The journey from there to here
OK, I have been challenged on another thread in my assertion that the Republicans were the frontrunners in the civil rights movement, rather than the Democrats. What follows are statements from an article from "the National Review" on January 9, 2003 written by John Fonte and entitled "Conservatives Can be Proud of their Civil Rights Record". While one can challenge the editorial slant of the piece, the congressional votes are a matter of public record and can be verified with relative ease. I will quote the article where applicable...

"In the 1950s, while Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce the Supreme Court's school-desegregation ruling, Senator John Sparkman of Alabama (Democrat presidential candidate Adlai Stevenson's former vice-presidential running mate) protested this desegregation decision by signing the congressional "Southern Manifesto" attacking the court's ruling. In 1957 the Eisenhower administration, led by Republican Attorney General Herbert Brownell, steered through Congress the first civil-rights bill since Reconstruction. In that fight over protecting voting rights, veteran civil-rights lobbyist Harry L. Kingman described Republican Senate Leader William Knowland of California (a strong conservative) as a "key man in the victory." Clearly, Republican leader Knowland took a stronger pro-civil-rights stand than Democrat Senate Leader Lyndon Johnson of Texas, who at the time was accused by some civil-rights groups of introducing amendments that weakened the bill. "

In the question of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Fonte notes "bipartisan support", but mentions the following in response to the praise that has historically been heaped on the Democratic Party for passage of the bill:

"However, much of the hard work of advancing the legislation was done by congressional Republicans — conservative stalwarts including Everett McKinley Dirksen of Illinois, Charles Halleck of Indiana, William McCulloch of Ohio, Robert Griffin of Michigan, Robert Taft Jr. of Ohio, Clarence Brown of Ohio, Roman Hruska of Nebraska, and moderates such as Thomas Kuchel of California, Kenneth Keating of New York, and Clark MacGregor of Minnesota. All of these Republicans served as major leaders of the pro-civil-rights coalition either as floor managers or captains for different sections of the bill."

Fonte also goes on to note that, although both houses of Congress were controlled by the Democrats, a larger percentage of Republicans (136-35, a 79% majority) than Democrats (153-91, a 63% margin) in the House supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In the infamous filibuster of the act, a 2/3 majority vote was needed to break the filibuster. Republicans voted 21-6, or 81.1% to break the filibuster, while the Democrats vote was 65.5%, or 44-23. Thus, if the Democrats' voting record decided the issue, the filibuster would have held and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have failed.

There is more to this article that does not relate to my argument, which is that the Republicans have not historically been the civil rights villains they have often been portrayed to be, nor have Democrats historically been the civil rights heroes they have been portrayed to be. It IS revisionism to cast the Republicans as the villains in the Civil Rights battle and give undue credit to the Democrats. Earlier legislation in the 1950's actually shows a Democratic party that strongly OPPOSED Civil Rights legislation.

respectfully submitted,

Gideon MacLeish

Comments (Page 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Sep 03, 2004
The republicans dont support the ACLU. Further, the democrats that voted against it were from the slave states, and they would lose the next election if they voted for it.
on Sep 03, 2004
They dont like AA because they feel it forces them to show preference to others above their constituents.



No, they oppose it because it gives preferential treatment to a particular group because of their race, which is exactly what the civil rights movement was intended to end.

Affirmative Action only changes the color of the preferred race. To pretend it's not bias because the new preferred race is more 'deserving' of preferential treatment is ludicrous.

I'm sure the business's back before the civil rights laws were enacted felt whites were more deserving also, thus getting preferential treatment.

No one deserves preferential treatment because of their race.
on Sep 03, 2004
Pictoratus,

The majority of them are white. It's a fact. I also didnt say it wasn't biased, hence my statement about tweaking it to fit modern times. So back it up a bit ok?

And i agree. nobody should be put over anybody else because of race, religion, creed, political persuasion, or sexual preference. You should be equal to everybody else.

Too bad money is what determines who is more equal nowadays.
on Sep 03, 2004
Sorry, I didn't mean to push on you.

It's just I get tired of hearing so many say it's not bias, because it's for a good cause or whatever the rational is, when the fact is, they feel it is justified bias. I happen to believe any race based bias is wrong, especially when sanctioned and enforced by the government.
on Sep 03, 2004
Double post edit
on Sep 03, 2004
The republicans dont support the ACLU.


The Republicans have a problem with the ACLU because of some of the ACLU's highly publicized cases. When the ACLU supports pedophiles (and they have...they picked up the NAMBLA case), when the ACLU supports the efforts of certain antitheists to prohibit the free exercise of religion when it is STUDENT LED within the schools (and they have done this also), and issues such as this, then the distaste of the GOP for the ACLU becomes at least a little more understandable. For the record, there are conservative civil rights organizations (the ACLJ, for one), and the lawyers with these organizations have, at certain times, worked side by side with the ACLU.

While I am not Republican, I can certainly understand the distaste many of them have for the ACLU.
on Sep 03, 2004
Republicans don't support abortion. That is a huge civil rights issue. ACLU supports it. They don't.
on Sep 03, 2004
Sandy,

For one, no, abortion isn't a civil rights issue. You just made a mockery of everything the civil rights movement is and was by that statement. You also are resulting to throwing red herrings out on a credible article that I have written (as well as a followup) detailing the GOP's historical position on civil rights. I almost took it, to my own discredit.

You consider yourself a centrist, sandy, yet every single post you have written has detailed the right as pure evil with no concessions to what they have done, and a staunch defense of the left. I would hardly call that centrist. A centrist tends to see and acknowledge both good and bad of BOTH positions.
on Sep 03, 2004
First of all, that is NO REASON at all to be a Republican/Democrat in current times. The Democrats and Republicans both changed their platforms around the 80s. Why the 80s you ask? It seems that Ronald Reagan was the birth of this 'right-wing conspiracy', and others like Tom Daschle, Howard Dean, and others started this left-wing stuff. Zell Miller is classified as a 'southern Democrat'. He is into some of the right-wing Republicans. But, most Northern Democrats believed in banning slavery...oh, I don't know.

It is true the Democrats did believe in slavery, and the Jim Crow laws, etc. but I don't think the Republicans really had an debate on this. The only Republican who had talked in-depth about this was Abraham Lincoln, and he didn't do enough to assure that slavery was to be outlawed (most likely because he didn't live that long after the Civil War ended).
on Sep 03, 2004
Deaniac,

I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, I am just correcting a flawed historical analysis.
on Sep 03, 2004
Gideon, abortion is a civil rights issue.

Here, the definition of abortion: (from Dictionary.com)

Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival.
Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced abortion.

Now, you see it is the 'termination' of a pregnancy...okay...
So, what does this have to do with civil rights? Everything. First of all, it shouldn't be outlawed because it should be the women's right to choose, because:

1) Accidential Pregnancies happen...I will not go into details, because it isn't my place to talk about these things.
2) A sickly pregnant person could give birth to a sickly baby...an abortion will stop this baby from coming alive, and then shortly dying.
3) A sickly pregnant person could actually die when giving birth...which means an abortion should be the automatic procedure.

These are just three reasons why Former President Bill Clinton said that Abortion is a 'choosy issue', in which it is.

'Women's right'...that involves 'civil rights', doesn't it??? It is the women's right. She has the right (because she is in America) to choose. There you go: that is civil rights. Women's rights is civil rights. Abortion is women's rights. It all connects together.

on Sep 03, 2004
Deaniac,

First of all, I am politically prochoice, though I am personally completely opposed to abortion. However, I stand by my original statement.

I will say, however, that this discussion is a hijack of the original thread, and I would like to return to the topic at hand. This is about the HISTORICAL place of the GOP in civil rights, and the subject doesn't belong. If you would like to see a thread go in this direction, I would invite you to start one of your own. If I see it, I will participate.
on Sep 03, 2004
Lets not forget, that Republicans wanted the Bill of Rights. (i.e. the Republicans were called back then Wigs, or the most popular name, Anti-Federalists.) We wanted to make sure that the American citizen had rights that the government couldn't touch. Democrats (i.e. Federalists) didn't want this document at all.
on Sep 03, 2004
Actually, I did a followup thread, desert. I honestly don't think a wilkipedia entry is a comprehensive study of the civil rights movement.


Yeah I know it's not but it gives some basic information, or at least a basis for further study into American Civil Rights. Probably have to find some professor who did a Thesis paper on the American Civil Rights movement to get a comprehensive guide.

I think a problem with civil rights is that we have a lot fo conflicting national association (excuse I could be wording this wrong), i.e. I am Hispanic American, Puerto Rican because my Mother is 100% Puerto Rican, born in Ponce, and I identify with both the United States Flag, because I was born here, and the Puerto Rican Flag, because it is my heritage, and the problem is how to deal with this, most people can't see beyond races, in fact when I see a fellow american, I see just that a fellow american (whether he is white, black, blue, or polkadot), than again it could be me, I am shutting up now.
on Sep 03, 2004
Gideon,

I had tried to post this earlier but my internet was not cooperating.

One or your tools for reasoning that the democrats were not in favor of the civil rights movement was that a democratic congressman from alabama fillibustered against desegregation. What did you excpect him to do? Usher it in? Alabama was against it and as Alabama's representitive he had to do what his constitutients wanted or fear not being re-elected. Im not saying what he did was right, but I'm saying that he did it for a political reason. The democrats controlled the south, and this is the reason that the democrats had a smaller majority voting in favor of these civil rights issues. The slave states were against them, and continue to be often more rascist and non pro-choice and pro-civil rights. Because of the Democratic president, who publically supported the civil rights act, the democrats lost the southern states anyways, meaning they no longer had a political reason to not be in favor of the civil rights movements. The rest of the democrats were in favor of it and more civil rights issues. The republicans used to be the party of the north and the Democrats the party of the south. This changed after the civil rights movement when the democrat president was in favor of the civil rights act and the democrats lost the south. Further, Reagan ended the republican-fiscal conservative ideals, which were adopted by the democrats. Now we clearly see Bush is not a fiscal conservative, while Clinton was, with his surplus.
4 Pages1 2 3 4