PDA

View Full Version : Legal Who signed (and didn't) 1964 Civil Rights Act


The Mad Crapper
05-21-2010, 12:43 PM
http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1300/who-opposed-civil-rights-act-1964

HonestChieffan
05-21-2010, 12:50 PM
Dems hate to admit Ev Dirksen was the one behind it.

petegz28
05-21-2010, 02:05 PM
excellent read

Taco John
05-21-2010, 02:14 PM
This is awesome.

Amnorix
05-21-2010, 02:24 PM
Don't think you guys get the history of the Solid South.

Lincoln was a Republican, and following the end of the Civil War, the Republicans, including the Radical Republicans, weren't all that popular in the South. This began a legacy that lasted for nearly 100 years of total Democratic dominance of the South. The so-called Solid South, or Dixiecrat states.

The Solid South was not only solidly Democrat, it was solidly white and solidly racist. Beginning in the 50s, and especially in the 60s, the support of non-Southern Democrats for racial equality, civil rights, etc. splintered the party in the South, leading to an exodus for the Republican party. This was mostly exemplified by Strom Thurmond, who went over to the Republican Party in 1964, shortly after the passage of the Civil Rights Act (I didn't happen the article in the OP mentioning that within a fwe months after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, some of the Democrats who had voted against were now Republicans).

Thurmond was a leader of the South, and had been a Presidential candidate and even in 1964 he had already been governor of South Carolina and a Senator for 10 years. His willingness to change party affiliations opened the door for others to do so, and Nixon's Southern Strategy, as well as the unpopularity of the continuing progressive policies of the Democratic Party (on a national level) and some Supreme Court decisions led to the rise of Republican domination of the South. Domination that continues to this day.

So it's fine to say that many Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, etc., but the fact is that most/all of those who voted against were from the deep South. A deep South that abandoned the Democratic Party in part precisely because it had opted to do the right thing in favoring racial equality legislation.

The Mad Crapper
05-21-2010, 02:25 PM
Don't think you guys get the history of the Solid South.

Lincoln was a Republican, and following the end of the Civil War, the Republicans, including the Radical Republicans, weren't all that popular in the South. This began a legacy that lasted for nearly 100 years of total Democratic dominance of the South. The so-called Solid South, or Dixiecrat states.

The Solid South was not only solidly Democrat, it was solidly white and solidly racist. Beginning in the 50s, and especially in the 60s, the support of non-Southern Democrats for racial equality, civil rights, etc. splintered the party in the South, leading to an exodus for the Republican party. This was mostly exemplified by Strom Thurmond, who went over to the Republican Party in 1964, shortly after the passage of the Civil Rights Act (I didn't happen the article in the OP mentioning that within a fwe months after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, some of the Democrats who had voted against were now Republicans).

Thurmond was a leader of the South, and had been a Presidential candidate and even in 1964 he had already been governor of South Carolina and a Senator for 10 years. His willingness to change party affiliations opened the door for others to do so, and Nixon's Southern Strategy, as well as the unpopularity of the continuing progressive policies of the Democratic Party (on a national level) and some Supreme Court decisions led to the rise of Republican domination of the South. Domination that continues to this day.

So it's fine to say that many Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, etc., but the fact is that most/all of those who voted against were from the deep South. A deep South that abandoned the Democratic Party in part precisely because it had opted to do the right thing in favoring racial equality legislation.

I saw this coming a mile away.

ROFL

Demonpenz
05-21-2010, 02:26 PM
Amnorix is a moron.

Amnorix
05-21-2010, 02:28 PM
Further to my last, it's not really worth discussing how the votes broke down by party lines. What's noteworthy is how it broke down by sectional lines, a point that the article studiously ignores:


Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America) in the American Civil War (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/American_Civil_War). "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

[Amnorix comment: the first number is yea votes, the second nay votes]

Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)


Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)

Amnorix
05-21-2010, 02:29 PM
Amnorix is a moron.

?

BucEyedPea
05-21-2010, 02:30 PM
The Radical Republicans were A-Holes.

Bump
05-21-2010, 02:30 PM
Don't think you guys get the history of the Solid South.

Lincoln was a Republican, and following the end of the Civil War, the Republicans, including the Radical Republicans, weren't all that popular in the South. This began a legacy that lasted for nearly 100 years of total Democratic dominance of the South. The so-called Solid South, or Dixiecrat states.

The Solid South was not only solidly Democrat, it was solidly white and solidly racist. Beginning in the 50s, and especially in the 60s, the support of non-Southern Democrats for racial equality, civil rights, etc. splintered the party in the South, leading to an exodus for the Republican party. This was mostly exemplified by Strom Thurmond, who went over to the Republican Party in 1964, shortly after the passage of the Civil Rights Act (I didn't happen the article in the OP mentioning that within a few months after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, some of the Democrats who had voted against were now Republicans).

Thurmond was a leader of the South, and had been a Presidential candidate and even in 1964 he had already been governor of South Carolina and a Senator for 10 years. His willingness to change party affiliations opened the door for others to do so, and Nixon's Southern Strategy, as well as the unpopularity of the continuing progressive policies of the Democratic Party (on a national level) and some Supreme Court decisions led to the rise of Republican domination of the South. Domination that continues to this day.

So it's fine to say that many Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, etc., but the fact is that most/all of those who voted against were from the deep South. A deep South that abandoned the Democratic Party in part precisely because it had opted to do the right thing in favoring racial equality legislation.

FYP

The Mad Crapper
05-21-2010, 02:31 PM
FYP

ROFL

Jenson71
05-21-2010, 03:04 PM
Don't think you guys get the history of the Solid South.

Lincoln was a Republican, and following the end of the Civil War, the Republicans, including the Radical Republicans, weren't all that popular in the South. This began a legacy that lasted for nearly 100 years of total Democratic dominance of the South. The so-called Solid South, or Dixiecrat states.

The Solid South was not only solidly Democrat, it was solidly white and solidly racist. Beginning in the 50s, and especially in the 60s, the support of non-Southern Democrats for racial equality, civil rights, etc. splintered the party in the South, leading to an exodus for the Republican party. This was mostly exemplified by Strom Thurmond, who went over to the Republican Party in 1964, shortly after the passage of the Civil Rights Act (I didn't happen the article in the OP mentioning that within a fwe months after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, some of the Democrats who had voted against were now Republicans).

Thurmond was a leader of the South, and had been a Presidential candidate and even in 1964 he had already been governor of South Carolina and a Senator for 10 years. His willingness to change party affiliations opened the door for others to do so, and Nixon's Southern Strategy, as well as the unpopularity of the continuing progressive policies of the Democratic Party (on a national level) and some Supreme Court decisions led to the rise of Republican domination of the South. Domination that continues to this day.

So it's fine to say that many Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, etc., but the fact is that most/all of those who voted against were from the deep South. A deep South that abandoned the Democratic Party in part precisely because it had opted to do the right thing in favoring racial equality legislation.

This is awesome.

excellent read

.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-21-2010, 03:12 PM
This is awesome.

ROFL

"I just handed the South to the Republicans"--LBJ on signing the CRA.

SNR
05-21-2010, 05:56 PM
Further to my last, it's not really worth discussing how the votes broke down by party lines. What's noteworthy is how it broke down by sectional lines, a point that the article studiously ignores:


Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America) in the American Civil War (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/American_Civil_War). "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

[Amnorix comment: the first number is yea votes, the second nay votes]

Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)


Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)
Right. Example: Robert Byrd from the former slave state of West Virginia.

Oh wait....

The Mad Crapper
05-21-2010, 05:57 PM
Here comes all the moonbats right on cue.

petegz28
05-21-2010, 05:58 PM
Right. Example: Robert Byrd former leader of the Senate from the former slave state of West Virginia.

Oh wait....

FYP

Pioli Zombie
05-21-2010, 07:30 PM
Further to my last, it's not really worth discussing how the votes broke down by party lines. What's noteworthy is how it broke down by sectional lines, a point that the article studiously ignores:


Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America) in the American Civil War (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/wiki/American_Civil_War). "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

[Amnorix comment: the first number is yea votes, the second nay votes]

Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)


Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)

Please Amnorix, DC can't handle facts. To even compare Southern Democrats of those times to Democrats today reveals how totally ignorant the right wing nutcases here are.
The Civil Rights Bill came about because LBJ wanted to push through JFKs agenda so that he could latch onto JFKs legacy and win the 1964 Election. It never would have passed without LBJs cajoling and persistance.

orange
05-21-2010, 07:43 PM
Does anybody happen to have a list of how many of those Republicans and Democrats were for States Rights, Nullification, and the like? Like Libertarians and Tea Baggers.

Amnorix
05-21-2010, 09:02 PM
Right. Example: Robert Byrd from the former slave state of West Virginia.

Oh wait....

Pointing out one exception hardly establishes anything. You saw the statistical evidence. You saw the historical description I provided. And what do you do? Point to the ONE vote in this category:

Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)

So what? You point to the one vote. I point to the 45 and the 98%.

Great argument. You lose. Thanks for playing.

Direckshun
05-21-2010, 09:22 PM
el oh el

The Mad Crapper
05-21-2010, 10:18 PM
el oh el

Wow that was deep. And cutting edge.

Amnorix
05-22-2010, 07:15 AM
I note how nobody has refuted anythign I've said. Because they can't. Thanks for posting this thread. Better luck with the next one.

patteeu
05-22-2010, 07:38 AM
I note how nobody has refuted anythign I've said. Because they can't. Thanks for posting this thread. Better luck with the next one.

What's there to refute? I don't really understand what it is you think you brought to the table that is so controversial. The fact remains, Republicans were full partners, if not senior partners, in the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

Deberg_1990
05-22-2010, 08:06 AM
Robert Byrd.....

That the people of South Carolina keep electing this fool over and over speaks volumes..

He can not die off fast enough...

patteeu
05-22-2010, 08:11 AM
Robert Byrd.....

That the people of South Carolina keep electing this fool over and over speaks volumes..

He can not die off fast enough...

I know what you mean. I'm not too happy with Texas for electing Charlie Crist either. ;)

BucEyedPea
05-22-2010, 08:23 AM
Crist is Florida

patteeu
05-22-2010, 08:29 AM
Crist is Florida

LOL

The Mad Crapper
05-22-2010, 11:27 AM
Does anybody happen to have a list of how many of those Republicans and Democrats were for States Rights, Nullification, and the like? Like Libertarians and Tea Baggers.

ROFL

Amnorix
05-22-2010, 09:27 PM
What's there to refute? I don't really understand what it is you think you brought to the table that is so controversial. The fact remains, Republicans were full partners, if not senior partners, in the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

First, you can't be the senior partner in anything when legislation passes and both houses of Congress and the WH are owned by the other party. If the Democrats didn't support it, by solid majorities, then it doesn't even get to the floor, much less pass, much less get signed into law.

Second, I do commend the Republicans for their support of the Act. Well done by them.

Third, the thing that is refuted is the angle that the article cited by the OP takes -- which basically suggests that Democrats are the ones opposing equality legislation. That summation is nothing short of a complete joke.

patteeu
05-22-2010, 09:52 PM
First, you can't be the senior partner in anything when legislation passes and both houses of Congress and the WH are owned by the other party. If the Democrats didn't support it, by solid majorities, then it doesn't even get to the floor, much less pass, much less get signed into law.

Second, I do commend the Republicans for their support of the Act. Well done by them.

Third, the thing that is refuted is the angle that the article cited by the OP takes -- which basically suggests that Democrats are the ones opposing equality legislation. That summation is nothing short of a complete joke.

You can certainly be a senior partner without being in the majority party. What matters is that you're on the majority/winning side of the vote. Who was the senior partner responsible for the passage of McCain/Feingold? It sure wasn't George W. Bush. It's not clear to me that either of the other two were the senior partner, but it's at least arguable that Feingold was a full partner if not the senior partner in the effort.

Democrats were the ones who opposed the legislation. Today's democrats don't deserve the blame because, with an exception or two, they weren't involved. But they shouldn't get the credit as the party of civil rights either, which they constantly try to claim.

SNR
05-22-2010, 10:04 PM
Pointing out one exception hardly establishes anything. You saw the statistical evidence. You saw the historical description I provided. And what do you do? Point to the ONE vote in this category:

Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)

So what? You point to the one vote. I point to the 45 and the 98%.

Great argument. You lose. Thanks for playing.Woah, easy there tiger. I wasn't trying to refute your point. I was taking a stab at Byrd.

Mr. Kotter
05-22-2010, 11:48 PM
I note how nobody has refuted anythign I've said. Because they can't. Thanks for posting this thread. Better luck with the next one.

Dipshits can't; so they don't. Keep on embarrassing them, Amno. Heh. :thumb:

Mr. Kotter
05-22-2010, 11:50 PM
The Radical Republicans were A-Holes.

"Libertarians" today....same??? Your point? :shrug:

:hmmm:

The Mad Crapper
05-23-2010, 07:28 AM
Conservatives are highly imbalanced bigots and malcontents known for instinctively resorting to violence any time they don't get their way.


In other words, people who cling to their guns and religion. -Kotter the O-bot stooge

Mr. Kotter
05-23-2010, 11:03 AM
Extremist and whack job conservatives who let right wing talk radio do their thinking for them are highly imbalanced bigots and malcontents known for instinctively resorting to violence any time they don't get their way.


In other words, people who cling to their guns and religion. -Kotter the O-bot stooge

Fixed your post, shitstain. :)

L.A. Chieffan
05-23-2010, 11:06 AM
so im confused, republicans were FOR civil rights and the demos were against it?

wow i hate democrats now, racists bastards. consider me a member of the GOP now