The Myth of the Southern Strategy

PatriotNews · Dec 14, 2014

Woolley said: ↑

If whatever you wrote refutes the basic history of that era then it is not worth reading. I lived through it, it was not a mystery to any of us at the time. And it is not a mystery today why the right wing is white dominated. Like I said, it's not because the millions of ignorant rural people understand the difference between Keynes and Hayek. It is not because they think SS should be abolished or that Medicare would lead us to socialism or that the EPA is some scourge of man that is destroying our nation. Nope, its much simpler than that and I nailed it. This isn't hard buddy. And if you think a war of links to some data somewhere is going to change your mind or be analyzed in detail and that the end result will change everyone's mind, you are nuts. Racism is at the core of the GOP electorate, has been since 1964. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

What you've lived through is decades of being brainwashed by liberalism. You cannot provide facts that refute mine only because those facts do not exist. Liberals are only making excuses for the long history of civil rights abuses of blacks and laying their own documented history of discrimination on innocents who were actually the advocates of civil liberties. It is a consistent effort to rewrite history. I can go on and on with more proof which liberals will only act dismissive or completely ignore. At the same time, make wild claims that they can not back up with one shred of evidence. My next post will continue with the democrat party's history of black voter suppression from 1900 to 1932. Just as usual, it is factual evidence that liberals cannot refute or deny.

Sanskrit · Dec 14, 2014

Woolley said: ↑

Racism is at the core of the GOP electorate, has been since 1964. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

Racism is at the core of the Democratic electorate, has been for nearly 200 years. No amount of windy fabrications such as the Southern Strategy, conspiracy nut fartwhistle, dogwhistle BS, raw opinion or conjecture in a media environment no longer dominated by the left today can continue to DEFLECT that innate peasant and pitchfork racist Democrat reality onto the GOP, the party founded to combat such rabble mob rule. Try as hard as you like. Cat's out of the mouldy old bag.

The reasons the South switched have been repeated at least 4 or 5 times in this thread. Educate yourself and read them. Deal with THAT.

PatriotNews · Dec 14, 2014

PatriotNews said: ↑

Which is a good example of one of the topics we have not addressed very much yet - Voter Suppression. I have been asked why do blacks vote for democrats in the 90% ranges? There is a long history of blacks voting for democrats; it did not begin with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act or the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Voter Suppression is the main reason. You may think that this is counter-intuitive, but because voter suppression takes many forms as listed above, it will take several posts (I'm guessing 4?) to describe how democrat voter suppression leads to such great margins of the democrat party and it's current share of black votes today.

That brings us up to 1900 just about. Next I will cover from 1900 to 1932, progressivism, labor riot & unions, Wilson and Coolidge. More to follow.
Click to expand...

History of Black Voter Suppression by the Democrat Party

Theodore Roosevelt: Roosevelt lead blacks in the SpanishAmerican War and appointed blacks to federal offices.

Colonel Roosevelt and the Rough Riders after capturing Kettle Hill along with
members of the 3rd Volunteers and the regular Army black 10th Cavalry

Regarding African-Americans, Roosevelt told a civil rights leader:

I have not been able to think out any solution of the terrible problem offered by the presence of the Negro on this continent, but of one thing I am sure, and that is that inasmuch as he is here and can neither be killed nor driven away, the only wise and honorable and Christian thing to do is to treat each black man and each white man strictly on his merits as a man, giving him no more and no less than he shows himself worthy to have."[172]
Roosevelt appointed numerous African Americans to federal offices, such as Walter L. Cohen of New Orleans, a leader of the Black and Tan Republican faction, whom Roosevelt named register of the federal land office.[173]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt

Results of the 1904 Presidential Election
Click to expand...

Also see post #207 Republicans fight for blacks in the early 1900's

When did black Americans really switch from Republican to Democrat? Early in the 1900's there was a philosophical split in the leadership of the black community between Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois.

Booker Taliaferro Washington (April 5, 1856 November 14, 1915) was an African-American educator, author, orator, and advisor to presidents of the United States. Between 1890 and 1915, Washington was the dominant leader in the African-American community.

Washington was of the last generation of black American leaders born into slavery and became the leading voice of the former slaves and their descendants, who were newly oppressed by disfranchisement and the Jim Crow discriminatory laws enacted in the post-Reconstruction Southern states in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In 1895 his Atlanta compromise called for avoiding confrontation over segregation and instead putting more reliance on long-term educational and economic advancement in the black community.

His base was the Tuskegee Institute, a historically black college in Alabama. As lynchings in the South reached a peak in 1895, Washington gave a speech in Atlanta that made him nationally famous. The speech called for black progress through education and entrepreneurship. His message was that it was not the time to challenge Jim Crow segregation and the disfranchisement of black voters in the South. Washington mobilized a nationwide coalition of middle-class blacks, church leaders, and white philanthropists and politicians, with a long-term goal of building the community's economic strength and pride by a focus on self-help and schooling. Secretly, he supported court challenges to segregation.[1] Black militants in the North, led by W.E.B. Du Bois, at first supported the Atlanta Compromise but after 1909 they set up the NAACP and tried with little success to challenge Washington's political machine for leadership in the black community.[2] Decades after Washington's death in 1915, the Civil Rights movement generally moved away from his policies to take the more militant NAACP approach.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booker_T._Washington
Click to expand...

Racial violence
Two calamities in the autumn of 1906 shocked African Americans, and helped Du Bois's struggle for civil rights to prevail over Booker T. Washington's accommodationism. First, President Teddy Roosevelt dishonorably discharged 167 black soldiers because they were accused of crimes as a result of the Brownsville Affair. Many of the discharged soldiers had served for 20 years and were near retirement.[66] Second, in September, riots broke out in Atlanta, precipitated by unfounded allegations of black men assaulting white women, which compounded interracial tensions created by a job shortage and employers playing black workers against white workers.[67] Ten thousand whites rampaged through Atlanta, beating every black person they could find, resulting in over 25 deaths.[68] In the aftermath of the 1906 violence, Du Bois urged blacks to withdraw their support from the Republican party, because Republicans Roosevelt and William Howard Taft did not support blacks. Most African Americans had been loyal to the Republican party since the time of Abraham Lincoln.[69]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._E._B._Du_Bois#Racial_violence
Click to expand...

At the time, the Washington/Du Bois dispute polarized African American leaders into two wings--the 'conservative' supporters of Washington and his 'radical' critics. The Du Bois philosophy of agitation and protest for civil rights flowed directly into the Civil Rights movement which began to develop in the 1950's and exploded in the 1960's. Booker T. today is associated, perhaps unfairly, with the self-help/colorblind/Republican/Clarence Thomas/Thomas Sowell wing of the black community and its leaders. The Nation of Islam and Maulana Karenga's Afrocentrism derive too from this strand out of Booker T.'s philosophy. However, the latter advocated withdrawal from the mainstream in the name of economic advancement.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/race/etc/road.html
Click to expand...

Woodrow Wilson: Wilson segregated the Federal Government and but was still supported by Du Bois. He did not want to use the Justice Department to file civil rights charges under the 1866 Civil Rights Act for the East St. Louis Riots which killed 40 to 200 African Americans.

The East St. Louis riot (May and July 1917) was an outbreak of labor- and race-related violence that caused between 40 and 200 deaths and extensive property damage. The incident took place in East St. Louis, Illinois, an industrial city on the east bank of the Mississippi River across from St. Louis, Missouri. It has been described as the worst incident of labor-related violence in 20th-century American history,[1] and one of the worst race riots in U.S. history. The local Chamber of Commerce called for the resignation of the police chief. At the end of the month, ten thousand people marched in silent protest in New York City in condemnation of the riots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_St._Louis_riot
Click to expand...

Read More on Wilson here and here.

PatriotNews · Dec 15, 2014

Harding tried to pass an anti-lynching bill but couldn't get it passed because of opposition of the Democratic Party:

Domestically, Harding signed the first federal child welfare program, and dealt with striking mining and railroad workers in part by supporting an 8-hour work day. He created the Bureau of the Budget to prepare the first United States federal budget. Harding advocated an anti-lynching bill to curb violence against African Americans, but it failed to pass Congress. In foreign affairs, Harding spurned the League of Nations and negotiated peace treaties with Germany and Austria. His greatest foreign policy achievement came in the Washington Naval Conference of 1921–22, in which the world's major naval powers agreed on a naval limitations program that held sway for a decade.

In August 1923, Harding suddenly collapsed and died in California. His administration's many scandals have earned Harding a bottom-tier ranking from historians,[2] but in recent years there has been some recognition of his fiscal responsibility and endorsement of African-American civil rights.[3] Harding has been viewed as a more modern politician who embraced technology and was sensitive to the plights of minorities, women, and labor.[4]

1920 Presidential Election results
Click to expand...

Harding gave a speech in the Deep South in Birmingham, Alabama. Republicans will call the speech the first Civil Rights speech given by a President in the South.[1] In the speech, he condemned lynchings and called for federal anti-lynching legislation laws be passed by congress.[2] He called for racial equality:

The crowd listened to the president with great interest. At the beginning of his speech, he praised Birmingham: “Mr. Mayor, Citizens of Birmingham, and People of the South: . …We have come here to pay tribute to the marvelous achievement of a brief half-century to which this city and its industries stand as a monument. They testify to us how far the South has progressed in a single generation; the generation since slavery was abolished and the role of free labor and unfettered industrial opportunity became the rule of all our great republic.”

Then the president spoke frankly, turning to his left to address many of his remarks to the “Negro” section. He appealed to the nation to “lay aside old prejudices and old antagonisms” and to support a constructive policy of racial relationship. In his soothing voice of “velvet” as the newspapers called it, he spoke of the right of the American Negro to broad political, economic, and educational advantages. When he called for economic equality, a thunder of applause came up from the segregated section.

Then Mr. Harding turned to the white section. Above the din of the crowd, he departed from his prepared remarks to say: “Whether you like it or not, unless our democracy is a lie, you must stand for that equality.” There was another roar from the black section when Mr. Harding looked to them again, laid down his manuscript, and said: “I want to be looking in their direction when I say these things because I am speaking to North and South alike, white and blacks alike. I am never going to say anything that I can’t say in every direction and to all people exactly alike.”
https://birminghamhistorycenter.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/he-said-what/
Click to expand...

Harding’s official address to the city was delivered in Woodrow Wilson Park at 11:30 A.M. to a large crowd of the fast-growing city. Harding’s plan was to use this speech to make his first public show of support for the Republican National Committee’s plans to reorganize the party in the South. He explained that race was becoming an issue and could no longer remain a solely regional concern. Harding spoke of the great migrations of black laborers to the North during World War I, the meritorious service given by black soldiers during the war, and then spoke of political equality as a guarantee of the U.S. Constitution: “Let the black man vote when he is fit to vote; prohibit the white man voting when he is unfit to vote.” While white listeners fell largely silent, African Americans cheered from their segregated section of the park. Calling for “an end of prejudice” Harding went further than any president since Abraham Lincoln.

With this speech, Warren G. Harding became the first President to support civil rights on Southern soil for African Americans. He felt that African Americans should have full equality in employment, education and political life. While some may consider Harding a mediocre President, it is clear that he was a good man who sought equality under the law for all American citizens - white and black - at a time of severe racial intolerance, by openly advocating civil rights. President Harding was clearly a man of his convictions.
https://historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/5677
Click to expand...

What did W.E.B. Du Bois and the NAACP think of the speech? Du Bois was a Harvard educated socialist who supported Woodrow Wilson and the Democratic Party. He accused the President of placating to Southern whites:

But President Harding did not stop here. Indeed he did not begin here. Either because he had no adequate view of the end of the fatal path he was treading of because, in his desire to placate the white South, he was careless of consequences, he put first on his program of racial settlement a statement which could have been understood and was understood and we fear was intended to be understood to pledge the nation, the Negro race and the world to a doctrine so utterly inadmissible in the twentieth century, in a Republic of free citizens and in an age of Humanity that one stands aghast as the motives and the reasons for the pronouncement.

It may to some seem that this statement is overdrawn. Some puzzled persons may say: but Negros themselves have told me that they repudiate “Social Equality” and amalgamation of race; in fact, right there at Birmingham, Negro applause of the President was audible
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/president-harding-and-social-equality/
.
Click to expand...

Can we see a parallel to today here? A republican give a Civil Rights speech in the middle of the deep South, and liberals and W.E.B. Du Bois accuse him of appealing to Southern racists. Apparently, this was the template used today by the Democratic Party.

PatriotNews · Dec 16, 2014

The GOP Platform on Civil Rights1960: Candidate - Richard Nixon

Civil Rights

This nation was created to give expression, validity and purpose to our spiritual heritage—the supreme worth of the individual. In such a nation—a nation dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal—racial discrimination has no place. It can hardly be reconciled with a Constitution that guarantees equal protection under law to all persons. In a deeper sense, too, it is immoral and unjust. As to those matters within reach of political action and leadership, we pledge ourselves unreservedly to its eradication.

Equality under law promises more than the equal right to vote and transcends mere relief from discrimination by government. It becomes a reality only when all persons have equal opportunity, without distinction of race, religion, color or national origin, to acquire the essentials of life—housing, education and employment. The Republican Party—the party of Abraham Lincoln—from its very beginning has striven to make this promise a reality. It is today, as it was then, unequivocally dedicated to making the greatest amount of progress toward the objective.

We recognize that discrimination is not a problem localized in one area of the country, but rather a problem that must be faced by North and South alike. Nor is discrimination confined to the discrimination against Negroes. Discrimination in many, if not all, areas of the country on the basis of creed or national origin is equally insidious. Further we recognize that in many communities in which a century of custom and tradition must be overcome heartening and commendable progress has been made.

The Republican Party is proud of the civil rights record of the Eisenhower Administration. More progress has been made during the past eight years than in the preceding 80 years. We acted promptly to end discrimination in our nation's capital. Vigorous executive action was taken to complete swiftly the desegregation of the armed forces, veterans' hospitals, navy yards, and other federal establishments.

We supported the position of the Negro school children before the Supreme Court. We believe the Supreme Court school decision should be carried out in accordance with the mandate of the Court.

Although the Democratic-controlled Congress watered them down, the Republican Administration's recommendations resulted in significant and effective civil rights legislation in both 1957 and 1960—the first civil rights statutes to be passed in more than 80 years.

Hundreds of Negroes have already been registered to vote as a result of Department of Justice action, some in counties where Negroes did not vote before. The new law will soon make it possible for thousands and thousands of Negroes previously disenfranchised to vote.

By executive order, a committee for the elimination of discrimination in government employment has been reestablished with broadened authority. Today, nearly one-fourth of all federal employees are Negro.

The President's Committee on Government Contracts, under the chairmanship of Vice President Nixon, has become an impressive force for the elimination of discriminatory employment practices of private companies that do business with the government.

Other important achievements include initial steps toward the elimination of segregation in federally-aided housing; the establishment of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, which enforces federal civil rights laws; and the appointment of the bi-partisan Civil Rights Commission, which has prepared a significant report that lays the groundwork for further legislative action and progress.

The Republican record is a record of progress—not merely promises. Nevertheless, we recognize that much remains to be done.

Each of the following pledges is practical and within realistic reach of accomplishment. They are serious—not cynical—pledges made to result in maximum progress.

1. Voting.

We pledge:
Continued vigorous enforcement of the civil rights laws to guarantee the right to vote to all citizens in all areas of the country.

Legislation to provide that the completion of six primary grades in a state accredited school is conclusive evidence of literacy for voting purposes.

2. Public Schools.

We pledge:
The Department of Justice will continue its vigorous support of court orders for school desegregation. Desegregation suits now pending involve at least 39 school districts. Those suits and others already concluded will affect most major cities in which school segregation is being practiced.

It will use the new authority provided by the Civil Rights Act of 1960 to prevent obstruction of court orders.

We will propose legislation to authorize the Attorney General to bring actions for school desegregation in the name of the United States in appropriate cases, as when economic coercion or threat of physical harm is used to deter persons from going to court to establish their rights.

Our continuing support of the President's proposal, to extend federal aid and technical assistance to schools which in good faith attempted to desegregate.

We oppose the pretense of fixing a target date 3 years from now for the mere submission of plans for school desegregation. Slow-moving school districts would construe it as a three-year moratorium during which progress would cease, postponing until 1963 the legal process to enforce compliance. We believe that each of the pending court actions should proceed as the Supreme Court has directed and that in no district should there be any such delay.
Click to expand...

Notice that the language in support of civil rights is clear and clearly against segregation and discrimination. The GOP Platform mentions segregation and desegregation 11 times and always clearly against segregation. The Democratic Party weakened the '57 and '60 Civil rights act, and it was LBJ and JFK themselves that did it. The democrats were fighting tooth and nail in the courts against Brown vs The Board of Education. Republicans were fighting delays in desegregating the schools in their platform. The democrats below, endorsed a 3 year period to develop a plan to be in "first step" compliance by 1963.

Now look at the Democratic Platform which is filled with platitudes and non-committal statements of fact that expresses no opinion. They are meaningless generalities which do not directly even address civil rights. They often say we support this or that for "All Americans", not specifically blacks (or negros) 0 times; whereas the GOP Platform is quite specific about blacks (negros) 6 times in their platform. There is no indignation regarding the conditions mentioned and the platform only mentions segregation or desegregation 4 times. Example: Statements such as, "If discrimination in voting, education, the administration of justice or segregated lunch counters are the issues in one area, discrimination in housing and employment may be pressing questions elsewhere" do not express an opinion against these things but simply an acknowledgement that they exist:

The Democratic Platform on Civil Rights 1960: Candidate: JFK.

Civil Rights

We shall also seek to create an affirmative new atmosphere in which to deal with racial divisions and inequalities which threaten both the integrity of our democratic faith and the proposition on which our nation was founded—that all men are created equal. It is our faith in human dignity that distinguishes our open free society from the closed totalitarian society of the Communists.

The Constitution of the United States rejects the notion that the Rights of Man means the rights of some men only. We reject it too.

The right to vote is the first principle of self-government. The Constitution also guarantees to all Americans the equal protection of the laws.

It is the duty of the Congress to enact the laws necessary and proper to protect and promote these constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has the power to interpret these rights and the laws thus enacted.

It is the duty of the President to see that these rights are respected and that the Constitution and laws as interpreted by the Supreme Court are faithfully executed.

What is now required is effective moral and political leadership by the whole Executive branch of our Government to make equal opportunity a living reality for all Americans.

As the party of Jefferson, we shall provide that leadership.

In every city and state in greater or lesser degree there is discrimination based on color, race, religion, or national origin.

If discrimination in voting, education, the administration of justice or segregated lunch counters are the issues in one area, discrimination in housing and employment may be pressing questions elsewhere.

The peaceful demonstrations for first-class citizenship which have recently taken place in many parts of this country are a signal to all of us to make good at long last the guarantees of our Constitution.

The time has come to assure equal access for all Americans to all areas of community life, including voting booths, schoolrooms, jobs, housing, and public facilities.

The Democratic Administration which takes office next January will therefore use the full powers provided in the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 to secure for all Americans the right to vote.

If these powers, vigorously invoked by a new Attorney General and backed by a strong and imaginative Democratic President, prove inadequate, further powers will be sought.

We will support whatever action is necessary to eliminate literacy tests and the payment of poll taxes as requirements for voting.

A new Democratic Administration will also use its full powers—legal and moral—to ensure the beginning of good-faith compliance with the Constitutional requirement that racial discrimination be ended in public education.

We believe that every school district affected by the Supreme Court's school desegregation decision should submit a plan providing for at least first-step compliance by 1963, the 100th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation.

To facilitate compliance, technical and financial assistance should be given to school districts facing special problems of transition.

For this and for the protection of all other Constitutional rights of Americans, the Attorney General should be empowered and directed to file civil injunction suits in Federal courts to prevent the denial of any civil right on grounds of race, creed, or color.

The new Democratic Administration will support Federal legislation establishing a Fair Employment Practices Commission to secure effectively for everyone the right to equal opportunity for employment.

In 1949 the President's Committee on Civil Rights recommended a permanent Commission on Civil Rights. The new Democratic Administration will broaden the scope and strengthen the powers of the present commission and make it permanent.

Its functions will be to provide, assistance to communities, industries, or individuals in the implementation of Constitutional rights in education, housing, employment, transportation, and the administration of justice.

In addition, the Democratic Administration will use its full executive powers to assure equal employment opportunities and to terminate racial segregation throughout Federal services and institutions, and on all Government contracts, The successful desegregation of the armed services took place through such decisive executive action under President Truman.

Similarly the new Democratic Administration will take action to end discrimination in Federal housing programs, including Federally assisted housing.

To accomplish these goals will require executive orders, legal actions brought by the Attorney General, legislation, and improved Congressional procedures to safeguard majority rule.

Above all, it will require the strong, active, persuasive, and inventive leadership of the President of the United States.

The Democratic President who takes office next January will face unprecedented challenges. His Administration will present a new face to the world.

It will be a bold, confident, affirmative face. We will draw new strength from the universal truths which the founder of our Party asserted in the Declaration of Independence to be "self-evident."

Emerson once spoke of an unending contest in human affairs, a contest between the Party of Hope and the Party of Memory.

For 7 1/2 years America, governed by the Party of Memory, has taken a holiday from history.

As the Party of Hope it is our responsibility and opportunity to call forth the greatness of the American people.

In this spirit, we hereby rededicate ourselves to the continuing service of the Rights of Man-everywhere in America and everywhere else on God's earth.
Click to expand...

This is the Democratic Party which doesn't need dog whistles, they give out in the open signals to the Southern Democrats that the are still in the fight against desegregation.

PatriotNews · Dec 16, 2014

Nixon had publicly accused Kennedy of avoiding civil rights issues when campaigning in the South. The moderator said that Kennedy had accused him of the same.

MR. NIXON: My intentions in the field of civil rights have been spelled out in the Republican platform. I think we have to make progress first in the field of employment. And there we would give statutory authority to the Committee on Government Contracts, which is an effective way of getting real progress made in this area, since about one out of every four jobs is held by and is allotted by people who have government contracts. Certainly I think all of us agree that when anybody has a government contract, certainly the money that is spent under that contract ought to be disbursed equally without regard to the race or creed or color of the individual who is to be employed. Second, in the field of schools, we believe that there should be provisions whereby the federal government would give assistance to those districts who do want to integrate their schools. That of course was rejected as was the government contracts provision by the special session of the Congress to - in which Mr. Kennedy was quite active. And then as far as other areas are concerned, I think that we have to look to presidential leadership. And when I speak of presidential leadership, I refer for example to our attitude on the sit-in strikes. Here we have a situation which causes all of us concern - causes us concern because of the denial of the rights of people to the equality which we think belongs to everybody. I have talked to Negro mothers. I've heard them explain - try to explain - how they tell their children how they can go into a store and buy a loaf of bread but then can't go into that store and sit at the counter and get a Coca Cola. This is wrong, and we have to do something about it. So, under the circumstances, what do we do? Well what we do is what the Attorney-General of the United States did under the direction of the President: call in the owners of chain stores and get them to take action. Now there are other places where the executive can lead, but let me just sum up by saying this: why do I talk every time I'm in the South on civil rights? Not because I am preaching to the people of the South because this isn't just a Southern problem; it's a Northern problem and a Western problem; it's a problem for all of us. I do it because it's the responsibility of leadership, I do it because we have to solve this problem together. I do it right at this time particularly because when we have Khrushchev in this country - a man who has enslaved millions, a man who has slaughtered thousands - we cannot continue to have a situation where he can point the finger at the United States of America and say that we are denying rights to our citizens. And so I say both the candidates and both the vice presidential candidates, I would hope as well - including Senator Johnson - should talk on this issue at every opportunity.
Click to expand...

Nixon clearly indicates his support of civil rights and desegregation. He clearly states that he talks about civil rights every time he is in the South. He addresses employment and government contracts, as well as public accommodations. He addresses Kennedy's opposition to school segregation in the Senate. If you listen to Kennedy's response, he never states an opinion, just criticizes the previous administration. He mentions the '57 and '60 Civil Rights bills, but he opposed them and weakened them as a senator.

MR, KENNEDY: Well let me say that I think that the president operates in a number of different areas. First, as a legislative leader. And as I just said that I believe that the passage of the so-called Title Three, which gives the Attorney General the power to protect Constitutional rights in those cases where it's not possible for the person involved to bring the suit. Secondly, as an executive leader. There have been only six cases brought by this Attorney General under the voting bill passed in 1957 and the voting bill passed in 1960. The right to vote is basic. I do not believe that this Administration has implemented those bills which represent the will of the majority of the Congress on two occasions with vigor. Thirdly, I don't believe that the government contracts division is operated with vigor. Everyone who does business with the government should have the opportunity to make sure that they do not practice discrimination in their hiring. And that's in all sections of the United States. And then fourthly, as a moral leader. There is a very strong moral basis for this concept of equality of opportunity. We are in a very difficult time. We need all the talent we can get. We sit on a conspicuous stage. We are a goldfish bowl before the world. We have to practice what we preach. We set a very high standard for ourselves. The Communists do not. They set a low standard of materialism. We preach in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution, in the statement of our greatest leaders, we preach very high standards; and if we're not going to be s- charged before the world with hypocrisy we have to meet those standards. I believe the president of the United States should indicate it. Now lastly, I believe in the case of Little Rock. I would have hoped that the president of the United States would have been possible for him to indicate it clearly that uh - the Supreme Court decision was going to be carried out. I would have hoped that it would have been possible to use marshals to do so. But it wou- uh - evidently uh - under the handling of the case it was not. I would hope an incident like that would not happen. I think if the president is responsible, if he consults with those involved, if he makes it clear that the Supreme Court decision is going to be carried out in a way that the Supreme Court planned - with deliberate speed - then in my judgment, providing he's behind action, I believe we can make uh - progress. Now the present Administration - the President - has said - never indicated what he thought of the 1954 decision. Unless the president speaks, then of course uh - the country doesn't speak, and Franklin Roosevelt said: "The pre - uh - the presidency of the United States is above all a place of moral leadership." And I believe on this great moral issue he should speak out and give his views clearly.
Click to expand...

Kennedy does not directly answer the question about Little Rock, but instead indicates he would not have done what Eisenhower did. Is this not an appeal to the white Southern racist democrat voters??? Kennedy does not address or give an opinion on civil rights, desegregation, employment, government contracts or public accommodations. Just vague platitudes and about, "set the tone" and "also must lead". He does not deny that he avoids talking about civil rights when campaigning in the South, nor ever makes a claim that he does. He does not deny Nixon's allegations that he opposed desegregation in the Senate. Then Kennedy feigns supports for the passage of the "so called Title III", which he voted for, but Johnson killed, and claims the justice department hadn't done enough. He does not address that it was he and LBJ that removed Title III from the provision. Nixon catches this and calls him out on it:

MR. NIXON: Senator Kennedy has expressed some hopes in this field, hopes which I think all Americans would share who want some problem - some progress in this area. But let's look at the performance. When he selected his vice presidential running mate, he selected a man who had voted against most of these proposals and who opposes them at the present time. Let me s- look also at what I did. I selected a man who stands with me in this field and who will talk with me and work with me on it. Now the Senator referred to the Committee on Government Contracts. And yet that very committee of which I am chairman has been handicapped by the fact that we have not had adequate funds; we have not had adequate powers; we haven't had an adequate staff. Now in the special session of Congress and also in the session that preceded it, the Democratic Congress - in which there's a two-to-one Democratic majority - was asked by the President to give us the funds and give us the power to do a job and they did nothing at all, And in the special session in which Senator Kennedy was calling the signals, along with Senator Johnson, they turned it down and he himself voted against giving us the powers despite the fact that the bill had already been considered before, that it already had hearings on, and the Congress already knew what it had before it. All that I can say is this: what we need here are not just high hopes. What we need is action. And in the field of executive leadership, I can say that I believe it's essential that the president of the United States not only set the tone but he also must lead; he must act as he talks.
Click to expand...

Who won the racist South? Kennedy did.

PatriotNews · Dec 16, 2014

MR. DRUMMOND: Uh - Mr. Kennedy, Representative Adam Clayton Powell, in the course of his speaking tour in your behalf, is saying, and I quote: "The Ku Klux Klan is riding again in this campaign. If it doesn't stop, all bigots will vote for Nixon and all right-thinking Christians and Jews will vote for Kennedy rather than be found in the ranks of the Klan-minded." End quotation. Governor Michael DiSalle is saying much the same thing. What I would like to ask, Senator Kennedy, is what is the purpose of this sort of thing and how do you feel about it?

MR. KENNEDY: Well the que- the - Mr. Griffin, I believe, who is the head of the Klan, who lives in Tampa, Florida, indicated a - in a statement, I think, two or three weeks ago that he was not going to vote for me, and that he was going to vote for Mr. Nixon. I do not suggest in any way, nor have I ever, that that indicates that Mr. Nixon has the slightest sympathy, involvement, or in any way imply any inferences in regard to the Ku Klux Klan. That's absurd. I don't suggest that, I don't support it. I would disagree with it. Mr. Nixon knows very well that in this - in this whole matter that's been involved with the so-called religious discussion in this campaign, I've never suggested, even by the vaguest implication, that he did anything but disapprove it. And that's my view now. I disapprove of the issue. I do not suggest that Mr. Nixon does in any way.

MR. SHADEL: Mr. Vice President.

MR. NIXON: Well I welcome this opportunity to join Senator Kennedy completely on that statement and to say before this largest television audience in history something that I have been saying in the past and want to - will always say in the future. On our last television debate, I pointed out that it was my position that Americans must choose the best man that either party could produce. We can't settle for anything but the best. And that means, of course, the best man that this nation can produce. And that means that we can't have any test of religion. We can't have any test of race. It must be a test of a man. Also as far as religion is concerned. I have seen Communism abroad. I see what it does. Communism is the enemy of all religions; and we who do believe in God must join together. We must not be divided on this issue. The worst thing that I can think can happen in this campaign would be for it to be decided on religious issues. I obviously repudiate the Klan; I repudiate anybody who uses the religious issue; I will not tolerate it, I have ordered all of my people to have nothing to do with it and I say - say to this great audience, whoever may be listening, remember, if you believe in America, if you want America to set the right example to the world, that we cannot have religious or racial prejudice. We cannot have it in our hearts. But we certainly cannot have it in a presidential campaign.
Click to expand...

This is an early example of race-baiting and also liberal media bias. This softball question to Kennedy was probably planted by Kennedy. It should never have been asked and Kennedy never disavowed the two democrats or what they had said on his behalf while campaigning for him.

Gov. DiSalle did not even desegregate his own Ohio schools. And Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, a black congressman from Harlem, would later go on to be the only African American who was expelled un-Constitutionally from the House of Representatives by the Democrat party who had super-majority control of the House of Representatives. Where were the cries of racism??? Powell was immediately re-elected in a special election, but stayed a democrat in the very same party that just kicked him out of office.

It would only be fair to acknowledge that the reason the Klan opposed Kennedy is because Kennedy was a Catholic. The Klan is not only anti-black, they are anti-Catholic.

Why did Kennedy as president not investigate or file charges against the Klan when in May, 1961, they were allowed to beat the Freedom Riders by the local and state democrats in Birmingham? No investigation was made by the Justice Department, and no arrests were ever made. Kennedy was obviously covering up for his Southern racist democrat friends. Allowing this kind of violence to go on is what encouraged the kind of violence in the South. Only after Kennedy's assassination, did the federal government finally step in after the murder of 3 civil rights workers. Kennedy never really did support civil rights except in one speech shortly before his death.

Defengar · Dec 16, 2014

Ah, the ol' Byrd bait and switch. "Bububut Byrd stayed democrat!" Yeah... he did... he also spent the rest of his life apologizing for his past ignorance and actions. Strom Thurmund never did; he only toned down the rhetoric. He was also shown after his death to be a titanic hypocrite and coward to boot (he had an illegitimate mixed daughter he never publicly acknowledged in life).

PatriotNews · Dec 16, 2014

Oh please, tell us about the Nixon Southern Strategy.

[video=youtube;dAlZHfaksQM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAlZHfaksQM[/video]
Nixon expressing his dedication to Civil Rights in a Nationally televised commercial.

[video=youtube;BDz1O7jho1M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDz1O7jho1M[/video]
Nixon campaigning on Civil Rights in the South and challenging his opponents to do the same.

danielpalos · Dec 16, 2014

yes, it was a fear of Communism rather than a religious moral of "goodwill toward men".

PatriotNews · Dec 16, 2014

danielpalos said: ↑

yes, it was a fear of Communism rather than a religious moral of "goodwill toward men".
Click to expand...

Baseless claim.

danielpalos · Dec 16, 2014

PatriotNews said: ↑

Baseless claim.
Click to expand...

did you not watch the videos you posted?

PatriotNews · Dec 16, 2014

Defengar said: ↑

Ah, the ol' Byrd bait and switch. "Bububut Byrd stayed democrat!" Yeah... he did... he also spent the rest of his life apologizing for his past ignorance and actions. Strom Thurmund never did; he only toned down the rhetoric. He was also shown after his death to be a titanic hypocrite and coward to boot (he had an illegitimate mixed daughter he never publicly acknowledged in life).
Click to expand...

Byrd and every other Dixiecrat stayed democrat. But only one Dixiecrat spoiled the whole republican party. #LiberalLogic

PatriotNews · Dec 16, 2014

danielpalos said: ↑

did you not watch the videos you posted?
Click to expand...

Yes I did. Did you not hear him say, "Equal rights for all our citizens. Why must we vigorously defend Them? First because it is right and just."
Do I really have to transcribe both videos? I haven't seen one video of Kennedy in the South talking about civil rights. I have also posted portions of the presidential debates where he talks of his support for civil rights. Also the GOP's platform which calls for immediate segregation, and the democrat platform that wants a 3 year delay in segregation. He talks about racism all across the country, something not mentioned by Kennedy or the democrats. All the evidence points to Nixon's strong record on civil rights, and Kennedy's poor record on civil rights. I have yet to have anyone show me anything to the contrary. This proves the Southern Strategy is a myth.

Defengar · Dec 16, 2014

PatriotNews said: ↑

Byrd and every other Dixiecrat stayed democrat. But only one Dixiecrat spoiled the whole republican party. #LiberalLogic
Click to expand...

Thurmond was just the most famous case. That tends to happen when you still haven't renounced your discriminatory views into the 2000's and most of the rest of the party loves you.

Hoosier8 · Dec 16, 2014

Defengar said: ↑

Thurmond was just the most famous case. That tends to happen when you still haven't renounced your discriminatory views into the 2000's.
Click to expand...

Yet the democrat party has yet to apologize for it's horrific racist past.

PatriotNews · Dec 16, 2014

Defengar said: ↑

Thurmond was just the most famous case. That tends to happen when you still haven't renounced your discriminatory views into the 2000's and most of the rest of the party loves you.
Click to expand...

He voted for MLK day. Did Robert Byrd? Why is he more famous when he was not a KKK member, but Byrd was?

Defengar · Dec 16, 2014

Hoosier8 said: ↑

Yet the democrat party has yet to apologize for it's horrific racist past.
Click to expand...

Parties are not conscious sentient entities. If the new generation of people in them don't espouse the beliefs of the past then there's no dirt on them. Those still around from the old days have a different responsibility. Its simple. Byrd apologized; Thurmond did not.

Hoosier8 · Dec 16, 2014

[video=youtube_share;6MvyEqtspIA]http://youtu.be/6MvyEqtspIA[/video]

Defengar · Dec 16, 2014

PatriotNews said: ↑

He voted for MLK day. Did Robert Byrd? Why is he more famous when he was not a KKK member, but Byrd was?
Click to expand...

Yeah he voted for MLK day... that was as good as it got. The MLK thing was a sham because until 2000 in his own state, state employees had the option of talking not one but three Confederate holidays of their choice instead. He never put any pressure on anyone to do anything about that. It was an easy ploy to get brownie points while still never renouncing his past views. And yes, from what I remember Byrd did vote yes for it as well. Before he died he was also one of the biggest supporters of getting the MLK memorial in the National Mall. Interestingly enough Ron Paul and John McCain both voted against MLK day.

And again its simple, he is more infamous because unlike Byrd he never renounced his views, and of course there was the revelation after his death he had an illegitimate mixed daughter, thus forever showing what a cowardly hypocrite he was.

PatriotNews · Dec 16, 2014

Defengar said: ↑

And again its simple, he is more infamous because unlike Byrd he never renounced his views, and of course there was the revelation after his death he had an illegitimate mixed daughter, thus forever showing what a cowardly hypocrite he was.
Click to expand...

So that taints the entire Republican Party? It does not in itself prove this dumb idea of the Southern Strategy which is the subject of this thread. The point is you can't point to him and not to all the other Dixiecrats and remain credible.

PatriotNews · Dec 16, 2014

Defengar said: ↑

Parties are not conscious sentient entities. If the new generation of people in them don't espouse the beliefs of the past then there's no dirt on them. Byrd apologized; Thurmond did not.
Click to expand...

Me thinks you speak with forked tongue. Why then do you want to defame the entire republican party as racists because of one man? HYPOCRISY!!!

Defengar · Dec 16, 2014

PatriotNews said: ↑

Me thinks you speak with forked tongue. Why then do you want to defame the entire republican party as racists because of one man? HYPOCRISY!!!
Click to expand...

I never did that. He is just a textbook example of the de-evolution of the GOP since Eisenhower. There's plenty of other racists in the GOP. One of my favorites to point out is David Duke; a man who was the leader of the KKK and then tried to enter politics as a democrat... and failed miserably. Then he changed parties and all of a sudden... holy (*)(*)(*)(*) 40% of Louisiana voted for him to be governor. The GOP (*)(*)(*)(*) a brick in 92 watching that go down. It confirmed the suspicion that racism in the Republican south is not only alive, its prolific.

CJtheModerate · Dec 16, 2014

Defengar said: ↑

I never did that. He is just a textbook example of the de-evolution of the GOP since Eisenhower. There's plenty of other racists in the GOP. One of my favorites to point out is David Duke; a man who was the leader of the KKK and then tried to enter politics as a democrat... and failed miserably. Then he changed parties and all of a sudden... holy (*)(*)(*)(*) 40% of Louisiana voted for him to be governor. The GOP (*)(*)(*)(*) a brick in 92 watching that go down. It confirmed the suspicion that racism in the Republican south is not only alive, its prolific.
Click to expand...

One year later...

United States presidential election in Louisiana, 1992 | Wikipedia.org

Hoosier8 · Dec 16, 2014

Defengar said: ↑

I never did that. He is just a textbook example of the de-evolution of the GOP since Eisenhower. There's plenty of other racists in the GOP. One of my favorites to point out is David Duke; a man who was the leader of the KKK and then tried to enter politics as a democrat... and failed miserably. Then he changed parties and all of a sudden... holy (*)(*)(*)(*) 40% of Louisiana voted for him to be governor. The GOP (*)(*)(*)(*) a brick in 92 watching that go down. It confirmed the suspicion that racism in the Republican south is not only alive, its prolific.
Click to expand...

1991 governor's race he received 38.8% of the vote but ran against a corrupt democrat that won. Who is to say that racist democrats did not crossover to vote for Duke?

In 1992 Duke ran for the Presidential nomination. Republican Party officials tried to block his participation. He received 119,115 (0.94%) votes. Must have been all those racist republicans. LOL

Log in or Sign up

The Myth of the Southern Strategy

PatriotNews Well-Known Member

Sanskrit Well-Known Member

PatriotNews Well-Known Member

PatriotNews Well-Known Member

PatriotNews Well-Known Member

PatriotNews Well-Known Member

PatriotNews Well-Known Member

Defengar New Member

PatriotNews Well-Known Member

danielpalos Banned

PatriotNews Well-Known Member

danielpalos Banned

PatriotNews Well-Known Member

PatriotNews Well-Known Member

Defengar New Member

Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

PatriotNews Well-Known Member

Defengar New Member

Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

Defengar New Member

PatriotNews Well-Known Member

PatriotNews Well-Known Member

Defengar New Member

CJtheModerate New Member

Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

The Myth of the Southern Strategy

PatriotNews Well-Known Member

Sanskrit Well-Known Member

PatriotNews Well-Known Member

PatriotNews Well-Known Member

PatriotNews Well-Known Member

PatriotNews Well-Known Member

PatriotNews Well-Known Member

Defengar New Member

PatriotNews Well-Known Member

danielpalos Banned

PatriotNews Well-Known Member

danielpalos Banned

PatriotNews Well-Known Member

PatriotNews Well-Known Member

Defengar New Member

Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

PatriotNews Well-Known Member

Defengar New Member

Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

Defengar New Member

PatriotNews Well-Known Member

PatriotNews Well-Known Member

Defengar New Member

CJtheModerate New Member

Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Useful Searches