Best Non Gamstop Casinos UK Gambling Sites Not On Gamstop UK Casinos Not On Gamstop Non Gamstop Casinos Casinos Not On Gamstop

White Supremacy alive and well in today's G.O.P.
Pages : [1] 2 3 of Civil Rights.
http://Great-Liberal-Insights.Org/civilrights.html

Being such "good Christians", Southerners swear on their Bible Belt that they love their "negra" neighbors and always have, and that they didn't wage a Civil War with the United States of America to defend and perpetuate the enslavement of black people who had been captured in Africa and brought to our shores to work for nothing on their plantations. There's no question that there were beneficiaries of the practice of slavery and slave-trading in the Northern states as well. But were the people in the North willing to fight to the death to perpetuate slavery there? Or did they see slavery as the evil that it was, ban it in most of their own states, and then fight to the death to end it in the rest of the United States of America?
It's amazing that a careless moment could have brought down Senator Trent Lott, the powerful Republican Leader of the U.S. Senate in Dec., 2002, when he said at the celebration of the 100th birthday of Sen. Strom Thurmond, that America would have faired better in the latter half of the 20th century if, instead of electing the Democrat, Harry Truman, or the Republican, Tom Dewey, it had elected Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond President of the United States of America! Most Americans outside of Dixie may only have a fuzzy idea of what supporting Strom Thurmond meant in 1948, but Southerners who know anything about their history know full well exactly what that meant. For Southerners, fighting for "states rights" meant fighting for the right of the former Confederate States to perpetuate segregation and "Jim Crow laws" in the 20th century, just as fighting for "states rights" had meant fighting for the right of states to perpetuate the enslavement of black human beings in the 19th century, When Southerners, Republicans and "Christian conservatives" try to deny that, show them that you have "the smoking gun", one of many documents that show what they know to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth:

Since the vast majority of Southerners were too poor to actually own slaves personally, their betters, who did own the slaves, and who made all the important decisions for the community, including the one to wage a war of secession against the United States of America, didn't come right out and tell them "We want you to go to war and risk your life, to protect our right to own slaves." In most cases, the vast majority of those who actually fight in wars stand to lose much more than they stand to gain, and it's necessary for the rich and powerful to fool the masses into risking their lives for the benefit of those pulling their strings. The soldiers who fought heroically and/or lost their lives on the front lines may be honored because they believed that they were fighting for some noble cause, but the leaders of the Confederacy spelled out how important slavery was to their rebellion against the United States of America.

Don't take my word for the real reason the South fought a war to create a separate confederacy of states. Here's what the President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, said about that when he addressed the Confederate Congress in the aftermath of the fall of Fort Sumter:

President Jefferson Davis'
Special Message to the Confederate Congress

A fortnight after Fort Sumter fell, President Jefferson Davis in a special message to the Confederate Congress explained his view of the nature of the Union and of slavery, and how the threat to black slavery had impelled Southerners to secede and form a new government:

Gentlemen of the Congress. . .

The declaration of war made against this Confederacy by Abraham Lincoln, the President of the United States, in his proclamation issued on the 15th day of the present month, rendered it necessary, in my judgment, that you should convene at the earliest practicable moment to devise the measures necessary for the defense of the country. The occasion is indeed an extraordinary one. It justifies me in a brief review of the relations heretofore existing between us and the States which now unite in warfare against us and in a succinct statement of the events which have resulted in this warfare, to the end that mankind may pass intelligent and impartial judgment on its motives and objects. During the war waged against Great Britain by her colonies on this continent a common danger impelled them to a close alliance and to the formation of a Confederation, by the terms of which the colonies, styling themselves States, entered "severally into a firm league of friendship with each other for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever. . . In order to guard against any misconstruction of their compact, the several States made explicit declaration in a distinct article-that "each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.''
Strange, indeed, must it appear to the impartial observer, but it is none the less true that all these carefully worded clauses proved unavailing to prevent the rise and growth in the Northern States of a political school which has persistently claimed that the government thus formed was not a compact between States, but was in effect a national government, set up above and over the States. An organization created by the States to secure the blessings of liberty and independence against foreign aggression, has been gradually perverted into a machine for their control in their domestic affairs. . . In addition to the long continued and deep�seated resentment felt by the Southern States at the persistent abuse of the powers they had delegated to the Congress, for the purpose of enriching the manufacturing and shipping classes of the North at the expense of the South, there has existed for nearly half a century another subject of discord, involving interests of such transcendent magnitude as at all times to create the apprehension in the minds of many devoted lovers of the Union that its permanence was impossible. When the several States delegated certain powers to the United States Congress, a large portion of the laboring population consisted of African slaves imported into the colonies by the mother country. In twelve out of the thirteen States negro slavery existed, and the right of property in slaves was protected by law. This property was recognized in the Constitution, and provision was made against its loss by the escape of the slave. . .
As soon, however, as the Northern States that prohibited African slavery within their limits had reached a number sufficient to give their representation a controlling voice in the Congress, a persistent and organized system of hostile measures against the rights of the owners of slaves in the Southern States was inaugurated and gradually extended. A continuous series of measures was devised and prosecuted for the purpose of rendering insecure the tenure of property in slaves. . . Emboldened by success, the theatre of agitation and aggression against the clearly expressed constitutional rights of the Southern States was transferred to the Congress. . . Finally a great party was organized for the purpose of obtaining the administration of the Government, with the avowed object of using its power for the total exclusion of the slave States from all participation in the benefits of the public domain acquired by all the States in common, whether by conquest or purchase; of surrounding them entirely by States in which slavery should be prohibited; of those rendering the property in slaves so insecure as to be comparatively worthless, and thereby annihilating in effect property worth thousands of millions of dollars. This party, thus organized, succeeded in the month of November last in the election of its candidate for the Presidency of the United States.
In the meantime, the African slaves had augmented in number from about 600,000 at the date of the adoption of the constitutional compact, to upward of 4,000,000. In moral and social condition they had been elevated from brutal savages into docile, intelligent, and civilized agricultural laborers, and supplied not only with bodily comforts but with careful religious instruction. Under the supervision of a superior race their labor had been so directed as not only to allow a gradual and marked amelioration of their own condition, but to convert hundreds of thousands of square miles of the wilderness into cultivated lands covered with a prosperous people; towns and cities had sprung into existence, and had rapidly increased in wealth and population under the social system of the South; the white population of the Southern slave�holding States had augmented from about 1,250,000 at the date of the adoption of the Constitution to more than 8,500,000, in 1860; and the productions in the South of cotton, rice, sugar, and tobacco, for the full development and continuance of which the labor of African slaves was and is indispensable, had swollen to an amount which formed nearly three�fourths of the exports of the whole United States and had become absolutely necessary to the wants of civilized man. With interests of such overwhelming magnitude imperiled, the people of the Southern States were driven by the conduct of the North to the adoption of some course of action to avert the danger with which they were openly menaced. With this view the Legislatures of the several States invited the people to select delegates to conventions to be held for the purpose of determining for themselves what measures were best adapted to meet so alarming a crisis in their history. Here it may be proper to observe that from a period as early as 1798 there had existed in all of the States of the Union a party almost uninterruptedly in the majority based upon the creed that each State was, in the last resort, the sole judge as well of its wrongs as of the mode and measure of redress. . .
. . . In the exercise of a right so ancient, so well established, and so necessary for self�preservation, the people of the Confederate States, in their conventions, determined that the wrongs which they had suffered and the evils with which they were menaced required that they should revoke the delegation of powers to the Federal Government which they had ratified in their several conventions. They consequently passed ordinances resuming all their rights as sovereign and independent States and dissolved their connection with the other States of the Union.
Having done this, they proceeded to form a new compact amongst themselves by new articles of confederation, which have been also ratified by the conventions of the several States with an approach to unanimity far exceeding that of the conventions which adopted the Constitution of 1787. They have organized their new Government in all its departments; the functions of the executive, legislative, and judicial magistrates are performed in accordance with the will of the people, as displayed not merely in a cheerful acquiescence, but in the enthusiastic support of the Government thus established by themselves; and but for the interference of the Government of the United States in this legitimate exercise of the right of a people to self�government, peace, happiness, and prosperity would now smile on our land. . .
Jefferson Davis.

http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/JeffDavisSpecialMessage.htm

Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens'
"Cornerstone Speech"

"The Cornerstone Speech, also known as the Cornerstone Address, was an oration delivered by the Confederacy's second most important leader, at the Athenaeum in Savannah, Georgia, on March 21, 1861."

"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions - African slavery as it exists among us - the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it�when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."

The Confederate states themselves made it abundantly clear in official "Declarations of the Immediate Causes which induce and Justify the Secession from the Federal Union" which their legislatures issued that the principal reason was the threat which the Union represented at that point in history to their perpetuation of their exploitation of African slaves:

Mississippi 's "Declaration of the Immediate Causes .
which induce and Justify the Secession from the Federal Union." (Jan. 9, 1861)

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part ( i.e. the United States of America) , it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. "

Georgia 's "Declaration of the Immediate Causes .
which induce and Justify the Secession from the Federal Union." (Jan. 29, 1861)

"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation.� ( The long declaration which follows lays out Georgia�s case for perpetuating slavery within its borders. )

South Carolina 's "Declaration of the Immediate Causes .
which induce and Justify the Secession from the Federal Union." (Dec. 24, 1860 )

The following is the climax of South Carolina�s argument :
"A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of (Abraham Lincoln) a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, ( African-American) persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.
On the 4th day of March next, this (Republican) party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government ( i.e. the United States of America) will have become their enemy.
Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.
We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions (to keep black people enslaved to white people), have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do. "

Texas' "Declaration of the Immediate Causes .
which induce and Justify the Secession from the Federal Union." (Feb.2, 1861)

"And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men (mainly Abraham Lincoln) whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.
In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."
[ from : http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html ]

Now that "the Party of Lincoln" is in charge in these states,
Why haven't they REVERSED these official declarations?

Since the original declarations were based on hatred of Abraham Lincoln and everything that he represented, and "the Party of Lincoln" is now in firm control of all of the former "Confederate" states, why haven't these proud members of "the Party of Lincoln" ever repudiated all of the official anti-Lincoln declarations of those Confederate states over which they now have complete control?
The haven't, and they never will, because of the obvious fact that - contrary to their dishonest claim - they only gained control of the Old Confederacy by becoming the Party of Jefferson Davis - the mortal enemy of Abraham Lincoln.-

In 2007 a Georegetown University History professor named Chandra Manning published the results of an extensive study she had done of a multitude of letters written by lowly soldiers of both sides in the Civil War. The book, called "What this cruel war was over", The most surprising outcome of her research was how high a priority the issue of slavery was for most ot these soldiers, whether they came from the North, South, East or West and regardless of their economic or cultural background.
Some in the South may have labored under the illusion that slavery was morally defensible, but not General Robert E. Lee, who spoke for many others, even in the South, when he said "There are few, I believe who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil."

It's not about "slavery" ;

it's about the "heritage" (of slavery) :

Here are some interesting observations made by someone with actual experience of the South:
"I have spent a lot of time in the South, and as the Civil War is an interest of mine, I spend a lot of time visiting the battlefields. It always surprises me how little interest there is in the South in the history of the war. It seems ironic to me that people display the battle flag and defend that by saying it is historical, but then have no interest in the actual history. Visit any battlefield in the South and you will see 99 out of a hundred license plates are from the North. Ask people in any town near a battle field for directions and see how many people drive by a battlefield everyday and have no clue what it is about. Yet there are battle flags and decals all over town.
The battle flag became popular during the civil rights struggle and has been used as a symbol of resistance to integration and voting rights. We can debate this or you can ask me for "proof" but that is a bunch of nonsense. All one needs to do is to ask people who display the flag what their reasons are for displaying it. They will tell you, providing they think it is safe to do so. So why play games and pretend? No white person can claim to be unaware of this. So whom are we kidding?"

Are TODAY's Republicans the "Party of Lincoln" ?

When running for re-election in July of 2004, in a speech to the largely black Urban League, George W. Bush repeated the often repeated claim that his party is "the Party of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass".
Does that mean that we would be justified in calling Germany "the country of the Nazis" and referring to any of the former Confederate states as "slave-holding states", because those statements were true in the past? Or, "My plane is stopping over in one of the slave-holding states, Georgia, on my way to the Nazi country."
Everybody knows that most of the black Americans who were "Republicans" in the 19th century became "Democrats" in the twentieth century, not because they no longer wanted freedom and equality for black Americans, but because the Republican Party ceased to be the party of freedom and equality for black Americans. And everybody who knows anything about American politics, knows that those who are least interested in freedom and equality for black Americans recognized the Democratic Party as their party in the 19th century, but switched their allegiance to the "Republican Party" in the 20th century, when the two parties switched their beliefs.

Condoleezza Rice is best known as President George W. Bush's Secretary of State administration. She claims that the Louisiana Dixiecrats' not allowing her father to register to vote was the reason for becoming a Republican, but the first chance to vote in a presidential election, she was a registered Democrat who voted for Jimmy Carter.
Before becoming famous for being a fanatical conservative Republican, Mortan Downey, Jr. had been a close friend and Democratic supporter of the Kennedys for the first 40 years of his life.
Ariana Huffington was a Republican when her first husband ran for high office in California.
Before becoming the governor of Texas and then a Republican presidential candidate, Rick Perry had been a Democrat for 34 years.

I'm in no position to judge the merits of the findings of the black historian Lerone Bennett Jr., whose 2003 book, "Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream," argues that Abraham Lincoln's reputation as a great liberator of the oppressed black people of America is very much overblown. By I can't help but wonder to what extent conservative Republicans claim to be "the party of Lincoln" because they agree with the following sentiments that Mr. Bennett attributes to Lincoln:

Lincoln publicly referred to blacks by the most offensive racial slur. In one speech, Lincoln said he opposed the expansion of slavery into the territories because he didn't want the West "to become an asylum for slavery and n- - - - - s."
Lincoln envisioned and advocated an all-white West, declaring at Alton, Ill., in 1858, that he was "in favor of our new territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home ... as an outlet for free white people everywhere, the world over."
Lincoln supported his home state's law, passed in 1853, forbidding blacks to move to Illinois. The Illinois state constitution, adopted in 1848, called for laws to "effectually prohibit free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in this state."
"People in the North don't know how deeply involved the North was in slavery," he says, adding that Illinois "had one of the worst black codes in America. People don't know that. . . . Black people were hunted like beasts of the field on the streets of Chicago, with Lincoln's support."
Lincoln blamed blacks for the Civil War, telling them, "But for your race among us there could not be a war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or another."
Lincoln claimed that "the people of Mexico are most decidedly a race of mongrels. I understand that there is not more than one person there out of eight who is pure white."
Repeatedly over the course of his career, Lincoln urged that American blacks be sent to Africa or elsewhere.
In 1854, Lincoln declared his "first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia; to their own native land." In 1860, Lincoln called for the "emancipation and deportation" of slaves.
In his State of the Union addresses as president, he twice called for the deportation of blacks. In 1865, in the last days of his life, Lincoln said of blacks, "I believe it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves." "Such facts may not be well-known, but they are "not hidden in the records. ... You can't read the Lincoln record without realizing all that," Mr. Bennett says.
Lincoln became "a secular saint," Mr. Bennett says, partly because of the circumstances of his 1865 assassination, immediately after the Confederate surrender at Appomattox. "Without question, I think the manner of his death, the time of his death . . . all these were major factors in turning Lincoln into the American icon," Mr. Bennett says, noting that Lincoln was later praised even by those who had been his harshest critics during his life". . .
"The myth is an obstacle to understanding," Mr. Bennett says. Lincoln "is a metaphor for our real determination to evade the race problem in this country." Lincoln gets credit for the Emancipation Proclamation, which did not actually free any slaves, Mr. Bennett says. "The most famous act in American history never happened," he says, noting that Lincoln issued the proclamation only under pressure from Radical Republicans in Congress men such as Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania and Charles Sumner of Massachusetts. Along with abolitionists such as Wendell Phillips and Frederick Douglass, the Radicals were "the real emancipators," Mr. Bennett says. "There were several major white leaders [during the Civil War] who are virtually unknown today, who were far in advance of anything Lincoln believed." It is a "moral imperative" for Americans to know the truth about Lincoln, Mr. Bennett says. "Cynics may not believe that the truth will set you free; but lies will definitely enslave you," he says. "I don't see any way to get away from the duty to tell the truth." [ from http://www.scvcamp469-nbf.com/blackhistoriandocumentslincoln.htm ]

The First Emancipator :
The Forgotten Story of Robert Carter,
the Founding Father Who Freed His Slaves
by Andrew Levy

"A contemporary of Jefferson and Washington, Carter has largely been forgotten by historians because he seems less heroic than these great men; nevertheless, he managed to do something that they and the other founding fathers - for all their greatness - could not: free his slaves with little or no material gain."

Garrett A. Morgan was the inventor of the precursors to today's gas masks and of America's traffic signals. Because of the color of his skin, however, there was no mention in the news media of his day of his crucial role in saving dozens of lives in a mining disaster, which was a dramatic illustration of the value of his invention. When they learned that he was black, some short-sighted fire departments actually cancelled their orders of the life-saving masks, which saved the lives of many fireman and then hundreds of thousands of allied servicemen on the battle fields of World War I.

G.O.P. lies about their Record on
the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Final Vote - June 19 Vote: 73 to 27
(51 votes needed for passage)

The use by Republicans of this vote is a perfect illustration of the dictum that "Statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics." Have you ever wondered why they never refer you to the data upon which their claims are supposedly based? We will give you that data, (from the C-Span website) because we are not out to misinform you; and we want you to see for yourself the truthfulness of our claims.
The Republicans claim that their party has a better record on race relations than the Democratic Party because, they say "81% of Republican Senators voted for the Civil Rights bill, vs. 69% of Democratic Senators."

Anybody who knows anything about the political scene of those days, as opposed to the political scene today, knows that what was called "the Democratic Party" in those days had two diametrically opposed parts, the extremely conservative "Dixiecrats" of the former Confederate states, who where in the process of divorcing themselves from what we now know as "the Democratic Party" of modern times. It is those Christian conservative "Dixiecrats" of the deep South - and only those "Democrats" - who voted against all the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960's. It is precisely because the bigotry of these Southern Christian conservatives did not fit with the newfound liberalism of the Democratic Party in the rest of the country, that they first became "the Dixiecrats" and then not only joined the Republican Party , but actually came to dominate the Republican Party and to imbue it with its Southern Christian conservative stamp.
When you look at the raw data yourself, what you find is that :

of the "Democrats" who voted against that monumental Civil Rights bill, every last one was a "Dixiecrat" representing a former Confederate state, states that were so unhappy with the Democratic Party's embrace of Civil Rights for blacks at that stage of American history that they would soon replace all of their "Democratic" representatives who weren't racist enough to satisfy their intense bigotry, with conservative Republicans who were!
While there was not a single Senator representing the states we now recognize as Democratic ( i.e. outside of the former Confederate states) to vote against Civil Rights, there were six Republican Senators outside of Dixie who opposed the Civil Right bill, led by Sen. Barry Goldwater, the standard bearer of the Republican Party that year, the party's choice not only to lead the party but the country, as President of the United States ! And one of those who ran for Congress that year as "a Goldwater Republican" and who campaigned against the Civil Rights Act was George H. W. Bush.
90% of African Americans ( whose parents and/or grandparents were likely to have identified with the grand old "Party of Lincoln", prior to the 1960's ) now identify with the new "Party of Lincoln", while vast numbers of "Dixiecrat" office holders and voters have gone the other way, running from the old "Party of Jefferson Davis" to the new "Party of Jefferson Davis". Both groups are experts on the question of which party is favorable to civil rights and the one opposed to it, and they agree entirely on the answer.

The votes in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill :
Democratic Yeas: 47 Clinton Anderson (D-NM) Bob Bartlett (D-AK) Birch Bayh (D-IN) Alan Bible (D-NV) Daniel Brewster (D-MD) Quentin Burdick (D-ND) Howard Cannon (D-ND) Frank Church (D-ID) Joseph Clark (D-PA) Thomas Dodd (D-CT) Paul Douglas (D-IL) James Edmondson (D-OK) Clair Engle (D-CA) Ernest Gruening (D-AK) Philip Hart (D-MI) Vance Hartke (D-IN) Carl Hayden (D-AZ) Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Henry Jackson (D-WA) Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) Frank Lausche (D-OH) Edward Long (D-MO) Warren Magnuson (D-WA) Mike Mansfield (D-MT) Eugene McCarthy (D-MN) Gale McGee (D-WY) George McGovern (D-SD) Thomas McIntyre (D-NH) Patrick McNamara (D-MI) Lee Metcalf (D-MT) Mike Monroney (D-OK) Wayne Morse (D-OR) Frank Moss (D-UT) Edmund Muskie (D-ME) Gaylord Nelson (D-WI) Maurine Neuberger (D-OR) John Pastore (D-RI) Claiborne Pell (D-RI) William Proxmire (D-WI) Jennings Randolph (D-WV) Abe Ribicoff (D-CT) Stuart Symington (D-MO) Harrison Williams (D-NJ) Ralph Yarborough (D-TX) Stephen Young (D-OH)	Not ONE Dixiecrat in favor	Republican Yeas: 26 George Aiken (R-VT) Gordon Allott (R-CO) Glenn Beall (R-MD) Wallace Bennett (R-UT) Caleb Boggs (R-DE) Frank Carlson (R-KS) Clifford Case (R-NJ) John S. Cooper (R-KY) Carl Curtis (R-NE) Everett Dirksen (R-IL) Peter Dominick (R-CO) Hiram Fong (R-HI) Roman Hruska (R-NE) Jacob Javits (R-NY) Leonard Jordan (R-ID) Kenneth Keating (R-NY) Thomas Kuchel (R-CA) Jack Miller (R-IA) Thruston Morton (R-KY) Karl Mundt (R-SD) James Pearson (R-KS) Winston Prouty (R-VT) Leverett Saltonstall (R-MA) Hugh Scott (R-PA) Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME) John Williams (R-DE) Milton Young (R-ND)
The only "Democrats" to vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Bill were the Dixiecrats of the former Confederate states, joined by 6 Republicans from outside of Dixie.
Democratic Nays:1 Robert Byrd (D-WV)	Dixiecrat Nays: 20 Harry Byrd (D-VA) James Eastland (D-MS) Allen Ellender (D-LA) Sam Ervin (D-NC) William Fulbright (D-AR) Albert Gore Sr. (D-TN) Lister Hill (D-AL) Spessard Holland (D-FL) Olin Johnston (D-SC) Everett Jordan (D-NC) Russell Long (D-LA) John McClellan (D-AR) Willis Robertson (D-VA) Richard Russell (D-GA) George Smathers (D-FL) John Sparkman (D-AL) John Stennis (D-MS) Herman Talmadge (D-GA) Strom Thurmond (D-SC) Herbert Walters (D-TN)	Republican Nays: 6 Norris Cotton (R-NH) Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) Bourke Hickenlooper (R-IA) Edwin Mechem (R-NM) Milward Simpson (R-WY) John Tower (R-TX)
For a good book on this subject, read "Walls of Jericho: Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Russell, and the Struggle for Civil Rights" See as much detail as you like on this non-partisan site, Legislative history of the major U.S. Civil Rights Bills.

According to the civil rights scorecard composed by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the proponents and opponents of civil rights has changed little since the 60's. Indeed, the party of Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, and Jesse Helms should hang their heads in shame. The LCCR based their scores on an analysis of each senator's voting record on 13 major issues. Of all Senators in the 107th congress, 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans and 1 Independent:
20 Senators scored a perfect 100 % ALL of them DEMOCRATS ! Boxer - California Lieberman - Connecticut Akaka - Hawaii Inouye - Hawaii Durbin - Illinois Mikulski - Maryland Sarbanes - Maryland Kennedy, E. - Massachusetts Kerry, J. - Massachusetts Levin, C. - Michigan Dayton - Minnesota Wellstone - Minnesota Reid, H. - Nevada Corzine - New Jersey Bingaman - New Mexico Clinton - New York Reed, J. - Rhode Island Leahy - Vermont	An unbelievable 31 Senators scored ZERO % . . . ALL of them REPUBLICANS ! Sessions, J. - Alabama Shelby - Alabama Murkowski - Alaska Stevens - Alaska Kyl - Arizona Allard - Colorado Craig - Idaho Crapo - Idaho Lugar - Indiana Grassley - Iowa Brownback - Kansas Roberts - Kansas Bunning - Kentucky McConnell - Kentucky Cochran - Mississippi Bond - Missouri Burns - Montana Ensign - Nevada Gregg - New Hampshire Smith, R. C. - New Hampshire Helms - N. Carolina Inhofe - Oklahoma Nickles - Oklahoma Thurmond, S. - S. Carolina Frist - Tennessee Thompson, F. - Tennessee Gramm, P. - Texas Bennett - Utah Hatch - Utah Enzi - Wyoming Thomas, C. - Wyoming
Overall, Democrats' average score was a very respectable 91%.	In contrast, Republicans (including some from very Northern states) scored all of 6% !
For more details, see the extensive tables at http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=002892M
Most of the older U. S. Senators from the deep South, like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Phil Gramm, Trent Lott, and Robert Byrd were all Southern Democratic bigots in their youth, but while most of these went on to become bigoted "Dixiecrats", and then Republicans, Democratic Senator Robert Byrd renounced his past and became rather Liberal. This is the way he answered the question posed to him on CNN by African American reporter Bernie Shaw in Dec. 1993: Q: "What has been your biggest mistake and your biggest success?" A: "Well, it's easy to state what has been my biggest mistake. The greatest mistake I ever made was joining the Ku Klux Klan. And I've said that many times. But one cannot erase what he has done. He can only change his ways and his thoughts. That was an albatross around my neck that I will always wear. You will read it in my obituary that I was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Contrast that with an interview Thurmond gave Joseph Stroud of the Charlotte Observer in July 1998 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of his presidential bid on the segregationist Dixiecrat ticket. Asked if he wanted to apologize, Thurmond (speaking apparently for Senate Republican Majority Leader Trent Lott, as well) said, "I don't have anything to apologize for," and "I don't have any regrets." Asked if he thought the Dixiecrats were right, Thurmond said, "Yes, I do."

A Brief History of Civil Rights in the 20th Century,

addressed by an ordinary citizen to a venomous and ignorant conservative critic of Liberals, named Ann Coulter :
Date: 19 Dec 2002
Subject: A little history for Ann
To: [email protected]

Ann took the time to point our that in the early 20's there was an anti-lynching statement in the Republican Platform. Well, as she often is, she is "sort of right" there was a statement that lynching was not a way to meet out justice. It was not a plank to promote a change of laws, but was a weak attempt to placate the progressive wing of the party led by Teddy Roosevelt and Robert LaFollette. It was removed in the next platform, and the party never promoted any legislation towards its passage. This was merely one of the reasons that the progressive wing bolted the party and formed the Progressive party of LaFollette and the Bull Moose party of Roosevelt.
By the 1930's, most of the Republican progressives had become assimilated into the Democratic party, which was shifting its focus towards fighting the corrupt business practices and tax policies of the more conservative wing of the Republican party. Through promotion of farm bills during the Hoover administration and the promotion of legislation to eliminate poor working conditions in the cities, the Democratic party soon was being seen as the party of the lower classes. [It was the same, now Democratic progressives (former Republicans) who pushed through some legislation to counter the common business practices which were obvious in such things as the Triangle Shirt Waist factory fire in NYC. All of which were repealed when some Republican governor of NY took over. I think his name was Dewey, Ann. As well, it was not the all inclusive Republican party which aligned itself with women's suffrage.]
Now on to the Dixiecrats. By the middle of the FDR administration, it was becoming clear to the deep south that the majority of the party was no longer in support of segregationist legislation. However, the Democratic New Deal programs [developed by FDR and a number of former Republicans who decided the old GOP was too pro-business for its own good] were too beneficial in terms of winning elections in the white rural areas. This uneasy alliance held on until fully repudiated by the administration of Harry S Truman. The integration of the army, the executive order declaring lynching a violation of federal laws, and other basic changes integrating what could be integrated through executive order is what caused the Dixicrats to splinter off. Within 6 years of this split, most of the major Dixiecrats had changed their affiliation to the Republican party, as they no longer were welcomed by the Democrats.
Year after year, from his first election into the senate, Hubert Humphrey wrote legislation which was a forerunner of the civil rights act of 1964. Adlai Stevenson became the first of his family to bolt the Republican party over its pro business platform and its disavowing of the anti-lynching language of the early 20's.
By the time the Civil Rights act of 1964 was being debated in the U.S. Senate, the only attempt to filibuster the act was by Senator Thurmond. He even went to the length to having an aid bring a bucket to the senate floor so he could urinate while keeping one foot on the senate floor so he could keep the gabfest going. To end the history lesson, Thurmond repudiated his anti-civil rights stance only when it was becoming clear that he was losing political ground and clout, when the senate went Democratic in part because of large black turnouts. Well, he did see the light, but I suspect one of the main reasons he continued to hold his seat after 1972 was because there were just enough good ol' boys to keep him in.
But the real reason the Republican party has gained in the south is the pandering to segregationists. Lets look at some of these moments:
"Problems" became the code word for segregation as the Republicans in the south sought to lay blame crime and all at the feet of the blacks. While voting right could no longer be denied for reasons of race, nor could literacy tests be used as a means of keeping blacks out, a large number of states found other ways to deny voting rights. Cases, such as the Birmingham church bombing were routinely sent to all white juries and assigned to judges with well known records of being segregationists. Recall, they were convicted on FEDERAL charges, not state charges.
When the Klan was under fire, new groups, such as the Concerned Citizens group sprung up. They were not that well kept of a secret: open public segregationists. If Lott was not proud his past of going from Dixiecrat to civil rights advocate, he has a weird way of showing it. But then again, a few keynote speeches at the conventions or articles for its publications don't count for support. The same group, by the way Ms Coulter, received thank you notes from George Bush One and Two for their fundraising support. GHWB and GWB both donated to the ball given by Daughters of the south. It is held annually in an old slave trading warehouse. They dress in Antebellum garb and "celebrate" the old south. Sorry Ann, actions speak volumes. We don't even have time to discuss the support from the right wing christian churches, which supported misogynation laws well into the 1960's which have become the financial support for the Republican party. Oh, they funded anti-civil rights activities as well.
In Philadephia and parts of Florida, a large number of black voters received fliers and information on the elections giving the wrong date or polling information. It was traced back to a republican fundraiser in California. GWB gives a speech at Bob Jones University to garner support prior to his close fight with McCain. Only to say after, geez, I did not now they were segregationist and anti-catholic! In the Louisiana run-off election, the Republican Party rounded up a number of homeless blacks to carry pro-Republican signs (actually anti-Democratic signs) by paying them $75-100/day and clothes and a meal.
The rise of the power of the Republicans in the South is primarily caused by the rise of the former Dixiecrats into position of leadership, the failure to repudiate the segregationist past, the pandering through code words to the segregationists (why did the Republican Party never challenge David Dukes?).

Mark G.
Santee, CA

Hubert Humphrey was one of the great pioneers of civil rights. As early as the 1948 national Democratic convention, when he was a young mayor from Minneapolis, he made an impaasiioned controversial speech in which he issued the following challenge to his party:
"The time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights!" When the convention followed his lead, the "Dixiecrats" stormed out of the convention and chose Strom Thurmond to challenge President Truman in the Democratic primaries of 1948.
The principle reason that so many were sure that Truman would lose his re-election bid that year was his record of promoting of justice and equality for black Americans.

To appreciate how far ahead of their contemporaries Truman and Humphrey were, it's good to look back at surveys that were made of public opinion in those days. After black Americans had proven themselves by fighting heroicly during World War II, their country continued to treat them as second class citizens even after the war. On trains carrying German war prisoners, for example, the black heroes were sent to the back cars of the train, while the German criminals were seated up front with the other whites.
The following are pages excerpted from a 1948 study commissioned by the government of the views of U.S. airmen.

LBJ's Prophecy :

David Halberstam, in his book on the Civil Rights movement entitled "The Children", quotes Lyndon Johnson talking with Bill Moyers right after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 had passed by large margins in the Congress of the United States. This positive vote followed the arousing of the public's consciousness by the Abu Ghraib-like use of dogs and fire hoses on black citizens in Alabama. Klan groups, under the direct protection of Southern State Troopers and local police, had also attacked blacks with baseball bats and lead pipes in public places, which had been seen on national television. Moyers expected to find President Johnson jubilant over this legislative victory. Instead he found the President strangely silent. When Moyers enquired as to the reason, Johnson said rather prophetically, "Bill, I've just handed the South to the Republicans for fifty years, (until 2015) certainly for the rest of our life times."

This is what passes for "scholarship"
in the Conservative world !

Despite having gone to Harvard University, and having since been employed as a university professor, this African American conservative "scholar" has come to promote such controversial ideas as :

America's Democratic Party is the U.S.A.'s version of Germany's "National Socialist Party". [ See response ¹ ]
America's "Democrat Socialist Party" is to blame for more blacks being under correctional control today than in 1850 slaveholding America ... more are in jail than in apartheid South Africa ... and more being disenfranchised than the year the constitutional amendment giving blacks the right to vote was ratified." [ See response ² ]
"One of the most enduring and strongest influences of Nazism was how slavery and racism (especially against Blacks) was so efficiently and systematically over centuries institutionalized here in America under the Nazi's political cousins, the Democrat Socialist Party,particularly the recent governments of Woodrow Wilson (1913-21), Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-45), and under the Black genocidal and eugenics policies of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger (est. Oct. 16, 1919, Brooklyn, NY). [ See response ² ]
(The Nazis and the Democratic Party) "zealously shared and perpetrated a demonic worldview based on evolution, atheism, eugenics, socialism, and White Supremacy and enacted 'legal' policies that viciously attacked those in society least able to defend themselves (e.g., Christians, Catholics, Poles, Slavs, Jews, the handicapped, elderly, and insane under the Nazis; Blacks, Conservatives, Christians, and babies under the Holocaust Democrats)." [ See response ³ ]
"it is clear 70 years after the end of World War II and the defeat of Hitler and the Nazis that on many levels the FDR-led American government colluded with Hitler and Nazi Germany." [ See response ⁴ ]
( which is why) "America waited 8 long years (from Hitler's appointment as Chancellor of Germany to Congress repeal of the Neutrality Act, Nov. 4, 1941), before the FDR administration would criticize or act against the Nazi regime. Because FDR (like all Democrat Socialists) are doctrinaire anti-Semites whose Nazi-like policies are given social standing and moral legitimacy by the legions of Jewish sycophants who voted for FDR (4 times)" [ See response ⁵ ]
"Today President Barak Hussein Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry and their insane U.S.-Iran Nuclear Deal are following the same fascist, anti-Semitic policies by sacrificing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Nation of Israel to appease the Hitler-like hatred of the Muslim Arabs and Iran against even the idea of the existence of Israel on earth just so Obama (and Kerry) can solidify his 'legacy.'" [ See response ⁶ ]

http://www.elliswashingtonreport.com/2015/08/24/kristallnacht-democratnacht/

Here are THE FACTS [my responses] :

[Response 1 ] Dishonest and/or ignorant Conservatives promote this nonsense despite the fact that Hitler only replaced the original "National Workers Party" name to include "Socialist" in its name in order to fool Germans who were falling in love with true socialism, which advocates for sharing the power and benefits of government with as many of the public or "society" as possible, the very opposite of the dictatorial Fascist Axis governments of Germany and Italy.
[Response 2 ] This "professor" would have you believe that conservative Republicans have had nothing to do with the misfortunes of blacks in America!
[Response 3 ] Let me get this straight! Today's "Democratic Party" is the same white supremacist party of the Deep South of that name which lost its war to protect slavery against the liberal Republican Party of the North in America's Civil War. That would mean that the"Democrats" under the hoods of the KKK of those days were ultra-liberal socialsts! (because the party has been the same, according to Washington, over all those years.)
Did you notice that among the Nazi victims "in society least able to defend themselves" this "scholar" omits liberals, socialists, and gays, and replaces them with "Christians & Catholics"? I provides tons of evidence that the Nazis came from the ranks of the 98% of Germans who identified themselves as (mostly conservative) "Christians & Catholics", at RC_scandal.html and that the leadership in particular were largely Roman Catholics; see NaziLeadership.html.
[Response 4] Where on earth is the evidence for such a wierd claim? Here's a mountain of evidence that the Republican family of George Herbert Walker Bush, partnered with Hitler even after they were found guilty of transgressing the "un-American Activities Act" : Hitler's Bush family associates.
[Response 5] Yoo can choose to believe that the vast majority of educated people, including most African Americans and Jews are idiots, or that this one black outlier "professor" is an idiot.
[Response 6] Are the many Jews who don't share the views of Netanyahu also displaying "the Hitler-like hatred of the Muslim Arabs and Iran against even the idea of the existence of Israel on earth"?

Pages : [1] 2 3 of Civil Rights.

Texas' "Declaration of the Immediate Causes . which induce and Justify the Secession from the Federal Union." (Feb.2, 1861)

LBJ's Prophecy :

Web discoveries

Texas' "Declaration of the Immediate Causes .
which induce and Justify the Secession from the Federal Union." (Feb.2, 1861)