Civil Rights Act of 1964
This suddenly seems relevant after the Gerard Van der Leun post about Iowa Hispanics:
In the U.S. House of Representatives, 61% of the Democrats (152 for, 96 against) and 80% of the Republicans (138 for, 34 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In the U.S. Senate, 69% of the Democrats (46 for, 21 against) and 82% of the Republicans (27 for, 6 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Source: Congressional Record
Topics: Uncategorized
Posted by Jungletrader at 2:19 pm on Monday, August 27, 2007
20 Responses to “Civil Rights Act of 1964”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
August 27th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Cheapest shot in the book. Pretends the Republicans’ Southern Strategy never happened.
August 27th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Southern strategy? The only two Democratic Presidents in the last 30 years were Southerners.
August 27th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Really, corndog, history revisionism doesn’t become you. The Democrats owned the South up until the last generation or so. Now it’s so-so.
August 27th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
TRJS, he is a historical revision.
BTW corndog, the actual figures are in a place that only Sandy Berger can get to. Better get him on the case or your history will be misrepresented throughout history.
August 27th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Jeffy,
You’re exactly right. I don’t disagree at all. Why, Jeffy, is this case? See, Republican Southern Strategy. I think it’s in wikipedia. (Yeah, I know.)
August 27th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
The DNC was the party of the Jim Crow south. It was also the party of lynching blacks in NY during the Civil War draft riots.
August 27th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
[...] This can’t be right, can it? [...]
August 27th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Grimmy - that is true, but that’s a long time ago and much has changed. What happened from 1968 onward?
August 27th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
‘68 onward?
Good question. The liberal left helped turn a needed and necessary correction to a serious problem into another form of serious problem.
The inherent racism of the left is apparent in their creation of a system that prioritizes social nonadjustment and attacks familial cohesion in a new, softer form of slavery through welfare.
The effort has made it as easy as possible to fail out and never even attempt to succeed.
Some, an ever growing some, manage to pick themselves up, out of the dead end trap of socialist welfare slavery by their own steam and strength. This is inspite of the work of the left, not because of it.
The left has also done its harm in pushing back against the idea of inclusion and instilling the idea of exclusion, separatism and differentiation.
PS. You’re slipping. I expected you to counter with the fact that in the 1930s, the GOP became heavily infested with nazi supporters and KKK. This is true. And it dang near destroyed the party, and justifiably so. What arose out of that mess was a better program.
The DNC now, is just as infested with communist ideologists and enemy sympathizers, and it will harm the party for a long long time. And justifiably so. What arises out of that will be a better program than currently exists. That’s how these things work.
Nothing involving people will ever be perfect. That is the one most blatant failure of socialistic utopianist ideals.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
What is really hilarious about corndog’s comment is that Al Gore has been caught several times claiming - directly to black audiences he was courting - that his father supported civil rights as a senator … ignoring that his was one of the “no” votes above.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Actually Grimmy, it was the Democrat party that was infested with KKK in the 20’s and 30’s.
August 27th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Grimmy, Skip the “infestation” rhetoric (sounds like what the Hutus used to call the Tutsis: “cockroaches”), and consider what happened on the Republican side. Are you saying that Nixon did not devise a “Southern Strategy”?
Spqrzilla, you almost have it, but you’re not giving it enough thought. Both you and Al Gore are right. Gore’s father strongly opposed the Civil Rights Act, but then turned around and by 1968 was solidly behind it. At the same time, his Republican opponent moved in opposition to desegregation. It’s all part of exactly what we’re talking about here, but you’re acting as if everything was cast in stone.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
The Southern Strategy meant that Republicans were able to make headway in the South after Jim Crow was smashed. Only then were Southern whites able to look beyond race and the memory of the Civil War to see that the Democrats, stampeding to the left as they were, challenged every other value Southerners held dear, such as love of country.
Incidentally there were varied reasons for voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Barry Goldwater did so for constitutional reasons. He may have been wrong about that but his motives were not racist. He was a lifelong member of the NAACP and when Adjutant General of the Arizona National Guard ended segregation in the Guard there.
Over the last few decades the Democrats have become ever more collectivist. Their attitude to blacks and women (and others for that matter) is a sort of vulgar Marxism: Being determines consciousness. Black people are supposed to think like blacks, as Democrats think blacks should think. This is why people like Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell throw them into an hysterical panic. Black people who think for themselves, and not “like blacks”, call into question the Dems entire worldview.
August 28th, 2007 at 1:56 am
Thank you, Michael, for bringing some reason to the debate.
August 28th, 2007 at 8:17 am
“The Southern Strategy meant that Republicans were able to make headway in the South after Jim Crow was smashed. Only then were Southern whites able to look beyond race”
Well, no, Michael, that’s not right. When LBJ sent out the Civil Rights Bill, he told aides, “this will mean we’ve lost the South for two generations.” He was exactly right. Many of the Republicans running for office ran on the platform of opposing school desegregation and in favor of discrimination in housing.
“Black people who think for themselves, and not “like blacks”, call into question the Dems entire worldview.”
Wow, so Obama must really send the Democrats into a panic, then.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:16 am
“…this will mean we’ve lost the South for two generations.”
Actually the original legend was “As he put down his pen, Johnson told an aide, ‘We have lost the South for a generation.’ ”
The key word is “legend.” I have never found an “original source” for that quote. If you have, please let me know.
The South started to vote increasingly Republican after 1964. According to political scientists Richard Johnston and Byron Schafer, the development was based more on economics than on race. Their book: “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” (Harvard, 2006).
August 28th, 2007 at 11:43 am
JT,
He said it to Bill Moyers, and there are a few versions of what he actually said, but the gist is the same. See History Channel, http://hnn.us/roundup/archives/11/2007/7/.
The Johnston and Schafer book is, indeed, revisionist history, though I’m not saying that in a bad way. Just that it is an entirely different interpretation that is not yet accepted by historians. That aside, the post at the top, and I, were talking about the politicians, not the voters, so your point, though a good one, misses the mark.
August 28th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
I wasn’t addressing your discussion, Corndog. I was addressing your statement.
The article by James Taranto that I saw at your link says:
“Upon signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Lyndon Johnson is said to have told aide Bill Moyers, ‘I think we have just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come.’ ”
“…is said to have told aide Bill Moyers…” is not an original source. Those are journalistic weasel words.
But that’s irrelevant. I wouldn’t believe Bill Moyers, anyway.
Have a great day, Corndog. You write interesting comments.
August 28th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Fine, JT, here’s Bill Moyers himself, an original source: http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/1987_winter/second.html
except his rendition is “I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come.”
Your statement, “I wasn’t addressing your discussion, Corndog. I was addressing your statement.” just makes no sense.
I just noticed that you were the author of the original post. Good god. You mean you read The End of Southern Exceptionalism, which explores in depth the shift in stance of the Democratic and Republican parties, and you still made that post up above? I will remember that whenever I read a post by you again.
August 28th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Thanks for reading my posts, Corndog. Now I am out of here. As I said, have a great day.