Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Very Civil Act
The Wall Street Journal ^ | July 3, 2004 | MICHAEL BARONE

Posted on 07/03/2004 11:22:16 PM PDT by neverdem

Why wasn't there more celebration of this milestone for racial equality?

It seems that there will be far less commemoration of the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 40 years ago yesterday than there was of the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education in May.

This is not as it should be. Brown was certainly a milestone in the nation's history, a declaration that separate could not be equal and that racial discrimination is wrong. But Brown was much less effective in ending segregation than the Civil Rights Act. This was partly because the court--in its follow-up decision to Brown a year later--said that desegregation should proceed "with all deliberate speed," words that were taken as an invitation to delay and resistance.

But it was also because as a practical matter courts had a hard time controlling facts on the ground. Schools in the border states were rapidly desegregated. But in the Deep South "freedom of choice" plans produced little integration as blacks were intimidated from seeking places in mostly white schools. It was not until Green v. New Kent County in 1968 that the Supreme Court really made a difference by overturning a "freedom of choice" plan.

In the meantime, Congress had acted. Chief Justice Earl Warren had hoped that the unanimous support on the Court for Brown would move white Southerners to change their ways, but that didn't happen. In contrast, the long deliberative process between President Kennedy's June 1963 endorsement of the Civil Rights Act and President Johnson's signing of the bill more than a year later seems to have changed minds.

The nation watched on television as senators slept on cots during the Southerners' filibuster in the Senate. Opponents of the bill were given every chance to obstruct, but they could not prevent an overwhelming majority of the House from voting for the bill and a two-thirds majority in the Senate breaking the filibuster. Support was broad and bipartisan; contrary to what is often assumed today, a higher proportion of Republicans than of Democrats supported the bill. Its leading advocates included not only Democrats like Sen. Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota and Rep. Emanuel Celler of New York but also Republicans like Sen. Jacob Javits of New York and Rep. William McCulloch of Ohio.

(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia; US: New York; US: Ohio
KEYWORDS: civilrightsact; cra; emanuelceller; huberthumphrey; jacobjavits; williammcculloch
Mr. Barone, a columnist at U.S. News & World Report, is a co-author of "The Almanac of American Politics, 2004" (University of Chicago Press).
1 posted on 07/03/2004 11:22:17 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Today we are told that racial prejudice is the motive force behind most voters' opposition to racial quotas and preferences. But in fact the advocates of the Civil Rights Act were against racial quotas and preferences or reverse discrimination. During the Senate debate, Hubert Humphrey said he would eat a copy of the bill if anyone could show him words in it justifying discrimination in favor of blacks. Of course he was right: The act bans discrimination by race and racial quotas, and preferences are, by definition, discrimination by race.

***Right now aside from more current pressing situations in the news, I think the above is probably the reason why the CRA commeration pretty much went unnoticed. Anyone in favor of racial quotas and preferences would not be in favor of the CRA. You can't have both. Not in today's world.


2 posted on 07/03/2004 11:28:26 PM PDT by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fourdeuce82d; El Gato; JudyB1938; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Robert A. Cook, PE; lepton; farmfriend; ...

While not the usual subjects, this editorial is quite good for historical reasons.


3 posted on 07/03/2004 11:30:29 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyborg

Damn, that's fast.

Happy Fourth of July!!!!


4 posted on 07/03/2004 11:32:36 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

LOL thanks


5 posted on 07/03/2004 11:33:10 PM PDT by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy; Joe Brower; Cannoneer No. 4; Criminal Number 18F; Dan from Michigan; Eaker; Squantos; ...

From time to time, I’ll post or ping on noteworthy articles about politics and foreign and military affairs. Let me know if you want off my list.


6 posted on 07/03/2004 11:33:39 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

If you don't want to register with any paper try BugMeNot.com


7 posted on 07/03/2004 11:39:33 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Please keep me ON THE LIST !.........:o)

Racism is a source of income for the RAT'n RINO socialist's.....they "must" keep hate , fear and ignorance alive to prosper.

Stay safe !


8 posted on 07/03/2004 11:59:25 PM PDT by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
We can "commemorate" that unconstitutional abomination by repealing it. We'd be doing both blacks and whites an immense favor.
9 posted on 07/04/2004 1:56:02 AM PDT by inquest (Judges are given the power to decide cases, not to decide law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inquest

It was necessary to enforce by law the central premise of the American Founding: the proposition all men are created equal. The country was changed for the better and America is the stronger for it today.


10 posted on 07/04/2004 2:57:42 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
Whatever purpose it might have served at the time, it has long outlived its usefulness. No employer in his right mind would turn down a qualified applicant because of race. All this law accomplishes anymore is a thriving grievance industry which has been progressively weakening this country. In fact, it wouldn't be much of an exaggeration to say that it was responsible for 9/11.

And that's on top of the fact that the law has no constitutional basis.

11 posted on 07/04/2004 3:08:01 AM PDT by inquest (Judges are given the power to decide cases, not to decide law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I am just a country boy , and I dont know much , but whatever formed the Civil rights commission and put Mary Frances Berry in charge of it was an abomination.


12 posted on 07/04/2004 3:30:52 AM PDT by sgtbono2002 (I aint wrong, I aint sorry , and I am probably going to do it again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002

Mary Frances Berry is a racist fool.

Happy Fourth of July!!!!


13 posted on 07/04/2004 9:32:22 AM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi min oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson