The Truth about the Dixiecrats What they were about.

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

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.

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.

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.

I appreciate that tid-bit on Mencken; I saw Murry Rothbard's letter as he reached out to Strom in 1948 in an effort to create a more libertarian minded platform for national appeal, but I was curious what Mencken's take was on the subject.

As an aside, funny how no one wants to talk about Truman being a member of the KKK and a member of an administration that put American citizens in concentration camps. Makes you happy we live in a political situation where Socialist Party A's candidate is infinitely more appealing than Socialist Party B's candidate.

Actually, compared to the Democrats, the Republicans did indeed have far fewer segregationists in 1948. The main exceptions were the lily white Republicans in some of the Southern delegations but they never won elections. Even in the South, many of the state GOP parties were still controlled by black/white coalitions. The Democratics, on the other hand, were all white in the South.

The 10th amendment grants all powers not expressed in the Constitution or the first nine amendments to the states, right?

It does NOT allow states to deny Constitutionally-defined rights at the federal level to all or part of its citizens. Segregation was a blatant violation of the equal protection clause, as this essay points out.

The 10th amendment grants all powers not expressed in the Constitution or the first nine amendments to the states, right?

To the states... and to the people.

The rights of individuals trump any governmental power.

Always.

Mencken's articles about the 1948 election are the compilation, The Importance of H.L. Mencken. Though he convered all four conventions, his on-the-scene account of the convention which nominated Henry Wallace is particularly hilarious. Unfortunately, these articles were his last journalistic hurrah. He had a stroke shortly after the election and could no longer write.

Some years ago there was a very humorous, yet accurate, article ( and the author's name escapes me) who central thesis was that college athletics was the prime rationale for embracing integration in the south...because the SEC and other schools were tired of getting clocked by colleges who were integrated......IOW, the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"....theory....

And the first part of the 10th:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution

Since the federal government under the Constitution is mandated to provide for equal protection under the law, and that power is granted over state interests by the 14th, then federal action to enforce equal protection in the PUBLIC sector is a Constitutional federal action. Unfortunately, the feds didn't stop in the public sector, but the Dixiecrats and segregationists gave them the opening to intervene.

whoops, I left out the most important part...the people!

powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It is worthy to note, however, that Ike made some big inroads in the black vote in the 1950s. In 1956, he captured 40 percent and many predicated that the GOP would soon completely reverse the decline since the 1930s. In 1956, Ike got the vote of such blacks as Martin Luther King, Jr., Jackie Robinson, and Rev. Abernathy. Not all blacks were Eisenhower Republicans either. Most of the black Republicans at the 1952 GOP convention voted for Taft!

Segregation was a blatant violation of the equal protection clause

Really? I don't agree with segregation, but I don't think it is really so clear. At least, the Supreme court didn't think so in Plessy vs. Ferguson (1892, 28 years after the "equal protection clause" was added)...

Here is the issue. Here is the lead-in clause for the 10th:

powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,

So the question becomes, did the federal government have the legal power and authority under the Constitution to compel states to end forced segregation? The answer is in the 14th:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Segregation was a clear violation of the highlighted power.

The court was wrong, namely because it inserted the famous weasel words that segregation could be "separate BUT equal" and pass Constitutional muster - but segregation was never about equality, but forced INEQUALITY.

Though not stirling, the Republican party has a good pretty history on the segregation issue. Certainly, much better than the Democratic Party. For instance, Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge had planks in their presidential platforms that called for a federal anti-lynching law. Likewise, the Republicans of that era actively supported federal laws that would have banned such things as poll taxes. In fact, in the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes.

BTW, if you want the source for this statistic, let me know and I will dig it up for you.

Segregation (as practiced by private citizens, on private property) is a right.

Segregation as practiced by government, is immoral, and a violation of rights.

State is morally obligated to provide the same treatment to any and all.

Private individuals are under no such moral obligation, and may choose their associations as THEY (and not state) see fit.

I happen to think racial discrimination is foolish and irrational... but it is nevertheless consistent with property rights, and the right to free association when practiced by individuals.

Government did a good thing when it prohibited such practices within itself, but as usual, government didn't stop there. It went on to prohibit the practice among private individuals, thereby subjugating legitimate rights of property and free-association... while asserting false "civil rights".

No one has a "right" to access the private property of an unwilling individual, or to demand employment or association with an unwilling individual. But government pretends otherwise.

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.