Black vote in 1952

[RINO Tom]

That Eisenhower percentage in 1956, was what made the Dem northern political bosses to embrace the Civil Rights movement. They realized that they would be toast if they did not.

It also convinced many Republicans that even a defiantly pro-civil rights GOP (instead of a publicly supportive, privately ambivalent one) wouldn't win back Black voters.

[RINO Tom]

The counties map of Mississippi in 1952 was the opposite of the maps of the recent times. Eisenhower won the counties of the black belt. Maybe, the few blacks who could vote in Mississippi voted for Eisenhower.

It's more likely that blacks in Mississippi were prevented from voting, which you'll see reflected in the raw vote totals in those black belt counties.  What this tells us is that the whites who lived in majority-black communities were voting for Eisenhower.

While probably true, there's pretty good evidence that Blacks who could vote in the South voted slightly to the right of Blacks in the North for quite a while.

[RINO Tom]

The counties map of Mississippi in 1952 was the opposite of the maps of the recent times. Eisenhower won the counties of the black belt. Maybe, the few blacks who could vote in Mississippi voted for Eisenhower.

It's more likely that blacks in Mississippi were prevented from voting, which you'll see reflected in the raw vote totals in those black belt counties.  What this tells us is that the whites who lived in majority-black communities were voting for Eisenhower.

While probably true, there's pretty good evidence that Blacks who could vote in the South voted slightly to the right of Blacks in the North for quite a while.

You mean more Republican? Only Texas and parts of TVA country had any sort of progressive movement in that period.

Yes, of course I mean more Republican, because they were voting for a party that was objectively to the right of the Democrats on economic and class issues - the only two types that any serious person compares across multiple decades on a left-right scale.

(I'm not going to accept modern Democrats' assertion that supporting civil rights is a liberal thing to do, as that's an asinine thing to say.)

[RINO Tom]

(I'm not going to accept modern Democrats' assertion that supporting civil rights is a liberal thing to do, as that's an asinine thing to say.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.blacksandpresidency.com/herberthoover.php

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.naacp.org/pages/naacp-history

What, on Earth, is your point?  During the exact same time period, there were very liberal Democrats who swept civil rights under the rug (FDR) and very conservative Republicans who openly called for civil rights legislation (Coolidge), which is my point: you can't just put civil rights on a left-right axis.  It crossed party lines and ideological ones, as well.  You have just simply decided through any number of lazy rationalizations that supporting civil rights is "liberal" (I would guess some form of Blacks are liberals now, so liberals - regardless of party - must have been the only ones fighting for them or the comical conclusion that because you are a liberal and you would have supported civil rights that it must be an inherently liberal view).

There were liberals and conservatives who supported and opposed civil rights all throughout the movement's history; to decide supporting or opposing basic civil rights is liberal is PURE conjecture.  Period.