Setting the record straight on the the Civil Rights Act

[hunarcy]

You said that you oppose slavery like Lincoln, and that you support everything that the Founders stood for. The Founders stood for slavery, so which is it? Do you support slavery like the Founders, or do you oppose slavery like Lincoln? If you oppose slavery, as you seem to imply that food stamps and welfare are a form of slavery, then what are your alternatives to the problem? "Get a job"? Many poor people on food stamps have jobs, so what then? "Get another job"? How many minimum wage jobs does one person have to get just to break even before Conservatives realize that minimum wage isn't enough? What is the solution then? "Go to college"? Student loan debt outweighs credit card debt, so that means that people are going to college and it still isn't enough to get ahead. So what then?

Come up with a real argument or just shut the fuck up.

Perhaps you're confused because you're thinking in absolutes. The Founders did not stand for slavery, in fact they wrote the Constitution in a way that would naturally lead to the end of slavery. For example, the importation of slaves after 1800 was forbidden by the Constitution.

However, they did compromise on slavery's existence as a way to avoid a serious disruption of the economy of the South. And, if Eli Whitney, from Massachusetts hadn't come up with the cotton gin in the 1830's, slavery would have died off in a generation.

 

[paperview]

You said that you oppose slavery like Lincoln, and that you support everything that the Founders stood for. The Founders stood for slavery, so which is it? Do you support slavery like the Founders, or do you oppose slavery like Lincoln? If you oppose slavery, as you seem to imply that food stamps and welfare are a form of slavery, then what are your alternatives to the problem? "Get a job"? Many poor people on food stamps have jobs, so what then? "Get another job"? How many minimum wage jobs does one person have to get just to break even before Conservatives realize that minimum wage isn't enough? What is the solution then? "Go to college"? Student loan debt outweighs credit card debt, so that means that people are going to college and it still isn't enough to get ahead. So what then?

Come up with a real argument or just shut the fuck up.

Perhaps you're confused because you're thinking in absolutes. The Founders did not stand for slavery, in fact they wrote the Constitution in a way that would naturally lead to the end of slavery. For example, the importation of slaves after 1800 was forbidden by the Constitution.

However, they did compromise on slavery's existence as a way to avoid a serious disruption of the economy of the South. And, if Eli Whitney, from Massachusetts hadn't come up with the cotton gin in the 1830's, slavery would have died off in a generation.

The Founders compromised on slavery because the Southern states would not have joined the Union if they could not keep their precious slaves.

Oh, and Eli's Cotton Gin was invented in 1793.

 

[JFK_USA]

If you look at the results of that vote the VAST majority of votes against the bill came from the classic confederate states. Which are currently solidly republican. I'd blame the people instead of the parties in those states.

When it was Ike's Bill, LBJ called it "the ****** Bill"



Democrats including Al Gore Sr were vehemently opposed to it

That's true. And now many conservatives have Confederate flag stickers on their trucks, fly Confederate flags off their homes and in their front yards, assume that black people are intellectually inferior, and want to repeal the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, think that black people are treating better by the justice system, and are generally racist. Just go to the race relations forum and read some of the threads started there by conservatives.

No kidding I mean the Civil rights act has lost the south for the democrats for the foreseeable future. But no the current democrats fighting for the rights of minorities are the racists but the actual conservatives starting racist threads aren't racist because they are telling the truth. GTFO.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Again, Fwank, it's not what happened before 1964 that was the problem.

It's what the GOP did AFTER 1964. When the Klan found it was no longer welcome in the Democratic Tent, they went over to the REpublican tent where they were told, "Just don't wear the sheets,t hey look silly."

It's people like you going on about "Them Blacks on Welfare" when most welfare recipiants are white.

Frank has been repeating his logical fallacies for years now.

He's hung up on LBJ, but I really think he just likes typing n!gger over and over again.

"Son, when I appoint a ****** to the Supreme Court, I want everyone to know he's a ******" -- LBJ referring to Thurgood Marshall

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Again, Fwank, it's not what happened before 1964 that was the problem.

It's what the GOP did AFTER 1964. When the Klan found it was no longer welcome in the Democratic Tent, they went over to the REpublican tent where they were told, "Just don't wear the sheets,t hey look silly."

It's people like you going on about "Them Blacks on Welfare" when most welfare recipiants are white.

I thought that was a joke.

Are you serious?

Do you actually believe Booby Byrd and LBJ became Republicans after 1964?

 

[paperview]

Again, Fwank, it's not what happened before 1964 that was the problem.

It's what the GOP did AFTER 1964. When the Klan found it was no longer welcome in the Democratic Tent, they went over to the REpublican tent where they were told, "Just don't wear the sheets,t hey look silly."

It's people like you going on about "Them Blacks on Welfare" when most welfare recipiants are white.

Frank has been repeating his logical fallacies for years now.

He's hung up on LBJ, but I really think he just likes typing n!gger over and over again.

"Son, when I appoint a ****** to the Supreme Court, I want everyone to know he's a ******" -- LBJ referring to Thurgood Marshall

^^ See? He just loves typing that out over and over.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank has been repeating his logical fallacies for years now.

He's hung up on LBJ, but I really think he just likes typing n!gger over and over again.

"Son, when I appoint a ****** to the Supreme Court, I want everyone to know he's a ******" -- LBJ referring to Thurgood Marshall

^^ See? He just loves typing that out over and over.

Can you imagine if a Republican had said that? It would be taught in grade school

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[JoeB131]

"Son, when I appoint a ****** to the Supreme Court, I want everyone to know he's a ******" -- LBJ referring to Thurgood Marshall

^^ See? He just loves typing that out over and over.

Can you imagine if a Republican had said that? It would be taught in grade school

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

Not really.

Nixon used the N-word quite a lot, too. History books rarely talk about that, although in Nixon's case, Watergate and Vietnam and all the other stuff he pulled probably gets more attention.

http://www.alternet.org/story/17422/the_nixon_tapes,_racism_and_the_republicans


Millions of Americans vilify Richard Nixon as a power-obsessed megalomaniac whose presidency sank in the mire of Watergate, or memorialize him as an historic icon and world-class statesman. Few remember Nixon as a bigot who cynically fanned racism, manipulated white voters and prepared the ground for the conservative assault on civil rights, affirmative action and social programs. That Nixon resurfaced again with the release of more batches of Nixon House Nixon tapes by the National Archives. In one tape, Nixon is stone silent when White House advisor John Erlichman rants that blacks are sexually degenerate, have no family values, and live in filthy neighborhoods.

Nixon did more then simply sit by and passively listen to anti-black tirades by a trusted aide; he frequently spewed those same offensive racial epithets himself. In previous tapes released by the National Archives, Nixon told Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, "Henry, let's leave the n*****s to Bill and we'll take care of the rest of the world" while working on his first presidential address to Congress. Nixon repeatedly referred to blacks as "n****rs" and "jigaboos" in other conversations with Kissinger. Nixon later complained to Erlichman that Great Society programs were a waste "because blacks were genetically inferior to whites."

 

[paperview]

"Son, when I appoint a ****** to the Supreme Court, I want everyone to know he's a ******" -- LBJ referring to Thurgood Marshall

^^ See? He just loves typing that out over and over.

Can you imagine if a Republican had said that? It would be taught in grade school

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

I posted this earlier in the thread. You ignored it.

Richard Nixon chatting with Donald Rumsfeld, referring to "*******" and how many of them had just come out of the trees.

WhiteHouseTapes.org Transcript+Audio Clip

‘Well, by God.’ Well, ah, even the Southerners say, ‘Well, our ******* is better than their *******.’ Hell, that’s the way they talk!” the president said on the tape.

“That’s right,” Rumsfeld said.

“I can hear ‘em,” Nixon said.

“I know,” Rumsfeld replied.

 

[hunarcy]

The Founders compromised on slavery because the Southern states would not have joined the Union if they could not keep their precious slaves.

Oh, and Eli's Cotton Gin was invented in 1793.

Ah, so you agree that the Founders did not stand for slavery and that it was a compromise? I'm glad you can admit that.

And, nice catch on the cotton gin. But, I think if you REALLY reread my post, you'll find that the point was that slavery was dying out until that Northerner invented the cotton gin.

According to the Eli Whitney Museum website:


Whitney (who died in 1825) could not have foreseen the ways in which his invention would change society for the worse. The most significant of these was the growth of slavery. While it was true that the cotton gin reduced the labor of removing seeds, it did not reduce the need for slaves to grow and pick the cotton. In fact, the opposite occurred. Cotton growing became so profitable for the planters that it greatly increased their demand for both land and slave labor. In 1790 there were six slave states; in 1860 there were 15. From 1790 until Congress banned the importation of slaves from Africa in 1808, Southerners imported 80,000 Africans. By 1860 approximately one in three Southerners was a slave

The Cotton Gin | The Eli Whitney Museum and Workshop

So, way to focus on inanity rather than address the point.

 

[paperview]

The Founders compromised on slavery because the Southern states would not have joined the Union if they could not keep their precious slaves.

Oh, and Eli's Cotton Gin was invented in 1793.

Ah, so you agree that the Founders did not stand for slavery and that it was a compromise? I'm glad you can admit that.

And, nice catch on the cotton gin. But, I think if you REALLY reread my post, you'll find that the point was that slavery was dying out until that Northerner invented the cotton gin.

According to the Eli Whitney Museum website:


Whitney (who died in 1825) could not have foreseen the ways in which his invention would change society for the worse. The most significant of these was the growth of slavery. While it was true that the cotton gin reduced the labor of removing seeds, it did not reduce the need for slaves to grow and pick the cotton. In fact, the opposite occurred. Cotton growing became so profitable for the planters that it greatly increased their demand for both land and slave labor. In 1790 there were six slave states; in 1860 there were 15. From 1790 until Congress banned the importation of slaves from Africa in 1808, Southerners imported 80,000 Africans. By 1860 approximately one in three Southerners was a slave

The Cotton Gin | The Eli Whitney Museum and Workshop

So, way to focus on inanity rather than address the point.

Of course it was a compromise. A dirty, shitty compromise that kicked the can down the road, but had to be done, or else the slaveholding Founders would have never joined the Union.

So was the 3/5ths compromise, which gave the southerners representation for property.

So too the Fugitive Slave Clause.

The Southerners had no intention of giving up their slaves. The Cotton Gin helped provide the mechanism to exploit the "peculiar institution" further. Had it not been that, it would have been something else. It was not dying out.

"As slaves also multiply so fast in Virginia & & Maryland that it is cheaper to raise than import them." <--- Said at the Constitutional Convention.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Try as you might, try as you may, the history of the vote always shows that it was a coalition of Northern Democrats and Northern Republicans who defeated the Southern Democrat and Southern Republicans. Support for the Civil Rights split along the traditional Confederates/Yankees lines.

What party was the president at the time. Who held the majority in Congress?

Funny how, it's not Democrat vs. Republican but North vs. South. You'll do anything to paint people down here as racists, even the Democrats down here. Stop moving the goalposts. Stop avoiding the fact that the Democratic Party tried to kill a civil rights equality bill by filibustering it for 57 days.

And to your question, LBJ was in power, and Democrats held the majority in both houses. But who was it that filibustered the Civil Rights act? A Democrat. Who was it that broke that filibuster? A Republican. Without Everett Dirksen, the bill would have never become law.

I suggest you learn your history instead of trying to revise it.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Funny how, it's not Democrat vs. Republican but North vs. South. You'll do anything to paint people down here as racists, even the Democrats down here. Stop moving the goalposts. Stop avoiding the fact that the Democratic Party tried to kill a civil rights equality bill by filibustering it for 57 days.

And to your question, LBJ was in power, and Democrats held the majority in both houses. But who was it that filibustered the Civil Rights act? A Democrat. Who was it that broke that filibuster? A Republican. Without Everett Dirksen, the bill would have never become law.

I suggest you learn your history instead of trying to revise it.

Which presidential party ran a candidate in 1964 who opposed the Civil Rights Act.

The Republicans.

Doesn't matter what Joe Blow in COngress did. AS A PARTY the GOP took a stand against Civil Rights.

And they went from geting about 30-40% of the African-American vote with Ike and Nixon in 1960, to getting 6% of the vote.

IN short- THAT was the turning point.

Now, the GOP could have realize "Man, that was fucked up" and try to make amends in 1968 and after.

Instead, they decided that were going to try to pick up the white folks who were leaving the Democratic Party in droves.

And, hey, let's be honest, that shit, as repulsive as it was, got Nixon and Reagan and the Bushes elected.

Now it's not working for you, and you are going back and saying, "Hey, remember what we did in 1964."


And African Americans are replying "Um, yeah, we do."

 

[TemplarKormac]

[

Funny how, it's not Democrat vs. Republican but North vs. South. You'll do anything to paint people down here as racists, even the Democrats down here. Stop moving the goalposts. Stop avoiding the fact that the Democratic Party tried to kill a civil rights equality bill by filibustering it for 57 days.

And to your question, LBJ was in power, and Democrats held the majority in both houses. But who was it that filibustered the Civil Rights act? A Democrat. Who was it that broke that filibuster? A Republican. Without Everett Dirksen, the bill would have never become law.

I suggest you learn your history instead of trying to revise it.

Which presidential party ran a candidate in 1964 who opposed the Civil Rights Act.

The Republicans.

Doesn't matter what Joe Blow in Congress did. AS A PARTY the GOP took a stand against Civil Rights.

And they went from geting about 30-40% of the African-American vote with Ike and Nixon in 1960, to getting 6% of the vote.

IN short- THAT was the turning point.

Now, the GOP could have realize "Man, that was fucked up" and try to make amends in 1968 and after.

Instead, they decided that were going to try to pick up the white folks who were leaving the Democratic Party in droves.

And, hey, let's be honest, that shit, as repulsive as it was, got Nixon and Reagan and the Bushes elected.

Now it's not working for you, and you are going back and saying, "Hey, remember what we did in 1964."


And African Americans are replying "Um, yeah, we do."

Joe, I don't want to hear it.

Funny how you never got around to addressing my point, but went on some rant about how racist the GOP is. Seriously, doesn't that get old for you?

And before you lecture Republicans about "being against civil rights", President Johnson was wiretapping people, and using his position to steal elections. Really? And this was long before Watergate. Moreover, Nixon and Kennedy both ran on platforms that included Civil Rights for blacks. So, there was a Republican in 1960 running on that platform, 4 years before the bill was passed.

The Republican Platform circa 1960:

Equality under law promises more than the equal right to vote and transcends mere relief from discrimination by government. It becomes a reality only when all persons have equal opportunity, without distinction of race, religion, color or national origin, to acquire the essentials of life&#8212;housing, education and employment. The Republican Party&#8212;the party of Abraham Lincoln&#8212;from its very beginning has striven to make this promise a reality. It is today, as it was then, unequivocally dedicated to making the greatest amount of progress toward the objective.

We recognize that discrimination is not a problem localized in one area of the country, but rather a problem that must be faced by North and South alike. Nor is discrimination confined to the discrimination against Negroes. Discrimination in many, if not all, areas of the country on the basis of creed or national origin is equally insidious. Further we recognize that in many communities in which a century of custom and tradition must be overcome heartening and commendable progress has been made.

The Republican Party is proud of the civil rights record of the Eisenhower Administration. More progress has been made during the past eight years than in the preceding 80 years. We acted promptly to end discrimination in our nation's capital. Vigorous executive action was taken to complete swiftly the desegregation of the armed forces, veterans' hospitals, navy yards, and other federal establishments.

We supported the position of the Negro school children before the Supreme Court. We believe the Supreme Court school decision should be carried out in accordance with the mandate of the Court.

Although the Democratic-controlled Congress watered them down, the Republican Administration's recommendations resulted in significant and effective civil rights legislation in both 1957 and 1960&#8212;the first civil rights statutes to be passed in more than 80 years.

Republican Party Platforms: Republican Party Platform of 1960

Republican Platform, circa 1964:

1. We Republicans shall first rely on the individual's right and capacity to advance his own economic well-being, to control the fruits of his efforts and to plan his own and his family's future; and, where government is rightly involved, we shall assist the individual in surmounting urgent problems beyond his own power and responsibility to control. For instance, we pledge:

--continued opposition to discrimination based on race, creed, national origin or sex. We recognize that the elimination of any such discrimination is a matter of heart, conscience, and education, as well as of equal rights under law.

Republican Party Platforms: Republican Party Platform of 1964

As you can see, the party stood for racial equality then. No matter if it was 1960 or 1964. The same remains true today. Just what about us makes you think we're racist? Is it because we don't like Obama's policies? That we think Black people should have more opportunity than just sitting at home or bludgeoning people with race? If that's the case, you're sorely mistaken.

So, what have we done now that would justify such bold claims? Why is it you flung your racist proclivities at the likes of Herman Cain? Some poster has you quoted in his sig referring to him as an "Uncle Tom" if I'm not mistaken. I think it was Locke11_21.

Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act had nothing to do with racism. Your limited appreciation for historicity notwithstanding. As a councilman in 1950's Phoenix, Goldwater secretly advocated civil rights for blacks. He supported previous Senate versions of the 64 act. However, he thought it was a states issue, and an intrusion against businesses by the government in telling them whom to serve. So he voted against it. It did cost him the election, but not for the reasons you'd like to think.

 

[Seawytch]

Which presidential party ran a candidate in 1964 who opposed the Civil Rights Act.

The Republicans.

Shit Joe, it's 2014 and they're poised to do it again...run a candidate opposed to the Civil Rights Act, Rand Paul.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Hmm? What have we done now that would justify such bold claims? Why is it you flung your racist proclivities to the likes of Herman Cain? Some poster has you quoted in his sig referring to him as an "Uncle Tom" if I'm not mistaken. I think Locke11_21 is the one.

I have nothing but contempt for people like Herman Cain, who owe everything to the fact some very brave Democrats went out there and were willing to be hosed and shot and lynched and have dogs set on them, but do nothing but try to suck up to the people who set the dogs. He's contemptable.

Oh, yeah, and then we find out he likes to grope women. Nice guy.

[
Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act had nothing to do with racism. Your limited appreciation for historicity notwithstanding. As a councilman in 1950's Phoenix, Goldwater secretly advocated civil rights for blacks. He supported previous Senate versions of the 64 act. However, he thought it was a states issue, and an intrusion against businesses by the government in telling them whom to serve. So he voted against it. It did cost him the election, but not for the reasons you'd like to think.

No, what cost him the election was he was a fucking crazy person.

Sadly, the GOP didn't learn it's lesson, and keeps electing crazies.

And sorry, I'm not impressed with someone who "Secretly" advocates for something. Why would he do this in "secret". Was he ashamed of doing it? Did he not want to let his friends know?

And, yes, "States Rights" is usually the rally cry of people who know they are inthe wrong, but want a venue where they think they can win the argument.

And before you lecture Republicans about "being against civil rights", President Johnson was wiretapping people, and using his position to steal elections. Really? And this was long before Watergate. Moreover, Nixon and Kennedy both ran on platforms that included Civil Rights for blacks. So, there was a Republican in 1960 running on that platform, 4 years before the bill was passed.

Yes, and that's fine. In fact, the GOP before 1960 got it. It was for Civil Rights. It was for unions. It was for working folks. It understood the role of government. Hence, why I go with "Eisenhower Republican". The good old days when the GOP did the right thing and didn't pander to racism, Religious stupidity and homophobia.

Then in 1968, Nixon ran again, and saw that all those middle class white people who were scared about how the Hippies were changing the country. You know, people like my parents, to be perfectly honest. (My Dad thought Nixon was a great guy, but he was suspicious of Reagan.)

And when the racism and sexism stopped selling, the GOP peddled homophobia. It's easier to get people to hate and fear than it is to do what is right, I guess.

 

[TemplarKormac]

LOL Joe. You make this way too easy. You simply moved the goalposts again. We aren't talking about sexism or homophobia. Nice deflection. You simply cannot prove that Republicans are inherently racist. When you can't do that, you pin it on Conservatives, which in your mind are all Republicans, regardless if they are Democrats. It's pathetic having to play this petty little game all the time, Joe. We aren't racist, and you don't care for equality of any sort.

"Barry Goldwater lost the election because he was a crazy person."

Is this some sort of a joke? Just how childish can you be? You might as well call him a "butt head" and be done with it.

 

[paperview]

1964...conservatives.

What were conservatives saying?

Goldwater gave rise to the modern conservative movement, reinforced strongly by the one who is considered the father of that movement, William F. Buckley - and his organ which is still strong today: The National Review.

Roundaboutish that time, what was the National Review saying about the Civil Rights of blacks?

For a clue, read Buckley's "Why the South Must Prevail."

 

[JoeB131]

LOL Joe. You make this way too easy. You simply moved the goalposts again. We aren't talking about sexism or homophobia. Nice deflection.

No, guy it is all the same thing.

If the GOP was straight foward and honest about what it was about- to make life as good for the rich as humanly possible while pissing on the rest of us, people would get wise and stop voting for them.

Intead, it's.

"Hey, that N****r is getting a welfare check!"

"Hey, that slut is having an abortion".

"Hey, them Queers are having butt-sex".

And then stupid fucks like you who can't get a job or health care because, hey, they can't make money off of you, keep voting for these guys beause of your own racial, sexual or religious insecurities.

Republicans: Getting stupid people to vote against their own economic interests since 1964.

 

[rightwinger]

Try as you might, try as you may, the history of the vote always shows that it was a coalition of Northern Democrats and Northern Republicans who defeated the Southern Democrat and Southern Republicans. Support for the Civil Rights split along the traditional Confederates/Yankees lines.

What party was the president at the time. Who held the majority in Congress?

Funny how, it's not Democrat vs. Republican but North vs. South. You'll do anything to paint people down here as racists, even the Democrats down here. Stop moving the goalposts. Stop avoiding the fact that the Democratic Party tried to kill a civil rights equality bill by filibustering it for 57 days.

And to your question, LBJ was in power, and Democrats held the majority in both houses. But who was it that filibustered the Civil Rights act? A Democrat. Who was it that broke that filibuster? A Republican. Without Everett Dirksen, the bill would have never become law.

I suggest you learn your history instead of trying to revise it.

Would that be a Northern Democrat or a Southern Democrat?