Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

It's a natural enough mistake since most of the southern Democrats opposed to the CRA later became republicans.

Posted by Michael Farris at May 19, 2005 10:03 AM

Mr. Farris,

That's true but Rand isn't some much interested in being held to the same standards he would apply to others. Otherwise he might have found a chance to mention that inconvenient fact in his little trot down memory lane. It doesn't fit the narrative so it can safely be ignored.

Posted by nick at May 19, 2005 10:13 AM

Of the five Senators mentioned, one of them swapped: Strom Thurmond, who Rand notes changed sides (and who also seems to have gotten over his segregationist leanings pretty well, seeing the number of black people who spoke well of him at his funeral --- not to mention his daughter.) None of the other four changed parties, and one of them --- Robert "I see white niggers" Byrd --- still serves as a Democrat Senator.

So your point would be what? That you don't actually have an answer, so you turn to abusing the author?

By the way, isn't it interesting that the party affiliation was important in the first version of the story, but went away in the next?

Posted by Charlie (Colorado) at May 19, 2005 10:21 AM

Rand,

You can still get the screen shot!

Enter this into google:
Democrats have opposed the filibuster before

Then go to the cached page. I just did it. You'll find the screen shot that you're looking for.

I captured them at 1:00 p.m. ET.
-- Don

Posted by Don at May 19, 2005 10:25 AM

...most of the southern Democrats opposed to the CRA later became republicans.

Who besides Thurmond? Byrd, Al Gore's poppa, Sam Ervin, Talmadge, Barkley...all stayed Democrats.

In fact, there's been precious little party switching: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/senators_changed_parties.htm

But maybe you're statement is just a rhetorical trick, since these Democrats may indeed have become republicans, but not Republicans.

Cordially...

Posted by Rick at May 19, 2005 10:26 AM

I am begining to believe Michael Savage is right and Liberalism is indeed a mental disorder. There is certainly enough delusion in this thread already.

Posted by Mike Puckett at May 19, 2005 10:27 AM

Actually, even the updated version is still misleading, because the Republicans were the minority party at the time of the CRA vote.

Posted by DaveB at May 19, 2005 10:28 AM

Besides Strom Thrumond, who? None of the other Democrats mentioned here did. One of them is still a Democrat leader in the Senate.

Posted by Reid at May 19, 2005 10:30 AM

Name three anti-Civil-Rights-Act Democrat senators who became Republicans while in office. You can't unless you name Turmond 3 times.

According to here, the Republican support was greater in both houses than the Democrat support:

The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr. ...

In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.

Nearly every history of the time mentions the Senate Minority leader Everett Dirksen as being instumental in breaking the Southern Democrat filibuster and getting overwhelming Republican support.

People think it otherwise for two reasons: Strom Thrumond's defection after Nixon's election, and Barry Goldwater's NO vote.

Posted by Kevin Murphy at May 19, 2005 10:42 AM

I wonder where Michael Farris went. I'm sure he'll be back to set the record straight...right?

Posted by handy at May 19, 2005 10:49 AM

I have often lamented how the modern image of the civil rights act is one of the heroic northern democrats leading the charge to defeat the republicans and southern democrats. It's pure myth. ABC's blatant refusal to acknowledge the truth is dispicable. NOT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN SPOKE DURING THE '64 FILIBUSTER ON THE SIDE OF THE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS.

As noted above, Republicans supported the CRA in greater numbers than Democrats. And although certain northern democrats - Humphrey, for instance - were adamant civil rigthers, most (like kennedy) were lukewarm because of concerns about its effect on their party.

Posted by Matt at May 19, 2005 10:49 AM

Michael Farris and other Dems find it important to state falsehoods for one reason: It is used to maintain an air of false moral superiority over those people to whom they continue to lose eletions.

It matters not that their conception of history is distorted. All that matters is that they're able to feel morally superior. And this is a fight I've had with several people across the internet. And it's always the same false morality that can't be shaken.

Posted by Birkel at May 19, 2005 11:11 AM

You are forgetting the names of some other famous Democrats...Who did not change party affiliation:

George Wallace
Orval Faubus
Bull Connor

...But anyway, why should this matter? The Democrats believed in Civil Rights for about three years, then they went back to their old ways - Discriminating against others because of the color of their skin.

Posted by Dr. Laszlo at May 19, 2005 11:12 AM

And the update is still misleading, as it suggests Thurmond was in the minority party when he conducted his record-length filibuster. And the omission of Robert Byrd is quite telling.

Posted by addison at May 19, 2005 11:44 AM

Once the various Civil Rights Acts had been passed, the Great Society was the natural replacement for Jim Crow. Since the Democrats couldn't keep blacks down by law, the party leaders found a way to sabotage, society-wide, the efforts of blacks to rise.

Posted by Sterling at May 19, 2005 11:47 AM

US News and World Report did a similar thing. When discussing the fillibuster, they noted it was used by southerners to block Civil Rights legislation. No mention of party. Think that would have been the case if Republicans had been blocking passage? It has almost reached the point of parody. It has reached the point of shame, if any of the major mags or networks had any.

Posted by Charles Garrison at May 19, 2005 12:06 PM

And what exactly was so good about the Civil Rights Bill, Title VII? To the contrary, Title VII has been a horrific failure. It continues to be the most divisive law in the country, by far. The single largest item clogging judicial dockets around the country are Title VII and related cases. All of this is not to mention the undeniable reverse racisim experienced by men and whites, often in large, majority black cities.

Some people have been intimidated away from criticizing Title VII, and are scared to call for its repeal, thinking they will be called "racists". That's cowardly, and also foolish - the term means nothing by now. Let's not forget that Barry Golwater also opposed the law, on purely libertarian principles. Professor Richard Epstein also opposes the law, for libertarian reasons AND economic reasons. More than 100 Bilion taxpayer dollars go towards funding the virtual army of government lawyers and investigators who do nothing but Title VII work.

Some people say it was all worth it to get equal rights for blacks. First, I dispute the conservative credentials of anyone who makes such an asinine remark. But more imortantly, economic realities would have made race discrimination unfeasible anyway. Epstein discusses it at great length in his book.

The sex battles that law has provoked have been even worse. Title VII jurisprudence has given us the phrase "sexual harassment",even though that phrase apears nowhere in the law itself. The Judges have turned it into a complete mess. In my Curcuit, the Judges say you cannot fire a man who walks around in a dress, becasue it is a violation of Title VII, the Civil Rights Bill.

So before we hagiographize the passage of Title VII, let's do some thinking. The law ought to be outright repealed.

Posted by David Farkas at May 19, 2005 12:31 PM

Birkel! Good to see out outside the Balloon-Juice Christophobia Conference. (To John Cole: just kidding. Or exaggerating).

You made the exact point I was formulating on my return visit here. The founders of the Confederacy, KKK and Jim Crow, because they came late to common decency by...oh...a century, now get to act like they invented civil rights.

So it would be understandable that a mind marinated in DNC bugjuice for some years would be rinsed clean of actual history.

Cordially...

Posted by Rick at May 19, 2005 12:33 PM

The south was solidly democratic during the civil rights era but the fact is, both parties have evolved since then. The Bull Connors of this world were no longer welcomed as Democrats unless they renounced their racism and acknowledged their past mistakes. Many did just that and many held on to their theories of white superiority and southern ways of life. I wonder where all those southerners eventually found a home?

Posted by nick at May 19, 2005 12:42 PM

It has taken me over 20 years living in the South to finally learn the true story of the Democratic Party in regards to race. When I moved here in 1979, I was a liberal Democrat. There was not any Republican Party in the South to speak of. I was told in the Elections office and elsewhere, that if I wished to vote in any primaries, I had to be a registered Democrat. Very few of the Democrats changed party over civil rights. Thurmond is the one most of us know, and he didn’t change until he supposedly recanted his views. I could write a book about racial comments I have heard from “good” Democrats in the South. Let me just say that finally, I studied the actual history (not that written by the Democratic Party and the press) and I became a Republican BECAUSE of the issue of race.

If I had a dollar for every time some Democrat has said to me something to the effect of, “I can never vote Republican because I promised Grand Daddy so and so on his death bed that I never, under any circumstances, would…,” I’d be a very, very rich woman.

I have met some remarkable and brave African Americans over the past few years who are trying to set the historical record straight. We need to help them against those who keep mindlessly perpetuating the Big Lie.

Posted by Kate at May 19, 2005 12:48 PM

Nick, Let me tell you where they are. They're still here and still Democrats. I just moved to a county that is about 75% Democrat. Just 6 or 7 years ago there were only 6 Republicans in the entire county. I know that because I met #6, a school teacher who moved here with her husband from the North. The growing number of Republicans have moved here, mostly, and are Reagan-style Republicans. I don't know if I can really explain to you how it is. Maybe this example will suffice: The Republican Party wanted to bring a well-known speaker in who happened to be black. The comment was made that if the Party did that, there would never be any hope of members of the Democratic Party switching to Republican. Then the comment was made that perhaps it would be better to remain the minority party, rather than compromise the basic beliefs of the party in search of voter registration increases.

Posted by Kate at May 19, 2005 01:04 PM

"handy" wrote:
"I wonder where Michael Farris went."

He posted at 10:03. You posted 46 minutes later. Isn't it a bit of a cheap shot to accuse someone of fleeing a debate because they don't post every second? It's late afternoon now, and I don't see any further posts from you, handy...

Posted by Tom Stewart at May 19, 2005 02:18 PM

I agree that ABC messed this up...but if you guys don't acknowledge that Southern Democrats defected to the Republican Party en masse as a result of Civil Rights Legislation then you're either delusional or deliberately misstating the truth.

Yes, you may point to these 3 or 4 Senators that did not defect, but the Trent Lotts, the Phil Gramms, the Jesse Helms et al (ie, Southern Dems that changed to the Repub party) WOULD NOT HAVE VOTED FOR CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION!

In '64, Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights' Act and then the only states he carried were in the South. in '68 Nixon or Gov Wallace carried EVERY confederate state but for Texas.

Hmmmm.

I am a proud republican, but the Trent Lott, Jesse Helms and their ilk have been drawn to my party with the clarion call of "states' rights". If you don't know what that meant 35 years ago, then your parents should be ashamed for sending you to public schools. go read your history books.

Posted by john pike at May 19, 2005 02:49 PM

In '64, Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights' Act and then the only states he carried were in the South. in '68 Nixon or Gov Wallace carried EVERY confederate state but for Texas.

Hmmmm.

Posted by john pike at May 19, 2005 02:50 PM

Am I the only one who noticed the most aggregious error. The democrats were the majority party at the time.

Posted by Randy M at May 19, 2005 02:50 PM

Tom, I think it is more likely that he has nothing to say since he was quite wrong. Unless you have something to add?

Posted by capt joe at May 19, 2005 02:52 PM

There was no mass shift in registration. What has happened is that post-64, or rather, post-integration, more and more *new* registrants are Republican.

The state government/Congressional numbers didn't run out on the Dems until the 90s.

The Yellow Dog bigots stayed in Jeff Davis' and Theodore Bilbo's party. Now, their aging ranks are thinned.

Cordially...

Posted by Rick at May 19, 2005 02:54 PM

Other interesting facts:

Democrat majority whip Hale Boggs(Cokie Roberts' father) voted against the 1964 Civil Rights act.

George H. W. Bush voted for it.

Posted by M Watkins at May 19, 2005 03:11 PM

"Trent Lotts, the Phil Gramms, the Jesse Helms et al"

All three of these individuals were not yet serving in the Senate in 1964 when the CRA was passed.

Posted by Mike Puckett at May 19, 2005 03:31 PM

since someone mentioned jim crow
did you know he was harry s. truman's
uncle? mcullough's TRUMAAN

Posted by chris at May 19, 2005 04:27 PM

Great catch, Rand. Not sure if my trackback ping is getting through or not, but my own take, with more details about the context of Thurmond's record-setting filibuster, is here. The bottom line is that Thurmond's filibuster against the toothless Civil Rights Act of 1957 was so extremely and obviously racist that even other southern Democratic senators (themselves racists and profoundly anti-civil rights) not only deserted him, but loathed Thurmond for it.

Posted by Beldar at May 19, 2005 06:31 PM

I've also come across this apparently false assertion that all the racist Democrats from the south became Republicans.

I've been able to determine that of the ten or so Democrat senators that voted against the confirmation of Thurgood Marshall to be on the supreme court, none became Republicans up until their retirement or death, at least.

I'm still going through the ranks of all the Democrats that signed the southern manifesto and have yet to come across a switch, with the exception of Strom Thurmond, of course.

Posted by Gary at May 19, 2005 09:01 PM

John Pike, you seem to think that civil rights was the only topic in the 1964 and 1968 Presidential politics. Foreign policy was also very big in those campaigns, primarily the Vietnam War and the Cold War in general.

First off, the South was not the only place where racism existed. Ohio had a HUGE chapter of the KKK and most states in the north and east had large active memberships in the KKK. West Virginia was/is represented by KKK leader Senator Byrd and is not generally considered part of the old South since it was created when it refused to secede from the Union with the rest of the state of Virginia. It was only because of the one party nature of the South (as a reaction to the Civil War) and the creation of Jim Crow as a weak substitute for slavery that racism was so strongly institutionalized in the South.

Besides the history of institutionalized racism, the South also had a history of strong support for the military and strong anti-communist feelings.

It seems more likely that Goldwater's strong stance on Vietnam and the Cold War in general would have received strong support in the South and would have the primary reason for the votes he received. And the South apparently did not believe LBJ's contention that someone with such strong position was likely to start a nuclear war (remember LBJ's ad w/ the daisies and the Bomb).

In 1968, Wallace's campaign did use racism as a plank, and he took many votes from the Democrats, making them weaker than they should have been. Nixon, like Goldwater, had a stronger position on Vietnam and the Cold War in general. The combination was enough to enable Nixon to win.

Posted by Ron J at May 20, 2005 10:45 PM

John Pike,

It seems to me that there's a good bit more to "state's rights"
than you acknowledge. State's rights, which could just as well
be named federalism, has been the rallying cry for the proposition
to increase the tolerance, diversity, and robustness of the United
States by restricting the federal government to the powers to the
powers enumerated in the Constitution and allocating everything
else to the states.

Each state then becomes a different experiment (over a broad
range of issues) in how people should live. The Constitution
does not allow states to put any barriers to the movement of
U.S. citizens from one state to another, it does not allow them
to restrict commerce between the citizens of the states nor does
it allow them to discriminate against the citizens of other states.
It does require that the state governments be democracies, but
otherwise there are few restrictions on what a state government can
or cannot do.

Frankly I think this is an admirable vision. I think life is
way too complicated to know a priori ahead of time what works
best and that it makes lots of sense to being running different,
relatively large-scale experiments in political econony all the
time. What works will be imitated and what doesn't won't. Of
course, to be imitated there has to be something to compare against.
In our current circumstance where the entire country changes
course at the same time and all follow the same plan, it's hard
to recognize success or failure even when the consequences have
become pretty dramatic.

Now in real life federalism or state's rights worked pretty
well up until the civil war where one divergence between the
states, slavery, had become so divisive as to trigger the breakup
of the United States and that in turn triggered another strongly
held difference of opinion as to whether this should be allowed and
thus the civil war.

Now slavery was an uncool enough thing, even for its proponents,
that instead of arguing that they should separate in order to
preserve slavery, they argued that they should separate because
of "state's rights," which on close examination doesn't quite
make sense except that these people felt that their rights
were being violated by the election of a president from a party
that insisted slavery was evil.

Thus "state's rights" was confounded with being pro-slavery.

But in reality these are quite different things.

Another spinoff from all this was that by the twentieth century
the study of Constitution and related documents by northern
children had been deemphasized. Probably more than one
reason but likely part was the awareness that bright children
might notice the discrepancy between what the Constitution
and Federalist Papers describe and what we experience.

Southern schoolchildren on the other hand, until relatively
recently, were encouraged to notice this discrepancy. It is
a mistake though to assume that southern schoolchildren were
taught that slavery was a good thing; instead they were taught
that state's rights, aka federalism, is a good thing. And
that's quite a different proposition.

Thus when a Trent Lott or a Jesse Helms advocated state's
rights it was hardly a call for slavery.

Posted by Mark Amerman at May 22, 2005 02:25 AM

Regarding this quote: "Democrats have opposed the filibuster before — in the 1960s, they accused Republicans of using it to block civil rights legislation."

Two points: first, ABC does not say that the Republicans blocked the Civil Rights Act. They say that "Democrats" accused Republicans of this, back in the 1960s. Which Democrats exactly, is not clear. Presumably they mean Senators or Representatives. I'm no historian, but it seems far from unlikely that Democrats would do such a thing. They have a proven facility for not letting the facts get in their way. Of course, this may depend on which Democrat one is talking about.

Second, the subsequent paragraph "... the record for the longest individual speech ..." is, well, a separate paragraph. It is part of a "Historical Perspective." There is no directly implied connection to the previous paragraph, as far as I can tell from your excerpt. So, Thurmond's speech was not necessarily given as an example of Republican opposition to civil rights legislation.

Posted by David J. Bush at May 23, 2005 02:43 PM

The "Solid South" was solidly Democrat, now it is just as much a "Solid South" for the Republicans.

During both periods, the black residents of the South voted for the other party.

Spence, a House member, was a Democrat back then and a Republican later on. He is now dead.

There were anti-Civil Rights Republicans.

George Herbert Walker Bush, for example, was particularly upset at the "public accomodation" provisions. President Bush took a stand to keep white's only signs throughout the South. The other provision he didn't like was the Fair Employment Commission(FECA?).

But I'd like to point out that it is nice to see expecting perfection from everyone in the media.

Thank goodness our politicians never lie!

Love those WMD!

"Regime Change" being illegal has been covered how many times in the US press?

Posted by JS Narins at October 26, 2005 11:48 AM

Post a comment