View Full Version : The real MLK story

01-19-2010, 02:58 PM
I post this not because I'm an elephant. I'm an independent. This is an important reminder to all Americans, but especially Black Americans of their political heritage that has been high jacked by a party that has worked steadfastly to "keep them down" for the better part of two centuries.

As I've said in one more than one thread, it is well beyond me why a Black American would vote for a donkey. That party's treatment of these Americans has been beyond disgraceful.

Why Martin Luther King Was Republican
by Frances Rice

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.

During the civil rights era of the 1960s, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman's issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tenn., after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon's 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation's fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans.

Critics of Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater, who ran for President against Johnson in 1964, ignore the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation.

Those who wrongly criticize Goldwater also ignore the fact that Johnson, in his 4,500 word State of the Union Address delivered on Jan. 4, 1965, mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only 35 words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Then in 1967, showing his anger with Dr. King's protest against the Vietnam War, Johnson referred to Dr. King as "that ****** preacher."

Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats, the racist "Dixiecrats" did not all migrate to the Republican Party. "Dixiecrats" declared that they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than vote for a Republican because the Republican Party was know as the party for blacks. Today, some of those "Dixiecrats" continue their political careers as Democrats, including Robert Byrd, who is well known for having been a "Kleagle" in the Ku Klux Klan.

Another former "Dixiecrat" is former Democrat Sen. Ernest Hollings, who put up the Confederate flag over the state Capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina. There was no public outcry when Democrat Sen. Christopher Dodd praised Byrd as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment," including the Civil War. Yet Democrats denounced then-Senate GOP leader Trent Lott for his remarks about Sen. Strom Thurmond (R.-S.C.). Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Byrd and Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.

The 30-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party began in the 1970s with President Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy," which was an effort on the part of Nixon to get Christians in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were still discriminating against their fellow Christians who happened to be black. Georgia did not switch until 2002, and some Southern states, including Louisiana, are still controlled by Democrats.

Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous.

After wrongly convincing black Americans that a minimum wage increase was a good thing, the Democrats on August 3 kept their promise and killed the minimum wage bill passed by House Republicans on July 29. The blockage of the minimum wage bill was the second time in as many years that Democrats stuck a legislative finger in the eye of black Americans. Senate Democrats on April 1, 2004, blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Clinton before he finally signed it. Since the welfare reform law expired in September 2002, Congress had passed six extensions, and the latest expired on June 30, 2004. Opposed by the Democrats are school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools and Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites).

Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30 to 40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. More than $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans.

In order to break the Democrats' stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party's economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.

Ms. Rice is chairman of the National Black Republican Association (NBRA) and may be contacted at www.NBRA.info.

01-19-2010, 06:44 PM
False, insulting and another reminder of why it's so important to remember the past and get your info from more than one lopsided news source.

Fact: Martin Luther King Jr. never endorsed any political party.
Sorry - but there's no way he would endorse today's GOP. :noidea:

When a black conservative group ran a radio ad proclaiming that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican, reaction was swift. "We've gotten some e-mails and telephone calls filled with vitriol," said Frances Rice, chairman of the National Black Republican Association. "They've called me Aunt Jemima, a sellout, a traitor to my race."

In the battle for the black electorate, liberals, who make up the overwhelming majority of black voters, have long disagreed with conservatives over ideology, public policy and economic strategies to better the lives of African Americans. But when conservatives placed the civil rights movement in a Republican context, black liberals said, they crossed a line.

"To suggest that Martin could identify with a party that affirms preemptive, predatory war, and whose religious partners hint that God affirms war and favors the rich at the expense of the poor, is to revile Martin," said the Rev. Joseph Lowery, the former president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which the slain civil rights leader helped establish.

Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who marched with King in the 1960s, called the ads an "insult to the legacy and the memory of Martin Luther King Jr." and "an affront to all that he stood for."

The spot, which ran for a time in the District, Georgia, Maryland, Ohio and Pennsylvania, will soon run again in those areas, as well as in Miami, Orlando and Tampa, Rice said.

The debate surrounding the ad is the latest skirmish in the ongoing battle over the King legacy. Foes of affirmative action, for example, often cite a line from King's "I Have a Dream" speech in 1963 in which he prayed that his children would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the "content of their character," an adoption that makes black liberals fume. But in the latest fight, civil rights veterans may be surprised to find that some black conservatives agree with them.

Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (R), who is running for the U.S. Senate, denounced the King ad, and Donald E. Scoggins, president of Republicans for Black Empowerment and a former member of the association, said it was a terrible idea.

Black Republicans railed against the radio ads, with the sharpest criticism coming from former members of the black Republican association.

"The vast majority of black Republicans I know would not have approved of the ad," Scoggins said.

In the ad, a black woman says, "Dr. King was a real man," and a second one responds, "You know he was a Republican."

"Dr. King, a Republican?"

The women go on to say that Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan, lumping together those in the South with others in the North who reached out to African Americans with New Deal programs and by desegregating the armed forces.

The backlash was so fierce that Rice stopped answering telephone calls. "We anticipated some controversy, but my goodness, we struck a nerve," she said in an interview from Sarasota, Fla.

"I absolutely do not regret the ads," said Rice, 62, a native of Atlanta, King's hometown. He "absolutely was a Republican," she insisted. "We were all Republicans in those days. The Democrats were training fire hoses on us, siccing dogs on us."

It is true that Southern Democrats, many of whom called themselves "Dixiecrats," blocked the social and political progress of black Southerners for decades. Among them was Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), a former local leader in the Ku Klux Klan. Byrd has said he regrets his affiliation.

In 1960, King was arrested for trespassing during a sit-in and held in Georgia's Reidsville prison. Fearing for his son's life, Martin Luther King Sr. appealed to presidential candidate John F. Kennedy to secure his release.

When King was freed, his father vowed to deliver 10 million votes to the Democrat, even though Kennedy was only a reluctant supporter of civil rights. That began four decades of black people voting for liberals.

The younger King voted for Kennedy, and for Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson four years later. In that election, King publicly denounced the Republican candidate, Barry Goldwater.

Today, the vast majority of black voters are Democrats, including former ambassador to the United Nations Andrew Young and former presidential hopeful Jesse L. Jackson, two former King aides.

That is why the ad was "a joke," said Christopher Arps, a former spokesman for Rice and the association. "Anyone with any sense knows that most black people were Republican at one time. But it's a far stretch to think that in the '60s Martin Luther King was a Republican."

Arps and Scoggins resigned from the association board last year when they disagreed with Rice on a separate issue. She wanted to support President Bush when he came under fire for his administration's slow response to Hurricane Katrina.

"In terms of what we're trying to do, encourage more blacks to look at the Republican Party, I didn't think we could do that in an in-your-face-type way," Scoggins said. "There were bodies floating in the street."

In addition to Scoggins and Arps, at least four other members resigned. Rice questioned their fortitude. The group was founded so that black conservatives could assert themselves, she said, and "when it came time to do something, some stepped back."

"It was a 'my way or the highway' sort of thing," Scoggins said. "I was crushed when this thing happened because it turned out to be completely the opposite of what I thought it would be."


01-19-2010, 07:05 PM
False, insulting and another reminder of why it's so important to remember the past and get your info from more than one lopsided news source.

False? Prove your point. Sources. Links.

It is. I lived through that history. You read about it.

This didn't come from a "lopsided news source". It was written by Frances Rice, then chairman of the National Black Republican Association. I believe she is qualified to comment.

If your team's history is insulting, improve your team.

Your team's history is racist and bloody. They've obstructed the rise of the Black man at every turn. Nowhere to hide. Its all "on tape".

Fact: Martin Luther King Jr. never endorsed any political party.
Sorry - but there's no way he would endorse today's GOP. :noidea:

Links. Sources. Not blather.


Lopsided? Indeed. You might as well quote pravda. :rofl:

I've asked this of many a donkey. Why should Black Americans vote for donkeys.

Heres a clue...






01-19-2010, 08:26 PM
I post this not because I'm an elephant. I'm an independent. This is an important reminder to all Americans, but especially Black Americans of their political heritage that has been high jacked by a party that has worked steadfastly to "keep them down" for the better part of two centuries.

As I've said in one more than one thread, it is well beyond me why a Black American would vote for a donkey. That party's treatment of these Americans has been beyond disgraceful.

perhaps your beloved ronald reagan had something to do with it.. :noidea:

Reagan and Race: “He Maintained A System Of Rich And Poor, A System Of Black And White”

We take a look at Reagan’s policies on race and civil rights with the Rev. Graylan Hagler, discussing the former president’s assault on affirmative actions and social welfare programs and the rise of the crack epidemic in African American communities. [Includes transcript]

Throughout the week on Democracy Now!, we have reported extensively on the Record of Ronald Reagan during his 8 years in office. From Iran-Contra, to the bloody US-fuelled conflicts in Central America, to his administration’s arming of both Iran and Iraq, to his invasion of Grenada and the nuclear arms race. Our series is called “Remembering the Dead.” Later in the program, we will take a close look at Reagan’s policy toward apartheid South Africa.

But first, we are going to shift gears and take a close look at Reagan’s policies at home, here in the US. Among Reagan’s achievements that you won’t hear about from most of the pundits is that Reagan was the first president to turn the US into a debtor nation, nearly tripling the nation’s debt in his 8 years in office. He was also the first president since the Great Depression to see unemployment hit more than 10%. Reagan cracked down on organized labor and America’s homeless population grew to over 2 million people. On the issue of race, the most cited moment of the Reagan presidency during the past week was that he signed legislation for a national holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.. But this is hardly representative of Reagan’s policies on race and civil rights.

Ronald Reagan launched his campaign for the presidency in Philadelphia, Mississippi. That is the place now infamous from the civil rights movement. It was where three civil rights workers were murdered in one of the most well-known cases of racist violence from the 60s. During his first run for office, Reagan proudly waved his Dixiecrat credentials, saying: “I believe in states’ rights and I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level.”

After taking office in 1981, Reagan began a sustained attack on the government’s civil rights apparatus, opened an assault on affirmative action and social welfare programs, embraced the White racist leaders of then-apartheid South Africa and waged war on the tiny, Black Caribbean nation of Grenada. During his presidency, Reagan fired members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights who criticized his civil rights policies, including his strong opposition to affirmative action programs. One of the commissioners recalls that the judge who overturned the dismissal did so because “you can’t fire a watchdog for biting.” Reagan also attempted to limit and gut the Voting Rights Act and he slashed important programs like the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act that provided assistance to many African Americans.

* Rev. Graylan Hagler, president of Ministers for Racial, Social and Economic Justice.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk today about President Reagan’s record during the 1980s?

REV. GRAYLAN HAGLER: Oh yes, I mean, one of the things that’s very very interesting and alarming to me is that the country and the commercial media particularly seems to be remembering a Ronald Reagan that did not exist for those of us who are Black and other people of color and women because they speak about him, as if he was a saint, when the reality is that everything he represented was the old historical white racist ideology of this nation . I mean the fact that the campaign wasn’t even started in Philadelphia, Mississippi. The reality that this was a attack s upon Affirmative Action and the dismantling really of social programs the closing of hospitals and programs that put people out on the streets that we still live with the homeless population that was started then. I mean all of those types of issues are very alarming and obviously we are seeing a very mythologized image of Reagan currently.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk specifically about the Reagan years as they relate to Affirmative Action?

REV. GRAYLAN HAGLER: Well, I mean obviously yes may I think that, one is that we continue to see a really orchestrated attack . The framing of Affirmative Action as somehow reverse discrimination, as they kept using that or, and the reality is, that was not the reality and it continues to stalk as an attack upon Black people upon other people of color, upon women a resistance of that even when we talk about the signing of the legislation for the Martin Luther King holiday, that was not done with open arms by Reagan and his administration; in fact he referred to it as signing it because of all this hoopla that was created and that was by grassroots communities and Black leadership that pushed it, so there was not an open arm policy towards anything that really represented the bulk of us.

AMY GOODMAN: Rev. Hagler as we continue our series “Remembering the Dead”, can you talk about the 1980’s in terms of drugs in this country?

REV. GRAYLAN HAGLER: Oh yeah, one of the things is the communities really got hit with the drug epidemic, really the crack epidemic. There were stories circulating for years, that this was one way the Contras were funded and Central America was basically, through the funneling of drugs, to the black communities but one thing is really sure, the crack epidemic grew and expanded and virtually devastated a generation and subsequent generation and greatly impoverished the communities even more so that is also whether how we look at it that is the manifestation of the Reagan Administration and it is a story of two societies and a story of two worlds. One world, obviously the commercial media is talking about, is a white world that the white world is in charge but the other side of the story, one that is not being talked about is the devastatation that has been heaped upon people of color, poor people, women and their children in the society.

AMY GOODMAN: Reverend Hagler, as you listen to this conversation, you’re also based in Washington, where the state funeral is taking place today, of Ronald Reagan. Can you share your final thoughts?

REV. GRAYLAN HAGLER: Well, I mean, one of the things is that—I mean, I just was listening to all of the comments and the comments are extremely important for us to just simply remember that what we are seeing and hearing is not real, but we’re still paying the costs of this administration. We’re still having to deal with what was started, sort of a very anti-labor movement. A backlash to the movements that moved people in a sense from the back of the bus to hopes to have a place in the society. We’re still suffering from the backlash of that economic restructuring that took place under the administration that is simply made the wealthier even that much more wealthy. To a obscene level, and made the working class and the poor poorer and dispossessed us of a place to live, a dignity and respect. You know, just continual attacks that are carried out right now through this day. What we’re also really witnessing is in a sense right now and what happened when Reagan was elected was that the old guard who felt that they had lost power in this country by having to open up their arms and include a very diverse constituency, and at least give that very diverse constituency hope and a sense of possibility. When Reagan was elected, it was a real establishment of that old guard being back in charge. And the message was clear. Not only domestically, but around the world, that it’s time to get back to the back of the bus. There is a new driver in charge, and that driver is the old historical driver that basically maintained a system of rich and poor. A system of black and white.


Reagan opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (calling it "humiliating to the South"), and ran for governor of California in 1966 promising to wipe the Fair Housing Act off the books. "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house," he said, "he has a right to do so." After the Republican convention in 1980, Reagan travelled to the county fair in Neshoba, Mississippi, where, in 1964, three Freedom Riders had been slain by the Ku Klux Klan. Before an all-white crowd of tens of thousands, Reagan declared: "I believe in states' rights".

As president, Reagan aligned his justice department on the side of segregation, supporting the fundamentalist Bob Jones University in its case seeking federal funds for institutions that discriminate on the basis of race. In 1983, when the supreme court decided against Bob Jones, Reagan, under fire from his right in the aftermath, gutted the Civil Rights Commission.

and ummmm wasn't david duke a republican ?
:popcorn: yup...the GOP has always been a champion for minorities...

01-19-2010, 08:46 PM
False, insulting and another reminder of why it's so important to remember the past and get your info from more than one lopsided news source.

Fact: Martin Luther King Jr. never endorsed any political party.
Sorry - but there's no way he would endorse today's GOP. :noidea:


oops...wrong quote

01-19-2010, 09:36 PM
I believe she is qualified to comment.

Oh, because she's a black republican? Interesting.

Your team's history is racist and bloody. They've obstructed the rise of the Black man at every turn. Nowhere to hide. Its all "on tape".

Vincent - even more interesting is how all of the sudden you're a man for the people, a freedom fighter - and at an even more base level - someone who suddenly believes racism exists after debating it here on this forum.
Vincent - remember saying this? MLK would be proud.
Sides, he's half @#$%ing arab. :rocket:
This calling people "racist" is getting beyond ridiculous.

This isn't even worthy of an argument - but I will continue to offer the truth as an alternative to your many extreme-fringe-right-wing-conspiracy-propaganda that you constantly post as fact here.

01-20-2010, 12:02 AM
Yes, I'm sure MLK would have been very proud of the "he's a terrorist! Kill him!" and the "he's a black, Marxist, socialist, terrorist Muslim" crowd.

And he would have been especially proud of the great McCain campaign volunteer Ashley Todd.

"I was attacked by an invisible 6'4" black male that carved this backwards B on my face."

Her attempt to pander to far right racist wing of the GOP. I'm sure she made them very proud.

Very interesting how an "Independent" is pushing blacks so hard to vote Republican and giving all sorts of reasons why they should. One would think an "Independent" would push them to vote Independent or third party. Very telling.

What's more telling is how blacks are specifically pointed out in this argument. Instead of asking why "anyone" would vote for the donkeys as you say, the argument specifically targets blacks.

I'm sure blacks are just jumping at the bit to vote for the Trent Lott, Rush Limbaugh (you know, Donovan McNabb is only where he is because he's black), Sean Hannity GOP.

When they look at this party and see a "dominant demographic", I guess they must ask themselves: where exactly do I fit in? I mean, I may be for low taxes, less government spending, strong military, blah, blah, blah, but when I look around, I don't see too many that look like me. Not many Asians, Latinos, God-forbid a Muslim (GOP just love them).

Well, I guess they could look to the "we're going after everyone, including one-armed midgets" man Michael Steele. Of course, that didn't fool anyone. Since the Dems have Obama, we'll select a black man to head up the GOP to show the black community "see? we can elect someone black too".

People may not be going crazy over Democrats, but they certainly aren't running to the GOP. The real true conservatives are so fed up until they're looking to their "Tea Party" for a leader (the same tea party that waited until Jan. 2009 to whine about government spending, but had nothing to say for 8 years.) I may not agree with you, but I do respect you Ron Paul, even if your own party does throw you under the bus.

"Vincent - even more interesting is how all of the sudden you're a man for the people, a freedom fighter - and at an even more base level - someone who suddenly believes racism exists after debating it here on this forum.
Vincent - remember saying this? MLK would be proud."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That was great!

I almost bust a gut at another thread on here that was calling out Harry Reid for a comment he made about Obama. And all I could think of was "hi kettle. Meet pot."

Anytime the far right wing of the GOP calls out someone ELSE for racial comments, it makes for great comedy. This comes to another GOP tactic: the old "do as I say and not as I do" philosophy.

You preach the Bible and God and shove it down everyone's throats, you harp on family values and all that.......................then go out and cheat on your spouses...............and blame the "liberal media" for it. Yes, Mr. David Vitter, Mr. Larry Craig, Mr. Mark Foley. The liberal media was the cause you did it. lol Hey, cheat on your wife, engage in all those type of activities, but it's a bit hypocritical to preach it to someone else and then turn around and do it yourself.

The Dems are holding down blacks. Yes, and the GOP is very accepting of blacks and other minorities, aren't they? lol Oh, and MLK supported, not one, but two Democrats, JFK and LBJ, one of which civil rights passed under.

But you're right. I'm sure MLK is looking down on the far right wing of the GOP and smiling because he is so proud. The GOP's percentage of minorities has increased from, what, 5 to an astounding 6% over the past few years? lol I'm sure they would have no problem listening to the Ron Paul types, but the GOP as a whole? Not on your best day. Keep the Limbaughs and Hannitys and Savages and we'll see how far your message resonates in the black/minority community.

Oh, and since the Dems are accused of being out to separate people and create division, why isn't the "National Black Republican Association" simply called Republicans? Why do they have to separated from the rest of the GOP by calling them Black Republicans? I thought everyone in the GOP were equals! Certainly we're not going back to the Jim Crow era.

01-20-2010, 05:47 AM
Why do people think its necessary to precede comments about bho or mich with "please don't pan me as a racist" disclaimers? :noidea: There is sufficient racist rhetoric in their "bodies of work", and from those they associate with, that no apologies are required. Weapons free.

Sides, he's half @#$%ing arab. :rocket:

If you’re going to quote, quote in context. The points made there were clear. The choice of expression in the last statement was regrettable. I apologized publicly and privately and removed it from the post.


The point of this thread is not about bho, his ethnicity, or who is or is not a racist. It is very simply that MLK was a Republican. Apparently that’s a difficult reality to swallow.

History, while it has been vigorously rewritten over the last 50 years, holds that one party was indeed founded in large part to end slavery. The other fought for slavery, and opposed every civil rights measure for a century until they were forced to acquiesce in the 60s. Its all “on tape”. Caint hide from it.

Here’s a fun little history quiz brought to you by those wascawy bwack people over at the wepwubwican party…



1. What Party was founded as the anti-slavery Party and fought to free blacks from slavery?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

2. What was the Party of Abraham Lincoln who signed the emancipation proclamation that resulted in the Juneteenth celebrations that occur in black communities today?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

3. What Party passed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution granting blacks freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

4. What Party passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 granting blacks protection from the Black Codes and prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations, and was the Party of most blacks prior to the 1960’s, including Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Booker T. Washington, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

5. What was the Party of the founding fathers of the NAACP who were themselves white?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party


6. What was the Party of President Dwight Eisenhower who sent U.S. troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools, established the Civil Rights Commission in 1958, and appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

7. What Party, by the greatest percentage, passed the1957 Civil Rights Act and the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960’s?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

8. What was the Party of President Richard Nixon who instituted the first Affirmative Action program in 1969 with the Philadelphia Plan that established goals and timetables?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

9. What is the Party of President George W. Bush who supports the U.S. Supreme Court’s University of Michigan Affirmative Action decision, and is spending over $200 billion to fight AIDS in Africa and on programs to help black Americans prosper, including school vouchers, the faith-based initiative, home ownership, and small business ownership?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[ ] b. Republican Party

10. What Party fought to keep blacks in slavery and was the Party of the Ku Klux Klan?
[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party

11. What Party from 1870 to 1930 used fraud, whippings, lynching, murder, intimidation, and mutilation to get the black vote, and passed the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws which legalized racial discrimination and denied blacks their rights as citizens?
[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party

12. What was the Party of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and President Harry Truman who rejected anti-lynching laws and efforts to establish a permanent Civil Rights Commission?
[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party

13. What was the Party of President John F. Kennedy who voted against the 1957 Civil Rights law as a Senator, then opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. after becoming president, and later had the FBI (supervised by his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy) investigate Dr. King on suspicion of being a communist?
[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party

14. What is the Party of current Senator Robert Byrd who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, Senator Fritz Hollings who hoisted the Confederate flag over the state capitol in South Carolina when he was the governor, and Senator Ted Kennedy who recently insulted black judicial nominees by calling them “Neanderthals” while blocking their appointments?
[ ] a. Republican Party
[ ] b. Democratic Party

If you answered "B" to each, you are correct.

And I'll ask again, why would a black person vote for a donkey?

01-20-2010, 09:47 AM
You know, I have heard about this many times over the years, and being the skeptic that I am, I'm just not going to buy it hook, line and sinker. It doesn't matter to me who did what, the fact is that both parties have a checkered past when it comes to racism. I'm also not ready to just jump on board with the notion that MLK was a Republican. In all of the studying I've done, I've never read it anywhere that he himself declared that he was a Republican - in fact, he repeatedly stated that he didn't have any political affiliation, that he wanted equal rights for blacks and for this to be a "color-blind" society.

That aside, I'm not exactly thrilled with the idea that over 90% of black people vote for one party in every election. That is insane to me. I've always prided myself on having an open mind, and I am not going to just vote Democrat because everyone else does. It's especially baffling when you consider that many blacks (many more than you'd think) live traditional conservative lives and have conservative ideas...but just can't bring themselves to either vote for Republicans or become one themselves for a variety of reasons. I fit into the latter camp (becoming one - I have voted for Republicans in the past). I hope that changes in the future, but it's going to take the right kind of Republican to do it, one who a center-right rather than a far-right conservative, because when you get past all of the rhetoric, they really do have a good general message. I don't think anyone disagrees with having faith, loving your country, working hard to become successful and taking control of your own life, rather than relying on someone else (the government) to take care of you.

01-20-2010, 11:16 AM
By HHR | July 27th, 2009 | Category: Featured, HHR Contributors, Urban Issues |
by Cleo Brown

One of the most outstanding African-Americans to emerge from the Republican Party was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Dr. King was the slain Civil Right’s Leader whose movement changed the manner in which Americans perceived and treated African-Americans in the United States. Born in Atlanta, Georgia on January 15th, 1926 in his family’s home, Dr. King descended from a Grandfather and a Father who were both Baptist Ministers in Georgia.

Dr. King, himself, was educated at Morehouse College(1948), Crozer Theological Seminary(1951). And at Boston University. He received his Ph.D. Degree from Boston University in 1955 at the age of twenty-nine. Although King’s Grandfather had been a Georgia Preacher, and his father had been a Minister at Ebeneezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, Dr. King, who was ordained in 1947, became a minister in 1954 in Montgomery, Alabama.

Consequently, he was close by when Rosa Parks was arrested in 1955 for refusing to give up her seat on Montgomery, Alabama’s segregated bus lines. From 1955 to 1956, therefore, he led the boycott of the Montgomery, Alabama bus company crippling not only the bus company but also the routine of life for Montgomery, Alabama’s Caucasian Citizens. King was also the organizer and the leader of The Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) which he used to recruit people to promote a Civil Right’s Movement based upon the use of non-violent, passive resistance as a tactic through which to counter racist oppression directed against people of color, but particularly the peoples in the United States descended from Africa.

In addition to the Montgomery Bus Boycott, King also conducted campaigns against racist injustice in places such as Birmingham, Alabama; Albany, New York; and Washington, D.C. His march on Washington D.C. in 1963 was on behalf of the acquisition of Civil Rights Policy, but especially he sought National Voting Rights for African-Americans in The United States. This is also where he delivered his Historic “I Have a Dream” Speech. In 1964 he won The Nobel Peace Prize although he refused the $50,000.00 purse associated with the prize for himself and for his family preferring to donate the money to the SCLC.

By 1966 he had become involved in a Poor People’s Campaign in Chicago, Illinois in which he sought Welfare Benefits for the poor. He was assassinated on April 4th, 1968 at The Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennessee where he had participated in demonstrations on behalf of “striking sanitation workers.”

Historically, the perpetrators and the promoters of racism and racist policy in the United States have been Southern Democrats. According to Alveda C. King, who is the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Dr. King, therefore, did not align himself with The Democratic Party for Southern Democrats were the individuals with attack dogs; cattle prods; and lynch ropes denying African-Americans their rights as they enforced the segregationist policies of Jim Crow.

Compounding this fact is also a King Family History of Republican Party Membership in which Martin King’s Father and his Grandfather as well as his brother were all Republican Party Members. Indeed, also historically, voting trends among African-Americans indicate that they overwhelmingly voted for candidates from The Republican Party because The Republican Party was known as the party of Abraham Lincoln. This trend continued until 1932 with the election and the ascension of Franklin Delano Roosevelt to the office of President of The United States.

And, although, voting trends among African-Americans did begin to change throughout The Presidential Administration of Franklin Roosevelt, those Southern Blacks who could vote continued to vote for candidates from The Republican Party due to the degree to which Southern Democrats perpetrated racism and promoted segregation throughout The United States but particularly in the South.

Consequently, Dr. King registered as a Republican voter in 1956. He did not give his support to the Democratic Presidential Contender, named John F. Kennedy, until 1960 despite Kennedy’s failure to vote for Civil Right’s Policy in 1957. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. gave his support to Kennedy because, as a Senator, Kennedy had telephoned a pregnant Coretta Scott King while her husband’s life hung in the balance in a Birmingham, Alabama jail.

Kennedy making sure that there was media coverage of the event causing Martin Luther King Sr. and around 100,000 African-Americans to also give their support to Senator Kennedy for President. Consequently, The Kennedy and The Johnson Administrations supported, created, enacted, and upheld Civil Right’s Legislation and Policy further increasing the numbers of African-Americans who decided to vote as Democrats.

Today, therefore, most African-American voters are perceived of as Democrats. Previously, however, The Republican Party had the Black Vote securely in its “pocket” for many years with Martin Luther King Jr. being one of its party’s members.

Cleo E. Brown is a moderate Republican an educator on staff in New York City, New York. She is also a free lance writer and an Editor at HHR Blog. She holds a Master’s Degree in Contemporary African-American History from The University of California at Davis and has done work on a Ph.D. in Education at The University of San Francisco in San Francisco, California.

HHR NOTE: It would seem that King because of his opposition to the Vietnam War became more of a political independent. While Lyndon Johnson supported the civil rights bill, he also sent many black men to war in Vietnam. King did not support the Democrat president for taking this nation to war. On average it would seem that for most of his life he was a Republican, as his father was. He became disenchanted with both political parties it seems overtime. Just because he voted for and supported Kennedy did not necessarily make him a Democrat.

01-20-2010, 11:22 AM

I wonder if anyone will apologize to you?

01-20-2010, 12:04 PM

I wonder if anyone will apologize to you?

Any apologies forthcoming should be directed to the generations of Black Americans that have been used and abused by generations of donkeys. Poverty and obligation are the same whether to plantation owners or party bosses. Just different packaging.

I, of all people, do not seek an apology. I started the thread. My purpose was to expose the history that is so obviously lost on the last two generations. And predictably, by the responses, public "school" and "higher education" have done their jobs well.

I would start a "the NAACP was founded by Republicans" thread, but I don't think we're ready for that. :chuckle:

But gohead you adventurers, look it up.

01-20-2010, 12:27 PM
Some more "right wing propaganda" brought to you as a public service...

Republicans and Civil Rights
Diane Alden
Saturday, Dec. 14, 2002

Republicans, conservatives and constitutionalists always find themselves on the defensive in regard to civil rights issues. No matter what they do, will do or have ever done, the left, Democrats and contrarians demonize them as racists.

By demonizing Republicans and conservatives the left can continue to impose the big lie, which will be accepted as gospel by minorities, whom Democrats believe "owe" them. Woot!! Dey it iz.

For the Record

At the 100th birthday party of former segregationist Sen. Strom Thurmond, Sen. Trent Lott oozed flattery and camaraderie and said that it might have been a good thing if Thurmond had become president when he ran in 1948.

I don't like Trent Lott, mostly for reasons having to do with public policy and his limp-wristed behavior as a Senate majority leader. It is true that Lott should have known better. The politically correct police just wait for Republicans to say dumb things and Lott obliged them. One more time Republicans are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

But after all, Lott was a Democrat when he was a young guy making foolish statements at the University of Mississippi. You would be hard-pressed to find a single Republican in any Southern school of that era.

Like many middle-aged Southerners of his generation, as a youth he was not an exemplary champion of civil rights. Nonetheless, Lott continues to get elected to the U.S. Senate from Mississippi by a significant number of blacks in addition to whites.

Perhaps it is the rural nature of the state. Perhaps it is that rural blacks do not make a profession of holding grudges against whites who made statements or did things in their youth that they have come to regret.

Never forget that Bill Clinton went to Moscow during the Vietnam War and gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Never forget his unabashed hatred of the military, which was reflected in his remarks as an anti-war protester. The people who voted for him forgave him, twice.

In any event, since there has not been major civil rights legislation since the '60s, it is disingenuous to predict how Lott would have voted.

Unfortunately, the left believes if you don't vote for massive transfer payments from one group to another or high taxes, then you must be a racist. If you don't believe in preference for any group of Americans or the expansion of government programs, then you must be racist. My Dad used to refer to this as "corkscrew logic".

Lott is guilty of a great many things, but being a racist is not one of them. Now, if Democrats want to beat up on Lott because he continually exhibits foot-in-mouth disease, Lott will have to stand behind a whole bunch of Democrats who have said and done far worse.

Republicans on the Record

What does the record say about Republicans and the battle for civil rights and specifically for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-352)?

Since Abraham Lincoln, Republicans have been there for blacks when it counted. Nevertheless, Democrats invariably take all the credit for the success of the civil rights movement and invariably fail to give any credit to Republicans.

In fact, the civil rights movement was not about politics. Nor was it about which politicians did what and which political party should take the most credit. When it came to civil rights, America's politicians merely saw the handwriting on the wall and wrote the legislation to make into federal law the historical changes that had already taken place. There was nothing else they could do.

The movement of blacks to the North, as well as their contributions as fighting men in the world wars, plus the hard work of millions of blacks and their families and churches, along with the efforts of many private groups and individuals made the civil rights movement succeed.

Civil rights for blacks found its historical moment after 1945. Bills introduced in Congress regarding employment policy brought the issue of civil rights to the attention of representatives and senators.

In 1945, 1947 and 1949, the House of Representatives voted to abolish the poll tax restricting the right to vote. Although the Senate did not join in this effort, the bills signaled a growing interest in protecting civil rights through federal action.

The executive branch of government, by presidential order, likewise became active by ending discrimination in the nation's military forces and in federal employment and work done under government contract.

Harry Truman ordered the integration of the military. However, his Republican opponent in the election of 1948, Tom Dewey, was just as strong a proponent for that effort as any Democrat.

As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

[See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html.] Facts people. Facts.

It was appalling the other day to watch former Democratic Senator Bob Kerry totally gloss over Republican efforts in the name of civil rights. He implied that Lott's foot-in-mouth statement was representative of Republican views about civil rights since forever.

Kerry knows better. Yet being a loyal and predictable Democrat, Kerry can create the big lie with the best of them. The media are so in sync with that effort that they don't challenge him.

Kerry also maintained that all the Dixiecrats became Republicans shortly after passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, another big lie. Richard Russell, Mendell Rivers, Clinton's mentor William Fulbright, Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. remained Democrats till their dying day.

Most of the Dixiecrats did not become Republicans. They created the Dixiecrats and then, when the civil rights movement succeeded, they returned to the Democratic fold. It was not till much later, with a new, younger breed of Southerner and the thousands of Northerners moving into the South, that Republicans began to make gains.
I know. I was there. I was too.

When I moved to Georgia in 1970, the Democratic Party had a total lock on Georgia. Newt Gingrich was one of the first "outsiders" to break that lock. He did so in a West Georgia area into which many Northerners were moving. He gained the support of rural West Georgians over issues that had absolutely nothing to do with race.

In fact, very few party switches came about right after the Civil Rights Act was passed. Some exceptions who did switch were Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms.

Democrats like Bob Kerry will lie about Republicans but won't tell you some facts about the heroes and icons of their own party. One of their major icons was not always Sir Galahad jousting in the name of civil rights. His name was John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
JFK – The Reluctant Civil Rights President

JFK evolved into a true believer in the civil rights movement when it became such an overwhelming historical and moral imperative that he had no choice. As a matter of record, when Kennedy was a senator from Massachusetts, he had an opportunity to vote on the 1957 Civil Rights Act pushed by Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson. Instead, he voted to send it to the conservative Senate Judiciary Committee, where it would have been pigeonholed.

His lukewarm support for theAct included his vote to allow juries to hear contempt cases. Dixiecrats preferred the jury system to trials presided over and decided by judges because all-white juries rarely convicted white civil rights violators.

His record in the 1950s did not mark Kennedy as a civil rights activist. Yet the 1957Act to benefit African-Americans was passed with the help of Republicans. It was a watered- down version of the later 1964 bill, which Kennedy backed.

The record on JFK shows he was a man of his times and a true politician, more given to equivocation and pragmatism than to activism. Kennedy outlined civil rights legislation only after most of the country was behind it and ready for him to act.

For the most part, in the 1960 presidential campaign he avoided the civil rights issue altogether. He did endorse some kind of federal action, but he could not afford to antagonize Southern Democrats, whose support he desperately needed to defeat Richard Nixon. Basically, he could not jeopardize the political support of the Dixiecrats and many politicians in the rest of the country who were concerned about the radical change that was in the offing.

After he was elected president, Kennedy failed to suggest any new civil rights proposals in 1961 or 1962. That failure was for pragmatic political reasons and so that he could get the rest of his agenda passed.

Introducing specific civil rights legislation in the Senate would have meant a filibuster and the obstruction of other business he felt was just as crucial as civil rights legislation. A filibuster would have happened for sure and it would have taken 67 members to support cloture to end such a filibuster. Sixty-seven votes Kennedy believed he did not have. bho could have learned a thing or two if he payed attention to anyone other than his commie handlers.

As it was, Kennedy had other fish to fry, including the growing threat of Russian imperialism, the building of the Berlin Wall, the Bay of Pigs as Cuba went down the communist rat hole, his increase in the numbers of troops and advisers he was sending to Vietnam, and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

In addition, the steel business was in crisis and he needed a major tax rate cut to stimulate a sluggish economy. Kennedy understood his options and he chose to be realistic. That "tax cut" thingy...does that make JFK a racist? :rofl:
When Kennedy did act in June 1963 to propose a civil rights bill, it was because the climate of opinion and the political situation forced him to act.

The climate of opinion had changed dramatically between World War II and 1964. Various efforts by groups of Protestant and Catholic clergy, along with the Urban League, NAACP, Congress of Racial Equality, black activists, individuals both white and black and, of course, Martin Luther King Jr., as well as other subsets of his movement, are what forced civil rights to be crafted into federal law.

The National Opinion Research Center discovered that by 1963 the number of Americans who approved neighborhood integration had risen 30 percent in 20 years, to 72 percent. Americans supporting school integration had risen even more impressively, to 75 percent.

The efforts of politicians were needed to write all the changes and efforts into law. Politicians did not lead charge on civil rights – again, they just took credit, especially the Democrats.

Length of article dictates a second post.

01-20-2010, 12:35 PM
Part deux...

Republicans and Civil Rights
Diane Alden
Saturday, Dec. 14, 2002

The 1964 Civil Rights Act

When all the historical forces had come together, Kennedy decided to act. John Kennedy began the process of gaining support for the legislation in a nationally televised address on June 11, 1963.

Gathering business and religious leaders and telling the more violent activists in the black leadership to tone down the confrontational aspects of the movement, Kennedy outlined the Civil Rights Act. In it, the Justice Department was given the responsibility of addressing the worst problems of racial discrimination.

Because of the problem with a possible Senate filibuster, which would be imposed by Southern Democrats, the diverse aspects of theAct were first dealt with in the House of Representatives. The roadblock would be that Southern senators chaired both the Judiciary and the Commerce committees.

Kennedy and LBJ understood that a bipartisan coalition of Republicans and Northern Democrats was the key to the bill's final success.

Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time. Nonetheless, H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it.

Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Even though those Democrats were Southern segregationists, without Republicans the bill would have failed. Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Man From Illinois

In the Senate, Hubert Humphrey was the point man for the Civil Rights Act. That is not unusual considering the Democrats held both houses of Congress and the presidency.
Sen. Thomas Kuchel of California led the Republican pro-civil rights forces. But it became clear who among the Republicans was going to get the job done; that man was conservative Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen.

He was the master key to victory for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Without him and the Republican vote, theAct would have been dead in the water for years to come. LBJ and Humphrey knew that without Dirksen the Civil Rights Act was going nowhere.

Dirksen became a tireless supporter, suffering bouts of ill health because of his efforts in behalf of crafting and passing the Civil Rights Act. Nonetheless, Sen. Dirksen suffered the same fate as many Republicans and conservatives do today.

Even though Dirksen had an exemplary voting record in support of bills furthering the cause of African-Americans, activist groups in Illinois did not support Dirksen for re-election to the Senate in 1962.

Believing that Dirksen could be forced into voting for the Civil Rights Act, they demonstrated and picketed and there were threats by CORE to continue demonstrations and violence against Dirksen's offices in Illinois. James Farmer of CORE stated that "people will march en masse to the post offices there to file handwritten letters" in protest.

Dirksen blew it off in a statement typical of him: "When the day comes that picketing, distress, duress, and coercion can push me from the rock of conviction, that is the day that I shall gather up my togs and walk out of here and say that my usefulness in the Senate has come to an end."

Dirksen began the tactical arrangements for passage of the bill. He organized Republican support by choosing floor captains for each of the bill's seven sections.
The Republican "swing" votes were from rural states without racial problems and so were uncommitted. The floor captains and Dirksen himself created an imperative for these rural Republicans to vote in favor of cloture on filibuster and then for the Act itself.

As they worked through objections to the bill, Dirksen explained his goal as "first, to get a bill; second, to get an acceptable bill; third, to get a workable bill; and, finally, to get an equitable bill."

In any event, there were still 52 days of filibuster and five negotiation sessions. Senators Dirksen and Humphrey, and Attorney General Robert Kennedy agreed to propose a "clean bill" as a substitute for H. R. 7152. Senators Dirksen, Mansfield, Humphrey and Kuchel would cosponsor the substitute.

This agreement did not mean the end of the filibuster, but it did provide Dirksen with a compromise measure, which was crucial to obtain the support of the "swing" Republicans.

On June 17, the Senate voted by a 76 to 18 margin to adopt the bipartisan substitute worked out by Dirksen in his office in May and to give the bill its third reading. Two days later, the Senate passed the bill by a 73 to 27 roll call vote. Six Republicans and 21 Democrats held firm and voted against passage.

In all, the 1964 civil rights debate had lasted a total of 83 days, slightly over 730 hours, and had taken up almost 3,000 pages in the Congressional Record.

On May 19, Dirksen called a press conference told the gathering about the moral need for a civil rights bill. On June 10, 1964, with all 100 senators present, Dirksen rose from his seat to address the Senate. By this time he was very ill from the killing work he had put in on getting the bill passed. In a voice reflecting his fatigue, he still spoke from the heart:

"There are many reasons why cloture should be invoked and a good civil rights measure enacted. It is said that on the night he died, Victor Hugo wrote in his diary substantially this sentiment, 'Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come.' The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied."

After the civil rights bill was passed, Dirksen was asked why he had done it. What could possibly be in it for him given the fact that the African-Americans in his own state had not voted for him? Why should he champion a bill that would be in their interest? Why should he offer himself as a crusader in this cause?

Dirksen's reply speaks well for the man, for Republicans and for conservatives like him: "I am involved in mankind, and whatever the skin, we are all included in mankind."
The bill was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964.

Taking Credit

There is a line from a movie which I have remembered since I first heard it. In the movie, a young doctor failed to get credit or recognition for a heroic act. A friend asked him if that bothered him. The young man's reply was "There will never be any credit for me, there will just be the next thing to do."

Credit may be given to Sen. Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota for being the loudest voice in support for legislation in the late '50s and early '60s. Credit may be given to LBJ for pushing legislation.

However, without the leadership and help of Republicans, who had voted for bills to help minorities for decades before 1964, any Democratic Party legislative effort would have been watered down or failed because of obstinate Democrats – i.e., the Dixiecrats.

Neither political party, however, has the right to claim it was responsible for making civil rights for African-Americans happen. Changing times and the efforts of blacks themselves, plus the thousands of electronic pictures blazing across the screens on national television, finally brought it home to white America that injustices were being done to their brethren who happened to be black.

The fact that Democrats are quick to take credit for the Civil Rights Act and for the civil rights movement itself is both phony and a self-absorbed vanity.

The Democrats and the press can continue to make a big deal of Lott's statement spoken to honor Strom Thurmond on his 100th birthday. Like George Wallace and others, Thurmond and Lott grew as men. They grew out of their times and their situation. They apologized for their former beliefs and they acted on that change of heart and have done so time and time again.

Democrats do themselves no good by taking credit for the civil rights movement or for legislation that came out of it. If they do that, they also must take the blame for the failures of the policies of dependence which they created and which choked the life out of the African-American culture and family life. One plantation or the other.

If African-Americans ever do vote for Republicans or conservatives, I hope they do so because they finally realize that though conservatives don't have all the answers, they do have enough faith in people to allow them the freedom to find the answers for themselves. And there it is.

To comment, write alden@newsmax.com or visit my Web site at www.aldenchronicles.com.

01-20-2010, 01:20 PM
The elephant's civil rights record as spoken by Rep Chris Cox in celebration of the 150th anniversary of his party...

Honoring 150 Years of Republican Civil Rights Achievements
This year marks an important anniversary -- and it’s a big one. Our party is a century and a half old this year. That is a big, big event: after all -- a 150th anniversary doesn’t come along but once … every 150 years.

It was 150 years ago this year that our party was founded in a small midwest town. Take a moment to think what was going on 150 years ago: John Phillip Sousa was born. Sacramento became the capital of our state. The San Francisco Gas Company illuminated its first gaslights. That’s the world in which a few people in a schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin came together to map strategy and to form the Republican Party.

The history of our party is as remarkable as it is untold, and it is under-appreciated for that reason. Just in the area of civil rights, there is no way in these brief comments that I can do anything like a comprehensive presentation. But I can tell you that for the last two years, the Republican Policy Committee in the United States Congress has been working to chronicle the Republican civil rights history, gathering thousands of facts, dates, and events. And today we are proudly issuing the 2005 Republican Freedom Calendar.

Unfortunately, the Republican Freedom Calendar has only 365 days. And so we have had to pick 365 out of hundreds and hundreds of additional civil rights accomplishments. It is truly impressive to go through this. I have learned an extraordinary amount about our party as a result of this project.

The Republican Party, I am absolutely confident in saying, is the most effective political organization in the history of the world in advancing the cause of freedom. Frankly, we haven’t had any competition.

The mission of our party was clearly stated by Abraham Lincoln: “to lift the artificial weights from all shoulders, and clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all.” His use of the word “pursuit” recalls Thomas Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence. Just as America’s founding document declared our right to pursue happiness, the Republican philosophy has always been focused on opportunity -- not equality of outcome, but equality of opportunity. The “artificial weight” that Lincoln is talking about is, of course, the weight of the state. In the most egregious form of statism, the government imposed slavery on millions of Americans.

Today, the animating spirit of the Republican Party is exactly the same as it was at its founding: free minds, free markets, free expression, and unlimited opportunity. Leading the organized opposition to these ideas 150 years ago, just as today, was the Democratic Party -- in the form, then as now, of politically correct speech; a preference for government control over individual decision making (and of course slavery was the most extreme form of government control); government control of enterprise; and an insistence on seeing people as members of groups, rather than as individuals. It was that refusal to see the unique value of every individual that was at the heart of the Democrats’ support of slavery.

So on this 150th anniversary, it is useful to look back. This morning, I will speak briefly on four of the significant accomplishments of the Republican Party in the area of individual rights and freedoms:

First, the role of our party in bringing an end to slavery in the United States.

Second, the role of our party in extending the right to vote to men and women of all backgrounds, of all races, and of all creeds.

Third, the leadership role of our party in ushering in the modern civil rights era.

And fourth, the leading role of our party in establishing an American policy of peace through strength that has freed hundreds of millions of people around the world from slavery and brought freedom, democracy, women’s rights, and minority rights to the former Soviet Empire and across central and eastern Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

From President Lincoln’s victory in the Civil War, to President Reagan’s victory in the Cold War, to President Bush’s liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, the policies of the Republican Party have brought freedom to a major portion of the planet’s population that previously lived in slavery.

These astounding achievements are the result of our party’s establishment with a fundamentally different vision than the Democrats whom we formed to oppose 150 years ago.

We started our party with the express intent to protect the American people from the Democrats’ pro-slavery policies that made people inferior to the state. The Democrats didn’t just oppose Republicans, or merely tolerate racial discrimination; they were aggressively pro-slavery -- so much so that they were alternately referred
to as the “Slaveocrats.”

So on March 20, 1854, our founders decided to take them on. They drafted plans and platforms, and in the space of a few months, put together Republican Party organizations across the Northern and Western portions of the United States.

The first Republican state convention was held in Jackson, Michigan just a few months later in July. The first meeting of the Republican National Committee was two years later. Three months after that, the first Republican National Convention was held in Philadelphia.

That first Republican National Convention nominated our first presidential candidate, who -- as everyone here knows -- was a former U.S. Senator from California, John C. Fremont. He didn’t win, but just four years later, a former member of the House did win, carrying the Republican standard. And not only did Lincoln win the presidency, but his coattails were so long and so broad that Republicans won majorities -- big majorities -- in both the House and in the Senate.

In fact, after the election of 1860, every single governor in every northern state in the United States was a Republican. This was phenomenal progress in the space of just a few years. It was possible because our party was based on such a powerful idea. We know now that we don’t win elections unless we have ideas behind us. The history of the Republican Party is an amazing example of how much can be accomplished if your ideas are big enough.

These Republican majorities, and the strength of our ideas, enabled us to fight and win the Civil War. This same Republican commitment to individual freedom led our nation through Reconstruction, and guided our policies to the end of the 19th century and throughout the 20th century, to make the United States of America what it is today: a beacon of hope and freedom for the entire world.

Military histories of the Civil War are commonplace. There is an enormous industry dedicated to producing DVDs, videos, movies, and books about the military aspects of the Civil War. But all too little attention is paid to the political aspects of the Civil War. For many years after the Civil War, the history books accurately described the Republican Party’s leading role in preserving the Union and ending slavery. But as history faded, and college professors became more partisan and politically tendentious, the facts were lost. “History” changed. The facts didn’t change, but our history books did.

Today, students are taught that Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was an eccentric individual act, and that Lincoln rose above politics in issuing it. In fact, the opposite was true. This was a profoundly political act, which had been expressly authorized by the U.S. Congress in a hotly debated law. Both the House and the Senate had solidly Republican majorities, which -- over strong Democratic opposition – had passed the Confiscation Act.

That law stated very clearly that slaves belonging to rebels were free. By signing the Emancipation Proclamation, President Lincoln was implementing that statute. Freeing the slaves was thus a political question that every Republican in Congress voted for, and every Democrat voted against.

At the end of the war, despite their strong majorities, Republicans in Congress knew they wouldn’t have a majority forever. Anticipating that the Democrats might someday come back into power, Republicans unanimously voted for what became the 13th Amendment to the Constitution -- thereby putting an end to slavery.

The Republicans in Congress went on to pass the nation’s first ever Civil Rights Act, extending citizenship and equal rights to people of all races, all colors, and all creeds. Notice that Republicans didn’t take the political approach that they might have, limiting themselves to saying that former slaves would now be treated equally, or only blacks or African-Americans would gain their civil rights. We said all people, all colors, all creeds -- because that’s the way Republicans think. The founders of the Republican Party were simply putting in force the stated ideals of the Founding Fathers, so that our government would finally recognize that all people are created equal, and that all should enjoy the right to pursue happiness.

Republicans have always believed that every man and woman is created equal. This is not a choice that can be made for us by others. It isn’t up to our government. So we required our government to fulfill that promise.

The same year as the first Civil Rights Act, Republicans in Congress wrote another constitutional amendment to extend even further the scope of our civil rights legislation. We extended the concepts of due process of law, and equal protection of the laws, to every state. Now, every state -- even those where Democrats held sway -- would have to implement these principles. No longer just at the federal level, but at the state level as well, the civil rights of every American individual would be protected.

This major civil rights advance -- what we now know as the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- is a purely Republican achievement, because every single Democrat in Congress voted against the 14th Amendment. That is another fact deftly omitted from American history textbooks these days: we owe our Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws and due process to Republicans, and this bedrock of American civil rights was unanimously opposed by the Democrats.

Three years later, in 1869, the Republicans proposed yet another constitutional amendment, this one specifically guaranteeing blacks the right to vote. The same partisanship was in evidence: 98% of Republicans voted for it; 97% of the Democrats voted against it.

Seven years later, Republicans in Congress authored what was then, and what remains today, the most sweeping Civil Rights legislation ever enacted. The 1875 Civil Rights Act guaranteed the right of equal access to all citizens in all public accommodations -- whether or not owned or controlled by the government. Now that phrase, “public accommodations,” is very familiar to us today, because it was at the heart of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which became the focal point of the 1960s civil rights movement. The reason that this question was before the Congress again in the 1960s is that the 1875 Civil Rights Act only lasted for eight years before the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. What finally became law in 1964, therefore, was the original Republican legislation of 90 years earlier. Not surprisingly, in 1964 a significantly higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The Democrats’ opposition to Republican efforts to protect the civil rights of African-Americans lasted not just through the Reconstruction era, but well into the 20th Century. In the South, the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party, the Ku Klux Klan, virtually destroyed the Republican Party -- which did not recover enough to become a force in the region until President Reagan’s message of freedom and equality for all prevailed in the 1980s.

Every single African-American in Congress, House and Senate, until 1935 was a Republican.

01-20-2010, 01:31 PM
Part deux...

Honoring 150 Years of Republican Civil Rights Achievements

In 1872, the first black governor took office in Louisiana. I love his name: Pinckney Pinchback, a great Republican. Our own state of California was the first to have a Hispanic governor. Can you guess his political party? Republican Romualdo Pacheco became governor in 1875, long before anybody had ever heard of Cruz Bustamante.

The first Hispanic U.S. Senator was elected from New Mexico in 1928. You guessed it -- he was a Republican, Octaviano Larrazolo.

Republicans led the fight for women’s voting rights -- and the Democrats, as a party, opposed civil rights for women. All of the leading suffragists -- including Susan B. Anthony, Lucretia Mott, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton -- were Republicans. In fact, Susan B. Anthony bragged, after leaving the voting booth, that she had voted for “the Republican ticket -- straight.”

The suffragists included two African-American Republican women who were also co-founders of the NAACP: Ida Wells and Mary Terrell, great leaders of our party, both of them. Oops. Cats outa the bag. :rofl:

The first women delegates to a national party convention did not go to the Democratic National Convention, they went to the Republican Convention. In fact, for years Democrats kept women out, while Republicans were letting women in. The goal of the Republican suffragists, including their male Republican elected official friends, was to add an amendment to the Constitution that would give women the right to vote. Sadly, there is not a single California schoolbook in use today that tells students it was a Republican U.S. Senator from California, Aaron Sargent, who authored the women’s suffrage amendment -- or that he named it in honor of another great Republican, Susan B. Anthony.

Senator Sargent introduced the Susan B. Anthony Amendment in 1878, but it didn’t become the law of the land until 1920. Why? Because Republicans did not have majorities in both the House and the Senate at the same time, and the Democrats kept voting against it. But, in the meanwhile, in 1916, Montana -- which had by state law given women the right to vote -- elected Jeannette Rankin to be the first woman to serve in the United States Congress. She, of course, was a Republican.

In the national election two years later, in 1918, Republicans won majorities in both the House and the Senate. We then swiftly passed the Women’s Suffrage Amendment. And 1920, therefore, was the first presidential election in which all women could vote. What do you think most women in America did? They voted for Warren Harding. In fact, I remember having a conversation with my grandmother about this. I talked to her about the first time she was able to vote, and I asked her, “Who did you vote for?” She looked at me as if I were crazy. “Of course,” she answered, “I voted for the Republicans. They gave us the vote.” That’s why the Republican
landslide for Harding was so big that year.

Meanwhile, in the face of the Democrats’ continued terrorizing of Republican organizational activity in the South, many courageous Republicans were standing up nonetheless. One of the great Southern leaders of that era who was openly calling himself a Republican and drawing attention to his cause was Booker T. Washington, the famed educator and founder of Alabama’s Tuskegee Institute. But even a man as distinguished as this, and even in the 20th century, was opposed by a still-racist Democratic Party. When Republican President Teddy Roosevelt had the temerity to invite Booker T. Washington to dine with him in the White House, the Democrats raised holy hell through the media. They said it was a scandal, and outrageous, and an atrocity.

Republicans led the integration of pro sports. Branch Rickey, owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers, was a Republican businessman who hired his fellow Republican, Jackie Robinson. Together they integrated Major League Baseball when Jackie Robinson took the field in 1947 for his first game. In addition to being a great athlete, a great Dodger, and a great American, Jackie Robinson was a great Republican -- and a very outspoken one.

This year, 2004, is the 50th anniversary of the modern civil rights movement, which most people date to the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision. That opinion was written by a Republican Chief Justice appointed by a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower. And of course that Republican Chief Justice had been our three-term Republican Governor here in California, and he’d been our Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States in 1948: Earl Warren.

Three years after Brown, President Eisenhower won passage of his landmark Civil Rights Act of 1957. Now remember, the nation had just ended a long stretch of Democratic administrations -- nearly four terms of FDR, and seven years of Truman -- and yet there had been no civil rights legislation at all. In fact, the Republican Civil Rights Act of 1957 was the first U.S. civil rights legislation in eight decades.

Another great Republican, U.S. Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois, authored and introduced the 1960 Civil Rights Act. It was also he who was most responsible -- more than any other individual -- for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. As Republican Leader in the Senate, even though his party was in the minority, Dirksen crafted the strategy that overcame long odds and tenacious Democratic opposition.

The Democrats weren’t just internally conflicted about the 1964 Civil Rights Act; a significant number of them actually filibustered it -- preventing an up or down vote on the bill. Eventually, however -- thanks to Dirksen’s leadership -- this landmark legislation did get the vote it deserved. As with all of the previous civil rights legislation in our nation’s history, it passed with significantly more support from Republicans than from Democrats. The same was true for the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which became law the following year.

Which political party gave our nation the first Asian American Senator in the United States Senate? The Republican Party -- and it was the esteemed Hiram Fong of Hawaii. The first African American Senator after Reconstruction? Republican Ed Brooke from Massachusetts. The first Asian American federal judge? Republican Herbert Choy, appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, by President Nixon, for whom I served as law clerk.

The first woman on the Supreme Court? Everyone knows that. But you may not have known that before she became a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Arizona Republican Sandra Day O’Connor was the first woman to be Majority Leader in the legislature of any state.

The first Hispanic member of the President’s Cabinet? Republican Lauro Cavazos, Secretary of Education under President Reagan.

It was President Ford who, in 1976, repealed FDR’s notorious executive order interning 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II.

We can be proud of Republican appointments such as Justice Clarence Thomas, the former Chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Colin Powell, the first African American to be National Security Advisor or Secretary of State; Condoleezza Rice, the first woman to serve as National Security Advisor; and Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, the first Asian American woman in any president’s

This remarkable, unbroken 150-year string of civil rights achievements is the reason that, this year, we are so proud to publish the 2005 Republican Freedom Calendar. Our party has a great story to tell. There is also much work still to be done to secure the God-given rights of all men and women, and the Republican Party is
leading the way.

Ronald Reagan was fond of saying that the United States of America is the only country on Earth, now or at any time in history, that was founded not on race or nationality, but on an ideal. Republicans, from the founding of our party to this very day, have been carrying forward this ideal of individual freedom.

Now, in our 150th year as a party, we have not only an opportunity to reflect, but also a chance to advance our cause of promoting freedom. This is a presidential election year, and the choice could not be more stark.

Today, our nation is carrying the torch of freedom to oppressed people across the globe. President Bush and the Republican Party have led America to throw off the “chains of oppression” in Afghanistan, and to free millions of women from the shackles of Taliban rule. Afghan women can now vote; they can go to school; they can practice their professions; and women are no longer required to be fully covered from head to toe when in public. In response to this American victory for human rights, Michael Moore, John Kerry, and John Edwards have only criticism.

President Bush and the Republican Party have led America to liberate Iraq, freeing more than 24 million people from a brutal, murderous dictator who piled more than 400,000 men, women, and children in mass graves -- and who killed more than one million of his fellow citizens. Iraqi men and women are now building their own democracy, as a free people. But John Kerry, Michael Moore, and John Edwards say that spreading democracy in the Middle East is a fool’s errand unworthy of America.

Republicans disagree, as we have for 150 years. We believe that governments have no right to enslave people, and that our own liberties are at risk when racists, theocrats, terrorists, and murderers go unpunished and unchecked. That is why, in the end, our Republican commitment to civil rights and individual freedom undergirds our policies of limited government and peace through strength.

This year, the cause for freedom can advance or retreat. With your help, it will prevail. Pick up a 2005 Freedom Calendar. Share it with a friend. Remember: if you don’t spread the message of our party, the media, academia, and Hollywood won’t do it for you.

Congratulations on being a Republican. And happy 150th Birthday!
Speech by Rep. Christopher Cox

No place to hide donkeys - its all "on tape".

01-20-2010, 08:58 PM
Dems, Republicans, and the 'party of civil rights'

In light of John McCain’s appearance before the NAACP’s national convention, Bruce Bartlett makes the case in a WSJ op-ed that McCain should argue that the Republican Party, all appearances to the contrary notwithstanding, is the party of civil rights. (If this sounds familiar, Bartlett wrote a book on this subject, called “Wrong on Race.”)

Everyone knows this, but it’s worth repeating: the Republican Party is the party of Abraham Lincoln and was established in 1854 to block the expansion of slavery. The Democratic Party was the party of slavery. […]

After the war, it was the Republican Party that rammed through the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution over Democratic opposition…. Historically speaking, the Republican Party has a far better record on race than the Democrats. Sen. McCain should not be shy about saying so.

This comes less than two weeks after the National Black Republican Association put up billboards in Florida and South Carolina saying the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Republican (a claim which is demonstrably ridiculous).

Now, we’ve been down this road before, but if the right sincerely intends to push this argument again this election year, we might as well go to the trouble of pointing out how foolish — and frankly, intellectually lazy — this entire tack really is.

The inescapable fact is, the Republican Party of the 19th century bears no resemblance to, and has no bearing on, the modern-day Republican Party. The problem isn’t that Bartlett’s history is wrong; it’s that his history is irrelevant and badly misses the point.

One need not have a doctorate in American history to know that the nation’s two major political parties have shifted significantly for the better part of nearly two centuries. The Democratic Party, in the first half of the 20th century, was home to competing constituencies — southern whites with abhorrent views on race, and African Americans in the north, who sought to advance the cause of civil rights. The party struggled, ultimately siding with a progressive, inclusive agenda.

On race, Democrats changed and became the party of civil rights. Republicans, meanwhile, changed and became the home of racists who no longer felt comfortable in the Democratic Party.

As Matt Yglesias recently argued:

Decades ago, the Democratic Party was, among other things, the political home of white supremacy in the United States. In the 1960s, the party’s leadership decisively broke with that record. At around the same time, part of the rise of the conservative movement inside the Republican Party was the growing prominence of folks like Barry Goldwater who opposed the Civil Rights Act and who found in his 1964 campaign that the main electoral constituency for his brand of conservatism was … white supremacists. Other white supremacist politicians (some of whom, unlike Goldwater, would forever remain unrepentant) like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms moved into the GOP column. And of course while explicit advocacy of segregation has long since vanished from the top ranks of the Republican Party, major conservative leaders have been heard in recent years issuing paens to the work of Thurmond and Helms, with key legislative leaders specifically regretting that Thurmond’s 1948 white supremacist presidential campaign failed, and pointing to Helms as exemplifying what conservatism is all about.

Bartlett’s central point seems to be that voters should be aware of the parties’ pasts, because the Dems’ generations-old record has to matter. I’m very much inclined to agree — because that party broke from that past to become champions of civil rights. Equally important, then, is the Republicans’ present — the party not only welcomed the racists who left the Democrats, they became the party of the “Southern Strategy,” opposition to affirmative action, campaigns based on race-baiting, vote-caging, discriminatory voter-ID laws, Katrina, boycotting minority debates, and opposing legislative remedies to problems that affect the African-American community most.

Ultimately, this isn’t much of a campaign pitch: “Vote Republican: The Party Was Right Before It Was Wrong.”


01-20-2010, 09:12 PM
Republican House Member Misrepresents History On Civil Rights Legislation
Posted by KATHY KATTENBURG in Places, Politics, Society.
Nov 20th, 2009

Republican House member (from North Carolina) Virginia Foxx, it is pretty safe to say, has never met a fact she could not challenge. This morning, Rep. Foxx launched an attack on what she calls “revisionist history” about which political party should get the credit for passing historic civil rights legislation in the 1960s….. by engaging in her own revisionist history — which was immediately challenged by an outraged Dennis Cardoza (D-CA):

Rep. Foxx is only the most recent Republican to push what is at best a distortion of the truth about which political party is responsible for getting civil rights laws like the Voting Rights Act of 1965 through Congress. TP’s Matt Corley, author of this piece, debunks the myth once again:
Foxx’s claim that Republicans were the real engine behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a common notion among conservatives. But as Cardoza points out, it was President Lyndon Johnson who “choreographed passage of this historic measure in 1964.” In fact, the Republican presidential candidate in 1964, Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), voted against the legislation.

To support the claim that Republicans were actually the architects of civil rights, conservatives often point out that a “higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported the civil-rights bill.” But this ignores the “distinct split between Northern and Southern politicians” on the issue. When this is taken into account, the facts show that “in both the North and the South, Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act at a higher rate than the Republicans.”

To support the claim that Republicans were actually the architects of civil rights, conservatives often point out that a “higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported the civil-rights bill.” But this ignores the “distinct split between Northern and Southern politicians” on the issue. When this is taken into account, the facts show that “in both the North and the South, Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act at a higher rate than the Republicans.”

The first of those two links in the above paragraph goes to a 2003 post by John Fonte at National Review Online. Here are the money grafs (emphasis is mine):

The civil-rights bill of 1964 was enacted with strong bipartisan and bi-ideological (conservative and liberal) support. But, the credit for the civil-rights victory has gone almost exclusively to liberals and Democrats, particularly to Senator Hubert Humphrey (D, Minn.) in Congress, and to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. 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.

Although the Democrats controlled both houses of the Congress at the time, a much-higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported the civil-rights bill. For example, in the House, Republicans voted for civil rights by a margin of 79 percent to 21 percent, 136-35. The Democrats’ margin was 153-91 or 63 percent to 37 percent.

Anything jump out at you about the states these lawmakers come from?

Yeah. That’s right. They are all Northern states.

Now let’s jump over to the second link in that paragraph I quoted from Think Progress. That link goes to a June 1999 piece, originally published in the Washington Times, called “Voting and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” (Emphasis is mine.)

… On the surface it would indeed appear that the Republicans, and not the Democrats as commonly assumed, were the champions of civil rights in the 1960s.

However, a slightly more careful analysis of the Civil Rights Act voting record shows a distinct split between Northern and Southern politicians. Among the southern states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia), Senate Democrats voted 1-21 against the bill (5%) while Republicans voted 0-1 (0%). In the House, southern Democrats voted 7-87 (7%) while southern Republicans voted 0-10 (0%). Among the remaining states, Democrats voted 145-9 in favor of the bill (94%) while Republicans voted 138-24 for the bill (85%). In both the North and the South, Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act at a higher rate than the Republicans.

The marriage within the Democratic Party of the northern liberals and the southern Dixiecrats had always been a strange one based more upon a common enemy (the Republican Party) than upon common ideals. In fact, when the 1948 Democratic platform came out strongly in favor of civil rights, delegates from 13 southern states held their own convention shortly after the adjournment of the Democratic National Convention and nominated Strom Thurmond to run for president on their own “States Rights Democrats” ticket.

While Mr. Davis is clearly correct in his assertion that Southern Democrats were staunch foes of civil rights in the 1960s, Southern Republicans, though fewer in number, were equally adamant in their opposition to civil rights legislation.

The modern Democratic Party owes its current character far more to the Northern liberals than to the Dixiecrats. If the old Southern Democrats are to be labeled as racist, then Al Gore and Bill Clinton are Southern Democrats in name only as their defense of civil rights places them solidly among the Northern Democrats and not with the Dixiecrats of old.

In the two decades following the 1960s, the now-notorious “Southern Strategy” begun by Richard Nixon and continued by Ronald Reagan led to an exodus of Southern Democrats to the Republican Party. Those were the Democrats who voted against the emancipating legislation of the civil rights era: the racist, white supremacist Dixiecrat Democrats — not the ones who form the Democratic Party today.

01-21-2010, 08:17 AM
Interesting....when presented with facts that dispute a notion, the response is to continually slice the data thinner and thinner in hopes of finding some evidence to the contrary....BUT, regardless of WHERE the GOP representation voting FOR the civil rights came from, nothing can change the fact, clearly stated in the last article, that:

Although the Democrats controlled both houses of the Congress at the time, a much-higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported the civil-rights bill. For example, in the House, Republicans voted for civil rights by a margin of 79 percent to 21 percent, 136-35. The Democrats’ margin was 153-91 or 63 percent to 37 percent.

Big shock...southerners are more racist than northerners....that in no way changes the facts in this case.

01-21-2010, 09:09 AM
reading is fundemental....

… On the surface it would indeed appear that the Republicans, and not the Democrats as commonly assumed, were the champions of civil rights in the 1960s.

However, a slightly more careful analysis of the Civil Rights Act voting record shows a distinct split between Northern and Southern politicians. Among the southern states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia), Senate Democrats voted 1-21 against the bill (5%) while Republicans voted 0-1 (0%). In the House, southern Democrats voted 7-87 (7%) while southern Republicans voted 0-10 (0%). Among the remaining states, Democrats voted 145-9 in favor of the bill (94%) while Republicans voted 138-24 for the bill (85%). In both the North and the South, Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act at a higher rate than the Republicans.

01-21-2010, 09:25 AM
So which is it? When you present poorly written material, it's open to scrutiny. Because this article is attempting to say that the Dems both supported the bill at both a higher AND lower rate than the GOP. The stats are all screwed up....

Reading IS fundamental....and now you know that your article is trying to have it both ways.

Perhaps you'll find a better written and more concise source next time that makes a clearer argument....

01-21-2010, 09:32 AM
Big shock...southerners are more racist than northerners

And there you have it. Back then, it didn't matter if you were Democrat or Republican in the South...or Boston...chances were you were a racist.

On the flip side, having 138 Republicans on board for the Civil Rights Act isn't anything to sneeze at, believe me. That is a significant number, too significant to start nitpicking about percentages.

Here is the bottom line - plenty of people from BOTH parties supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Neither can nor should take sole credit for its passage - it was a clearly a bipartisan effort.

01-21-2010, 09:44 AM
I think the real issue here is how stereotypes have actually trumped reality. Somehow the perception grew that the GOP hates blacks and the poor and yada yada yada...and that's just a bunch of garbage. The GOP had David Duke, but last time I checked, the Senator from WV Mr. Byrd was also a member of the Klan.

It's silly to lump an entire party into one little pidgeonhole...

01-21-2010, 12:51 PM
Well, anyway... Back to the point of the thread. Martin Luther King Jr., and Sr, and his grandfather for that matter were Republicans. You can speculate as to why that might be, but the fact remains, they were Republicans.

I have benefited from the formative part of my education having been before liberals razed "education". So armed with both the clear memory of the events and how they were presented by schools and the media at the time they unfolded, the notion that MLK was anything but a Republican is patently absurd.

The fact that MLK was an elephant drives the few donkeys that are aware nuts, is received as a huge elephant lie by those who aren't aware, and turns the conversation into a racial pissing contest, where the historic facts betray the donkeys. And predictably, thats where this thread went.

My family is Northern and have long elephant and donkey legacies on both sides. My Bride's family is Southern and has equal political diversity. There was significant innate racism among elements of both families, and it wasn't among the elephants. That innate racism manifested itself in common speech and everyday conversation because thats the way they were raised.

That is why when LBJ said "That goddamn ****** preacher may drive me out of the White House.", regardless what his "legislative record" may indicate to some, his words revealed his heart. Yes, he said that. Look it up.

Contrast that with "Most of us will live to see the day when American boys and girls will sit, side by side, at any school - public or private - with no respect paid to the color of skin. Segregation, discrimination and prejudice have no place in America.", this from the infamous racist then Vice President Richard Nixon while campaigning for re-election in 1956. The following year, the racist Nixon helped defeat the donkey filibuster against the elephant's 1957 Civil Rights Act. Interesting that we never hear that JFK and JBJ were among that opposition, and all we hear today is about the 1964 act and that it was the divinely inspired work of the pure hearted champions of every man's liberty, the donkeys.

You can just feel the racial hostility in these old racist mementos...

http://grandoldpartisan.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451d6a669e20120a7e7d5fc970b-pi http://grandoldpartisan.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451d6a669e20120a648d360970b-120wi

And here's MLK's widow two and a half decades later surrounded by racists as the Mac Daddy racist of them all signs MLK Day into law in 1983...

I have lived in the North and South for about equal time and have experienced both in different eras. The racism I have observed is on one side of the isle. And it was about equal in the North and South.

The GOP had David Duke...

Duke declared himself a Republican. The party rejected him. One anomaly. The donkeys were all Dukes for centuries. They have just in the last four decades repackaged.