Liberal ... (in modern tems)

[Hello]

On his deathbed in 1874, Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) told a Republican colleague: “You must take care of the civil rights bill – my bill, the civil rights bill. Don’t let it fail.” In March 1875, the Republican-controlled 43rd Congress followed up the GOP’s 1866 Civil Rights Act and 1871 Civil Rights Act with the most comprehensive civil rights legislation ever. A Republican president, Ulysses Grant, signed the bill into law that same day.

Among its provisions, the 1875 Civil Rights Act banned racial discrimination in public accommodations. Sound familiar? Though struck down by the Supreme Court eight years later, the 1875 Civil Rights Act would be reborn as the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

During the twenty years of the FDR and Truman administrations, the Democrats had refused to enact any civil rights legislation. In contrast, President Dwight Eisenhower signed the 1957 Civil Rights Act, which had been written by his Attorney General, a former Chairman of the Republican National Committee. The original draft would have permitted the federal government to sue anyone violating another person’s constitutional rights, but this powerful provision would have to wait until the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The bill had to be weakened considerably to secure enough Democrat votes to pass, so violations would be civil, not criminal offenses, and penalties were light. Vice President Richard Nixon helped overcome a Democrat filibuster in the Senate. The GOP then strengthened enforcement with its 1960 Civil Rights Act.
http://biggovernment.com/mzak/2010/05/31/republican-roots-of-the-1964-civil-rights-act/

 

[hermit]

Quote from Hello:

Yet again you are busted lying so you try to change the subject, fact of the matter is it was the republicans who passed the bill with racist democrats opposing them every step of the way.

Bullshit, I pointed out how the racist dems turned Repubs after CRA but you can't bring yourself to admit it.

 

[hermit]

Quote from Hello:

On his deathbed in 1874, Senator Charles Sumner (R-MA) told a Republican colleague: “You must take care of the civil rights bill – my bill, the civil rights bill. Don’t let it fail.” In March 1875, the Republican-controlled 43rd Congress followed up the GOP’s 1866 Civil Rights Act and 1871 Civil Rights Act with the most comprehensive civil rights legislation ever. A Republican president, Ulysses Grant, signed the bill into law that same day.

Among its provisions, the 1875 Civil Rights Act banned racial discrimination in public accommodations. Sound familiar? Though struck down by the Supreme Court eight years later, the 1875 Civil Rights Act would be reborn as the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

During the twenty years of the FDR and Truman administrations, the Democrats had refused to enact any civil rights legislation. In contrast, President Dwight Eisenhower signed the 1957 Civil Rights Act, which had been written by his Attorney General, a former Chairman of the Republican National Committee. The original draft would have permitted the federal government to sue anyone violating another person’s constitutional rights, but this powerful provision would have to wait until the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The bill had to be weakened considerably to secure enough Democrat votes to pass, so violations would be civil, not criminal offenses, and penalties were light. Vice President Richard Nixon helped overcome a Democrat filibuster in the Senate. The GOP then strengthened enforcement with its 1960 Civil Rights Act.
http://biggovernment.com/mzak/2010/05/31/republican-roots-of-the-1964-civil-rights-act/

Ronald Reagan, a genial television personality and former film actor, launched his political career at the 1964 Republican Convention, speaking in support of Goldwater and individual rights, a term frequently invoked to justify the rights of individuals to discriminate against racial groups they despised. Elected Governor of California in 1966, Reagan became the darling of conservatives in the sixties and seventies.

When Reagan ran for president in 1980, he kicked off his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers had been murdered in 1964, and spoke in favor of states’ rights and limiting the power of the federal government. In retrospect, it is astonishing that a presidential candidate in 1980 could oppose federal power in connection with civil rights, given the crucial, if imperfect role the federal government had played in codifying civil rights with Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


Conservative Intellectuals and Grassroots Organizations

Conservative politicians were not devising their strategies on civil rights in a vacuum. Conservative intellectuals and grassroots political organizations were playing the tune of “individual rights” and speaking out against the Civil Rights Movement as well. The National Review, a magazine founded by conservative ideologue William F. Buckley, Jr., had supported black disenfranchisement in the South on the basis that “the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage.” The Young Americans for Freedom, a conservative student group founded in 1960 awarded its “Freedom Award” to arch-segregationist Senator Strom Thurmond in 1962.

In earlier years Democrats had been anything but heroic on civil rights. John F. Kennedy dragged his feet on civil rights legislation out of fear of alienating the party's southern brethren. FDR had refused to support a national anti-lynching law for the same reason. But Lyndon Johnson’s push for civil rights legislation drove the white South into their opponents’ camp, and the Republican Party was not about to question the racial motivations of their new voters.

http://www.suite101.com/content/conservatives-and-the-civil-rights-movement-a284134

 

[Hello]

Doesnt change the fact that the overwhelming majority of racists who opposed the bill were democrats.

Quote from hermit:

Ronald Reagan, a genial television personality and former film actor, launched his political career at the 1964 Republican Convention, speaking in support of Goldwater and individual rights, a term frequently invoked to justify the rights of individuals to discriminate against racial groups they despised. Elected Governor of California in 1966, Reagan became the darling of conservatives in the sixties and seventies.

When Reagan ran for president in 1980, he kicked off his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers had been murdered in 1964, and spoke in favor of states’ rights and limiting the power of the federal government. In retrospect, it is astonishing that a presidential candidate in 1980 could oppose federal power in connection with civil rights, given the crucial, if imperfect role the federal government had played in codifying civil rights with Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


Conservative Intellectuals and Grassroots Organizations

Conservative politicians were not devising their strategies on civil rights in a vacuum. Conservative intellectuals and grassroots political organizations were playing the tune of “individual rights” and speaking out against the Civil Rights Movement as well. The National Review, a magazine founded by conservative ideologue William F. Buckley, Jr., had supported black disenfranchisement in the South on the basis that “the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage.” The Young Americans for Freedom, a conservative student group founded in 1960 awarded its “Freedom Award” to arch-segregationist Senator Strom Thurmond in 1962.

In earlier years Democrats had been anything but heroic on civil rights. John F. Kennedy dragged his feet on civil rights legislation out of fear of alienating the party's southern brethren. FDR had refused to support a national anti-lynching law for the same reason. But Lyndon Johnson’s push for civil rights legislation drove the white South into their opponents’ camp, and the Republican Party was not about to question the racial motivations of their new voters.

http://www.suite101.com/content/conservatives-and-the-civil-rights-movement-a284134

 

[hermit]

Quote from Hello:

Doesnt change the fact that the overwhelming majority of racists who opposed the bill were democrats.

Sure they were - who changed sides after CRA.

"Why the South Must Prevail." In it, Buckley said that the "central question" is neither "parliamentary" nor one "that is answered by merely consulting a catalogue of the rights of American citizens, born Equal." Rather, it is "whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically?"

And? "The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race." In other words, the South "perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes', and intends to assert its own," an intention Buckley approves:

If the majority wills what is socially atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority.

Buckley's subsequent treatment of civil rights issues was more circumspect. In 1957 he regarded the whites' civilization as more advanced both subjectively and objectively. The South perceives important differences between white and black culture, and the white community is the advanced race and what blacks would bring about is atavistic.

Later, Buckley emphasized only the subjective element. Abandoning the argument that whites were objectively more civilized, however, sometimes led to expressions of solicitude for Southern whites who were conspicuously uncivilized. A 1961 editorial beseeches readers to try to understand those whites who responded to the provocation posed by the Northern "Freedom Riders" by beating the crap out of a few of them. "Jim Crow at the bus stations strikes us as unnecessary, and even wrong," Buckley said, but this is "irrelevant" because it "does not strike the average white Southerner as wrong."

That is what they feel, and they feel that their life is for them to structure; that the Negro has grown up under generally benevolent circumstances, considering where he started and how far he had to go; that he is making progress; that the coexistence of that progress and the Southern way of life demand, for the time being, separation.


This was indeed what the South felt, or at least what it said it felt during the early years of the civil rights movement. Buckley's characterization resembles that of the "Southern Manifesto," signed in 1956 by nearly every senator and representative from the South. The Manifesto charged the Supreme Court's Brown decision with destroying the amicable relations between the white and Negro races that have been created through 90 years of patient effort by the good people of both races. It has planted hatred and suspicion where there has been heretofore friendship and understanding.


It's hard for modern readers to decide whether cynicism, or delusion, explains such an assessment.

 

[Hello]

So you admit what you posted which is seen below is a lie?


"Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things...every one!"

 

[hermit]

Quote from Hello:

So you admit what you posted which is seen below is a lie?


"Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things...every one!"

You are a moron if you don't understand the distinction between being a Democrat vs being a Liberal.

 

[Hello]

Quote from hermit:

You are a moron if you don't understand the distinction between being a Democrat vs being a Liberal.

So thats the angle your going with now? In that case all those people in the south who vote republican are more then likely liberals.

 

[hermit]

Quote from Hello:

So thats the angle your going with now? In that case all those people in the south who vote republican are more then likely liberals.

Maybe you should re-read this.

"The "Southern Manifesto," signed in 1956 by nearly every senator and representative from the South. The Manifesto charged the Supreme Court's Brown decision with - destroying the amicable relations between the white and Negro races that have been created through 90 years of patient effort by the good people of both races. It has planted hatred and suspicion where there has been heretofore friendship and understanding."

"Legend has Lyndon Johnson turning to an aide after signing the Civil Rights Act and saying that the Democrats had just lost the South for a generation."

And in the era of teabagging you may not remember, but there used to be Liberal Republicans in the past.

 

[Hello]

Still doesnt change anything, racist liberal democrats tried to block the civil rights act while Republicans overwhelmingly voted for it.

It doesnt matter what kind of people decide to vote for politicians, what matters is the politicians actions, and it was racist democratic politicians who opposed the civil rights bill.