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.
Here are all the Dixiecrat politicians that were in office during the alleged dixiecrat switch…
Dixiecrat – Senators
(D)VA Harry F. Byrd, 1933-1965
(D)VA A. Willis Robertson, 1946-1966
(D)WV Robert C. Byrd, 1959
(D)MS John C. Stennis, 1947-1989
(D)MS James O. Eastland, 1941-1941,1943-1978
(D)LA Allen J. Ellender, 1937-1972
(D)LA Russell B. Long, 1948-1987
(D)NC Sam Ervin, 1954-1974
(D)NC Everett Jordan, 1958-1973
®NC Jesse Helms, 1973-2003
(D)OK Thomas Pryor Gore, 1906-1921,1931-1937
(D)AL J. Lister Hill, 1938-1969
(D)AL John J. Sparkman, 1946-1979
(D)FL Spessard Holland, 1946-1971
(D)FL George Smathers, 1951-1969
(D)SC Olin D. Johnston, 1945-1965
(D,R)SC Strom Thurmond, 1954-1956,1956-2003
(D)AR John McClellan, 1943-1977
(D)GA Richard B. Russell, Jr., 1933-1971
(D)GA Herman E. Talmadge, 1957-1981
(D)TN Herbert S. Walters, 1963-1964
Dixiecrat – State governors
Benjamin Travis Laney, Arkansas Governor
Fielding Wright, Mississippi Governor
Frank M. Dixon, Former Alabama Governor
William H. Murray, Former Oklahoma Governor
Mills E. Godwin Jr. governor of Virginia
Only one switched parties – Strom Thurman AFTER the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act were passed.
From, the way some people talk about, they all switched
Secret? It's not a secret. Afterall, the democratic party was a majority southern party where everything was literally black and white. The republican party was mostly northern party looking to abolish slavery. But that all flipped a generation ago. And now that the republicans have Trump they have finally flipped out.
Former Republican strategist, the late Lee Atwater has a detailed explanation of what you're mentioning.
Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now you don't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.
Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******."
I'll just start it off with the first! Kennedy, as a senator voted against the 1957 civil rights bill.
"In the decade before he won the White House, Kennedy said almost nothing about civil rights. In 1957, as a senator he voted against the 1957 civil rights bill. His opposition has been spun two ways; one cynical, one charitable. The cynical spin is he opposed it to appease Southern Democrats because he had an eye on a presidential run in 1960. The charitable spin is that he thought the bill was too weak and ineffectual. Three years later though he ignored the angry shouts from Southern Democrats and lobbied for a forceful civil rights plank in the Democratic Party’s 1960 platform."
"In the decade before he won the White House, Kennedy said almost nothing about civil rights. In 1957, as a senator he voted against the 1957 civil rights bill. His opposition has been spun two ways; one cynical, one charitable. The cynical spin is he opposed it to appease Southern Democrats because he had an eye on a presidential run in 1960. The charitable spin is that he thought the bill was too weak and ineffectual. Three years later though he ignored the angry shouts from Southern Democrats and lobbied for a forceful civil rights plank in the Democratic Party’s 1960 platform."
I admire your efforts but being fair: Copy and paste comes with the requirement that we MUST provide a link from which it came!
I can put the entire post of yours into google and find the site you Copied it from but .. That is your responsibility!
Mods?
Former Republican strategist, the late Lee Atwater has a detailed explanation of what you're mentioning.
Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now you don't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.
Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******."
I assume citydata cut out the n word for you. Atwater knew that the strategy worked. That's one of the many problems with such deep prejudices is that they can be played so well and so easily by powerful interests to dupe a populous into supporting policies that often go against their own interests. It's sad because it works so well and so repeatedly in such a hefty percentage of our society. It's easy to stoke revolutionary fear into such folks. And being conservative by definition means unwillingness to change. Which is really unfortunate when new facts are always being unearthed that many would rather just be blind to.
Last edited by biggunsmallbrains; 05-04-2016 at 09:02 PM..
The Democratic Party. The same party that tells them they can't get a job without government help in the form of Affirmative Action. Or that they can't make it into college without government help.
The Democratic Party constantly underestimates blacks, selling them short and relegating them to second class status. In fact, the party would fail without assuming that blacks just can't do it without a government Nanny holding their hand.
Your post is just so incredibly naive. Tell me how many well qualified blacks were hired before affirmative action? That would be about duh! none!!! How many black students were admitted to good schools before the government stepped in?? Well one or two at least! I get so sick and tired of people making the most idiotic statements regarding the history of racism and the problems of ongoing racism in the USA. They act like it doesn't exist and the history of racism and discrimination is completely irrelevant and not applicable somehow today. It's just freakin mind blowing stupidity. One of the reason you Yankees can never solve any kind of social problems in the country is you deny any problems even exist. A country full of ostriches with their heads stuck in the sand!!!
This thread is so sad. What secret??? I'm sorry that adults here are just figuring this out and think it is some big bashing of current Democrats. It probably has a lot to do with the quality of secondary education each of us had. Clearly, many here were in terrible school districts. I'm sorry you were not prepared by your school and cannot figure out that the current bigots, racists etc in the current Republican party would be Democrats in the past. Is this really a difficult concept?
the current bigots, racists etc in the current Republican party would be Democrats in the past. Is this really a difficult concept?
It's a very easy concept but it also totally irrelevant to anything at all. Anything that is a "would have been" deserves a big SO WHAT!!! It's absolutely meaningless. Are you a sports caster? They are full of such inanities.
It's a very easy concept but it also totally irrelevant to anything at all. Anything that is a "would have been" deserves a big SO WHAT!!! It's absolutely meaningless. Are you a sports caster? They are full of such inanities.
I agree with you. There is no point in bringing this inane trivia up b/c it has no relevance today. That is why I think it is sad that so many of these white supremacists are so gleeful to point out that the Democratic party used to represent them. Yes, but it has no bearing on the last 50 or so years.
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.
