Civil Rights Racism: Democrats Controlled Everything But Would Not Pass Civil Rights! The History The Timeline of Democrat Racism
In a discussion of Civil Rights in America, how often do you hear the name of Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Ilinois? Not often. How often do you hear the name of Democrat Senator Robert Byrd in connection to civil rights? Not often but for very different reasons. Dirksen was a champion for civil rights. Robert Byrd was not. But you do hear the name of Senator Strom Thurmond practically spat from the mouths of those accusing Republicans for the plight of Negros African-Americans Blacks when civil rights are on the table. but Strom Thurmond was a Democrat in those days, and he was VERY active in trying to kill the bill. It was later that Thurmond became a Republican. Most people do not know that.
An agenda can be identified by what is NOT being said. The names of Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Everett Dirksen and the many Republicans who fought for, and or/voted for the bill are never uttered. Neither is it mentioned that Republicans voted for the Civil Rights bill in far greater percentages than did Democrats, or that Democrats had a sufficient majority to pass it without a single Republican vote.
As President of the Senate, Nixon witnessed Democrat Senator Strom Thurmond and his single-man filibuster to prohibit black voting rights…a filibuster which went on for 24 hours and 18 minutes straight on the Senate floor. Democrat Senator Robert Byrd filibustered for 18 hours.
Dirksen’s role (Diane Alden NewsMax):
He was the master key to victory for the civil Rights Act of 1964. Without him and the Republican vote, the Act would have been dead in the water for years to come. LBJ and Humphrey knew that without Dirksen the civil Rights Act was going nowhere.
Why did Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey (both Democrats) think they had to have Dirksen? Simply because their own Democrat majority in both chambers would not carry the vote. The Senate had a final voting share of 65%, Republicans 35%. Only 51 votes were needed for passage in a Senate with 65 seated Democrats. In the House Democrats had a 59% voting share to the Republican’s 41%. Eighty-two percent of Republicans voted for passage of the joint Senate-House bill. Sixty-nine percent of Democrats voted for passage.
Dirksen became a tireless supporter, suffering bouts of illhealth because of his efforts in behalf of crafting and passing the Civil Rights Act. Nonetheless, Sen. Kirksen suffered the same fate as many Republicans and conservatives do today.
Even though Dirksen had an exemplary voting record in support of bills furthering the cause of African-Americans, activists groups in Illinois did not support Dirksen for re-election to the Senate in 1962.
Blacks African-Americans didn’t trust Dirksen. Take a look at this odd story:
African American groups in Illinois had not supported Dirksen for reelection to the Senate in 1962 and suspected his loyalty to African Americans during the civil rights debate. African American organizations knew the importance of Dirksen’s vote and intended to force him to support an unchanged H. R. 7152 by demonstrating and picketing his Chicago office. James Farmer, director of CORE, publicly declared that there would be “extensive demonstrations” in Illinois against the Senator personally. Farmer added that “people will march en masse to the post offices there to file handwritten letters” protesting Dirksen’s ambivalent attitude…
The protestors had almost directly the opposite impact. Dirksen strongly objected to what he believed were uncalled-for tactics by African American groups; he resented their lack of trust in his judgment and his favorable civil rights record.
On February 17, 1964, Dirksen complained on the Senate floor about the harassment and let it be known that such pressure would not affect his judgment.
“When the day comes that picketing, distress, duress, and coercion can push me from the rock of conviction, that is the day,” Dirksen announced, “that I shall gather up my togs and walk out of here and say that my usefulness in the Senate has come to an end.”
Richard Russell, leader of the filibuster forces, thought that Dirksen might desert the civil rights proponents because of the incident, but the minority leader did not forsake the northern Democrats. Hubert Humphrey made sure, however, that African American groups did not risk Dirksen’s support by similar tactics. Click here. Source: Congress Link
The key to the protest mentioned above and conversation about H.R. 7152 involved changing legislation necessary to become law. As I understand it, CORE knew Dirksen would support the legislation but tried to intimidate him into supporting it exactly as CORE wanted it. Apparently, had it ended there, there would have been no Civil Rights Bill:
During the first week in May, Dirksen began talks in his office with Senate Democratic and Republican civil rights advocates and with Justice Department officials to achieve an acceptable package of civil rights legislation. On May 13, after 52 days of filibuster and five negotiation sessions, Dirksen, Humphrey, and Attorney General Robert Kennedy agreed to propose a “clean bill” as a substitute for H. R. 7152. Senators Dirksen, Mansfield, Humphrey, and Kuchel would cosponsor the substitute. This agreement did not mean the end of the filibuster, but it did provide Dirksen with a compromise measure which was crucial to obtain the support of the “swing” Republicans.
The compromise civil rights bill worked out in Dirksen’s office did not seriously weaken the original H. R. 7152 . The bargainers were careful not to include any changes that might cause the House to reconsider the entire bill once the Senate had finished its work.
The “clean bill” made somewhat over seventy changes in H. R. 7152 , most of them concerning wording and punctuation and most of them designed to win over reluctant Republicans and to allow cloture.
The major change in what was called the Dirksen-Mansfield substitute was to lessen the emphasis on federal enforcement in cases of fair employment and public accommodations violations. The substitute gave higher priority to voluntary compliance than the House bill. It encouraged more private, rather than official, legal initiatives. The compromise also reserved a period for voluntary compliance before the U.S. Attorney General could act in discrimination suits.
What Dirksen had done was to put together a substitute for the House-passed H. R. 7152 that was near enough to the original version that it satisfied the Justice Department and the bipartisan civil rights coalition in Congress, and sufficiently different in tone and emphasis to win a few Republican converts to support cloture…
…the Senate passed the bill by a 73 to 27 roll call vote. Six Republicans and 21 Democrats held firm and voted against passage. In all, the the 1964 civil rights debate had lasted a total of 83 days, slightly over 730 hours, and had taken up almost 3,000 pages in the Congressional Record. S ource: Congress Link
The history of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is an example of Senate leadership, none of which we’ve seen even a glimpse of since Harry Reid became Senate Majority leader in January 2005.
Back to Diane Alden’s account:
On May 19, Dirksen called a press conference, told the gathering about the moral need for a civil rights bill. On June 10, 1964, with all 100 senators present, Dirksen rose from his seat to address the Senate. By this time he was very ill from the killing work he had put in on getting the bill passed. In a voice reflecting his fatigue, he still spoke from the heart…and ended with “it must not be stayed or denied.”
Lest it get lost in the discussion, is this important question to Senator Dirksen and his answer:
After the civil rights bill was passed, Dirksen was asked why he had done it. What could possibly be in for him given the fact that the African-Americans in his own state had not voted for him? Why should he champion a bill that be in their interest? Why should he offer himself as a crusader in this cause?
Dirksen’s reply speaks well for the man, for Republicans and for conservatives like him: “I am involved in mankind, and whatever the skin, we are all included in mankind.”
The Civil Rights legislation was signed into law on July 2, 1964.
The NAACP wrote a letter to Dirksen, a portion of which follows:
Let me be the first to admit that I was in error in estimating your preliminary announcements and moves…But there were certain realities which had to be taken into account in advancing this legislation to a vote. Out of your long experience you devised an approach which seemed to you to offer a chance for success. The resoundinv vote of 71-29 June 10 to shut off debate tended mightily to reinforce your judgment and to vindicate your procedure.
It is significant that 27 of the 33 Republican Senators voted for cloture, the first time it it has ever been imposed on a civil rights bill debate.
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored people sends it’s thanks to you for your vote for cloture and for your final speech before the vote on Wednesday which cited the war service of millions of American Negro citizens. These have indeed, fought and died to preserve or to advance democracy abroad…
With the passage of the bill, with or without your amendments intact, the cause of human rights and the commitment of a great, democrativ government to protect the guarantees embodied in its constitution will have taken a giant step forward. Your leadership of the Republican party in the Senate at this turning point will become a significant part of the history of this century. (signature not clear).
President Eisenhower appointed prominent blacks to prominent and important jobs in his administration, and other administrations followed: E. Frederick Morrow, J. Ernest Wilkens to Assistant Secretary of Labor, Scovel Richardson as Chairman of the U.S. Board of Parole, Charles Mahoney as the first Black full delegate to the U.N. from the U.S., Clifton R. Wharton as Minister to Rumania and George M. Johnson and J. Ernest Wilkens as members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. |
