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: dirtboy
The rights of people to work, to be protected, ect... were already covered by the Constitution, we did not need new, more intrusive laws. As usual, if Government simply enforced the Constitution, we would all be better off.
81 posted on 12/16/2002 9:21:22 AM PST by Republic of Texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
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.

Spot on.

Just as, a couple of generations earlier, "states' rights" was used as a fig-leaf when it came to the right of a state to secede from the Union (and steal Federal terrritory and facilities along with it), but was completely ignored when it came to the Fugitive Slave Law.

82 posted on 12/16/2002 9:21:59 AM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Most of the things that happened weren't because of state law or Jim Crow laws. The laws that were there were there because they were the will of the local people.
83 posted on 12/16/2002 9:22:07 AM PST by ItisaReligionofPeace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: RonF
Can YOU come up with an example of a "segregationist" in the Republican party? I have to tell you, I cannot.
84 posted on 12/16/2002 9:23:54 AM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kay Soze
so glad that National Review provided clarity on this issue. It is so obnoxious to hear the mainstream media characterize these dixiecrats. Unfortunately, not more than 200,000 people will read NR's article, but the many millions will have their minds made up by propaganda. How long can our nation endure this type of propaganda and bad faith in our national conversation?
85 posted on 12/16/2002 9:24:49 AM PST by Red Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republic of Texas
Do you really think that the people in South Carolina could not find any one in the whole State to represent them better than this retarded racist fossil? The problem is money. If he can prevent any one from running as a Republican, and Democrat would choose some leftist piece of s##t, then the public has no choice but to vote for the best of two evils. ‘

Sorry for being upset, I am just having one of these days.

86 posted on 12/16/2002 9:25:28 AM PST by philosofy123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: ItisaReligionofPeace
Most of the things that happened weren't because of state law or Jim Crow laws. The laws that were there were there because they were the will of the local people.

So friggin what? It still is not right for a government at ANY level to provide for legal discrimination against ANYONE based on race. If a restaraunt does not want to serve minorities, that is their business (and others have the right to peaceable protest and ask others to withhold their business). That is how things are supposed to work. But government cannot legally create two classes of citizen based upon race.

87 posted on 12/16/2002 9:25:33 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
And a generation before THAT (1830s and 1840s), it probably would have been used to excuse religious persecution.
88 posted on 12/16/2002 9:25:34 AM PST by hchutch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Only if you equate powers and rights. I do not.
89 posted on 12/16/2002 9:27:06 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
What are you getting upset about. I said we agree. The state should not make laws separating races or classes of people for any reason. My whole point is that a lot of the segregation that took place wasn't because there was a law forcing segregation. That's all.
90 posted on 12/16/2002 9:27:34 AM PST by ItisaReligionofPeace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: society-by-contract
Rothbard was a IDIOT with that letter. Once again, with feeling, from the intial post:

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...States' rights were not a legitimate constitutional basis for states to violate the constitutional rights of their citizens.

I will take the reasoned libertarianism of Kopel over Rothbard's blinders any day of the week.

91 posted on 12/16/2002 9:28:06 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: philosofy123
That is a bad situation. If the people of SC cared about having better representation, they would probably do something about it.
92 posted on 12/16/2002 9:28:30 AM PST by Republic of Texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
Only if you equate powers and rights. I do not.

Power is equal to rights, force and will. You cannot separate them.

93 posted on 12/16/2002 9:29:14 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
States' rights were not a legitimate constitutional basis for states to violate the constitutional rights of their citizens.

True

94 posted on 12/16/2002 9:29:54 AM PST by CyberCowboy777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ItisaReligionofPeace
My whole point is that a lot of the segregation that took place wasn't because there was a law forcing segregation.

Well, then, quit mentioning law, the 10th Amendment and SCOTUS decisions.

95 posted on 12/16/2002 9:29:56 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: geedee
Radical African-American activists and Dim-Dems feed at the same "woe is me" trough and they both need an enslaved population to multiply.

Bingo!

96 posted on 12/16/2002 9:33:48 AM PST by FourtySeven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Republic of Texas
Segregationists back then, as they are today, were Democrats.

The South was a one-party region from Reconstruction to the 1970s. The Democrats that supported segregation were conservative.

97 posted on 12/16/2002 9:34:26 AM PST by SteveTuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Republic of Texas
Back to my initial supposition. The State of South Carolina is then either all stupid or racist?
98 posted on 12/16/2002 9:35:17 AM PST by philosofy123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: society-by-contract
Cool screen name.
99 posted on 12/16/2002 9:36:16 AM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Again....this was typical Rothbard, always trying to "burrow from within." In the 1950s, he was supporting Adlai Stevenson and even appearing at Democratic meetings for that purpose!
100 posted on 12/16/2002 9:38:19 AM PST by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | 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