Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You mean like how Harry Reid didn't have the power to block legislation in the Senate because he wasn't president?
He was the Vice President at that point, genius. Bill McCulloch introduced his bill not long before the President came out and laid out his plan for civil rights. Now Johnson did water down civil rights bills in the past, but they were sponsored by Democrats if my memory is correct.
Meh. Personally I'm much more fond of this kind of American culture (or this for a wilder setting) than the 1950s (not that the 50s doesn't have its charms too); the mid 20th century had many elements alien to Americanness. I also see that the discussion of 1950s culture has predictably degenerated into a quarrel over civil rights - can't we discuss this era (or really any era prior to the 1960s to a lesser degree) without having that subject hijack it every time? There is a lot more to an era and its values, and a lot more to learn from them, than how equal non-whites were.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~HecateWhisperCat~
I would imagine that a lot of lynchings were never reported or even investigated as such. Chances are the real numbers were always higher for each year out there.
In any case it's not likely that lynchings were more underreported in the 1950s than they were earlier. According to Tuskegee Institute statistics* lynchings declined by about an order of magnitude from 1890 to 1940, going from occurring somewhere in the U.S. almost daily down to a couple times a year.
*And yes, some white people were lynched too. Apparently lynching was a more color-blind practice in the 1880s than in later eras .
Last edited by Patricius Maximus; 01-10-2016 at 09:59 PM..
Yes, and that bill was the child of a Democrat. Learn your history pal .
Nope. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was sponsored by a Republican and Johnson opposed it.
Quote:
Never mind civil rights or voting rights: In Congress, Johnson had consistently and repeatedly voted against legislation to protect black Americans from lynching. As a leader in the Senate, Johnson did his best to cripple the Civil Rights Act of 1957; not having votes sufficient to stop it, he managed to reduce it to an act of mere symbolism by excising the enforcement provisions before sending it to the desk of President Eisenhower
In all fairness it was really LBJ. John F Kennedys ability to get legislation passed was dismal. It's doubtful it ever would have happened had he of not been assassinated.
No, the President supported the idea, but he didn't ultimately create the bill. If there wasn't enough Democratic support in committee it would never gotten to the floor. I guess it's possible that the only reason Johnson did that was because a Republican ruled the White House. I guess we will never know at this point, and it's all up to conjecture. Republicans were never going to get credit for it to begin with. They voted for the bill in record numbers in 1963, and still the Democrats spun it as their victory. By that point the black vote was firmly moving into the Democratic pocket. I doubt anything outside of a Republican Congress and Republican President passing the bill would have altered that fact.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
.