Bill Bradley Fouls the Civil Rights Act (Dems filibustered 1964 Act)

National Center.Org ^ | Dec. 1999 | R.D. Davis

[FairOpinion]

I believe that Democrats have lied about who supported the Civil Rights Act for so long that they actually believe their lies. But anytime this lie is retold, I feel compelled to debunk it. So here we go again...

The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr. (the father of Bradley's Democratic opponent). Surely young Bradley must have flunked his internship because ostensibly he did not learn that the Act's primary opposition came from the southern Democrats' 74-day filibuster. In addition, he did not know that 21 is over three times as much as six, otherwise he would have become - according to the logic of his statement - a Republican.

In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.

Since Bradley was interning in the Senate, why doesn't he remember the major role the Republicans played in fighting for civil rights? During the Eisenhower Administration, the Republican Party made more progress in civil rights than in the preceding 80 years. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Although the Democratic-controlled Congress watered them down, the Administration's recommendations resulted in significant and effective civil rights legislation in both 1957 and 1960 - the first civil rights statutes to be passed in more than 80 years" ("The Republican Party 1960 Civil Rights Platform," May 1964). It reported on April 5, 1963 that, " A group of eight Republican senators in March joined in introducing a series of 12 civil rights bills that would implement many of the recommendations made in the Civil Rights Commission report of 1961."

The principal measures introduced by these Republicans broadened the Civil Rights Act of 1964, making it "designed to pass unlike Democratic 'public relations' attempts" (CQ, February 15, 1963, p. 191). Republican senators overwhelmingly "chided" President John Kennedy about his "failure to act in this field (civil rights)." Republican senators criticized the Kennedy Administration's February 28, 1963 civil rights message as "falling far short" of the Civil Rights Commission's recommendations and both party platforms. "If the President will not assume the leadership in getting through Congress urgently needed civil rights measures," the Republican senators said, " then Congress must take the initiative" (CQ, April 5, 1963, p. 527).

At the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson praised the Republicans for their "overwhelming" support. Roy Wilkins, then-NAACP chairman, awarded Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen of Illinois the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights Award for his "remarkable civil rights leadership." Moreover, civil rights activist Andrew Young wrote in his book An Easy Burden that "The southern segregationists were all Democrats, and it was black Republicans... who could effectively influence the appointment of federal judges in the South" (p. 96). Young added that the best civil rights judges were Republicans appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower and that "these judges are among the many unsung heroes of the civil rights movement."

The historical facts and numbers show the Republican Party was more for civil rights than the Democrats from "the party of justice," as Bill Bradley called it. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, in reality, could not have been passed without Republican votes. It is an "injustice" for contemporary Democratic politicians and the liberal news media to continue to not give the Republicans credit for their civil rights triumphs. Now is the time for Republicans to start informing black Americans of those historical triumphs to lead them back to their "home party."

[FairOpinion]

More proof of the Democrats' hypocrisy. They have the unmitigated gall to attack Lott, for something he didn't even say, only the Jacksons, Sharptons and vicious Democrats read into his comment. Not only the majority of the Democrats voted against the 1964 civil rights act, but they actually filibustered it, trying to keep it from passing. Byrd actually personally filibustered the 1964 act for 14 hrs. (See another article about Byrd "Senator Byrd, ex-clansman" at:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/mm20010307.shtml

[Slyfox]

Whut? Ah voted against Civil Rights fer colored folk?
Yall've GOT to be out of yer ever-lovin' minds.

[What Is Ain't]

A timely reminder of who the real champions of civil rights were - and were not. Send copies to ABCCBSNBCCNNPBRPBSMSNBC and watch them schedule a slot on their evening news broadcasts to clarify this important piece of history.

[doug from upland]

Slight error in your comments. A majority of RATS did vote for the bill.

[Wolfstar]

Thank you for posting this. I have had the self-delegated task of researching the truth about the Civil Rights Act on my back burner for too long. This article gives me the info I've been interested in finding.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

I suspect all freepers are in agreement that we want the conservatives to stop rolling over and playing dead for the left. The facts have always been on our side but our representatives invariably wimp out to the inuendo of the left. I guess we will have to continue to do the job for them by making sure Rush, FNC, et al., get the info. E-mail away.

A case could also be made, if anyone had the courage to try, like Jesse Lee Peterson, that race relations and equal rights would be much better today through moral suasion rather than force. Although the stated goals of the Civil Rights acts were correct and admirable, the real purpose was to divide the country along racial lines, not unify it for the betterment of all. Force was the only way to further inflame the issue. Though race was the focus, the real battle was over states rights and the power of the federal government, just as the Civil War was. The Left has done an excellent job of revising history and putting the focus on race to keep the conflict going.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Though race was the focus, the real battle was over states rights and the power of the federal government, just as the Civil War was.

That is what Lott should have said he meant, which he probably did, and we really would be much better off today had Thurman won. Had he, we would have been spared the smothering advance of the left and big government socialism. We would also have been spared the last term of Truman and the further expansion of Communism by the USSR and China. Those empires would have cratered much sooner without the Liberal policies of appeasement and support of those regimes "so they won't get mad at us and do something crazy."

[PsyOp]

BTTT!

[justshutupandtakeit]

Can anyone post the actual voters for and against the Act?

[BillyBoy]

>>> Southern Democrats in 1964 were conservatives <<

Riiiiiight.

The MEDIA says conservatives MUST be racists, so therefore southern Democrats MUST have been conservative.

When they blindly supporter Woody Wilson's international treaties, they were conservative, eh? When they voted in LOCKSTEP for FDR's court packing and his New Deal, they were "conservative", eh? Fritz Hollings and Bob Byrd (both of whom have LIFETIME "conservative" ratings of 28% or so) were the "true" conservatives back then, eh? William "Bubba's hero" Fulbright, Al "end the war" Gore Sr., Sam "impeach Nixon" Ervin and the rest of them must have been great conservatives. Richie Daley I is best remembered for throwing stones and drowning at a black kid who accidentially swam into the "white only" area of Lake Michigan, so I guess racist northern Democrats must have been "conservative" too. I suppose pro-civil rights Republicans like Ev Dirksen (R-IL) and John Williams (R-DE) were the liberals back then, eh? That's funny, most of their constituents would tell you otherwise

Hey wait a minute! I managed to locate a whooping ONE southern Democrat who voted in FAVOR of the civil rights act. He was Senator Yaraborough (D-TX). Texas 'RATs were outraged and replaced him in the next primary with Lloyd Bentsen, an ANTI civil rights Democrat who "just happened" to be that ultra-liberal jerk who ended us as Dukaksis' running mate.

< /end rant>

If there's one thing worse than the media trying to discredit the conservative movement by painting it's members as "racists" (and laughable trying to put REAL racists in the "conservative" column), it's people like you who believe it. Virtually every single Democrat ticket of the early 20th century, from William Jennning Bryan to John Sparkman (socialist white supremisist quack from AL who was Stevenson's running mate) shows you the hardcore racists have been leftist 'RATs.