The Democratic South and Civil Rights
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 24, 2024, 01:17:00 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  The Democratic South and Civil Rights
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: The Democratic South and Civil Rights  (Read 1344 times)
scorpiogurl
Guest
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 22, 2005, 10:49:37 AM »

I am no expert on American politics, but one issue does intrigue me and perhaps someone with greater knowledge can help me out.

Up until the election of 1968 most of the south (what were the confederate states) voted fairly solidly for Democratic Presidential candidates. Following 1968 the situation changed...due to the Civil Rights movement and Nixons southern strategy.

My question is..........why did a party whose roots were strongly in the confederate south adopt the Civil Rights mantle??? Surely logically this would have been an issue the Republican Party would have championed?

Anyone enlighten me?
Logged
Tory
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,297


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2005, 10:56:50 AM »

They didn't adopt the Civil Rights mantle. More Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats. LBJ signed the CRA, so it gave the appearance that the Dems supported it. Then eventually as the GOP took over the South, the Democrats became a northerners party, and northerners are pro-Civil Rights. It's all about geography really.
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2005, 10:57:44 AM »

I am no expert on American politics, but one issue does intrigue me and perhaps someone with greater knowledge can help me out.

Up until the election of 1968 most of the south (what were the confederate states) voted fairly solidly for Democratic Presidential candidates. Following 1968 the situation changed...due to the Civil Rights movement and Nixons southern strategy.

My question is..........why did a party whose roots were strongly in the confederate south adopt the Civil Rights mantle??? Surely logically this would have been an issue the Republican Party would have championed?

Anyone enlighten me?

Southern Democrats were usually more conservative than Democrats.  They also supported more restrictions as far as "unwritten segregation" laws. These were Dixiecrats.  In 1948, they voted for Strom Thurmond, but they didn't defect to the GOP bigtime until 1964 and Goldwater.

As for the last paragraph.  Republicans didn't make civil rights their biggest issue.  LBJ signing the Civil Rights Act maked people think all Democrats supported it.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Democrats were moving to their progressive era that still continues today.  The Republicans were moving into their conservative era that still continues today.  Hope that helps
Logged
Dr. Cynic
Lawrence Watson
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,515
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2005, 12:44:55 PM »

After LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, and Dems nominated Hubert H. Humphrey, a decidedly Pro-Civil Rights politican, the South just lost intrest in the Democratic Party.
Logged
BobOMac2k2
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 280


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2005, 12:47:11 PM »

Democrats will do whats right, republicans will do what ever will get them votes.
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2005, 12:57:32 PM »

Democrats will do whats right, republicans will do what ever will get them votes.
HAHAHA

You're quite funning having nominated the three most pandering politicians as your last three candidates.
Logged
Moooooo
nickshepDEM
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,909


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 22, 2005, 01:05:05 PM »

You're quite funning having nominated the three most pandering politicians as your last three candidates.

Yeah, and George W. Bush is the beacon of truth.
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,621
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2005, 01:15:11 PM »

You're quite funning having nominated the three most pandering politicians as your last three candidates.

Yeah, and George W. Bush is the beacon of truth.

Who is talking about truth. Bush takes firm positions and doesn't change his opinions or talking points whe nhe talks to deferrent groups.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,409
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 22, 2005, 01:18:10 PM »

You're quite funning having nominated the three most pandering politicians as your last three candidates.

Yeah, and George W. Bush is the beacon of truth.

Who is talking about truth. Bush takes firm positions and doesn't change his opinions or talking points whe nhe talks to deferrent groups.

Bush doesn't change his mind at all >P
Logged
scorpiogurl
Guest
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 22, 2005, 01:19:58 PM »

After LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, and Dems nominated Hubert H. Humphrey, a decidedly Pro-Civil Rights politican, the South just lost intrest in the Democratic Party.
OK, I understand that, but why had the Democratic party (I presume at that point still strong in the south) made the Civil Rights Agenda their own? It seems to me that it would have been a better "fit" with the Republican Party at that time!!!

Alternatively had there been a Republican President during the sixties.......would they have signed the Civil Rights Act? Is it just an accident of history that there was a Democratic President at that point in time!!!
Logged
I spent the winter writing songs about getting better
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 113,315
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 22, 2005, 01:30:52 PM »

There was a fight in both parties over it. The liberal Democrats like Humphrey succesfully fought the Dixiecrats and in 1948 got a civil rights plank added to the party's platform, resulting in Strom Thurmond's run. The Republican fight over it was basically the 1964 primary, and Goldwater won.

Basically the liberal wing of the Democrats won and the conservative wing of the Republicans won in the end.
Logged
Moooooo
nickshepDEM
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,909


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 22, 2005, 01:40:21 PM »
« Edited: January 22, 2005, 01:44:42 PM by nickshepDEM »

Who is talking about truth. Bush takes firm positions and doesn't change his opinions or talking points whe nhe talks to deferrent groups.

Every politician changes position and opinion.  Yes, even Geogre W. Bush.  Here is just a couple of his "flip-flops"

1. Social Security Surplus

BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]

...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]

2. Patient's Right to Sue

GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01]

...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00]

...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits ‘would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04]

3. Tobacco Buyout

BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM... "They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS "The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]

4. North Korea

BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]

5. Abortion

BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]

...BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]

6. OPEC

BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... "What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]

...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]

7. Iraq Funding

BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]

...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 "I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]

8. Condoleeza Rice Testimony

BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'... "Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]

...BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: "Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony." [President Bush, 3/30/04]

9. Science

BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE..."I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]

...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE "60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]



Logged
scorpiogurl
Guest
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: January 22, 2005, 01:46:19 PM »

There was a fight in both parties over it. The liberal Democrats like Humphrey succesfully fought the Dixiecrats and in 1948 got a civil rights plank added to the party's platform, resulting in Strom Thurmond's run. The Republican fight over it was basically the 1964 primary, and Goldwater won.

Basically the liberal wing of the Democrats won and the conservative wing of the Republicans won in the end.

Thanks :-)
Logged
Wakie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,767


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: January 22, 2005, 02:20:38 PM »

It is important to keep in mind that party's evolve and change.  For example, throughout the 19th century the Republican party was the party of big government.

The Southern Democrats who voted against Civil Rights (the Strom Thurmondites) in the 1960s left the party thereafter and became Republicans.  In the 1970s their influence was not  as strong as it is today (when you have Trent Lott deifying Strom Thurmond).
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,457


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: January 22, 2005, 04:13:17 PM »

After LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, and Dems nominated Hubert H. Humphrey, a decidedly Pro-Civil Rights politican, the South just lost intrest in the Democratic Party.
OK, I understand that, but why had the Democratic party (I presume at that point still strong in the south) made the Civil Rights Agenda their own? It seems to me that it would have been a better "fit" with the Republican Party at that time!!!

Alternatively had there been a Republican President during the sixties.......would they have signed the Civil Rights Act? Is it just an accident of history that there was a Democratic President at that point in time!!!


What basically happened is the Democratic Party split.  The liberal portion of the party was in the northh (which is a lot like the party now) the Conservative portion of the party was in the south.  The liberal Dems in the north were big supporters of the Civil Rights Act, the Conservative Dems of the south were against it.  The Dems in the south didn't like the fact that the national party was becoming more liberal (taking the northern side of the party's side more) and when Johnson signed the Civil Rightd Act, the southern Conservative Dems (the dixiecrats) broke away from the party and became the Southern Conservative Republicans and voted heavily for goldwater in 1964
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.039 seconds with 11 queries.