shattered John F Kennedy and Lyndon B Johnson both voted down civil rights. it wasn't until Lyndon B Johnson had no other choice but the sign it into law. of course he said it was to get those n****** voting Democrat
Another bogus quote.
You're really not worth my time to explain this but the fact is, there are political marriages of convenience undertaken by those in search of power between factions that have little in common. Such a framework was the Democratic Party in the South, in contrast to the Democratic Party everywhere else, prior to the 1960s. For historical reasons the South was effectively dominated by one party, so if you wanted to be elected dogcatcher you had to be a Democrat; it was simply part of Southern Culture. I know this firsthand as I'm related to a lot of them.
When the national base of the party called for equal rights as befits Liberalism (notably at the 1948 convention), they were met with strong opposition from this Southern faction, who while Democrats in name,
were never Liberals. So strong was this opposition that they literally walked out of the convention and ran their own presidential candidate, Strom Thurmond (a relative of mine). This is what Trent Lott was referring to in his famous gaffe at Uncle Strom's birthday party.
In '64 when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, he noted "We (meaning the Democratic Party) have lost the South for a generation" (a term he understated). If there's any doubt as to what these dynamics were, the Congressional vote in that Act demonstrated that the schism between North and South was far more influential than that between Republican and Democrat:
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7 yes, 87 no (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
("Southern" defined as the 11 states of the former Confederacy)
With this dramatic stroke, the Republican Party saw the opportunity to make the inroads it had not been able to make for decades, articulated here by Kevin Phillips:
>>
From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats. << (
full story here)
And so it was; Thurmond turned Republican, to be followed by Jesse Helms, Trent Lott, Richard Shelby, and a cast of thousands of former "Democrats", to the point where the South was still a one-party culture, but with a new name. Again, the name of the party was the variable, the conservative lifeblood was the constant. Same people, new party.
That doesn't mean "Republicans are racist" any more than it meant "Democrats were racist". But it does mean there's a bloc of racists who will side with any party that gives them the power they want.
This is not new. It's history. Nor was it the first massive party switch, many of those Southern Democrats of the first half of the 20th century having switched from being Republicans in the 19th.
To ignore this history puts you squarely in the swamp that simplistic label-think like "party A represents X and always did" gets you into.
