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 4)
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4 
on Sep 03, 2004
I have given you the reasons more than once why the republicans supported the bill and the democrats did not.
on Sep 03, 2004
What? GOP supports civil rights more then the DEMS? okay I heard it all now. This is one HUGE falsehood but if you think it is true fine. Look how diverse the GOP is.. Man where did the slave loving Dixiecrats go with? That says it all right there.. There was a role reversal years ago that took place. Today the DEMS are the supporters for civil rights while the GOP Mis busy trying to take it away. Funny stuff.. Stop in at NeoTech in my political forums we all could use a good joke or two!!

Sorry no offense everyone is entitled to their opinions.. It is all in the spirit of entertainment to me.. I do take it seriously but posting comments in here is fun in my eyes!
on Sep 03, 2004
GOP supports civil rights more then the DEMS?


Desert,

READ THE DAMNED ARTICLE BEFORE YOU COMMENT ON IT! THEN COME BACK AND SHOW ME, WITH CREDIBLE CITATIONS, ONE FACT THAT IS NOT TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!
on Sep 03, 2004
Desert,

You might want to also read the followup post and prove to me that the Dixiecrats that I mention in that post (Al Gore Sr. and William Fullbright among them) didn't really stay with the Democratic Party, but rather became Republicans, as you imply. The fact is, many dixiecrats stayed with the democratic party.

I have given you two articles with factual, cited, well researched analysis....and yet, with the sole exception of kingbee, you have not credibly and consistently addressed the analysis. You have instead, filled the responses with red herring after red herring.

on Sep 03, 2004
Damn that Red Herring, you know Freddie was looking for him, oh well, guess he needs work since "A Pup Named Scooby-Doo" got canceled and put into syndication.
on Sep 03, 2004
I have given you the reasons more than once why the republicans supported the bill and the democrats did not.


And the reasons are valid, sandy, I don't refute them.

But the reasons only SUPPORT my thesis, they don't detract from it or diminish it in any way.
on Sep 03, 2004
Ok. Well, then I think we are now in a position to agree that the Democrats did not support the civil rights bill as much as they wanted to, and that now however, the people who support the civil rights are the democrats. I also think that we agree that the president at the time deserves much credit, and he was democrat.
on Sep 03, 2004
now however, the people who support the civil rights are the democrats.


I am still researching this one. While I would superficially agree, I need to see more from both sides of the fence on this one before I can strongly state my opinion one way or another. Frankly, I think both parties have failed to work for the people...

I also think that we agree that the president at the time deserves much credit, and he was democrat.


I will always suspect the motives of LBJ, but I will concede the point to Kennedy, and to LBJ solely because he wanted to be perceived, at least, as preserving Kennedy's legacy. As I've stated before, even Johnson's biographers are divided as to his motives/legacy.
on Sep 03, 2004
"Houston, we have a problem, we are out of Tang!" - US Astronaut
on Sep 03, 2004

Good article Gideon. Hopefully some people will finish it realizing that this isn't G.I. Joe where one side is good and the other side is Cobra. I believe both parties support civil rights (and both have some who don't support them), but they support them in different ways. Hell, civil rights progressed because of the work of both parties working toward a common goal.


Damn that Red Herring, you know Freddie was looking for him, oh well, guess he needs work since "A Pup Named Scooby-Doo" got canceled and put into syndication.


It's a shame. That was my favorite version of Scooby Doo.

on Sep 04, 2004
I read the article and I saw slants against the DEMS on civil rights. I did not mean to offend you bud.. I was only adding my opinions which I guess were not well recieved. Prove it you say? Why not you prove things that I say is wrong? Where you get your information from is the question I am not doubting you feelings on the subject. I am not a DEM or GOP supporter but thnigs did change with the parties as said in the article posted in the first place. Why your taking my comments as some sort of insult to you is beyond me.

Opinions are like the butts, everyone has one!! Please I was not trying to discredit what your saying I was just saying my views. Real sorry it pissed you guys off!! Not my intention I do not take this stuff that serious I do all of this for FUN! Nothing more so if your mad please be mad alone I am not I am smiling. I am 50 years old spent the majority of my life being an activist for various causes. With my bad health for the past 7 years I have nothing better to do but learn all I can about Politics (Present day) stocks, world and local current events, business management, and a host of other activities. I guess I will stop posting my views if I am going to get attacked. I will not spend a lot of time going around grabbing articles to prove my points. I do not have time for that, instead as I stated in other threads, disprove me if you want. Just do not try to use words to slap me around for doing anything wrong. I am expressing freedom of speech and trying to not TROLL or cause problems. Take care guys.. If you wish to continue this type of discussons please go ahead. Heck you can even come to my site and posts your rants in my new political forums I started. As long as no name calling and things remain civil and peaceful I do not mind a bit. Thanks.
on Sep 04, 2004

Reply #56 By: Desert Fox - 9/4/2004 1:37:14 PM
I read the article and I saw slants against the DEMS on civil rights. I did not mean to offend you bud.. I was only adding my opinions which I guess were not well recieved. Prove it you say? Why not you prove things that I say is wrong? Where you get your information from is the question I am not doubting you feelings on the subject. I am not a DEM or GOP supporter but thnigs did change with the parties as said in the article posted in the first place. Why your taking my comments as some sort of insult to you is beyond me.


Desert Fox,

again, please understand the intent of this article. It was written to counter the claims that laid the entire credit for the civil rights act of 1964 on the Democratic Party, which is, as I have proven, a fallacy.

As to where I received this information, I cited my source, and in my followup piece "The GOP and Civil Rights", I cited and even linked to the sources I provided. I have provided a far higher standard of proof for the information I provided than is common on these blogs; in fact, I find that conservative positions are far more challenged as to their source citations than are liberal positions. But, the fact is, I have met those challenges. I don't mind a fair challenge, desert, but that question has, at least, been answered.

I welcome your input when it is respectfully presented, as it was here.
on Sep 04, 2004
Desert,

I would also like to note that you did not answer my responses to your previous comment. If you expect me to answer you in kind, you owe me the same courtesy
on Sep 04, 2004
GOP do not support Civil rights not in present day, if this is what you keep referring to I disagree and I am done with this thread. I do not enoy being told I am wrong when I am not saying you are wrong I disagree with your source of info if you believe it. The DEMS are not liberals.. The GOP is so far right then are out of the main stream. There is no diversity in the GOP at all and JC Watts left because he was told no Black person will ever be in a higher position in the party. Yet he still stands with them

I will say this, the best bills that help make this country came from honest conservatives. Good day sir and enjoy being RIGHT or whatever your trying to do. I am again stating my opinions on the subject and really only skimmed your comments. If you want to disprove what I say for whatever purpose, go right ahead. Peace dude, enjoy yourself. I am here to change some minds about NOT SUPPORTING BUSH PERIOD!! Nothing more.. DEMS are jsut as bad as GOP on many issues which is why I am neutral and will remain this way until our Country has more then 2 parties.
on Sep 04, 2004
GOP do not support Civil rights not in present day, if this is what you keep referring to I disagree and I am done with this thread.


I have repeatedly stated that the intent of this article was to counter the claims that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the sole responsibility of the Democrats. It is NOT currently 1964. It has not BEEN 1964 for 40 years. I do not know how ANY reading of my posts IN CONTEXT could imply that I am speaking of the civil rights policies of 2004. IN FACT, I have stated REPEATEDLY that I am still doing research on this issue.

If you choose not to read my responses, desert, quite frankly, I wish you wouldn't respond. It is becoming quite tedious to have to answer the same damn question over and over again. In fact, my most recent post states this:

again, please understand the intent of this article. It was written to counter the claims that laid the entire credit for the civil rights act of 1964 on the Democratic Party, which is, as I have proven, a fallacy.


If you could please inform me of the word or words here which are confusing to you, I would be happy to provide you with substantial definition of the words in question.

If you have read my blogs consistently and still draw the conclusion that I am a republican, I give up. You obviously have little ability to read in context.
4 PagesFirst 2 3 4