CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 146,570
- 69,658
FDR refused to shake Jesse Owen's hand
🌟 Exclusive 2024 Prime Day Deals! 🌟
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Woke PBS Battle Looks at Woke But White Ken Burns
- Thread starter Weatherman2020
- Start date
Pogo
Diamond Member
- Dec 7, 2012
- 123,708
- 22,748
no names? read the article it was open arms and the dems made sure to make them happy by nominating one for vpi suppose you just want to make things up even after getting confronted with actual evidenceThere were much more then TWO Dixiecrats....obviously only two that ran for President and VP...but there were much more then twoWell lots of places were hiring african-americans...The US Army.Who was hiring blacks and putting them in front of customers in 1947?WelKen Burns ruined his series on baseball by harping over and over and over and over about blacks being segregated from whites in the early days of baseball. And spent a nanosecond on the fact baseball did more to break down walls than anything else in society.
So I have no sympathy watching the woke eat one of their own.
Really.
And what might these "walls" be that baseball broke down? You know, while it was keeping blacks out?
I’ll wait.
The US Army however, wasn't integrated until AFTER baseball did it, it was 1948. Truman did it, by EO...this pissed off most of the Dems though. Many actually ran someone against him, they lost...but those that ran against him, were welcomed right back in the DNC.
Actually there were a total of two (2), the infamous "Dixiecrats", who walked out of the party convention after hearing too much talk about civil rights and ran their own candidates --- those two being Strom Thurmond, governor of SC and Fielding Wright, governor of Mississippi. After they lost they served out their governor terms and Wright went back to his law practice until he died in the mid-1950s. Thurmond however wanted to jump to the Senate. But when he ran for it the Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot and he had to run as a write-in, which he did and won and that's how he got into the Senate (the only other Senate candidate to win as a write in was more recently, Lisa Murkowski in Alaska)
So no, they weren't exactly "welcomed" back into the DNC (actually they were never part of the DNC) and weren't exactly popular having nearly cost their POTUS candidate his re-election.
All offtopic here, but since the OP went into a stall on his own thread it's just as well we learn something.
and yes they were welcomed back with open arms at the next Presidential election Democrats Vote Today; Southerners Seated; Truman Puts His Support Behind Stevenson
The DNC even made sure to have one as the VP nom..John Sparkman from Alabama.
Sparkman had nothing to do with the Dixiecrats of 1948. They weren't even a real political party; it was simply a scheme to put competition on state ballots that year (and some Southern states rejected them anyway). The plan, like all third parties in an entrenched Duopoly protected by the Electoral College, was not to win outright but to siphon off enough votes so that no Democrat (Truman) or Republican (Dewey) would win an electoral majority, and thus throw the election to the House of Reps. They failed, but they came close.
Sparkman had only just arrived in the Senate. They wouldn't have considered putting him on the ticket had he been part of the schism.
So yeah there were TWO (1, 2) Dixiecrats, Thurmond and Wright. Nobody ran under that banner for any other office, not even dogcatcher, in that year or any other. As far as "welcomed with open arms", your link fails to mention either one. Wright had already retired by then anyway.
But yanno what, I'll give you a chance. Show us a list of Dixiecrats not named Thurmond or Wright. Anybody, even one. Since you claimed there were "much more than two" it should be easy. Right?
(/offtopic)
So ................. no names huh.
What a surprise.
Your "actual evidence" is stuff I've already read. I don't come into these things with no background. And the fact is there's no mention of a Thurmond or a Wright in it.
Oh and by the way in that same year (1952) Thurmond endorsed Eisenhower. Aaaaand we're still waitin' on those "open arms".
I already told you, Sparkman had nothing to do with the Dixiecrats. Show us where he did.
And I've already read the article, which says nothing about "open arms" OR Thurmond OR Wright. It does however go to some length to point out that the party were requiring loyalty pledges, no doubt to stave off any more Thurmonds.
Are you actually suggesting that a political party would nominate for its #2, somebody who four years prior worked directly against them?
Flash
Diamond Member
- Dec 8, 2014
- 71,172
- 62,057
Ken Burns ruined his series on baseball by harping over and over and over and over about blacks being segregated from whites in the early days of baseball. And spent a nanosecond on the fact baseball did more to break down walls than anything else in society.
So I have no sympathy watching the woke eat one of their own.
That whole stupid series was about fucking race and that is despicable.
It is like he made it for one of these Black networks or something.
no names? read the article it was open arms and the dems made sure to make them happy by nominating one for vpi suppose you just want to make things up even after getting confronted with actual evidenceThere were much more then TWO Dixiecrats....obviously only two that ran for President and VP...but there were much more then twoWell lots of places were hiring african-americans...The US Army.Who was hiring blacks and putting them in front of customers in 1947?WelKen Burns ruined his series on baseball by harping over and over and over and over about blacks being segregated from whites in the early days of baseball. And spent a nanosecond on the fact baseball did more to break down walls than anything else in society.
So I have no sympathy watching the woke eat one of their own.
Really.
And what might these "walls" be that baseball broke down? You know, while it was keeping blacks out?
I’ll wait.
The US Army however, wasn't integrated until AFTER baseball did it, it was 1948. Truman did it, by EO...this pissed off most of the Dems though. Many actually ran someone against him, they lost...but those that ran against him, were welcomed right back in the DNC.
Actually there were a total of two (2), the infamous "Dixiecrats", who walked out of the party convention after hearing too much talk about civil rights and ran their own candidates --- those two being Strom Thurmond, governor of SC and Fielding Wright, governor of Mississippi. After they lost they served out their governor terms and Wright went back to his law practice until he died in the mid-1950s. Thurmond however wanted to jump to the Senate. But when he ran for it the Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot and he had to run as a write-in, which he did and won and that's how he got into the Senate (the only other Senate candidate to win as a write in was more recently, Lisa Murkowski in Alaska)
So no, they weren't exactly "welcomed" back into the DNC (actually they were never part of the DNC) and weren't exactly popular having nearly cost their POTUS candidate his re-election.
All offtopic here, but since the OP went into a stall on his own thread it's just as well we learn something.
and yes they were welcomed back with open arms at the next Presidential election Democrats Vote Today; Southerners Seated; Truman Puts His Support Behind Stevenson
The DNC even made sure to have one as the VP nom..John Sparkman from Alabama.
Sparkman had nothing to do with the Dixiecrats of 1948. They weren't even a real political party; it was simply a scheme to put competition on state ballots that year (and some Southern states rejected them anyway). The plan, like all third parties in an entrenched Duopoly protected by the Electoral College, was not to win outright but to siphon off enough votes so that no Democrat (Truman) or Republican (Dewey) would win an electoral majority, and thus throw the election to the House of Reps. They failed, but they came close.
Sparkman had only just arrived in the Senate. They wouldn't have considered putting him on the ticket had he been part of the schism.
So yeah there were TWO (1, 2) Dixiecrats, Thurmond and Wright. Nobody ran under that banner for any other office, not even dogcatcher, in that year or any other. As far as "welcomed with open arms", your link fails to mention either one. Wright had already retired by then anyway.
But yanno what, I'll give you a chance. Show us a list of Dixiecrats not named Thurmond or Wright. Anybody, even one. Since you claimed there were "much more than two" it should be easy. Right?
(/offtopic)
So ................. no names huh.
What a surprise.
Your "actual evidence" is stuff I've already read. I don't come into these things with no background. And the fact is there's no mention of a Thurmond or a Wright in it.
Oh and by the way in that same year (1952) Thurmond endorsed Eisenhower. Aaaaand we're still waitin' on those "open arms".
I already told you, Sparkman had nothing to do with the Dixiecrats. Show us where he did.
And I've already read the article, which says nothing about "open arms" OR Thurmond OR Wright. It does however go to some length to point out that the party were requiring loyalty pledges, no doubt to stave off any more Thurmonds.
Are you actually suggesting that a political party would nominate for its #2, somebody who four years prior worked directly against them?
" In March 1948, he announced that he could not support the election of President Truman, and supported Strom Thurmond's 1948 "Dixiecrat" ticket. Though he continued to oppose much civil rights legislation, he successfully fought Dixiecrats for control of the Alabama Democratic Party organization. "
What you have "told" me is all made up crap you've pulled from your butt.
Yes, the Dems did that because they openly embraced and wanted the Dixiecrats back in the DNC...and the Dixiecrats had a lot, if not most in common with the DNC
Pogo
Diamond Member
- Dec 7, 2012
- 123,708
- 22,748
no names? read the article it was open arms and the dems made sure to make them happy by nominating one for vpi suppose you just want to make things up even after getting confronted with actual evidenceThere were much more then TWO Dixiecrats....obviously only two that ran for President and VP...but there were much more then twoWell lots of places were hiring african-americans...The US Army.Who was hiring blacks and putting them in front of customers in 1947?WelKen Burns ruined his series on baseball by harping over and over and over and over about blacks being segregated from whites in the early days of baseball. And spent a nanosecond on the fact baseball did more to break down walls than anything else in society.
So I have no sympathy watching the woke eat one of their own.
Really.
And what might these "walls" be that baseball broke down? You know, while it was keeping blacks out?
I’ll wait.
The US Army however, wasn't integrated until AFTER baseball did it, it was 1948. Truman did it, by EO...this pissed off most of the Dems though. Many actually ran someone against him, they lost...but those that ran against him, were welcomed right back in the DNC.
Actually there were a total of two (2), the infamous "Dixiecrats", who walked out of the party convention after hearing too much talk about civil rights and ran their own candidates --- those two being Strom Thurmond, governor of SC and Fielding Wright, governor of Mississippi. After they lost they served out their governor terms and Wright went back to his law practice until he died in the mid-1950s. Thurmond however wanted to jump to the Senate. But when he ran for it the Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot and he had to run as a write-in, which he did and won and that's how he got into the Senate (the only other Senate candidate to win as a write in was more recently, Lisa Murkowski in Alaska)
So no, they weren't exactly "welcomed" back into the DNC (actually they were never part of the DNC) and weren't exactly popular having nearly cost their POTUS candidate his re-election.
All offtopic here, but since the OP went into a stall on his own thread it's just as well we learn something.
and yes they were welcomed back with open arms at the next Presidential election Democrats Vote Today; Southerners Seated; Truman Puts His Support Behind Stevenson
The DNC even made sure to have one as the VP nom..John Sparkman from Alabama.
Sparkman had nothing to do with the Dixiecrats of 1948. They weren't even a real political party; it was simply a scheme to put competition on state ballots that year (and some Southern states rejected them anyway). The plan, like all third parties in an entrenched Duopoly protected by the Electoral College, was not to win outright but to siphon off enough votes so that no Democrat (Truman) or Republican (Dewey) would win an electoral majority, and thus throw the election to the House of Reps. They failed, but they came close.
Sparkman had only just arrived in the Senate. They wouldn't have considered putting him on the ticket had he been part of the schism.
So yeah there were TWO (1, 2) Dixiecrats, Thurmond and Wright. Nobody ran under that banner for any other office, not even dogcatcher, in that year or any other. As far as "welcomed with open arms", your link fails to mention either one. Wright had already retired by then anyway.
But yanno what, I'll give you a chance. Show us a list of Dixiecrats not named Thurmond or Wright. Anybody, even one. Since you claimed there were "much more than two" it should be easy. Right?
(/offtopic)
So ................. no names huh.
What a surprise.
Your "actual evidence" is stuff I've already read. I don't come into these things with no background. And the fact is there's no mention of a Thurmond or a Wright in it.
Oh and by the way in that same year (1952) Thurmond endorsed Eisenhower. Aaaaand we're still waitin' on those "open arms".
I already told you, Sparkman had nothing to do with the Dixiecrats. Show us where he did.
And I've already read the article, which says nothing about "open arms" OR Thurmond OR Wright. It does however go to some length to point out that the party were requiring loyalty pledges, no doubt to stave off any more Thurmonds.
Are you actually suggesting that a political party would nominate for its #2, somebody who four years prior worked directly against them?
" In March 1948, he announced that he could not support the election of President Truman, and supported Strom Thurmond's 1948 "Dixiecrat" ticket. Though he continued to oppose much civil rights legislation, he successfully fought Dixiecrats for control of the Alabama Democratic Party organization. "
What you have "told" me is all made up crap you've pulled from your butt.
Yes, the Dems did that because they openly embraced and wanted the Dixiecrats back in the DNC...and the Dixiecrats had a lot, if not most in common with the DNC
Dood FOUR FRIGGIN' STATES voted for the Dixiecrat ticket. That doesn't make them part of a political party any more than the Byrd machine in Virginia did.
In the same way, Strom Thurmond supported (and endorsed) Eisenhnower four years later --- that doesn't make him a Republican in 1952.
George W. Bush supported Biden a year ago --- that didn't make him a Democrat. Etc etc etc.
The Dixiecrats and their sycophants were 180 opposed to the Democrats, specifically the DP's platform on civil rights, integration and voting rights. And that platform didn't change from '48 to '52.
PLUS you just posted yourself that he fought Dixiecrats for control of the Alabama state party. Successfully.
So let's recap this offtopic ridiculous tangent:
List of Dixiecrats:
- Strom Thurmond
- Fielding Wright
Byrd was a Dem....no names? read the article it was open arms and the dems made sure to make them happy by nominating one for vpi suppose you just want to make things up even after getting confronted with actual evidenceThere were much more then TWO Dixiecrats....obviously only two that ran for President and VP...but there were much more then twoWell lots of places were hiring african-americans...The US Army.Who was hiring blacks and putting them in front of customers in 1947?WelKen Burns ruined his series on baseball by harping over and over and over and over about blacks being segregated from whites in the early days of baseball. And spent a nanosecond on the fact baseball did more to break down walls than anything else in society.
So I have no sympathy watching the woke eat one of their own.
Really.
And what might these "walls" be that baseball broke down? You know, while it was keeping blacks out?
I’ll wait.
The US Army however, wasn't integrated until AFTER baseball did it, it was 1948. Truman did it, by EO...this pissed off most of the Dems though. Many actually ran someone against him, they lost...but those that ran against him, were welcomed right back in the DNC.
Actually there were a total of two (2), the infamous "Dixiecrats", who walked out of the party convention after hearing too much talk about civil rights and ran their own candidates --- those two being Strom Thurmond, governor of SC and Fielding Wright, governor of Mississippi. After they lost they served out their governor terms and Wright went back to his law practice until he died in the mid-1950s. Thurmond however wanted to jump to the Senate. But when he ran for it the Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot and he had to run as a write-in, which he did and won and that's how he got into the Senate (the only other Senate candidate to win as a write in was more recently, Lisa Murkowski in Alaska)
So no, they weren't exactly "welcomed" back into the DNC (actually they were never part of the DNC) and weren't exactly popular having nearly cost their POTUS candidate his re-election.
All offtopic here, but since the OP went into a stall on his own thread it's just as well we learn something.
and yes they were welcomed back with open arms at the next Presidential election Democrats Vote Today; Southerners Seated; Truman Puts His Support Behind Stevenson
The DNC even made sure to have one as the VP nom..John Sparkman from Alabama.
Sparkman had nothing to do with the Dixiecrats of 1948. They weren't even a real political party; it was simply a scheme to put competition on state ballots that year (and some Southern states rejected them anyway). The plan, like all third parties in an entrenched Duopoly protected by the Electoral College, was not to win outright but to siphon off enough votes so that no Democrat (Truman) or Republican (Dewey) would win an electoral majority, and thus throw the election to the House of Reps. They failed, but they came close.
Sparkman had only just arrived in the Senate. They wouldn't have considered putting him on the ticket had he been part of the schism.
So yeah there were TWO (1, 2) Dixiecrats, Thurmond and Wright. Nobody ran under that banner for any other office, not even dogcatcher, in that year or any other. As far as "welcomed with open arms", your link fails to mention either one. Wright had already retired by then anyway.
But yanno what, I'll give you a chance. Show us a list of Dixiecrats not named Thurmond or Wright. Anybody, even one. Since you claimed there were "much more than two" it should be easy. Right?
(/offtopic)
So ................. no names huh.
What a surprise.
Your "actual evidence" is stuff I've already read. I don't come into these things with no background. And the fact is there's no mention of a Thurmond or a Wright in it.
Oh and by the way in that same year (1952) Thurmond endorsed Eisenhower. Aaaaand we're still waitin' on those "open arms".
I already told you, Sparkman had nothing to do with the Dixiecrats. Show us where he did.
And I've already read the article, which says nothing about "open arms" OR Thurmond OR Wright. It does however go to some length to point out that the party were requiring loyalty pledges, no doubt to stave off any more Thurmonds.
Are you actually suggesting that a political party would nominate for its #2, somebody who four years prior worked directly against them?
" In March 1948, he announced that he could not support the election of President Truman, and supported Strom Thurmond's 1948 "Dixiecrat" ticket. Though he continued to oppose much civil rights legislation, he successfully fought Dixiecrats for control of the Alabama Democratic Party organization. "
What you have "told" me is all made up crap you've pulled from your butt.
Yes, the Dems did that because they openly embraced and wanted the Dixiecrats back in the DNC...and the Dixiecrats had a lot, if not most in common with the DNC
Dood FOUR FRIGGIN' STATES voted for the Dixiecrat ticket. That doesn't make them part of a political party any more than the Byrd machine in Virginia did.
In the same way, Strom Thurmond supported (and endorsed) Eisenhnower four years later --- that doesn't make him a Republican in 1952.
George W. Bush supported Biden a year ago --- that didn't make him a Democrat. Etc etc etc.
The Dixiecrats and their sycophants were 180 opposed to the Democrats, specifically the DP's platform on civil rights, integration and voting rights. And that platform didn't change from '48 to '52.
PLUS you just posted yourself that he fought Dixiecrats for control of the Alabama state party. Successfully.
So let's recap this offtopic ridiculous tangent:
List of Dixiecrats:
end of list
- Strom Thurmond
- Fielding Wright
What made the Dixiecrats Dems, was they were Dems before they ran someone against Truman, and then were welcomed back with open arms the next election...even picking one to be the VP on the ticket.
Pogo
Diamond Member
- Dec 7, 2012
- 123,708
- 22,748
Byrd was a Dem....no names? read the article it was open arms and the dems made sure to make them happy by nominating one for vpi suppose you just want to make things up even after getting confronted with actual evidenceThere were much more then TWO Dixiecrats....obviously only two that ran for President and VP...but there were much more then twoWell lots of places were hiring african-americans...The US Army.Who was hiring blacks and putting them in front of customers in 1947?WelKen Burns ruined his series on baseball by harping over and over and over and over about blacks being segregated from whites in the early days of baseball. And spent a nanosecond on the fact baseball did more to break down walls than anything else in society.
So I have no sympathy watching the woke eat one of their own.
Really.
And what might these "walls" be that baseball broke down? You know, while it was keeping blacks out?
I’ll wait.
The US Army however, wasn't integrated until AFTER baseball did it, it was 1948. Truman did it, by EO...this pissed off most of the Dems though. Many actually ran someone against him, they lost...but those that ran against him, were welcomed right back in the DNC.
Actually there were a total of two (2), the infamous "Dixiecrats", who walked out of the party convention after hearing too much talk about civil rights and ran their own candidates --- those two being Strom Thurmond, governor of SC and Fielding Wright, governor of Mississippi. After they lost they served out their governor terms and Wright went back to his law practice until he died in the mid-1950s. Thurmond however wanted to jump to the Senate. But when he ran for it the Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot and he had to run as a write-in, which he did and won and that's how he got into the Senate (the only other Senate candidate to win as a write in was more recently, Lisa Murkowski in Alaska)
So no, they weren't exactly "welcomed" back into the DNC (actually they were never part of the DNC) and weren't exactly popular having nearly cost their POTUS candidate his re-election.
All offtopic here, but since the OP went into a stall on his own thread it's just as well we learn something.
and yes they were welcomed back with open arms at the next Presidential election Democrats Vote Today; Southerners Seated; Truman Puts His Support Behind Stevenson
The DNC even made sure to have one as the VP nom..John Sparkman from Alabama.
Sparkman had nothing to do with the Dixiecrats of 1948. They weren't even a real political party; it was simply a scheme to put competition on state ballots that year (and some Southern states rejected them anyway). The plan, like all third parties in an entrenched Duopoly protected by the Electoral College, was not to win outright but to siphon off enough votes so that no Democrat (Truman) or Republican (Dewey) would win an electoral majority, and thus throw the election to the House of Reps. They failed, but they came close.
Sparkman had only just arrived in the Senate. They wouldn't have considered putting him on the ticket had he been part of the schism.
So yeah there were TWO (1, 2) Dixiecrats, Thurmond and Wright. Nobody ran under that banner for any other office, not even dogcatcher, in that year or any other. As far as "welcomed with open arms", your link fails to mention either one. Wright had already retired by then anyway.
But yanno what, I'll give you a chance. Show us a list of Dixiecrats not named Thurmond or Wright. Anybody, even one. Since you claimed there were "much more than two" it should be easy. Right?
(/offtopic)
So ................. no names huh.
What a surprise.
Your "actual evidence" is stuff I've already read. I don't come into these things with no background. And the fact is there's no mention of a Thurmond or a Wright in it.
Oh and by the way in that same year (1952) Thurmond endorsed Eisenhower. Aaaaand we're still waitin' on those "open arms".
I already told you, Sparkman had nothing to do with the Dixiecrats. Show us where he did.
And I've already read the article, which says nothing about "open arms" OR Thurmond OR Wright. It does however go to some length to point out that the party were requiring loyalty pledges, no doubt to stave off any more Thurmonds.
Are you actually suggesting that a political party would nominate for its #2, somebody who four years prior worked directly against them?
" In March 1948, he announced that he could not support the election of President Truman, and supported Strom Thurmond's 1948 "Dixiecrat" ticket. Though he continued to oppose much civil rights legislation, he successfully fought Dixiecrats for control of the Alabama Democratic Party organization. "
What you have "told" me is all made up crap you've pulled from your butt.
Yes, the Dems did that because they openly embraced and wanted the Dixiecrats back in the DNC...and the Dixiecrats had a lot, if not most in common with the DNC
Dood FOUR FRIGGIN' STATES voted for the Dixiecrat ticket. That doesn't make them part of a political party any more than the Byrd machine in Virginia did.
In the same way, Strom Thurmond supported (and endorsed) Eisenhnower four years later --- that doesn't make him a Republican in 1952.
George W. Bush supported Biden a year ago --- that didn't make him a Democrat. Etc etc etc.
The Dixiecrats and their sycophants were 180 opposed to the Democrats, specifically the DP's platform on civil rights, integration and voting rights. And that platform didn't change from '48 to '52.
PLUS you just posted yourself that he fought Dixiecrats for control of the Alabama state party. Successfully.
So let's recap this offtopic ridiculous tangent:
List of Dixiecrats:
end of list
- Strom Thurmond
- Fielding Wright
What made the Dixiecrats Dems, was they were Dems before they ran someone against Truman, and then were welcomed back with open arms the next election...even picking one to be the VP on the ticket.
Correct, and his machine ran successful Virginia political campaigns and Byrd got some of JFK's electoral votes too. Byrd was kind of a "Dixiecrat Lite" --- opposed to the Democrats' civil rights stances and actively opposing them, but didn't go so far as to split off and run himself or anybody else against them.
As for Sparkman, once AGAIN again he wasn't part of the Dixiecrats which AGAIN numbered a total of TWO (2), who were not at all "welcomed back with open arms". Half of them (i.e. one person) had already retired and the other half {Thurmond) got kicked off the ballot when he went to run for the Senate. That don't sound much like "open arms". And as I told you yesterday, the link you tried to pass off to make this "open arms" case never mentioned either of them. Thurmond didn't run, or try to run, for POTUS as a Democrat, and Sparkman didn't run for anythining as a Dixiecrat.
He was in lock step with the Dems on Civil Rights....JFK was the first major Dem to jump ship and follow the GOP Civil Rights policies, and Johnson signed off on his plans, since he saw the waters turning, and wanted to respect JFK's legacy.Byrd was a Dem....no names? read the article it was open arms and the dems made sure to make them happy by nominating one for vpi suppose you just want to make things up even after getting confronted with actual evidenceThere were much more then TWO Dixiecrats....obviously only two that ran for President and VP...but there were much more then twoWell lots of places were hiring african-americans...The US Army.Who was hiring blacks and putting them in front of customers in 1947?WelKen Burns ruined his series on baseball by harping over and over and over and over about blacks being segregated from whites in the early days of baseball. And spent a nanosecond on the fact baseball did more to break down walls than anything else in society.
So I have no sympathy watching the woke eat one of their own.
Really.
And what might these "walls" be that baseball broke down? You know, while it was keeping blacks out?
I’ll wait.
The US Army however, wasn't integrated until AFTER baseball did it, it was 1948. Truman did it, by EO...this pissed off most of the Dems though. Many actually ran someone against him, they lost...but those that ran against him, were welcomed right back in the DNC.
Actually there were a total of two (2), the infamous "Dixiecrats", who walked out of the party convention after hearing too much talk about civil rights and ran their own candidates --- those two being Strom Thurmond, governor of SC and Fielding Wright, governor of Mississippi. After they lost they served out their governor terms and Wright went back to his law practice until he died in the mid-1950s. Thurmond however wanted to jump to the Senate. But when he ran for it the Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot and he had to run as a write-in, which he did and won and that's how he got into the Senate (the only other Senate candidate to win as a write in was more recently, Lisa Murkowski in Alaska)
So no, they weren't exactly "welcomed" back into the DNC (actually they were never part of the DNC) and weren't exactly popular having nearly cost their POTUS candidate his re-election.
All offtopic here, but since the OP went into a stall on his own thread it's just as well we learn something.
and yes they were welcomed back with open arms at the next Presidential election Democrats Vote Today; Southerners Seated; Truman Puts His Support Behind Stevenson
The DNC even made sure to have one as the VP nom..John Sparkman from Alabama.
Sparkman had nothing to do with the Dixiecrats of 1948. They weren't even a real political party; it was simply a scheme to put competition on state ballots that year (and some Southern states rejected them anyway). The plan, like all third parties in an entrenched Duopoly protected by the Electoral College, was not to win outright but to siphon off enough votes so that no Democrat (Truman) or Republican (Dewey) would win an electoral majority, and thus throw the election to the House of Reps. They failed, but they came close.
Sparkman had only just arrived in the Senate. They wouldn't have considered putting him on the ticket had he been part of the schism.
So yeah there were TWO (1, 2) Dixiecrats, Thurmond and Wright. Nobody ran under that banner for any other office, not even dogcatcher, in that year or any other. As far as "welcomed with open arms", your link fails to mention either one. Wright had already retired by then anyway.
But yanno what, I'll give you a chance. Show us a list of Dixiecrats not named Thurmond or Wright. Anybody, even one. Since you claimed there were "much more than two" it should be easy. Right?
(/offtopic)
So ................. no names huh.
What a surprise.
Your "actual evidence" is stuff I've already read. I don't come into these things with no background. And the fact is there's no mention of a Thurmond or a Wright in it.
Oh and by the way in that same year (1952) Thurmond endorsed Eisenhower. Aaaaand we're still waitin' on those "open arms".
I already told you, Sparkman had nothing to do with the Dixiecrats. Show us where he did.
And I've already read the article, which says nothing about "open arms" OR Thurmond OR Wright. It does however go to some length to point out that the party were requiring loyalty pledges, no doubt to stave off any more Thurmonds.
Are you actually suggesting that a political party would nominate for its #2, somebody who four years prior worked directly against them?
" In March 1948, he announced that he could not support the election of President Truman, and supported Strom Thurmond's 1948 "Dixiecrat" ticket. Though he continued to oppose much civil rights legislation, he successfully fought Dixiecrats for control of the Alabama Democratic Party organization. "
What you have "told" me is all made up crap you've pulled from your butt.
Yes, the Dems did that because they openly embraced and wanted the Dixiecrats back in the DNC...and the Dixiecrats had a lot, if not most in common with the DNC
Dood FOUR FRIGGIN' STATES voted for the Dixiecrat ticket. That doesn't make them part of a political party any more than the Byrd machine in Virginia did.
In the same way, Strom Thurmond supported (and endorsed) Eisenhnower four years later --- that doesn't make him a Republican in 1952.
George W. Bush supported Biden a year ago --- that didn't make him a Democrat. Etc etc etc.
The Dixiecrats and their sycophants were 180 opposed to the Democrats, specifically the DP's platform on civil rights, integration and voting rights. And that platform didn't change from '48 to '52.
PLUS you just posted yourself that he fought Dixiecrats for control of the Alabama state party. Successfully.
So let's recap this offtopic ridiculous tangent:
List of Dixiecrats:
end of list
- Strom Thurmond
- Fielding Wright
What made the Dixiecrats Dems, was they were Dems before they ran someone against Truman, and then were welcomed back with open arms the next election...even picking one to be the VP on the ticket.
Correct, and his machine ran successful Virginia political campaigns and Byrd got some of JFK's electoral votes too. Byrd was kind of a "Dixiecrat Lite" --- opposed to the Democrats' civil rights stances and actively opposing them, but didn't go so far as to split off and run himself or anybody else against them.
As for Sparkman, once AGAIN again he wasn't part of the Dixiecrats which AGAIN numbered a total of TWO (2), who were not at all "welcomed back with open arms". Half of them (i.e. one person) had already retired and the other half {Thurmond) got kicked off the ballot when he went to run for the Senate. That don't sound much like "open arms". And as I told you yesterday, the link you tried to pass off to make this "open arms" case never mentioned either of them. Thurmond didn't run, or try to run, for POTUS as a Democrat, and Sparkman didn't run for anythining as a Dixiecrat.
Sparkman certainly was, and supported the Dixiecrats ticket. Claiming the only two Dixiecrats were the two people that they nominated is silly...it's like saying Xiden and Harris are the only two dems....
To be fair, the Dixiecrats really weren't a party....I guess you can argue that...it was a small group of Dems that ran and nominated some people from the Dem party against Truman.
Pogo
Diamond Member
- Dec 7, 2012
- 123,708
- 22,748
He was in lock step with the Dems on Civil Rights....JFK was the first major Dem to jump ship and follow the GOP Civil Rights policies, and Johnson signed off on his plans, since he saw the waters turning, and wanted to respect JFK's legacy.Byrd was a Dem....no names? read the article it was open arms and the dems made sure to make them happy by nominating one for vpi suppose you just want to make things up even after getting confronted with actual evidenceThere were much more then TWO Dixiecrats....obviously only two that ran for President and VP...but there were much more then twoWell lots of places were hiring african-americans...The US Army.Who was hiring blacks and putting them in front of customers in 1947?WelKen Burns ruined his series on baseball by harping over and over and over and over about blacks being segregated from whites in the early days of baseball. And spent a nanosecond on the fact baseball did more to break down walls than anything else in society.
So I have no sympathy watching the woke eat one of their own.
Really.
And what might these "walls" be that baseball broke down? You know, while it was keeping blacks out?
I’ll wait.
The US Army however, wasn't integrated until AFTER baseball did it, it was 1948. Truman did it, by EO...this pissed off most of the Dems though. Many actually ran someone against him, they lost...but those that ran against him, were welcomed right back in the DNC.
Actually there were a total of two (2), the infamous "Dixiecrats", who walked out of the party convention after hearing too much talk about civil rights and ran their own candidates --- those two being Strom Thurmond, governor of SC and Fielding Wright, governor of Mississippi. After they lost they served out their governor terms and Wright went back to his law practice until he died in the mid-1950s. Thurmond however wanted to jump to the Senate. But when he ran for it the Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot and he had to run as a write-in, which he did and won and that's how he got into the Senate (the only other Senate candidate to win as a write in was more recently, Lisa Murkowski in Alaska)
So no, they weren't exactly "welcomed" back into the DNC (actually they were never part of the DNC) and weren't exactly popular having nearly cost their POTUS candidate his re-election.
All offtopic here, but since the OP went into a stall on his own thread it's just as well we learn something.
and yes they were welcomed back with open arms at the next Presidential election Democrats Vote Today; Southerners Seated; Truman Puts His Support Behind Stevenson
The DNC even made sure to have one as the VP nom..John Sparkman from Alabama.
Sparkman had nothing to do with the Dixiecrats of 1948. They weren't even a real political party; it was simply a scheme to put competition on state ballots that year (and some Southern states rejected them anyway). The plan, like all third parties in an entrenched Duopoly protected by the Electoral College, was not to win outright but to siphon off enough votes so that no Democrat (Truman) or Republican (Dewey) would win an electoral majority, and thus throw the election to the House of Reps. They failed, but they came close.
Sparkman had only just arrived in the Senate. They wouldn't have considered putting him on the ticket had he been part of the schism.
So yeah there were TWO (1, 2) Dixiecrats, Thurmond and Wright. Nobody ran under that banner for any other office, not even dogcatcher, in that year or any other. As far as "welcomed with open arms", your link fails to mention either one. Wright had already retired by then anyway.
But yanno what, I'll give you a chance. Show us a list of Dixiecrats not named Thurmond or Wright. Anybody, even one. Since you claimed there were "much more than two" it should be easy. Right?
(/offtopic)
So ................. no names huh.
What a surprise.
Your "actual evidence" is stuff I've already read. I don't come into these things with no background. And the fact is there's no mention of a Thurmond or a Wright in it.
Oh and by the way in that same year (1952) Thurmond endorsed Eisenhower. Aaaaand we're still waitin' on those "open arms".
I already told you, Sparkman had nothing to do with the Dixiecrats. Show us where he did.
And I've already read the article, which says nothing about "open arms" OR Thurmond OR Wright. It does however go to some length to point out that the party were requiring loyalty pledges, no doubt to stave off any more Thurmonds.
Are you actually suggesting that a political party would nominate for its #2, somebody who four years prior worked directly against them?
" In March 1948, he announced that he could not support the election of President Truman, and supported Strom Thurmond's 1948 "Dixiecrat" ticket. Though he continued to oppose much civil rights legislation, he successfully fought Dixiecrats for control of the Alabama Democratic Party organization. "
What you have "told" me is all made up crap you've pulled from your butt.
Yes, the Dems did that because they openly embraced and wanted the Dixiecrats back in the DNC...and the Dixiecrats had a lot, if not most in common with the DNC
Dood FOUR FRIGGIN' STATES voted for the Dixiecrat ticket. That doesn't make them part of a political party any more than the Byrd machine in Virginia did.
In the same way, Strom Thurmond supported (and endorsed) Eisenhnower four years later --- that doesn't make him a Republican in 1952.
George W. Bush supported Biden a year ago --- that didn't make him a Democrat. Etc etc etc.
The Dixiecrats and their sycophants were 180 opposed to the Democrats, specifically the DP's platform on civil rights, integration and voting rights. And that platform didn't change from '48 to '52.
PLUS you just posted yourself that he fought Dixiecrats for control of the Alabama state party. Successfully.
So let's recap this offtopic ridiculous tangent:
List of Dixiecrats:
end of list
- Strom Thurmond
- Fielding Wright
What made the Dixiecrats Dems, was they were Dems before they ran someone against Truman, and then were welcomed back with open arms the next election...even picking one to be the VP on the ticket.
Correct, and his machine ran successful Virginia political campaigns and Byrd got some of JFK's electoral votes too. Byrd was kind of a "Dixiecrat Lite" --- opposed to the Democrats' civil rights stances and actively opposing them, but didn't go so far as to split off and run himself or anybody else against them.
As for Sparkman, once AGAIN again he wasn't part of the Dixiecrats which AGAIN numbered a total of TWO (2), who were not at all "welcomed back with open arms". Half of them (i.e. one person) had already retired and the other half {Thurmond) got kicked off the ballot when he went to run for the Senate. That don't sound much like "open arms". And as I told you yesterday, the link you tried to pass off to make this "open arms" case never mentioned either of them. Thurmond didn't run, or try to run, for POTUS as a Democrat, and Sparkman didn't run for anythining as a Dixiecrat.
Sparkman certainly was, and supported the Dixiecrats ticket. Claiming the only two Dixiecrats were the two people that they nominated is silly...it's like saying Xiden and Harris are the only two dems....
To be fair, the Dixiecrats really weren't a party....I guess you can argue that...it was a small group of Dems that ran and nominated some people from the Dem party against Truman.
WRONG. We just established in this very tangent how Truman desegregated the military and how at the same time the Dixiecrats walked out of the 1948 convention specifically because of that civil rights platform. If Harry Truman isn't a "major Dem" I'm not sure what your definition is. Further, there was no "ship" to jump. Few if any of the Solid South Democrats were ever keen on civil rights, in direct opposition to their northern and western colleagues. They were completely opposed. I'm wondering at this point if you even have any clue what a political party IS.
Of course Biden and Harris are not the only two Dems, even if you limited to a single election, in that there were dozens/hundreds of Democratic Party candidates for Senators, Congresscritters, Governors etc. NONE of that ever happened with the so-called "Dixiecrats" who --- ONCE AGAIN --- ran a grand total of TWO (2) candidates for ANYTHING EVER. It was a splinter, for the occasion. I seriously doubt there was even such a thing as voter registration with it. Don't know for sure as there are no such records.
Not sure who the pronoun "he" at the start of your post is supposed to mean, but it can't mean Sparkman. He was there for one purpose, and that was to pander to that Southern hyperconservative vote that that party had been counting on for decades and would soon release with LBJ.
yeah they took issue with that one piece...yea only two people ran, but there were more then two dixiecrats...they were welcomed back with open arms the next election and even picked one to run as VP. The DNC agenda was far much more in line on all issues including civil rights with them.He was in lock step with the Dems on Civil Rights....JFK was the first major Dem to jump ship and follow the GOP Civil Rights policies, and Johnson signed off on his plans, since he saw the waters turning, and wanted to respect JFK's legacy.Byrd was a Dem....no names? read the article it was open arms and the dems made sure to make them happy by nominating one for vpi suppose you just want to make things up even after getting confronted with actual evidenceThere were much more then TWO Dixiecrats....obviously only two that ran for President and VP...but there were much more then twoWell lots of places were hiring african-americans...The US Army.Who was hiring blacks and putting them in front of customers in 1947?WelKen Burns ruined his series on baseball by harping over and over and over and over about blacks being segregated from whites in the early days of baseball. And spent a nanosecond on the fact baseball did more to break down walls than anything else in society.
So I have no sympathy watching the woke eat one of their own.
Really.
And what might these "walls" be that baseball broke down? You know, while it was keeping blacks out?
I’ll wait.
The US Army however, wasn't integrated until AFTER baseball did it, it was 1948. Truman did it, by EO...this pissed off most of the Dems though. Many actually ran someone against him, they lost...but those that ran against him, were welcomed right back in the DNC.
Actually there were a total of two (2), the infamous "Dixiecrats", who walked out of the party convention after hearing too much talk about civil rights and ran their own candidates --- those two being Strom Thurmond, governor of SC and Fielding Wright, governor of Mississippi. After they lost they served out their governor terms and Wright went back to his law practice until he died in the mid-1950s. Thurmond however wanted to jump to the Senate. But when he ran for it the Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot and he had to run as a write-in, which he did and won and that's how he got into the Senate (the only other Senate candidate to win as a write in was more recently, Lisa Murkowski in Alaska)
So no, they weren't exactly "welcomed" back into the DNC (actually they were never part of the DNC) and weren't exactly popular having nearly cost their POTUS candidate his re-election.
All offtopic here, but since the OP went into a stall on his own thread it's just as well we learn something.
and yes they were welcomed back with open arms at the next Presidential election Democrats Vote Today; Southerners Seated; Truman Puts His Support Behind Stevenson
The DNC even made sure to have one as the VP nom..John Sparkman from Alabama.
Sparkman had nothing to do with the Dixiecrats of 1948. They weren't even a real political party; it was simply a scheme to put competition on state ballots that year (and some Southern states rejected them anyway). The plan, like all third parties in an entrenched Duopoly protected by the Electoral College, was not to win outright but to siphon off enough votes so that no Democrat (Truman) or Republican (Dewey) would win an electoral majority, and thus throw the election to the House of Reps. They failed, but they came close.
Sparkman had only just arrived in the Senate. They wouldn't have considered putting him on the ticket had he been part of the schism.
So yeah there were TWO (1, 2) Dixiecrats, Thurmond and Wright. Nobody ran under that banner for any other office, not even dogcatcher, in that year or any other. As far as "welcomed with open arms", your link fails to mention either one. Wright had already retired by then anyway.
But yanno what, I'll give you a chance. Show us a list of Dixiecrats not named Thurmond or Wright. Anybody, even one. Since you claimed there were "much more than two" it should be easy. Right?
(/offtopic)
So ................. no names huh.
What a surprise.
Your "actual evidence" is stuff I've already read. I don't come into these things with no background. And the fact is there's no mention of a Thurmond or a Wright in it.
Oh and by the way in that same year (1952) Thurmond endorsed Eisenhower. Aaaaand we're still waitin' on those "open arms".
I already told you, Sparkman had nothing to do with the Dixiecrats. Show us where he did.
And I've already read the article, which says nothing about "open arms" OR Thurmond OR Wright. It does however go to some length to point out that the party were requiring loyalty pledges, no doubt to stave off any more Thurmonds.
Are you actually suggesting that a political party would nominate for its #2, somebody who four years prior worked directly against them?
" In March 1948, he announced that he could not support the election of President Truman, and supported Strom Thurmond's 1948 "Dixiecrat" ticket. Though he continued to oppose much civil rights legislation, he successfully fought Dixiecrats for control of the Alabama Democratic Party organization. "
What you have "told" me is all made up crap you've pulled from your butt.
Yes, the Dems did that because they openly embraced and wanted the Dixiecrats back in the DNC...and the Dixiecrats had a lot, if not most in common with the DNC
Dood FOUR FRIGGIN' STATES voted for the Dixiecrat ticket. That doesn't make them part of a political party any more than the Byrd machine in Virginia did.
In the same way, Strom Thurmond supported (and endorsed) Eisenhnower four years later --- that doesn't make him a Republican in 1952.
George W. Bush supported Biden a year ago --- that didn't make him a Democrat. Etc etc etc.
The Dixiecrats and their sycophants were 180 opposed to the Democrats, specifically the DP's platform on civil rights, integration and voting rights. And that platform didn't change from '48 to '52.
PLUS you just posted yourself that he fought Dixiecrats for control of the Alabama state party. Successfully.
So let's recap this offtopic ridiculous tangent:
List of Dixiecrats:
end of list
- Strom Thurmond
- Fielding Wright
What made the Dixiecrats Dems, was they were Dems before they ran someone against Truman, and then were welcomed back with open arms the next election...even picking one to be the VP on the ticket.
Correct, and his machine ran successful Virginia political campaigns and Byrd got some of JFK's electoral votes too. Byrd was kind of a "Dixiecrat Lite" --- opposed to the Democrats' civil rights stances and actively opposing them, but didn't go so far as to split off and run himself or anybody else against them.
As for Sparkman, once AGAIN again he wasn't part of the Dixiecrats which AGAIN numbered a total of TWO (2), who were not at all "welcomed back with open arms". Half of them (i.e. one person) had already retired and the other half {Thurmond) got kicked off the ballot when he went to run for the Senate. That don't sound much like "open arms". And as I told you yesterday, the link you tried to pass off to make this "open arms" case never mentioned either of them. Thurmond didn't run, or try to run, for POTUS as a Democrat, and Sparkman didn't run for anythining as a Dixiecrat.
Sparkman certainly was, and supported the Dixiecrats ticket. Claiming the only two Dixiecrats were the two people that they nominated is silly...it's like saying Xiden and Harris are the only two dems....
To be fair, the Dixiecrats really weren't a party....I guess you can argue that...it was a small group of Dems that ran and nominated some people from the Dem party against Truman.
WRONG. We just established in this very tangent how Truman desegregated the military and how at the same time the Dixiecrats walked out of the 1948 convention specifically because of that civil rights platform. If Harry Truman isn't a "major Dem" I'm not sure what your definition is. Further, there was no "ship" to jump. Few if any of the Solid South Democrats were ever keen on civil rights, in direct opposition to their northern and western colleagues. They were completely opposed. I'm wondering at this point if you even have any clue what a political party IS.
Of course Biden and Harris are not the only two Dems, even if you limited to a single election, in that there were dozens/hundreds of Democratic Party candidates for Senators, Congresscritters, Governors etc. NONE of that ever happened with the so-called "Dixiecrats" who --- ONCE AGAIN --- ran a grand total of TWO (2) candidates for ANYTHING EVER. It was a splinter, for the occasion. I seriously doubt there was even such a thing as voter registration with it. Don't know for sure as there are no such records.
Not sure who the pronoun "he" at the start of your post is supposed to mean, but it can't mean Sparkman. He was there for one purpose, and that was to pander to that Southern hyperconservative vote that that party had been counting on for decades and would soon release with LBJ.
the dems continued to count on their southern members for decades...but with the passenge of time, the dems terrorist stranglehold on the south ended...the oppression of voters ended and the gop was able to gain votes. That’s part of the reason we have seen an economic boom i. southern states in recent years and a mass migration from liberal states
Pogo
Diamond Member
- Dec 7, 2012
- 123,708
- 22,748
yeah they took issue with that one piece...yea only two people ran, but there were more then two dixiecrats...they were welcomed back with open arms the next election and even picked one to run as VP. The DNC agenda was far much more in line on all issues including civil rights with them.He was in lock step with the Dems on Civil Rights....JFK was the first major Dem to jump ship and follow the GOP Civil Rights policies, and Johnson signed off on his plans, since he saw the waters turning, and wanted to respect JFK's legacy.Byrd was a Dem....no names? read the article it was open arms and the dems made sure to make them happy by nominating one for vpi suppose you just want to make things up even after getting confronted with actual evidenceThere were much more then TWO Dixiecrats....obviously only two that ran for President and VP...but there were much more then twoWell lots of places were hiring african-americans...The US Army.Who was hiring blacks and putting them in front of customers in 1947?WelKen Burns ruined his series on baseball by harping over and over and over and over about blacks being segregated from whites in the early days of baseball. And spent a nanosecond on the fact baseball did more to break down walls than anything else in society.
So I have no sympathy watching the woke eat one of their own.
Really.
And what might these "walls" be that baseball broke down? You know, while it was keeping blacks out?
I’ll wait.
The US Army however, wasn't integrated until AFTER baseball did it, it was 1948. Truman did it, by EO...this pissed off most of the Dems though. Many actually ran someone against him, they lost...but those that ran against him, were welcomed right back in the DNC.
Actually there were a total of two (2), the infamous "Dixiecrats", who walked out of the party convention after hearing too much talk about civil rights and ran their own candidates --- those two being Strom Thurmond, governor of SC and Fielding Wright, governor of Mississippi. After they lost they served out their governor terms and Wright went back to his law practice until he died in the mid-1950s. Thurmond however wanted to jump to the Senate. But when he ran for it the Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot and he had to run as a write-in, which he did and won and that's how he got into the Senate (the only other Senate candidate to win as a write in was more recently, Lisa Murkowski in Alaska)
So no, they weren't exactly "welcomed" back into the DNC (actually they were never part of the DNC) and weren't exactly popular having nearly cost their POTUS candidate his re-election.
All offtopic here, but since the OP went into a stall on his own thread it's just as well we learn something.
and yes they were welcomed back with open arms at the next Presidential election Democrats Vote Today; Southerners Seated; Truman Puts His Support Behind Stevenson
The DNC even made sure to have one as the VP nom..John Sparkman from Alabama.
Sparkman had nothing to do with the Dixiecrats of 1948. They weren't even a real political party; it was simply a scheme to put competition on state ballots that year (and some Southern states rejected them anyway). The plan, like all third parties in an entrenched Duopoly protected by the Electoral College, was not to win outright but to siphon off enough votes so that no Democrat (Truman) or Republican (Dewey) would win an electoral majority, and thus throw the election to the House of Reps. They failed, but they came close.
Sparkman had only just arrived in the Senate. They wouldn't have considered putting him on the ticket had he been part of the schism.
So yeah there were TWO (1, 2) Dixiecrats, Thurmond and Wright. Nobody ran under that banner for any other office, not even dogcatcher, in that year or any other. As far as "welcomed with open arms", your link fails to mention either one. Wright had already retired by then anyway.
But yanno what, I'll give you a chance. Show us a list of Dixiecrats not named Thurmond or Wright. Anybody, even one. Since you claimed there were "much more than two" it should be easy. Right?
(/offtopic)
So ................. no names huh.
What a surprise.
Your "actual evidence" is stuff I've already read. I don't come into these things with no background. And the fact is there's no mention of a Thurmond or a Wright in it.
Oh and by the way in that same year (1952) Thurmond endorsed Eisenhower. Aaaaand we're still waitin' on those "open arms".
I already told you, Sparkman had nothing to do with the Dixiecrats. Show us where he did.
And I've already read the article, which says nothing about "open arms" OR Thurmond OR Wright. It does however go to some length to point out that the party were requiring loyalty pledges, no doubt to stave off any more Thurmonds.
Are you actually suggesting that a political party would nominate for its #2, somebody who four years prior worked directly against them?
" In March 1948, he announced that he could not support the election of President Truman, and supported Strom Thurmond's 1948 "Dixiecrat" ticket. Though he continued to oppose much civil rights legislation, he successfully fought Dixiecrats for control of the Alabama Democratic Party organization. "
What you have "told" me is all made up crap you've pulled from your butt.
Yes, the Dems did that because they openly embraced and wanted the Dixiecrats back in the DNC...and the Dixiecrats had a lot, if not most in common with the DNC
Dood FOUR FRIGGIN' STATES voted for the Dixiecrat ticket. That doesn't make them part of a political party any more than the Byrd machine in Virginia did.
In the same way, Strom Thurmond supported (and endorsed) Eisenhnower four years later --- that doesn't make him a Republican in 1952.
George W. Bush supported Biden a year ago --- that didn't make him a Democrat. Etc etc etc.
The Dixiecrats and their sycophants were 180 opposed to the Democrats, specifically the DP's platform on civil rights, integration and voting rights. And that platform didn't change from '48 to '52.
PLUS you just posted yourself that he fought Dixiecrats for control of the Alabama state party. Successfully.
So let's recap this offtopic ridiculous tangent:
List of Dixiecrats:
end of list
- Strom Thurmond
- Fielding Wright
What made the Dixiecrats Dems, was they were Dems before they ran someone against Truman, and then were welcomed back with open arms the next election...even picking one to be the VP on the ticket.
Correct, and his machine ran successful Virginia political campaigns and Byrd got some of JFK's electoral votes too. Byrd was kind of a "Dixiecrat Lite" --- opposed to the Democrats' civil rights stances and actively opposing them, but didn't go so far as to split off and run himself or anybody else against them.
As for Sparkman, once AGAIN again he wasn't part of the Dixiecrats which AGAIN numbered a total of TWO (2), who were not at all "welcomed back with open arms". Half of them (i.e. one person) had already retired and the other half {Thurmond) got kicked off the ballot when he went to run for the Senate. That don't sound much like "open arms". And as I told you yesterday, the link you tried to pass off to make this "open arms" case never mentioned either of them. Thurmond didn't run, or try to run, for POTUS as a Democrat, and Sparkman didn't run for anythining as a Dixiecrat.
Sparkman certainly was, and supported the Dixiecrats ticket. Claiming the only two Dixiecrats were the two people that they nominated is silly...it's like saying Xiden and Harris are the only two dems....
To be fair, the Dixiecrats really weren't a party....I guess you can argue that...it was a small group of Dems that ran and nominated some people from the Dem party against Truman.
WRONG. We just established in this very tangent how Truman desegregated the military and how at the same time the Dixiecrats walked out of the 1948 convention specifically because of that civil rights platform. If Harry Truman isn't a "major Dem" I'm not sure what your definition is. Further, there was no "ship" to jump. Few if any of the Solid South Democrats were ever keen on civil rights, in direct opposition to their northern and western colleagues. They were completely opposed. I'm wondering at this point if you even have any clue what a political party IS.
Of course Biden and Harris are not the only two Dems, even if you limited to a single election, in that there were dozens/hundreds of Democratic Party candidates for Senators, Congresscritters, Governors etc. NONE of that ever happened with the so-called "Dixiecrats" who --- ONCE AGAIN --- ran a grand total of TWO (2) candidates for ANYTHING EVER. It was a splinter, for the occasion. I seriously doubt there was even such a thing as voter registration with it. Don't know for sure as there are no such records.
Not sure who the pronoun "he" at the start of your post is supposed to mean, but it can't mean Sparkman. He was there for one purpose, and that was to pander to that Southern hyperconservative vote that that party had been counting on for decades and would soon release with LBJ.
NO
THEY
DID
NOT.
And NO it WAS NOT.
I've proved this to you and invited you to prove me wrong, and you can't do it. You even trotted in a link that failed to prove any such thing, which I also pointed out. Saying so does not make it so. Don't come waddling in here with fake histories and links that prove you wrong.
Oh fucking bullshit.
LBJ gave the South away with the CRA in 1964, but the tensions had been unraveling that sorry coalition for decades. Wallace with his endless rants about "northern liberals" exemplified that. Wallace also nearly beat Thurmond to being the first one to jump ship when he offered to change political parties and be Goldwater's running mate in 1964 (he wouldn't have needed to change parties but he offered and Goldwater declined). Truman and Humphrey before that in the convention in 1948. And before WW2 FDR, at the height of his influence in 1936, getting the party's convention rules changed to a simple majority rather than a 2/3 for a POTUS nomination, undercutting the South's ability to hold the nomination hostage, as they had done in 1924. And of course the turn of the century with its political party migration where the Republicans started taking on the interests of the rich while the DP courted the immigrant, labor and minority vote (which is why they have it today).
This was a schism brewing for a long long time, and Thurmond, Wright, Byrd, Wallace and their hyperconservative ilk were still living in the past of the "states rights" of the mid-nineteenth century. The only reason they hadn't already shifted to Republicans, their more natural fit by then, was emotional .... nobody wanted to be associated with the Party of Lincoln. Lyndon Johnson in effect told them to go get fucked as they were not worth the hassle, and Thurmond reacted by being the first to jump ship. Nobody was surprised where he jumped TO; the only surprise was that anyone from that mindset finally did it at all.
Don't sit here and try to snowjob me on history that I know very well. It doesn't work.
Utilitarian
co-Cain Manager
- Oct 17, 2011
- 1,519
- 784
There's one problem with the Southern Strategy argument. The timing is way off.
Sure, the GOP made gains on the presidential level when it came to the South in the 70s, but overall, most state legislatures and governors remained Democrat in the South through 80s and early 90s. Even most House members and Senators were Democratic in the South during the 70s and 80s.
By the time that Republicans truly swept the South, it was the mid to late 90s, when fiscal issues were the majority of the focus. The social issues that were most prominent were religious in nature, not racial.
So the real change that happened for the South was actually more economic than social. The South has always been more socially conservative than the North. However, the South used to be more populist in economics. It embraced free market ideology in the 80s and 90s. That's where a lot of the Republican shift really came from.
Ironically, we're starting to see the South shift back towards economic populism now, and the GOP is taking up populism, since the Democrats are more internationalist in orientation now.
That being said, there are pockets of Republican support in the South that have existed since long before the Civil Rights Act. Much of Western NC and Eastern TN have been staunchly Republican since the late 1800s. Some of these areas even tried to resist Confederate control.
Pogo
Diamond Member
- Dec 7, 2012
- 123,708
- 22,748
Actually five different House elections were won by Republicans in Alabama in that same year of 1964, on the coattails of Barry Goldwater, and Eisenhower had made gains in the South in his elections as well. I think extending cause-and-effect dynamics to the esoteria of economics and internationalism rather than basic raw emotion, might be a bit of a stretch.
The point about Confederate resistance is well taken (I live in that area), in fact as I often point out east Tennessee was vehemently against secession and would probably have seceded from Tennessee the same way the northwestern counties of Virginia did, had that area not been crawling with Confederacy-friendly troops. But that's got nothing to do with voting Republican. Republicans didn't even run a Presidential candidate in 1860 in the South, and both Tennessee and Virginia voted for the Whig (Constitutional Unionist) Bell.
I'm not aware of these areas either side of the Appalachians having been "staunchly Republican since the late 1800s" though. The South in general, whether a region that resisted the Confederacy or not (and there were several), evolved into a one-party Democratic playground by 1900, largely on the emotional connection.
I'm a child of parents from each of these areas and have been shuttling back and forth between them for literally my whole life. I've seen it up close. No self-respecting Southerner, in those days, was going to vote for the Party of Lincoln or even consider it. It was a cultural thing. Lincoln was the figure who had defeated and humiliated the South and that wound ran deep.
(/offtopic)
Utilitarian
co-Cain Manager
- Oct 17, 2011
- 1,519
- 784
Look into local party control in many Western NC counties and Eastern TN ones. A good example is NC's Avery County. It's been very Republican since its inception.
Pogo
Diamond Member
- Dec 7, 2012
- 123,708
- 22,748
That's insignificant. The further down (toward the local level) you look, the less political parties mean, and it becomes about "who ya know" and local mini-dynasties. Hell the sheriff in my town runs sometimes as a Democrat, sometimes as a Republican, same guy, and keeps his job because the locals know his name, rather than his party.
Utilitarian
co-Cain Manager
- Oct 17, 2011
- 1,519
- 784
While there is truth to that, the significance comes in the form of certain policies. Also, local politics have far more of an effect on daily life than federal politics (usually).
While we've unfortunately continued to put more and more power into the hands of the feds, most policies that affect us directly will come from the city, county, or state.
Yeah they did...I literally provided an article that says they did, and they took one of the Dixiecrats as VPyeah they took issue with that one piece...yea only two people ran, but there were more then two dixiecrats...they were welcomed back with open arms the next election and even picked one to run as VP. The DNC agenda was far much more in line on all issues including civil rights with them.He was in lock step with the Dems on Civil Rights....JFK was the first major Dem to jump ship and follow the GOP Civil Rights policies, and Johnson signed off on his plans, since he saw the waters turning, and wanted to respect JFK's legacy.Byrd was a Dem....no names? read the article it was open arms and the dems made sure to make them happy by nominating one for vpi suppose you just want to make things up even after getting confronted with actual evidenceThere were much more then TWO Dixiecrats....obviously only two that ran for President and VP...but there were much more then twoWell lots of places were hiring african-americans...The US Army.Who was hiring blacks and putting them in front of customers in 1947?WelKen Burns ruined his series on baseball by harping over and over and over and over about blacks being segregated from whites in the early days of baseball. And spent a nanosecond on the fact baseball did more to break down walls than anything else in society.
So I have no sympathy watching the woke eat one of their own.
Really.
And what might these "walls" be that baseball broke down? You know, while it was keeping blacks out?
I’ll wait.
The US Army however, wasn't integrated until AFTER baseball did it, it was 1948. Truman did it, by EO...this pissed off most of the Dems though. Many actually ran someone against him, they lost...but those that ran against him, were welcomed right back in the DNC.
Actually there were a total of two (2), the infamous "Dixiecrats", who walked out of the party convention after hearing too much talk about civil rights and ran their own candidates --- those two being Strom Thurmond, governor of SC and Fielding Wright, governor of Mississippi. After they lost they served out their governor terms and Wright went back to his law practice until he died in the mid-1950s. Thurmond however wanted to jump to the Senate. But when he ran for it the Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot and he had to run as a write-in, which he did and won and that's how he got into the Senate (the only other Senate candidate to win as a write in was more recently, Lisa Murkowski in Alaska)
So no, they weren't exactly "welcomed" back into the DNC (actually they were never part of the DNC) and weren't exactly popular having nearly cost their POTUS candidate his re-election.
All offtopic here, but since the OP went into a stall on his own thread it's just as well we learn something.
and yes they were welcomed back with open arms at the next Presidential election Democrats Vote Today; Southerners Seated; Truman Puts His Support Behind Stevenson
The DNC even made sure to have one as the VP nom..John Sparkman from Alabama.
Sparkman had nothing to do with the Dixiecrats of 1948. They weren't even a real political party; it was simply a scheme to put competition on state ballots that year (and some Southern states rejected them anyway). The plan, like all third parties in an entrenched Duopoly protected by the Electoral College, was not to win outright but to siphon off enough votes so that no Democrat (Truman) or Republican (Dewey) would win an electoral majority, and thus throw the election to the House of Reps. They failed, but they came close.
Sparkman had only just arrived in the Senate. They wouldn't have considered putting him on the ticket had he been part of the schism.
So yeah there were TWO (1, 2) Dixiecrats, Thurmond and Wright. Nobody ran under that banner for any other office, not even dogcatcher, in that year or any other. As far as "welcomed with open arms", your link fails to mention either one. Wright had already retired by then anyway.
But yanno what, I'll give you a chance. Show us a list of Dixiecrats not named Thurmond or Wright. Anybody, even one. Since you claimed there were "much more than two" it should be easy. Right?
(/offtopic)
So ................. no names huh.
What a surprise.
Your "actual evidence" is stuff I've already read. I don't come into these things with no background. And the fact is there's no mention of a Thurmond or a Wright in it.
Oh and by the way in that same year (1952) Thurmond endorsed Eisenhower. Aaaaand we're still waitin' on those "open arms".
I already told you, Sparkman had nothing to do with the Dixiecrats. Show us where he did.
And I've already read the article, which says nothing about "open arms" OR Thurmond OR Wright. It does however go to some length to point out that the party were requiring loyalty pledges, no doubt to stave off any more Thurmonds.
Are you actually suggesting that a political party would nominate for its #2, somebody who four years prior worked directly against them?
" In March 1948, he announced that he could not support the election of President Truman, and supported Strom Thurmond's 1948 "Dixiecrat" ticket. Though he continued to oppose much civil rights legislation, he successfully fought Dixiecrats for control of the Alabama Democratic Party organization. "
What you have "told" me is all made up crap you've pulled from your butt.
Yes, the Dems did that because they openly embraced and wanted the Dixiecrats back in the DNC...and the Dixiecrats had a lot, if not most in common with the DNC
Dood FOUR FRIGGIN' STATES voted for the Dixiecrat ticket. That doesn't make them part of a political party any more than the Byrd machine in Virginia did.
In the same way, Strom Thurmond supported (and endorsed) Eisenhnower four years later --- that doesn't make him a Republican in 1952.
George W. Bush supported Biden a year ago --- that didn't make him a Democrat. Etc etc etc.
The Dixiecrats and their sycophants were 180 opposed to the Democrats, specifically the DP's platform on civil rights, integration and voting rights. And that platform didn't change from '48 to '52.
PLUS you just posted yourself that he fought Dixiecrats for control of the Alabama state party. Successfully.
So let's recap this offtopic ridiculous tangent:
List of Dixiecrats:
end of list
- Strom Thurmond
- Fielding Wright
What made the Dixiecrats Dems, was they were Dems before they ran someone against Truman, and then were welcomed back with open arms the next election...even picking one to be the VP on the ticket.
Correct, and his machine ran successful Virginia political campaigns and Byrd got some of JFK's electoral votes too. Byrd was kind of a "Dixiecrat Lite" --- opposed to the Democrats' civil rights stances and actively opposing them, but didn't go so far as to split off and run himself or anybody else against them.
As for Sparkman, once AGAIN again he wasn't part of the Dixiecrats which AGAIN numbered a total of TWO (2), who were not at all "welcomed back with open arms". Half of them (i.e. one person) had already retired and the other half {Thurmond) got kicked off the ballot when he went to run for the Senate. That don't sound much like "open arms". And as I told you yesterday, the link you tried to pass off to make this "open arms" case never mentioned either of them. Thurmond didn't run, or try to run, for POTUS as a Democrat, and Sparkman didn't run for anythining as a Dixiecrat.
Sparkman certainly was, and supported the Dixiecrats ticket. Claiming the only two Dixiecrats were the two people that they nominated is silly...it's like saying Xiden and Harris are the only two dems....
To be fair, the Dixiecrats really weren't a party....I guess you can argue that...it was a small group of Dems that ran and nominated some people from the Dem party against Truman.
WRONG. We just established in this very tangent how Truman desegregated the military and how at the same time the Dixiecrats walked out of the 1948 convention specifically because of that civil rights platform. If Harry Truman isn't a "major Dem" I'm not sure what your definition is. Further, there was no "ship" to jump. Few if any of the Solid South Democrats were ever keen on civil rights, in direct opposition to their northern and western colleagues. They were completely opposed. I'm wondering at this point if you even have any clue what a political party IS.
Of course Biden and Harris are not the only two Dems, even if you limited to a single election, in that there were dozens/hundreds of Democratic Party candidates for Senators, Congresscritters, Governors etc. NONE of that ever happened with the so-called "Dixiecrats" who --- ONCE AGAIN --- ran a grand total of TWO (2) candidates for ANYTHING EVER. It was a splinter, for the occasion. I seriously doubt there was even such a thing as voter registration with it. Don't know for sure as there are no such records.
Not sure who the pronoun "he" at the start of your post is supposed to mean, but it can't mean Sparkman. He was there for one purpose, and that was to pander to that Southern hyperconservative vote that that party had been counting on for decades and would soon release with LBJ.
NO
THEY
DID
NOT.
And NO it WAS NOT.
I've proved this to you and invited you to prove me wrong, and you can't do it. You even trotted in a link that failed to prove any such thing, which I also pointed out. Saying so does not make it so. Don't come waddling in here with fake histories and links that prove you wrong.
Oh fucking bullshit.
LBJ gave the South away with the CRA in 1964, but the tensions had been unraveling that sorry coalition for decades. Wallace with his endless rants about "northern liberals" exemplified that. Wallace also nearly beat Thurmond to being the first one to jump ship when he offered to change political parties and be Goldwater's running mate in 1964 (he wouldn't have needed to change parties but he offered and Goldwater declined). Truman and Humphrey before that in the convention in 1948. And before WW2 FDR, at the height of his influence in 1936, getting the party's convention rules changed to a simple majority rather than a 2/3 for a POTUS nomination, undercutting the South's ability to hold the nomination hostage, as they had done in 1924. And of course the turn of the century with its political party migration where the Republicans started taking on the interests of the rich while the DP courted the immigrant, labor and minority vote (which is why they have it today).
This was a schism brewing for a long long time, and Thurmond, Wright, Byrd, Wallace and their hyperconservative ilk were still living in the past of the "states rights" of the mid-nineteenth century. The only reason they hadn't already shifted to Republicans, their more natural fit by then, was emotional .... nobody wanted to be associated with the Party of Lincoln. Lyndon Johnson in effect told them to go get fucked as they were not worth the hassle, and Thurmond reacted by being the first to jump ship. Nobody was surprised where he jumped TO; the only surprise was that anyone from that mindset finally did it at all.
Don't sit here and try to snowjob me on history that I know very well. It doesn't work.
LBJ didn't give the South away...they lost a handful of Presidential elections, but they maintain State, local and Congressional control over the South
Pogo
Diamond Member
- Dec 7, 2012
- 123,708
- 22,748
Yeah they did...I literally provided an article that says they did, and they took one of the Dixiecrats as VPyeah they took issue with that one piece...yea only two people ran, but there were more then two dixiecrats...they were welcomed back with open arms the next election and even picked one to run as VP. The DNC agenda was far much more in line on all issues including civil rights with them.He was in lock step with the Dems on Civil Rights....JFK was the first major Dem to jump ship and follow the GOP Civil Rights policies, and Johnson signed off on his plans, since he saw the waters turning, and wanted to respect JFK's legacy.Byrd was a Dem....no names? read the article it was open arms and the dems made sure to make them happy by nominating one for vpi suppose you just want to make things up even after getting confronted with actual evidenceThere were much more then TWO Dixiecrats....obviously only two that ran for President and VP...but there were much more then twoWell lots of places were hiring african-americans...The US Army.Who was hiring blacks and putting them in front of customers in 1947?WelKen Burns ruined his series on baseball by harping over and over and over and over about blacks being segregated from whites in the early days of baseball. And spent a nanosecond on the fact baseball did more to break down walls than anything else in society.
So I have no sympathy watching the woke eat one of their own.
Really.
And what might these "walls" be that baseball broke down? You know, while it was keeping blacks out?
I’ll wait.
The US Army however, wasn't integrated until AFTER baseball did it, it was 1948. Truman did it, by EO...this pissed off most of the Dems though. Many actually ran someone against him, they lost...but those that ran against him, were welcomed right back in the DNC.
Actually there were a total of two (2), the infamous "Dixiecrats", who walked out of the party convention after hearing too much talk about civil rights and ran their own candidates --- those two being Strom Thurmond, governor of SC and Fielding Wright, governor of Mississippi. After they lost they served out their governor terms and Wright went back to his law practice until he died in the mid-1950s. Thurmond however wanted to jump to the Senate. But when he ran for it the Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot and he had to run as a write-in, which he did and won and that's how he got into the Senate (the only other Senate candidate to win as a write in was more recently, Lisa Murkowski in Alaska)
So no, they weren't exactly "welcomed" back into the DNC (actually they were never part of the DNC) and weren't exactly popular having nearly cost their POTUS candidate his re-election.
All offtopic here, but since the OP went into a stall on his own thread it's just as well we learn something.
and yes they were welcomed back with open arms at the next Presidential election Democrats Vote Today; Southerners Seated; Truman Puts His Support Behind Stevenson
The DNC even made sure to have one as the VP nom..John Sparkman from Alabama.
Sparkman had nothing to do with the Dixiecrats of 1948. They weren't even a real political party; it was simply a scheme to put competition on state ballots that year (and some Southern states rejected them anyway). The plan, like all third parties in an entrenched Duopoly protected by the Electoral College, was not to win outright but to siphon off enough votes so that no Democrat (Truman) or Republican (Dewey) would win an electoral majority, and thus throw the election to the House of Reps. They failed, but they came close.
Sparkman had only just arrived in the Senate. They wouldn't have considered putting him on the ticket had he been part of the schism.
So yeah there were TWO (1, 2) Dixiecrats, Thurmond and Wright. Nobody ran under that banner for any other office, not even dogcatcher, in that year or any other. As far as "welcomed with open arms", your link fails to mention either one. Wright had already retired by then anyway.
But yanno what, I'll give you a chance. Show us a list of Dixiecrats not named Thurmond or Wright. Anybody, even one. Since you claimed there were "much more than two" it should be easy. Right?
(/offtopic)
So ................. no names huh.
What a surprise.
Your "actual evidence" is stuff I've already read. I don't come into these things with no background. And the fact is there's no mention of a Thurmond or a Wright in it.
Oh and by the way in that same year (1952) Thurmond endorsed Eisenhower. Aaaaand we're still waitin' on those "open arms".
I already told you, Sparkman had nothing to do with the Dixiecrats. Show us where he did.
And I've already read the article, which says nothing about "open arms" OR Thurmond OR Wright. It does however go to some length to point out that the party were requiring loyalty pledges, no doubt to stave off any more Thurmonds.
Are you actually suggesting that a political party would nominate for its #2, somebody who four years prior worked directly against them?
" In March 1948, he announced that he could not support the election of President Truman, and supported Strom Thurmond's 1948 "Dixiecrat" ticket. Though he continued to oppose much civil rights legislation, he successfully fought Dixiecrats for control of the Alabama Democratic Party organization. "
What you have "told" me is all made up crap you've pulled from your butt.
Yes, the Dems did that because they openly embraced and wanted the Dixiecrats back in the DNC...and the Dixiecrats had a lot, if not most in common with the DNC
Dood FOUR FRIGGIN' STATES voted for the Dixiecrat ticket. That doesn't make them part of a political party any more than the Byrd machine in Virginia did.
In the same way, Strom Thurmond supported (and endorsed) Eisenhnower four years later --- that doesn't make him a Republican in 1952.
George W. Bush supported Biden a year ago --- that didn't make him a Democrat. Etc etc etc.
The Dixiecrats and their sycophants were 180 opposed to the Democrats, specifically the DP's platform on civil rights, integration and voting rights. And that platform didn't change from '48 to '52.
PLUS you just posted yourself that he fought Dixiecrats for control of the Alabama state party. Successfully.
So let's recap this offtopic ridiculous tangent:
List of Dixiecrats:
end of list
- Strom Thurmond
- Fielding Wright
What made the Dixiecrats Dems, was they were Dems before they ran someone against Truman, and then were welcomed back with open arms the next election...even picking one to be the VP on the ticket.
Correct, and his machine ran successful Virginia political campaigns and Byrd got some of JFK's electoral votes too. Byrd was kind of a "Dixiecrat Lite" --- opposed to the Democrats' civil rights stances and actively opposing them, but didn't go so far as to split off and run himself or anybody else against them.
As for Sparkman, once AGAIN again he wasn't part of the Dixiecrats which AGAIN numbered a total of TWO (2), who were not at all "welcomed back with open arms". Half of them (i.e. one person) had already retired and the other half {Thurmond) got kicked off the ballot when he went to run for the Senate. That don't sound much like "open arms". And as I told you yesterday, the link you tried to pass off to make this "open arms" case never mentioned either of them. Thurmond didn't run, or try to run, for POTUS as a Democrat, and Sparkman didn't run for anythining as a Dixiecrat.
Sparkman certainly was, and supported the Dixiecrats ticket. Claiming the only two Dixiecrats were the two people that they nominated is silly...it's like saying Xiden and Harris are the only two dems....
To be fair, the Dixiecrats really weren't a party....I guess you can argue that...it was a small group of Dems that ran and nominated some people from the Dem party against Truman.
WRONG. We just established in this very tangent how Truman desegregated the military and how at the same time the Dixiecrats walked out of the 1948 convention specifically because of that civil rights platform. If Harry Truman isn't a "major Dem" I'm not sure what your definition is. Further, there was no "ship" to jump. Few if any of the Solid South Democrats were ever keen on civil rights, in direct opposition to their northern and western colleagues. They were completely opposed. I'm wondering at this point if you even have any clue what a political party IS.
Of course Biden and Harris are not the only two Dems, even if you limited to a single election, in that there were dozens/hundreds of Democratic Party candidates for Senators, Congresscritters, Governors etc. NONE of that ever happened with the so-called "Dixiecrats" who --- ONCE AGAIN --- ran a grand total of TWO (2) candidates for ANYTHING EVER. It was a splinter, for the occasion. I seriously doubt there was even such a thing as voter registration with it. Don't know for sure as there are no such records.
Not sure who the pronoun "he" at the start of your post is supposed to mean, but it can't mean Sparkman. He was there for one purpose, and that was to pander to that Southern hyperconservative vote that that party had been counting on for decades and would soon release with LBJ.
NO
THEY
DID
NOT.
And NO it WAS NOT.
I've proved this to you and invited you to prove me wrong, and you can't do it. You even trotted in a link that failed to prove any such thing, which I also pointed out. Saying so does not make it so. Don't come waddling in here with fake histories and links that prove you wrong.
Oh fucking bullshit.
LBJ gave the South away with the CRA in 1964, but the tensions had been unraveling that sorry coalition for decades. Wallace with his endless rants about "northern liberals" exemplified that. Wallace also nearly beat Thurmond to being the first one to jump ship when he offered to change political parties and be Goldwater's running mate in 1964 (he wouldn't have needed to change parties but he offered and Goldwater declined). Truman and Humphrey before that in the convention in 1948. And before WW2 FDR, at the height of his influence in 1936, getting the party's convention rules changed to a simple majority rather than a 2/3 for a POTUS nomination, undercutting the South's ability to hold the nomination hostage, as they had done in 1924. And of course the turn of the century with its political party migration where the Republicans started taking on the interests of the rich while the DP courted the immigrant, labor and minority vote (which is why they have it today).
This was a schism brewing for a long long time, and Thurmond, Wright, Byrd, Wallace and their hyperconservative ilk were still living in the past of the "states rights" of the mid-nineteenth century. The only reason they hadn't already shifted to Republicans, their more natural fit by then, was emotional .... nobody wanted to be associated with the Party of Lincoln. Lyndon Johnson in effect told them to go get fucked as they were not worth the hassle, and Thurmond reacted by being the first to jump ship. Nobody was surprised where he jumped TO; the only surprise was that anyone from that mindset finally did it at all.
Don't sit here and try to snowjob me on history that I know very well. It doesn't work.
LBJ didn't give the South away...they lost a handful of Presidential elections, but they maintain State, local and Congressional control over the South
You provided an article which, AS I POINTED OUT AT THE TIME, said no such thing
And no, they don't maintain any of those levels. I frickin' LIVE HERE.
the article i posted literally said hey welcomed them backYeah they did...I literally provided an article that says they did, and they took one of the Dixiecrats as VPyeah they took issue with that one piece...yea only two people ran, but there were more then two dixiecrats...they were welcomed back with open arms the next election and even picked one to run as VP. The DNC agenda was far much more in line on all issues including civil rights with them.He was in lock step with the Dems on Civil Rights....JFK was the first major Dem to jump ship and follow the GOP Civil Rights policies, and Johnson signed off on his plans, since he saw the waters turning, and wanted to respect JFK's legacy.Byrd was a Dem....no names? read the article it was open arms and the dems made sure to make them happy by nominating one for vpi suppose you just want to make things up even after getting confronted with actual evidenceThere were much more then TWO Dixiecrats....obviously only two that ran for President and VP...but there were much more then twoWell lots of places were hiring african-americans...The US Army.Who was hiring blacks and putting them in front of customers in 1947?WelKen Burns ruined his series on baseball by harping over and over and over and over about blacks being segregated from whites in the early days of baseball. And spent a nanosecond on the fact baseball did more to break down walls than anything else in society.
So I have no sympathy watching the woke eat one of their own.
Really.
And what might these "walls" be that baseball broke down? You know, while it was keeping blacks out?
I’ll wait.
The US Army however, wasn't integrated until AFTER baseball did it, it was 1948. Truman did it, by EO...this pissed off most of the Dems though. Many actually ran someone against him, they lost...but those that ran against him, were welcomed right back in the DNC.
Actually there were a total of two (2), the infamous "Dixiecrats", who walked out of the party convention after hearing too much talk about civil rights and ran their own candidates --- those two being Strom Thurmond, governor of SC and Fielding Wright, governor of Mississippi. After they lost they served out their governor terms and Wright went back to his law practice until he died in the mid-1950s. Thurmond however wanted to jump to the Senate. But when he ran for it the Democratic Party kicked him off the ballot and he had to run as a write-in, which he did and won and that's how he got into the Senate (the only other Senate candidate to win as a write in was more recently, Lisa Murkowski in Alaska)
So no, they weren't exactly "welcomed" back into the DNC (actually they were never part of the DNC) and weren't exactly popular having nearly cost their POTUS candidate his re-election.
All offtopic here, but since the OP went into a stall on his own thread it's just as well we learn something.
and yes they were welcomed back with open arms at the next Presidential election Democrats Vote Today; Southerners Seated; Truman Puts His Support Behind Stevenson
The DNC even made sure to have one as the VP nom..John Sparkman from Alabama.
Sparkman had nothing to do with the Dixiecrats of 1948. They weren't even a real political party; it was simply a scheme to put competition on state ballots that year (and some Southern states rejected them anyway). The plan, like all third parties in an entrenched Duopoly protected by the Electoral College, was not to win outright but to siphon off enough votes so that no Democrat (Truman) or Republican (Dewey) would win an electoral majority, and thus throw the election to the House of Reps. They failed, but they came close.
Sparkman had only just arrived in the Senate. They wouldn't have considered putting him on the ticket had he been part of the schism.
So yeah there were TWO (1, 2) Dixiecrats, Thurmond and Wright. Nobody ran under that banner for any other office, not even dogcatcher, in that year or any other. As far as "welcomed with open arms", your link fails to mention either one. Wright had already retired by then anyway.
But yanno what, I'll give you a chance. Show us a list of Dixiecrats not named Thurmond or Wright. Anybody, even one. Since you claimed there were "much more than two" it should be easy. Right?
(/offtopic)
So ................. no names huh.
What a surprise.
Your "actual evidence" is stuff I've already read. I don't come into these things with no background. And the fact is there's no mention of a Thurmond or a Wright in it.
Oh and by the way in that same year (1952) Thurmond endorsed Eisenhower. Aaaaand we're still waitin' on those "open arms".
I already told you, Sparkman had nothing to do with the Dixiecrats. Show us where he did.
And I've already read the article, which says nothing about "open arms" OR Thurmond OR Wright. It does however go to some length to point out that the party were requiring loyalty pledges, no doubt to stave off any more Thurmonds.
Are you actually suggesting that a political party would nominate for its #2, somebody who four years prior worked directly against them?
" In March 1948, he announced that he could not support the election of President Truman, and supported Strom Thurmond's 1948 "Dixiecrat" ticket. Though he continued to oppose much civil rights legislation, he successfully fought Dixiecrats for control of the Alabama Democratic Party organization. "
What you have "told" me is all made up crap you've pulled from your butt.
Yes, the Dems did that because they openly embraced and wanted the Dixiecrats back in the DNC...and the Dixiecrats had a lot, if not most in common with the DNC
Dood FOUR FRIGGIN' STATES voted for the Dixiecrat ticket. That doesn't make them part of a political party any more than the Byrd machine in Virginia did.
In the same way, Strom Thurmond supported (and endorsed) Eisenhnower four years later --- that doesn't make him a Republican in 1952.
George W. Bush supported Biden a year ago --- that didn't make him a Democrat. Etc etc etc.
The Dixiecrats and their sycophants were 180 opposed to the Democrats, specifically the DP's platform on civil rights, integration and voting rights. And that platform didn't change from '48 to '52.
PLUS you just posted yourself that he fought Dixiecrats for control of the Alabama state party. Successfully.
So let's recap this offtopic ridiculous tangent:
List of Dixiecrats:
end of list
- Strom Thurmond
- Fielding Wright
What made the Dixiecrats Dems, was they were Dems before they ran someone against Truman, and then were welcomed back with open arms the next election...even picking one to be the VP on the ticket.
Correct, and his machine ran successful Virginia political campaigns and Byrd got some of JFK's electoral votes too. Byrd was kind of a "Dixiecrat Lite" --- opposed to the Democrats' civil rights stances and actively opposing them, but didn't go so far as to split off and run himself or anybody else against them.
As for Sparkman, once AGAIN again he wasn't part of the Dixiecrats which AGAIN numbered a total of TWO (2), who were not at all "welcomed back with open arms". Half of them (i.e. one person) had already retired and the other half {Thurmond) got kicked off the ballot when he went to run for the Senate. That don't sound much like "open arms". And as I told you yesterday, the link you tried to pass off to make this "open arms" case never mentioned either of them. Thurmond didn't run, or try to run, for POTUS as a Democrat, and Sparkman didn't run for anythining as a Dixiecrat.
Sparkman certainly was, and supported the Dixiecrats ticket. Claiming the only two Dixiecrats were the two people that they nominated is silly...it's like saying Xiden and Harris are the only two dems....
To be fair, the Dixiecrats really weren't a party....I guess you can argue that...it was a small group of Dems that ran and nominated some people from the Dem party against Truman.
WRONG. We just established in this very tangent how Truman desegregated the military and how at the same time the Dixiecrats walked out of the 1948 convention specifically because of that civil rights platform. If Harry Truman isn't a "major Dem" I'm not sure what your definition is. Further, there was no "ship" to jump. Few if any of the Solid South Democrats were ever keen on civil rights, in direct opposition to their northern and western colleagues. They were completely opposed. I'm wondering at this point if you even have any clue what a political party IS.
Of course Biden and Harris are not the only two Dems, even if you limited to a single election, in that there were dozens/hundreds of Democratic Party candidates for Senators, Congresscritters, Governors etc. NONE of that ever happened with the so-called "Dixiecrats" who --- ONCE AGAIN --- ran a grand total of TWO (2) candidates for ANYTHING EVER. It was a splinter, for the occasion. I seriously doubt there was even such a thing as voter registration with it. Don't know for sure as there are no such records.
Not sure who the pronoun "he" at the start of your post is supposed to mean, but it can't mean Sparkman. He was there for one purpose, and that was to pander to that Southern hyperconservative vote that that party had been counting on for decades and would soon release with LBJ.
NO
THEY
DID
NOT.
And NO it WAS NOT.
I've proved this to you and invited you to prove me wrong, and you can't do it. You even trotted in a link that failed to prove any such thing, which I also pointed out. Saying so does not make it so. Don't come waddling in here with fake histories and links that prove you wrong.
Oh fucking bullshit.
LBJ gave the South away with the CRA in 1964, but the tensions had been unraveling that sorry coalition for decades. Wallace with his endless rants about "northern liberals" exemplified that. Wallace also nearly beat Thurmond to being the first one to jump ship when he offered to change political parties and be Goldwater's running mate in 1964 (he wouldn't have needed to change parties but he offered and Goldwater declined). Truman and Humphrey before that in the convention in 1948. And before WW2 FDR, at the height of his influence in 1936, getting the party's convention rules changed to a simple majority rather than a 2/3 for a POTUS nomination, undercutting the South's ability to hold the nomination hostage, as they had done in 1924. And of course the turn of the century with its political party migration where the Republicans started taking on the interests of the rich while the DP courted the immigrant, labor and minority vote (which is why they have it today).
This was a schism brewing for a long long time, and Thurmond, Wright, Byrd, Wallace and their hyperconservative ilk were still living in the past of the "states rights" of the mid-nineteenth century. The only reason they hadn't already shifted to Republicans, their more natural fit by then, was emotional .... nobody wanted to be associated with the Party of Lincoln. Lyndon Johnson in effect told them to go get fucked as they were not worth the hassle, and Thurmond reacted by being the first to jump ship. Nobody was surprised where he jumped TO; the only surprise was that anyone from that mindset finally did it at all.
Don't sit here and try to snowjob me on history that I know very well. It doesn't work.
LBJ didn't give the South away...they lost a handful of Presidential elections, but they maintain State, local and Congressional control over the South
You provided an article which, AS I POINTED OUT AT THE TIME, said no such thing
And no, they don't maintain any of those levels. I frickin' LIVE HERE.
yes they lost contros recently...last decade or so.
i live in the south too
Harry Dresden
Adamantium Member
- Dec 15, 2008
- 94,215
- 27,127
music did more to break down those walls than baseball....there were integrated bands long before baseball integrated....Ken Burns ruined his series on baseball by harping over and over and over and over about blacks being segregated from whites in the early days of baseball. And spent a nanosecond on the fact baseball did more to break down walls than anything else in society.
So I have no sympathy watching the woke eat one of their own.
