The Truth about the Dixiecrats What they were about.

National Review ^ | Dec 16,2002 | Dave Kopel

[philosofy123]

Thurmond! What a crazy looking fossil. The fact that this dinosaur was elected to office in his nineties is an indication that only stupid or racist people live in South Carolina. Another way to look at it, is may be that fossil controls the Republican Party with the tobacco money? Hence no one can dare to run against him. And, of course the DemonRats would have a communist fag running against him, and viola, we have a retard serving in the Senate at age 100! Is it because he is the best man in the State of South Carolina—of course not!! Freedom and democracy in the USA!! What a joke!!!

[OWK]

Because the feds have money in every piece of infrastructure (roads, etc) that allows people to move about and engage in commerce, they have a legal toehold in regulating public commerce.

But they don't have a legitimate moral toehold in regulating "public commerce".

Unless of course state wishes to claim "public ownership" of all businesses, property, clubs, and organizations. (which is effectively what they do)

[Dave S]

Not only that but States have no rights under the constitution

I believe you must be thinking of the Bill of Rights and the other ammendments to the constitution. I believe the original constitution had many rights that clearly stayed with the states. The original founding fathers did not favor a strong federal government so I doubt what you say but then its been thirty plus years since I've studied the topic in any depth.

[dogbyte12]

Though not stirling, the Republican party has a good pretty history on the segregation issue.

But there was one tide that ran in his favor. The country was ready for change. Eisenhower sensed it, and then he caused it.

He went after the black vote by advertising in African-American newspapers, making a highly visible visit to Harlem and speaking out for equal rights. He made inroads among the women's vote. He won the election of 1952 and then emerged from two terms as president as, in the words of retired Princeton political scientist Fred I. Greenstein, a "very analytical and very penetrating figure."

I think after Ike is when the change started. Pre-Goldwater... the republican party basically split the black vote. Most blacks lived in the south, and voted republican. Northern blacks voted for the democratic party. When the dixiecrats joined the republican party in mass in the 60's and 70's, blacks got stuck in the democratic ghetto where they have remained to this day.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

You are saying that segregation as practiced violated the Constitution. Suppose I agree with you...Would a segregation that offered both sides equal protection under the law be Constitutional to you? (this answer offer plenty of insight)

The Constitution and the 14th amendment applies to the federal government and the states. How does a private citizen not allowing others to eat at his restaurant have anything to do with the 14th Amendment? Hint-it doesn't. The Government argued that they had jursidiction over any business that uses interstate commerce. (talk about a weasel like proposition)

[Mr. Bird]

According to Schippers, there was some pretty damning evidence (difficult for even a Dem to ignore), of which Lott flat out refused to allow presentation. That's what I was getting at.

[dirtboy]

Some very bright men who knew a lot more about our constitution and laws happened to disagree with you.

Yeah, it takes such a scholar to read this section:

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And figure out that it allows states to lawfully discriminate against someone based on race. I stand corrected and instead should be in awe of those men who found the penumbra, the exception in such otherwise clear and concise language.

Seriously, if that is considered "bright", I don't want any part of it. That's the same kind of nonsense that brought us Roe v. Wade and countless other crap decisions. It's funny how people will defend the destruction of clear Constitutional language when it fits their agenda, and then condemn it later when it doesn't.

[Republic of Texas]

So, I take you're not happy here?

[Dave S]

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)..

But they did in 1954 with Brown vs. Board of Education.

[dirtboy]

Would a segregation that offered both sides equal protection under the law be Constitutional to you? (this answer offer plenty of insight)

The problem is, if a state is professing a desire to indentify, let along mandate, racial categories, the only true and underlying reason it cares to do so is to discriminate at some point. Hence segregation and affirmative action are flip sides of the same coin. State governments have NO business making ANY law that identifies racial groups.

How does a private citizen not allowing others to eat at his restaurant have anything to do with the 14th Amendment? Hint-it doesn't.

Hint - I and OWK have already said as much.

[RaceBannon]

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....

I am not repeating this for the joke aspect, but the historical aspect, but you may be right.

I remember reading some coach was quoted years ago as answering a question like this:

How many Black players do you use?
Answer: 2 at home, 3 on the road, 4 when behind.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

Well then, it looks like we agree on both points. I must say that I am not at all in favor of discrimination or segregation. I am also not in favor of the government getting involved with what should be a private matter.

[Austin Willard Wright]

I don't know where you could get it today but The Importance of H.L. Mencken is pretty cheap and well worth purchasing. It not only has poltitical convention articles dating back to 1904 but also has a fascinating piece from teh 1930s in which Mencken proposes that the Jews in Germany be given refuge in the U.S.

[philosofy123]

No, I am just laughing my a## of about this big banana republic. Our politicians are on the take, right and left. Why do you think Kissinger and Mitchell both quit rather than disclosing that they are agents of Saudi Arabia. Why do you think the news papers are not all over this case showing the Joe-six-pack that this country is for sale to the highest bidder? Why all visitors to this country are must register except the Saudis? You can defend Bush all you want, my friend. I defend America.

[JoeGar]

Trent Lott was seven years old in 1948. I seriously doubt he knew much about Thurmond's run for the Presidency.

[Republic of Texas]

Where did I defend Bush? I was just being sardonic. I think people get the government they deserve. So the good folks of SC got the Senator they deserved. I hope they were happy with their choice.

[dirtboy]

I am also not in favor of the government getting involved with what should be a private matter.

When the state government mandates that a class of people cannot work certain jobs, freely and willfully associate, vote, fully participate in the governmental and legal process, and allows lynching without governmental sanction against the perps, THAT IS NOT A PRIVATE MATTER. That was the entire issue in 1948.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

I know this. That's is part of my point. What is so clear to one isn't so clear to others. The reason for the differeces in opinion has to do with the timeframe and the culture of the people. Same as today, I reckon.

[dirtboy]

I seriously doubt he knew much about Thurmond's run for the Presidency.

He knew plenty by 2002. Another lame attempt to derail this matter.

[society-by-contract]

From the great Austrian School economist Murray Rothbard:


May 11, 1949

370 Central Park West
New York 25, N.Y.

Headquarters,
States Rights Democrats
Jackson, Miss.

Gentlemen:

The New York Times this morning carried a report which, if true, is just about the best political news of the year. Indeed, it may be the most significant development since the advent of the New Deal.

Although a New Yorker born and bred, I was a staunch supporter of the Thurmond movement; a good friend of mine headed the Columbia Students for Thurmond, which I believe was the only such collegiate movement north of the Mason-Dixon line.

My support, however, was not extremely enthusiastic, because, although I agreed wholeheartedly with the platform and Thurmond’s campaign speeches, I felt that it was keyed too much to purely Southern interests. Sure, the Civil Tyranny program must be combatted, but what about the myriad invasions of states rights in other fields by the power-hungry Washington bureaucracy? In other words, while you always claimed that yours was a national movement, by talking only of the Civil Tyranny program you threw away any attraction to Northern and Western voters.

I have always felt that it is imperative for the States Rights movement to establish itself on a nation-wide scale. Obviously, we are now living in a one-party system, a party of Socialists in fact if not in name, and only courageous Southern Democrats in Congress have so far blocked their program. But as far as Presidential elections go, the Republicans are through – the Socialist Administration has too much power to bribe voters with wild promises. If things go on as they are, it is only a question of a few years for the socialist program to go through and destroy this land of liberty.

Therefore it is essential to form a new party, of States Righters, consisting of Southern Democrats and real Republicans (omitting the me-too Republicans) to launch a dynamic offensive against National Socialism in this country before it is too late. I am greatly elated over your new platform because I believe it points in that direction.

Would you please send me a copy of your new platform and constitution? Do you plan to start a newspaper of nation-wide circulation? This would be of great help in establishing a national States Rights movement.

I would like to add that, as an economist, I enthusiastically support your proposals on national debt and taxes – in fact, taken all and all, from the news reports I would say that your new platform is one of the best in American history. Indeed, it is one of the finest political statements in America since Calhoun’s Exposition.

It could grow into a mighty movement if you have the will and vision. There are millions of Americans throughout the country, Republicans and Democrats, who would flock to your banner. They are weary of being led by the nose by New Deal politicians of both parties – they are tired of being deprived of their votes because there is no anti-socialist and pro-liberty party to which they can turn.

You, gentlemen, can be a means of succor for these millions - and not only these, but America itself. National Socialism has always meant poverty, tyranny, and war. America is slipping down the road and has already gone far; it must be restored to the right path if the great dream of our forefathers of a nation dedicated to liberty is not to vanish from the earth. Yours can be that mission.

Sincerely yours,
Murray N. Rothbard

Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995), the founder of modern libertarianism and the dean of the Austrian School of economics, was the author of The Ethics of Liberty and For a New Liberty and many other books and articles. He was also academic vice president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and the Center for Libertarian Studies, and the editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.

Copyright © 2002 by the Ludwig von Mises Institute

Murray Rothbard Archives