Party was not so badly split as the Democrats by the civil rights issue. Only one Republican senator participated in the filibuster against the bill. In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes."

CongressLink: [Congress: The Basics - Lawmaking] Civil Rights: Major Features of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

And when a Democrat President signed the Civil Rights Bill...Southern Democrats abandoned their party in droves. Nixon and the RNC membership welcomed them with open arms.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"The Republican Party was not so badly split as the Democrats by the civil rights issue. Only one Republican senator participated in the filibuster against the bill. In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes."

CongressLink: [Congress: The Basics - Lawmaking] Civil Rights: Major Features of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

And when a Democrat President signed the Civil Rights Bill...Southern Democrats abandoned their party in droves. Nixon and the RNC membership welcomed them with open arms.

Once again explain the logic in why a racist would leave a party that only supported the Civil Rights bill by 60 percent for a party that supported the same bill by 80 percent?

 

[bodecea]

"The Republican Party was not so badly split as the Democrats by the civil rights issue. Only one Republican senator participated in the filibuster against the bill. In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes."

CongressLink: [Congress: The Basics - Lawmaking] Civil Rights: Major Features of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

And when a Democrat President signed the Civil Rights Bill...Southern Democrats abandoned their party in droves. Nixon and the RNC membership welcomed them with open arms.

Once again explain the logic in why a racist would leave a party that only supported the Civil Rights bill by 60 percent for a party that supported the same bill by 80 percent?

That is easily explained when one notices the location of said members who abandoned the Democrats and how many Republicans there were in the South prior to the Civil Rights bill.

Coupled with the concerted effort by the RNC and Richard Nixon to cultivate such Dixiecrats by the time 1968 rolled around.

But you knew this already....it's just a statistical flim flam attempt by the OP. And a RNC talking point.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

This is my favorite talking point! Not really.

It's really disengenious to try to make this into a partisan issue - it's a regional issue. The south voted against civil rights, across party lines. The north voted for civil rights, across party lines. Then, when a northern Democrat signed it into law, all the southern Democrats jumped parties. This is why the south to this day is more Republican.

Look up the Southern Strategy.

 

[rightwinger]

The truth about Civil Rights was that it was not a Democrat/Republican issue it was a North/South issue. Since the "Solid South" was mostly Democrat there were more Democrats opposed. Southern Republicans also opposed Civil rights.

The truth also is that once Democratic President LBJ signed the legislation, Souther Democrats became todays Red State Republicans

And thats the truth

 

[bodecea]

The truth about Civil Rights was that it was not a Democrat/Republican issue it was a North/South issue. Since the "Solid South" was mostly Democrat there were more Democrats opposed. Southern Republicans also opposed Civil rights.

The truth also is that once Democratic President LBJ signed the legislation, Souther Democrats became todays Red State Republicans

And thats the truth

Yes it is....but every once in a while, people like the OP and the Clerk will try to slip in their falsehoods, hoping no one is paying attention.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The truth about Civil Rights was that it was not a Democrat/Republican issue it was a North/South issue. Since the "Solid South" was mostly Democrat there were more Democrats opposed. Southern Republicans also opposed Civil rights.

The truth also is that once Democratic President LBJ signed the legislation, Souther Democrats became todays Red State Republicans

And thats the truth

Yes it is....but every once in a while, people like the OP and the Clerk will try to slip in their falsehoods, hoping no one is paying attention.

Sure thing, we are to believe that racist got mad at their party that barely supported civil rights and joined the party that overwhelmingly supported civil rights. You guys crack me up.

 

[Gadawg73]

My neighbor believes civil rights is when we gave equal rights to blacks.
ONLY.
He is against gays voting much less receiving equal protection under the law.

 

[bodecea]

The truth about Civil Rights was that it was not a Democrat/Republican issue it was a North/South issue. Since the "Solid South" was mostly Democrat there were more Democrats opposed. Southern Republicans also opposed Civil rights.

The truth also is that once Democratic President LBJ signed the legislation, Souther Democrats became todays Red State Republicans

And thats the truth

Yes it is....but every once in a while, people like the OP and the Clerk will try to slip in their falsehoods, hoping no one is paying attention.

Sure thing, we are to believe that racist got mad at their party that barely supported civil rights and joined the party that overwhelmingly supported civil rights. You guys crack me up.

The Republicans under Nixon in 1968 overwhelmingly supported Civil Rights? Can you back that up, please?

 

[bodecea]

My neighbor believes civil rights is when we gave equal rights to blacks.
ONLY.
He is against gays voting much less receiving equal protection under the law.

Isn't it sad, those people who have such a narrow view of what equal rights/civil rights are all about? (This group....but not that group, or that group, or that group)

 

[bodecea]

Southern Strategy:

Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Misty]

Southern Strategy:

Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From 1948 to 1984 the Southern states, traditionally a stronghold for the Democrats, became key swing states, providing the popular vote margins in the 1960, 1968 and 1976 elections. During this era, several Republican candidates expressed support for states' rights, which some critics claim was a signal of opposition to federal enforcement of civil rights for blacks and intervention on their behalf, including passage of legislation to protect the franchise.[4]

Analysts such as Richard Johnston and Byron Shafer have argued that this phenomenon had more to do with the economics than it had to do with race.

In The End of Southern Exceptionalism, political scientists Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Shafer of the University of Wisconsin wrote that the Republicans' gains in the South corresponded to the growth of the upper middle class in that region.

They suggested that such individuals believed their economic interests were better served by the Republicans than the Democrats. According to Johnston and Shafer, working-class white voters in the South continued to vote for Democrats for national office until the 1990s. In summary, Shafer told The New York Times, "[whites] voted by their economic preferences, not racial preferences".

From wiki.

 

[Misty]

Most Dixiecrats went back to being democrats

The gain of republican power in the south had little to do with race


Young southerners and northerners who moved south are responsible for the rise in republican popularity because of economics not race

 

[Misty]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html

"Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth.

In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class.

This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)

 

[Misty]

Perfect example of how democrats twist the truth and then repeat it and repeat it until it just becomes a belief

that's why democrats are better politicians. They can lie better. They can manipulate minds better.

 

[Misty]

I would argue, that to this day, most Americans vote for economic rather than social reasons.

The republicans starting showing a weak economy so Americans turned to the democrats.

But now the democrats are making it worse so Americans are thinking, should we trust republicans to have learned their economy lesson.

And if the republicans can convince Americans that they have, they will get back power.

 

[ItHappens]

I would argue, that to this day, most Americans vote for economic rather than social reasons.

The republicans starting showing a weak economy so Americans turned to the democrats.

But now the democrats are making it worse so Americans are thinking, should we trust republicans to have learned their economy lesson.

And if the republicans can convince Americans that they have, they will get back power.

I think you're right on with the exception of good economic times during a war.
The economy was fine if not great in 2006. Dems were beating an Iraq war drum loudly and won the Congress on the anti-war rhetoric.
And the economy has been a shit storm since.
Americans are waking up.

 

[paperview]

Southern Strategy:

Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From 1948 to 1984 the Southern states, traditionally a stronghold for the Democrats, became key swing states, providing the popular vote margins in the 1960, 1968 and 1976 elections. During this era, several Republican candidates expressed support for states' rights, which some critics claim was a signal of opposition to federal enforcement of civil rights for blacks and intervention on their behalf, including passage of legislation to protect the franchise.[4]

Analysts such as Richard Johnston and Byron Shafer have argued that this phenomenon had more to do with the economics than it had to do with race.

In The End of Southern Exceptionalism, political scientists Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Shafer of the University of Wisconsin wrote that the Republicans' gains in the South corresponded to the growth of the upper middle class in that region.

They suggested that such individuals believed their economic interests were better served by the Republicans than the Democrats. According to Johnston and Shafer, working-class white voters in the South continued to vote for Democrats for national office until the 1990s. In summary, Shafer told The New York Times, "[whites] voted by their economic preferences, not racial preferences".

From wiki.

When you cite wiki, it might be wise for you to take into account
THOSE BIG LETTERS AT THE TOP:


The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

Ahem: The references from serious historians cited on the page (the ones that I have read, cover to cover) all acknowledge and emphasize the role of racism and racial fears in the transition of the south from a Democratic stronghold to a Republican one.

Yet it seems there are several people here that are determined to whitewash and minimize the work of these historians and rewrite the history of the 1960s and 70s.
....

Talk:Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[paperview]

Here's a trivia question for ya:

In the last 80 years, how many Black republicans have been elected to Congress & Senate?

Just take a guess.

Another question, same timeframe...how many Black Democrats have been elected to Congress & Senate?

Anyone wanna take a stab?