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

Skip to comments.

The Truth about the Dixiecrats What they were about.
National Review ^ | Dec 16,2002 | Dave Kopel

Posted on 12/16/2002 8:12:18 AM PST by Kay Soze

December 16, 2002 9:40 a.m. The Truth about the Dixiecrats What they were about.

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/kopel/kopel121602.asp

Besides segregation, what was in the 1948 platform of the states-rights' Democratic party? On the Larry King's CNN show, Senator Lott said that Strom Thurmond would have been a good president because he would have made a strong national defense and a balanced budget priorities. Let's take a look at the official Dixiecrat platform, as published in the reference book National Party Platforms.To start with, there's nothing about national defense or the budget.

By far the largest portion of the Dixiecrat platform is an extensive endorsement of states' rights. This defense was couched in strongly stated appeals to constitutional values, such as "the constitutional right to choose one's associates; to accept private employment without governmental interference, and to earn one's living in any lawful way." Yet state segregation laws interfered with all these rights, and with the Constitution.

Jim Crow laws forbade interracial marriage. They imposed segregation on private business such as trains, trolleys, restaurants, hotels, boarding houses, and theaters. For example, some states made it a crime for a black barber to cut a white woman's hair. Some of the businesses covered by Jim Crow laws would have segregated anyway, but some would not have bothered, and the laws which Governor Thurmond was attempting to shield from federal interference were laws which interfered with the rights of business to choose how to serve their customers, and likewise interfered with the rights of customers to choose businesses.

The Dixiecrats were also angry that Truman, like Franklin Roosevelt, fervently supported union rights — another important element of "the constitutional right to choose one's associates."

There were five major sections of the Dixiecrat platform, one of which denounced "proposed FBI powers," and featured frantic warnings that the Democrats and Republicans both wanted to impose a totalitarian police state. In the platform's final section, "New Policy," two of the eight platform items further condemned "the effort to establish nation-wide a police state in this republic." (The Smoking Gun has an online version of the final section; TSG's version is from a state convention, and differs in some small ways from the final section of the official platform.)

Now if Senators Thurmond and Lott had adhered to this particular language of the 1948 platform, things might indeed be better in this country. But to the contrary, the Dixiecrat concerns about a police state appear to have existed solely in the context for federal efforts to secure civil rights for black people.

No senator outdid Strom Thurmond in the 1960s for outraged denunciation of the Supreme Court's strict enforcement of the criminal-procedure provisions of the Bill of Rights. In 2000, he and his staff were leading advocates of a proposal to allow government agents to conduct secret searches without obtaining search warrants.

In 1973-74, it was revealed that the Nixon White House had engaged in numerous police-state tactics, illegally attempting to use the IRS, the FBI, and the CIA against the president's political opponents. Article Two of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee's Articles of Impeachment summarized these offenses. Yet first-term Republican Representative Trent Lott voted against this Article of Impeachment.

He likewise voted against the first Article of Impeachment, based on President Nixon's cover-up and obstruction of the Watergate investigation. Hypocritically, he later voted to impeach President Clinton for obstruction of justice and perjury — although the Clinton offenses had occurred in the context of a private civil-rights lawsuit, whereas Nixon had been obstructing a criminal investigation about a presidential election.

After the House Judiciary Committee had reported the Articles of Impeachment, an unanimous Supreme Court decision forced the Nixon White House to release several of the tapes which Nixon had secretly recorded. The tapes proved Nixon's guilt of obstruction of justice beyond any doubt. Senate Republican leaders who had staunchly defended Nixon, such as Barry Goldwater and John Tower, decided that the president could no longer hold office. With Nixon's guilt certain, the White House found that only two senators were still certain to vote against impeaching the criminal president. Strom Thurmond was one of them.

Like Lott, Thurmond inconsistently voted to impeach President Clinton.

Thurmond bolted the 1948 Democratic Convention after Minneapolis Mayor Hubert Horatio Humphrey won a floor fight to amend the Platform to strengthen the civil-rights language. Humphrey's Amendment read:

We highly commend President Harry S. Truman for his courageous stand on the issue of civil rights.

We call upon the Congress to support our President in guaranteeing these basic and fundamental American Principles: (1) the right to full and equal political participation; (2) the right to equal opportunity of employment; (3) the right to security of person; (4) and the right of equal treatment in the service and defense of our nation.

That's why Thurmond ran for president. A principled advocate of small government could, as Barry Goldwater did, oppose the second item as applied to federal control of private employment. But every other item was a straightforward application of the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and of the Fifteenth Amendment: the right of black people to vote; the right of black people to be hired for federal, state, and local government jobs without discrimination; the right of black people to own and carry arms for protection, and to receive police protection, against criminals such as the Ku Klux Klan; and the right to serve equally in the United States military.

The Dixiecrat platform quoted from the 1840 Democratic platform, which was the platform of the great Democratic President Martin Van Buren. More than any other President, Van Buren faithfully followed the Constitution, so his platform — fewer than 1,000 words long — is an especially valuable guide for constitutionalists. The part quoted by the Dixiecrats resolved:

That Congress has no power under the constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several states; and such states are the sole and proper judges of everything pertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the constitution….

The 1840 platform went to warn, accurately, that Abolitionism would endanger the Union. As a result of the Civil War, the Constitution was changed, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were added. From the late 1870s onward, the equal-protection clause and the prohibition of racial discrimination in voting were nullified in much of America. In seeking to enforce the Constitution, President Truman was following in the footsteps of constitutionalist President Van Buren.

The Dixiecrats made sure not to quote another paragraph of the 1840 platform:

that every citizen and every section of the country has a right to demand and insist upon an equality of rights and privileges, and to complete and ample protection of persons and property from domestic violence or foreign aggression.

That statement is the principle on which the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments are based. States' rights were not a legitimate constitutional basis for states to violate the constitutional rights of their citizens.

Senator Lott shouldn't be pilloried for once calling the Civil War a war of "aggression," for there was a plausible case to made the that Confederate states had a right to secede. There are a good number of Southerners of his generation and older — some of them quite liberal and quite in favor of civil rights — who say the same thing.

But in 1948, with the south firmly in the Union, the south had a duty to obey the Constitution. The Dixiecrats of 1948 stood for nullifying the Constitution, not obeying it, and they were renegades against not only Harry Truman, but against the great historic principles of the Democratic party.

The Dixiecrats supported the raw power of Jim Crow over the lawful command of the Constitution; likewise, Congressmen Thurmond and Lott supported a criminal president of their party who attacked the constitutional rule of law. It is truly a blessing for America that Strom Thurmond never became president.

Senator Lott is the wrong choice to lead a party which seeks to follow constitutional values.

— Dave Kopel is a contributing editor of NRO.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: dixiecrats; lott; trentlott
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-127 next last
To: Dave S
If by "original constitution" you mean the Articles of Confederation then you are correct in believing that it was fundamentally different than the constitution in this regard. It was so fundamentally flawed that Congress was powerless, almost all powers remained with the states. A single state could veto any legislation. Thus, the nation barely was able to win the War with the help of the French.

The founders realized that too much power was left in the hands of the States and that had to be changed if the nation was to survive. Reduction of states' powers was crucial to achieve national survival. Yet even that flawed document recognized that the Union was to be perpetual.
101 posted on 12/16/2002 9:41:55 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Governments have powers to violate the citizens rights. It was to protect the rights of citizens that the powers of government was carefully circumscribed by the constitution.

If power equalled rights then no governmental edict could be challenged. Merely because it has the power to do something does not mean it has the right to do it.
102 posted on 12/16/2002 9:45:31 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: philosofy123
" Back to my initial supposition. The State of South Carolina is then either all stupid or racist?"

Exactly.

103 posted on 12/16/2002 9:47:27 AM PST by Republic of Texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
If by "original constitution" you mean the Articles of Confederation then you are correct in believing that it was fundamentally different than the constitution in this regard

No, actually I was referring to the consitution prior to the addition of the bill of rights and the subsequent ammendments. The base document.

104 posted on 12/16/2002 9:48:57 AM PST by Dave S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
If power equalled rights then no governmental edict could be challenged. Merely because it has the power to do something does not mean it has the right to do it.

That is why I coupled power with rights. Power without rights is tyranny. But rights without force, power and will are meaningless. The federal government, once the 14th was passed, had the right and the power to intervene against segregation, but chose not to do so until the right to intervene was subverted by Plessey v. Ferguson. Once that flawed decision was removed, the feds once again had the right, they had the power, and this time they had the will.

105 posted on 12/16/2002 9:49:11 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: SteveTuck
Well that makes it ok then, doesn't it?
106 posted on 12/16/2002 9:49:57 AM PST by Republic of Texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
Great work!

It shows all this state's rights talk to be empty. Strom bolted the democrats because they were for civil rights as were the Republicans.

Dixiecrats were about segregation. Period.
107 posted on 12/16/2002 9:58:40 AM PST by Bluntpoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
Great work!

It shows all this state's rights talk to be empty. Strom bolted the democrats because they were for civil rights as were the Republicans.

Dixiecrats were about segregation. Period.
108 posted on 12/16/2002 9:58:40 AM PST by Bluntpoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: society-by-contract
Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995), the founder of modern libertarianism...

And he was also well known in the LP as "Typhoid Murray" years before his death as a measure of his endearing personality and personal warmth.

109 posted on 12/16/2002 10:13:56 AM PST by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: jimt
Next time perhaps he should try directly quoting from the document when he's pretending to do so.

Here's "the document". Basically, "segregation now and segregation" forever wrapped in perverted interpretation of the Constitution.


110 posted on 12/16/2002 10:20:18 AM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Dave S
Oh, then you are not correct. The BoR added to the constitution it did not change anything which was there before so the "original constitution" is still there if you just read the part before the amendments.
111 posted on 12/16/2002 10:21:10 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: OWK

"Cool screen name."


Thank you. When I read your screen name I think of the German high command during the war.
112 posted on 12/16/2002 10:39:48 AM PST by society-by-contract
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
And after all that Strom still would have probably been a better president than Truman.
113 posted on 12/16/2002 10:40:01 AM PST by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
What are you talking about?
114 posted on 12/16/2002 10:47:56 AM PST by ItisaReligionofPeace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Republic of Texas
Well that makes it ok then, doesn't it?

Uh, no. Just clearing up a misconception.

115 posted on 12/16/2002 10:56:50 AM PST by SteveTuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
As an aside, funny how no one wants to talk about Truman being a member of the KKK [...]

Hm. Truman was a Klan member? Sounds like a bunch of crap to me. I recall that it was brought up during his campaign for VP, but it has been soundly debunked.

Truman apparently flirted with the Klan in the 1920s, and took a mild interest since they were a political force of the time, and not so widely derided as today. He apparently even paid a membership fee, before he heard them say he couldn't hire Catholics if he got the KKK's support. Characteristically, Truman told them he'd hire anyone he damned well pleased, and that was basically the end of it.

Further, I'd judge the man by his actions in office. It seems strange that he'd be a Klan member, especially in light of his move to integrate the military and finally passing an anti-lynching law (which languished throughout FDR's tenure). Add in the fact that Truman was a Mason (IIRC), and you have what would normally be a pretty strongly anti-Klan type.

Snidely

116 posted on 12/16/2002 11:31:10 AM PST by Snidely Whiplash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Snidely Whiplash
I am confused: your posts states correctly that Truman paid a membership fee (ergo he was a member of the Klan) and yet you think it's a "bunch of crap" that he was a Klan member?



117 posted on 12/16/2002 11:43:17 AM PST by JohnGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Snidely Whiplash
I am confused: your posts states correctly that Truman paid a membership fee (ergo he was a member of the Klan) and yet you think it's a "bunch of crap" that he was a Klan member?



118 posted on 12/16/2002 11:43:21 AM PST by JohnGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Bravo.
119 posted on 12/16/2002 1:07:31 PM PST by p. henry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
Bump for later read and comment.
120 posted on 12/16/2002 2:52:41 PM PST by Sparta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-127 next last

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