The Republican who saved Civil Rights:Behind the scenes:A Must Read

[bendog]

What's the point here? That southern racists actually supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because of Bill McCulloch?

Here are the votes by region. Note the Nays. In the House, most Southern D's and R's were against the bill. In the Senate both D's and R's prevailed to pass the bill. But the southern D's were seriously against it.

Totals are in "Yea–Nay" format:

By party and region

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

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%)


Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"southern" Democrats and Republicans were seriously against it.

The issue was geography not party affiliation.

Well, it was also about conservatives, who generally did not support the feds telling individuals they could not refuse to contract with, that principle had to be compromised to do the right thing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The principle of private association cannot be affixed to the public square and relationships. Thus many D and R conservatives upheld American exceptionalism by voting for the bill.

 

[bendog]

The principle of private association cannot be affixed to the public square and relationships. Thus many D and R conservatives upheld American exceptionalism by voting for the bill.

Well, I think Goldwater won the battle of intellectual honesty, but sometimes we need to compromise our own principles to avoid judging others.

 

[tinydancer]

This was such an amazing time in American politics when society was moving forward at lightning speed, those who served in the House and the Senate were constantly having to play "catch up hockey" to keep up with us.

Oh cripes, yes I'll say it. Those were the good old days.

 

[rightwinger]

This was such an amazing time in American politics when society was moving forward at lightning speed, those who served in the House and the Senate were constantly having to play "catch up hockey" to keep up with us.

Oh cripes, yes I'll say it. Those were the good old days.

I think it highlights the impact of Dr Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement. After generations of Congress accepting the status quo, Congress was forced to work bipartisanly to right a terrible wrong

 

[JakeStarkey]

The principle of private association cannot be affixed to the public square and relationships. Thus many D and R conservatives upheld American exceptionalism by voting for the bill.

Well, I think Goldwater won the battle of intellectual honesty, but sometimes we need to compromise our own principles to avoid judging others.

Intellectual self-honestry can be immoral and he privatley affirmed it to me and a few others in 1975 that his vote was wrong.

Elsewhere it has been reported so.

http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/...e-of-being-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/21129

 

[bendog]

The principle of private association cannot be affixed to the public square and relationships. Thus many D and R conservatives upheld American exceptionalism by voting for the bill.

Well, I think Goldwater won the battle of intellectual honesty, but sometimes we need to compromise our own principles to avoid judging others.

Intellectual self-honestry can be immoral and he privatley affirmed it to me and a few others in 1975 that his vote was wrong.

Elsewhere it has been reported so.

Still opposed to gay rights? The shame of being on the wrong side of history. | OnFaith

Exactly. And that pertains to folks on the RR who feel that when the state compels them to commercially interact with gay people, when they contend the activity forces them to treat gay folks as if gayness was a norm and not a sin, to me it seems a bit disingenuous.

I'm not sure Goldwater changed. He loathed those who wanted the right to discriminate in public accomodations, he was a Jew for Christ's sake, but .... like child abusers, loathsome people have rights we must respect. But, he was wrong on this, even if he was intellectually honest. Goldwater, to his credit, would have found bigots should be outed, ridiculed and suffer public debasement.

JFK initially did not want to get ahead of public opinion on race. But he evolved to see discrimination was not a social issue, but a moral issue. JFK knew that it was a balance. IF he got too far ahead, he'd lose the ability to morally persuade. He asked the question, can a person allow a wrong be done against one person so another person cannot be socially affronted. I'm not forced to like blacks. I'm certainly free to think it'd have been better to send all blacks to Liberia after the civil war. But I can't refuse to do business with them.

the RR will ultimately be forced to treat gays the same. I'd say Obama hasn't exactly the same courage as did JFK, but that's irrelevant. He's run his last election, and JFK is dead, as is the society he stood for. But should a RR person have a right to deny service? If he bakes a cake, so what? He's baking cakes for non-believers, adulterers, thieves, bearers of false witness, etc. You take society as it comes. You are free to go home, and pray for those sinners, believe whatever you want to believe about what God condones, but you don't have a right to belittle another person.

 

[Unkotare]

but you don't have a right to belittle another person.

Of course you do.

 

[Pheonixops]

“You made a personal commitment to President Kennedy in October 1963, against all the interests of your district.

When he was gone, your personal integrity and character were such that you held to that commitment despite enormous pressure and political temptations not to do so. "

Did Mrs. Kennedy infer that the republicans in his district were opposed to this or was his district full of democrats? Who was "pressuring" him not to do it?

 

[tinydancer]

“You made a personal commitment to President Kennedy in October 1963, against all the interests of your district.

When he was gone, your personal integrity and character were such that you held to that commitment despite enormous pressure and political temptations not to do so. "

Did Mrs. Kennedy infer that the republicans in his district were opposed to this or was his district full of democrats? Who was "pressuring" him not to do it?

I think he was under pressure from all sides. Left and right. His biggest challenge was to find the perfect balance so that the bill would pass. And from what I gather no one knew at the time his private deal with Kennedy.

The extremes in both parties actually believed this was business as usual and were loading up their sides., Meanwhile back at the ranch McCullough was doing the political version of walking a tightrope that would have made The Flying Wallendas proud.

From a review of the book more insight to the backrooms. Pretty cool. Purdum lays out a really good case that this was not just LBJ's doing as many historians have claimed but many heroes were involved. Players I've never heard of.

On the contrary, Purdum persuasively contends that by the time the bill drafted by the Kennedy administration left the House Judiciary Committee on October 29, 1963, it had been crucially shaped by Representative Bill McCulloch, a fiscally conservative Republican wary of government intervention but strongly committed to civil rights.

In return for lining up the Republican votes needed to overcome Southern Democrats’ implacable opposition, McCulloch demanded “a strong but practical bill … that could pass the full House,” plus the administration’s promise not to bargain away its teeth in the Senate.

McCulloch’s position, writes Purdum, “all but assured that the administration would have to attempt something that had never before succeeded in American politics: to break a civil rights filibuster in the Senate rather than avoid one by watering down the bill.”

How a Dream Became a Law: Passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - The Daily Beast

 

[Bfgrn]

The late great Everett Dirksen also deserves a lot of credit.

At the vote for cloture on the filibuster against the Civil Rights Act, Dirksen said:

"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."

 

[tinydancer]

The late great Everett Dirksen also deserves a lot of credit.

At the vote for cloture on the filibuster against the Civil Rights Act, Dirksen said:

"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."

I was just about to mention Dirksen. Purdum took his statement as the title of the book.
And what really flipped me is how absolutely critical a role Humphrey and Mansfield played in keeping the debate civilized. I knew they were involved but not to this degree.

I like the way history is actually being told the Paul Harvey way by Purdum....and now for the rest of the story....

 

[rightwinger]

The late great Everett Dirksen also deserves a lot of credit.

At the vote for cloture on the filibuster against the Civil Rights Act, Dirksen said:

"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."

I was just about to mention Dirksen. Purdum took his statement as the title of the book.
And what really flipped me is how absolutely critical a role Humphrey and Mansfield played in keeping the debate civilized. I knew they were involved but not to this degree.

I like the way history is actually being told the Paul Harvey way by Purdum....and now for the rest of the story....

Those fighting for civil rights were the American Patriots of their time. It can be argued that blacks in the south had it worse than Americans at the time of the revolution

 

[tinydancer]

The late great Everett Dirksen also deserves a lot of credit.

At the vote for cloture on the filibuster against the Civil Rights Act, Dirksen said:

"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."

I was just about to mention Dirksen. Purdum took his statement as the title of the book.
And what really flipped me is how absolutely critical a role Humphrey and Mansfield played in keeping the debate civilized. I knew they were involved but not to this degree.

I like the way history is actually being told the Paul Harvey way by Purdum....and now for the rest of the story....

Those fighting for civil rights were the American Patriots of their time. It can be argued that blacks in the south had it worse than Americans at the time of the revolution

It was a time of greatness. Of nobility of causes. When even men who were mild of manner became steeled in their resolve "to do the right thing".

I was young but I'm glad I lived it. I think though the behind the scenes that Purdum is giving with this book really fills out the story.

H.H. for example who sadly is unfairly portrayed as a meek and mild loser by both sides was fierce in his dedication to getting this act passed.

I'm having a great "what I learned on the net today" afternoon.

 

[rightwinger]

I was just about to mention Dirksen. Purdum took his statement as the title of the book.
And what really flipped me is how absolutely critical a role Humphrey and Mansfield played in keeping the debate civilized. I knew they were involved but not to this degree.

I like the way history is actually being told the Paul Harvey way by Purdum....and now for the rest of the story....

Those fighting for civil rights were the American Patriots of their time. It can be argued that blacks in the south had it worse than Americans at the time of the revolution

It was a time of greatness. Of nobility of causes. When even men who were mild of manner became steeled in their resolve "to do the right thing".

I was young but I'm glad I lived it. I think though the behind the scenes that Purdum is giving with this book really fills out the story.

H.H. for example who sadly is unfairly portrayed as a meek and mild loser by both sides was fierce in his dedication to getting this act passed.

I'm having a great "what I learned on the net today" afternoon.

Humphrey was a great American who would have made a much better President than Nixon

 

[Contumacious]

I thought at first about putting it in the Race relations/Racism forum but no this is a fabulous political story on how this conservative Republican literally saved the Civil Rights Act and got it passed.

William Moore McCulloch A "conservative" Republican who supported the civil "rights" act and gun control. Very Interrrrrrresting

Has The Civil Rights act helped control the gargantuan welfare/warfare police state any?

.

 

[Pheonixops]

You have to give the man credit for stepping out of line with many of his fellow conservatives and their mindset towards Civil Rights at the time.


"But conservative Republicans — those represented politically by Goldwater, and intellectually by William F. Buckley and National Review — did oppose the civil rights movement. Buckley wrote frankly about his endorsement of white supremacy: “the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically.” More often conservatives argued on grounds of states’ rights, or freedom of property, or that civil rights leaders were annoying hypocrites, or that they had undermined respect for the law.

Rick Perlstein surveyed the consistent hostility of contemporary conservatives to the civil rights movement. Ronald Reagan, like many conservatives, attributed urban riots to the breakdown in respect for authority instigated by the civil rights movement’s embrace of civil disobedience (a “great tragedy that began when we began compromising with law and order, and people started choosing which laws they'd break, thundered Reagan”). Buckley sneered at the double standard of liberal Democrats — in 1965, he complained, Vice-President Hubert Humphrey attended the funeral of a white woman shot by the Klan for riding in a car with a black man, but did not attend the funeral of a white cop shot by a black man. The right seethed with indignation at white northern liberals, decrying the fate of their black allies while ignoring the assaults mounted by blacks against whites."

The Conservative Fantasy History of Civil Rights -- Daily Intelligencer

 

[Political Junky]

I just saw Todd Purdum being interviewed about his new book, "An Idea Whose Time Has Come: Two Presidents, Two Parties, and the Battle for the Civil Rights Act of 1964”

The book covers what some of us have posted before, that the parties have changed places since 50 years ago. It sounds like a great book, and it was great hearing Purdum discuss it.

 

[buckeye45_73]

What's the point here? That southern racists actually supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because of Bill McCulloch?

I bet you think conservatives were democrats and liberals were republican back in the 60s?

 

[buckeye45_73]

I just saw Todd Purdum being interviewed about his new book, "An Idea Whose Time Has Come: Two Presidents, Two Parties, and the Battle for the Civil Rights Act of 1964”

The book covers what some of us have posted before, that the parties have changed places since 50 years ago. It sounds like a great book, and it was great hearing Purdum discuss it.

Again you're full of shit, they didn't switch places

Name me the last democrat MORE CONSERVATIVE than a republican in a presidential election?