You don’t need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation.
...Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did.
Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | The Raw Story
Southern Democrats were racists scum. Fact. But, what about the GOP? Were they really the champions of racial equality as the revisionist historians like to argue today?
Heh. Hardly.
So, no matter how you slice it, the GOP is the racist party. Little has changed over the years, except that the already racist GOP has acquired even more racists by absorbing all the racist former Democrats.
Southern Democrats were racists scum. Fact. But, what about the GOP? Were they really the champions of racial equality as the revisionist historians like to argue today?
Heh. Hardly.
So, no matter how you slice it, the GOP is the racist party. Little has changed over the years, except that the already racist GOP has acquired even more racists by absorbing all the racist former Democrats.
Yeah, only 15% of the Yankee GOP voted against the act. That's hardly racist. But, yeah, they quickly hung out the shingle.Ehhh...I wouldn't call Republicans the "racist party" back then. I would call any southern politician at the time a panderer to racist. The fact is the vote was pretty much across party lines a regional vote.
Now they definitely were quick to capitalize on Southern Democrats being upset with the Democratic Party. Goldwater followed by the Southern Strategy pretty much was a sign reading "racist can stay here".
For someone who identifies himself as a centrist, you sound awfully lot like a hyperpartisan liberal hack.
Wow. A Benghazi reference to counter racism from the back in the 60's. You deserve the prize for most irrelevant counterargument."At this point, what difference does it make?" (Hillary Clinton commenting on the deaths of four white American patriots abandoned to die by the president of the United States.)
Nonsense. There are plenty of Blacks who succeed and contribute.I believe the black focus at this present point in time should be in their virtual assured destruction as a contributing culture in America because of Liberal programs which have destroyed their families, homes, jobs, schools and consigned their children to futures of drugs, violence, crime and prison.
That's because the modern GOP is nowhere near the Center.
That's because the modern GOP is nowhere near the Center.
For someone who identifies himself as a centrist, you sound awfully lot like a hyperpartisan liberal hack.
sorry yes he was.....dont try to rewrite history.
if you look you will see many republicans marching with MLK, including Charlton Heston.
sorry yes he was.....dont try to rewrite history.
if you look you will see many republicans marching with MLK, including Charlton Heston.
PostScript: Milbank and the GOP’s claims on MLK
I work with a Buddhist. Am I consequentially a Buddhist?
Get off the Republican jock and be an authentic individual.
has nothing to do with republican ,has to do with truth.
It has to do with the truth. The problem in this case is you do not have the truth on your side.
sorry yes he was.....dont try to rewrite history.
if you look you will see many republicans marching with MLK, including Charlton Heston.
funny how MLK, was a republican
All one needs to look at is the fact that republicans are desperate to claim MLK was a republican to figure that he really wasn't.
That and I trust Politifact over Bill O.. in fact, I trust a lot of sources over Bill
You privlege a newsletter over a primary source from the man himself? Please tell me you have more personal correspondence that actually suffices to trump King's own private statements. This is bad form and lazy historical research technique, Ernst.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?