The Truth about the Dixiecrats What they were about.

National Review ^ | Dec 16,2002 | Dave Kopel

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Outstanding!

[JohnGalt]

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.

[FourtySeven]

Segregationists back then, as they are today, were Democrats.

This fact still escapes people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. What I wonder is, are they really that stupid, or that evil?

[Austin Willard Wright]

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.

[dirtboy]

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.

[dirtboy]

What happened slowly after 1948 was the drift of many Southen Dems into the GOP - and a fair number of these, such as Strom Thurmond, were former Dixiecrats and segregationists. But the media prefers to overlook the source and instead dwells on the destination.

[OWK]

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.

[Austin Willard Wright]

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.

[ken5050]

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....

[dirtboy]

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.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

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.

[Austin Willard Wright]

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!

[Republic of Texas]

They are not stupid...

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

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)...

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Do you know where I could read these articles today ? The more I read up on Henry Wallace, the more I'm convinced he was either a Communist dupe or a moron.

[dirtboy]

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.

[dirtboy]

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)...

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.

[vbmoneyspender]

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.

[OWK]

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.

[OWK]

see post 39.