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.
While JFK's death changed the politics a great deal, I think the unspoken tipping point actually was non partisan. IMO it was the national attention (merited) given to Bull Connor's fire-hosing children in May of 1963. This drew the attention of Northern whites, at a time when they had been more prone to be paying primary attention to World Affairs.
While JFK's death changed the politics a great deal, I think the unspoken tipping point actually was non partisan. IMO it was the national attention (merited) given to Bull Connor's fire-hosing children in May of 1963. This drew the attention of Northern whites, at a time when they had been more prone to be paying primary attention to World Affairs.
First... you think Bull Connor's use of fire-hoses on the 'Children's Crusade' was the turning point, but it occurred in May of 1963, as you note - but over a year later - in June of 1964 - Minority Leader Everett Dirksen was still trying to wrangle the 67 votes in the Senate necessary for cloture to break the filibuster. In April of that year, eleven long months after Connor and his fire-hose, Dirksen and Humphrey (the Majority Whip, running point on the Democratic side) still only had 55 votes, a dozen short of what they needed and 16 short of what they eventually got. You're saying those 16 were still holding out a year after an event (Bull Connor) and then were eventually convinced by that event, even though it hadn't convinced them when it was actually recent and relevant? That makes no sense.
Second... if that was the inflection point, then what about your entire point in starting this thread - that civil rights would have advanced faster under a President Nixon? If the advancement of civil rights was based on events external to the White House, then the president didn't matter.
Oh, another thing which I forgot to add in a previous reply. In your thread-starting post, you opined the a President Nixon would have had George Wallace arrested by the Alabama National Guard. But there was no legal authority to do any such thing. President Kennedy issued a non-binding proclamation demanding that Governor Wallace allow the admission of blacks to the University of Alabama. Wallace, noting that the proclamation held no legal force, told the Guard to go get bent. Kennedy immediately issued an executive order, which did carry the force of law, and this was presented to Wallace. He stepped aside. So you've created this idea of Richard Nixon, crusading civil rights badass who is so committed to the cause that he uses the military to arrest those who oppose him yet concede to his legal authority? Richard Milhous Nixon? That guy? Really? Because - and I speak as someone who has read multiple Nixon biographies because I find him to be a fascinating figure both politically and personally - there is absolutely zero basis in the historical record for such a characterization.
While JFK's death changed the politics a great deal, I think the unspoken tipping point actually was non partisan. IMO it was the national attention (merited) given to Bull Connor's fire-hosing children in May of 1963. This drew the attention of Northern whites, at a time when they had been more prone to be paying primary attention to World Affairs.
WWII, which was very much the generational experience of the voting population at the time, had something to do with that. Those images produced a definite, "Kristallnacht could happen here" impact.
Northern Democrats in the House supported the CRA 94-6%, Northern Republicans supported it 85-15%. Southern Democrats opposed it 7-93%. Southern Republicans opposed it 100%. In the Senate, Northern Democrats supported the CRA 98-2%, but Northern Republicans only supported it 84-16%. Southern Democrats opposed 5-95% and Southern Republicans 100%. So a Southern Democrat was slightly more likely to support Civil Rights than Southern Republican.
Thanks for posting this. Interesting data points, explains a lot about the current situation.
First... you think Bull Connor's use of fire-hoses on the 'Children's Crusade' was the turning point, but it occurred in May of 1963, as you note - but over a year later - in June of 1964 - Minority Leader Everett Dirksen was still trying to wrangle the 67 votes in the Senate necessary for cloture to break the filibuster. .
I think Connor inadvertently awakened hose previously aloof to the cause-specifically Northern, suburban, middle class, middle aged whites..the bulk of the vote at the time.
That was a key.
In the same manner, I think Branch Rickey was correct about Ben Chapman:
WWII, which was very much the generational experience of the voting population at the time, had something to do with that. Those images produced a definite, "Kristallnacht could happen here" impact.
AMEN. Plus ex soldiers vote, and those fondly recalling the service of fellow GIs affected by Jim Crow were hardly in the maintain Jim Crow corner.
Now I am actually not 100% behind using children in the movement, only due to the risk these kids undertook.
We know it worked out ok, but it could very well have turned out very dangerous for the children.
While JFK's death changed the politics a great deal, I think the unspoken tipping point actually was non partisan. IMO it was the national attention (merited) given to Bull Connor's fire-hosing children in May of 1963. This drew the attention of Northern whites, at a time when they had been more prone to be paying primary attention to World Affairs.
If you are going to pick a t.v. moment as the turning point for civil rights, I'd pick another moment.
I'm thinking of the march on Selma in 1965 when the civil rights protesters were ridden down by horses, hit by clubs, and generally brutalized on national television. In retrospect, it seems amazing. The people protesting were simply trying to register to vote and blacks were prevented from doing so by the local authorities. The idea was to march to the courthouse and demand that they be allowed to register to vote.
The resulting battle on the Edmund Pettis Bridge in Selma lead to President Johnson proposing the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to Congress. The passage of this law and Johnson's speech in which he said "And we shall overcome" was undoubtedly the highpoint of his presidency. After that, Vietnam came to the forefront and what happened after became a national tragedy.
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.
