South Carolina and the Confederate flag...

[dave]

Spoken like the racist that you are. It is always hilarious to hear southerners say the civil war wasn't about slavery, it was about states' rights. That would be like a Nazi saying the final solution wasn't about exterminating Jews, it was about nation's rights.

Those two things are not alike at all but congratulations on a bad reply.

 

[Mntneer]

I t


You think it's a coincidence that the South began to abandon the Democratic Party after the 1964 Civil Rights Acts was passed? You think it's a coincidence that before that, all the state legislatures and all the states' US Congressmen and US Senators where overwhelmingly Democrat? After that bill passed, a bill which LBJ championed, he said "We've lost the South for a generation". Nixon exploited that fact with his "southern strategy" in 1968-a strategy which blatantly appealed to racial divisions in the aftermath of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That act was precipitated by many acts of institutional racism-like governors standing in doorways of schools not allowing Blacks to enroll, poll taxes making it difficult or impossible for Blacks to vote, separate water fountains, back of the bus, ....and all these atrocities were supported by the vast majority of White southerners. They were aghast when the 1964 law was enacted.

The South continues to this day a being dominated by the GOP. Many old-school, blue dog democrats have switched to the GOP for political expediency. It is true that on many issues, the two parties haven't changed much. But on race and civil rights, they have done an about-face.

So what you're saying is southern Democrats, who were racist and opposed to the Civil Rights Act, abandoned their party to join the party that was responsible for not only freeing the slaves but getting that same Act passed? All because of Nixon's "southern strategy"?

Correlation does not imply causation. Nor does your theory negate the simple fact that parties as a whole still have not deviated from what they started as. Adams v Jefferson.

 

[dave]

This has always made me scratch my head too. These Southern pride people seem so proud of their treasonous ancestors-one of whom killed Lincoln. They seem to yearn for the good old days of the South-chivalry, iced tea on the veranda, parasols, cotillions, thumbing their noses at the United States Constitution (which ironically many now claim Obama is usurping), and of course beautiful plantations with free labor performed by people in bondage. That's a wonderful heritage right there. If I had a relative who fought for the Confederacy, he'd be a family pariah.

You dont understand them so you belittle them. How open minded of you.

 

[dave]

What is the point of honoring something that was bad?

Ask Bill and Hillary. They honored the confederacy every year from the statehouse as governor.

 

[dave]

You need to get out more too. Maybe a library or a history class. The flag that flies above the SC statehouse is the battle flag of northern virginia. Not the flag of the confederacy. It was co-opted by racists in the 50s as a symbol of their obstruction to segregation. In fact, it was never flown on the SC statehouse until 1961...100 years after the civil war. It has very little to do with "heritage". So yes...the view is ignorant. Do I need to define the word ignorant?

It doesnt fly over the statehouse and hasnt for years. Maybe you need a new library.

 

[Op2]

So what you're saying is southern Democrats, who were racist and opposed to the Civil Rights Act, abandoned their party to join the party that was responsible for not only freeing the slaves but getting that same Act passed? All because of Nixon's "southern strategy"?

Correlation does not imply causation. Nor does your theory negate the simple fact that parties as a whole still have not deviated from what they started as. Adams v Jefferson.

Here is the vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. "Southern" is the 11 states that made up the Confederacy and "Northern" is everyone else. The House passed a version, which is the "original House version," and the Senate passed a version and then because the passed versions had to be identical for it to become law (assuming LBJ would sign it) the House passed the exact same version as the Senate did. Lest you think the votes differed greatly on the "original House version" and "final House version," which was the one that had been passed by the Senate, note that the original House version was 290-130 and the final House version was 289-126.

Okay, here are the vote breakdowns, with more commentary afterwards.

The original House version:

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

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

Note that for each of the four groups defined by North/South and House/Senate, a larger percentage of Democrats voted for it than did Republicans.

When they say that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed because of the Republicans it doesn't mean that it was all the Republicans doing. Rather it means although the Democrats held a strong majority in both houses, because most of the South was Democrat where damn near no politician was going to vote for the Civil Rights Act regardless of party, they had to get Republican votes outside the South in addition to Democrat votes.

At the end of the Civil War the Republicans were the progressive ones on race and the defeated Confederate Democrat South were not. Over a century that slowly changed. Actually, maybe for the first half century it didn't change at all. It wasn't until 1924 that blacks were even allowed to attend the Democrat convention. But FDR got in and did some things for blacks, and his wife did too (see All In The Family clip below). And in the late 1940s Truman integrated the Army. And in the early 1960s JFK ensured integration in Southern universities. And then in the summer 1964 LBJ got the Civil Rights Act through. And in every POTUS election since then the Democrat candidate got at least 85% of the vote.

If you look at the numbers above you see that in 1964 the Southern representation in both the House and the Senate was about 95% Democrat. And then the 1964 Civil Rights Act was pushed through by Democrat LBJ and the Democratic North along with significant help from the Republican North. And then in short order in the years after that the 95% Democrat South became strongly Republican because they were so pissed off at the Democrats about the 1965 Civil Rights Act. Considering it was a two major party system and there was only one other party to go to, the Republicans were the one to go to.

The idea of the Republicans taking advantage of the Southern annoyance with the Democrats to cultivate Southern votes is what became known as the Southern Strategy. It evolved as a result of the 1965 Civil Rights Act rather than coming before it.

Here is Archie Bunker and Maude's exchange on FDR. They start talking about FDR and blacks at 1:40 although the whole clip is good.

 

[TarHeelEer]

First of all, I don't know why people keep saying it's all about slavery. Just because slavery gets all the press it doesn't mean that people aren't upset about the South being, you know, traitorous during the Civil War.

Secondly, what do you mean by "their country was invaded?" The USA was one country and then then South declared itself its own country and attack US forces at Fort Sumter to start the war. It's not like the South was just minding their own business and the North invaded to piss them off.

What way of life did the South have that the North was trying to change? The North was trying to prevent the South from seceding and then later to abolish slavery. It's not like the North was coming down and telling people they weren't allowed to drink mint juleps. If my "way of life" is punching you in the face it's reasonable for you to try to change my way of life.

It doesnt fly over the statehouse and hasnt for years. Maybe you need a new library.

It wasn't worth it dave.

 

[Wolf J. Flywheel]

Are you people ACTUALLY arguing the nobility of Democrats versus Republicans and vice-versa? Tell me that is not what I am seeing.

Both major parties are COLLECTIVISTS on the silver medal platforms and LUCIFERIANS (witting or unwitting) on the gold medal platform.

To think that these parties are not collaborating (this trade agreement emasculating this country's economic sovereignty being just one of many examples) is just so naive it's beyond the pale. There is ONE PARTY running this country and one helluva of a Vaudevillian act that has duped the masses.

I would tell you guys to wake up but you're much cuter when you're sleeping.

DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!!!!!!!!!!