lautaro Yes, there were some (keyword SOME) democrats that supported Lincoln and the yankee war effort, but the important thing that I'm trying to get you to understand is that the majority of your dear democrats did NOTHING to stop the disfranchisement of millions of poor whites and blacks during the Redemption period that followed the Reconstruction after the Civil War, and some of them even helped this disfranchisement to happen (the court on the Plessy vs. Ferguson case was composed by northeners). It might seem cheap from my part to cite wiki as a source, but even I have to recognize that they have done a marvelous job in recounting things on this account:




At least you changed your stance from EVERYBODY to SOME. Yes Progress in the making. Lautaro take this into account all the northern states above Missouri were slavery free right? Democratic Party was the majority party right in the north? By that logic we can agree northern Democrats had different mentality as southerner don’t you think? THAT WAS MY POINT FROM THE BEGINNING I WAS TRYING TO TELL YOU THAT NOT ALL DEMOCRATS AS YOU STATED WERE FOR SLAVERY. I mean do you think Aaron Burr of New York was someone like Jefferson David? Or take for instance Andrew Jackson a southerner who transformed the Democratic-Republican Party into what is know today as Democratic Party. He was a slavery lover and his successor and close friend of him from New York Martin Van Buren didn’t. Now after so many back and forward I hope you get my point of view.

PS lautaro did you watched the YouTube video of JFK Civil Rights Speech on the same day he sent federal troops to Alabama from my previous post?

But you're missing two single points in which they ALL agreed: They all believed that blacks shouldn't be given the same citizenship rights as whites, and most of all, they should be encouraged to leave the country whenever possible. The second point in which all of them, from bostonian intellectual to south carolinan aristocrat, agreed with was in the enforcement of the one drop rule (which is a northern invention, by the way) and the need to establish anti-miscegenation laws (that is, the ban against interracial marriage). ALL the states and territories of the Union (with the sole exception of Hawaii), enforced these laws in one way or another, and no whitewashing of yours can ever change this. Your attempts in establishing innocence for any of them are just a testament to the power of propaganda on the unwary. Granted, the northern aristocrat wasn't the one to pull the trigger on the majority of times, but if the existence and continuing prevalence of the one drop rule proves something, is that he's equally guilty of the racial crimes of his southern brethen, cuz' he provided the intellectual excuses and ideology that would justify the ocurrence of those crimes.

That "difference of thought" that you're so desperately clinging to is nothing more than baloney, hogwash and a miserable cuento de camino (tall tale). As the saying goes: "A otro perro con ese hueso". El ciudadano norteño puede que haya detestado la esclavitud, pero de ahí a querer ver al negro como a un igual, o verlo pidiendo la mano de su hija, mi hermano, hay un trecho muy laaaargo, que todavía al día de hoy no se ha terminado de andar allá.

lautaro But you're missing two single points in which they ALL agreed: They all believed that blacks shouldn't be given the same citizenship rights as whites, and most of all, they should be encouraged to leave the country whenever possible. The second point in which all of them, from bostonian intellectual to south carolinan aristocrat, agreed with was in the enforcement of the one drop rule (which is a northern invention, by the way) and the need to establish anti-miscegenation laws (that is, the ban against interracial marriage). ALL the states and territories of the Union (with the sole exception of Hawaii), enforced these laws in one way or another, and no whitewashing of yours can ever change this. Your attempts in establishing innocence for any of them are just a testament to the power of propaganda on the unwary. Granted, the northern aristocrat wasn't the one to pull the trigger on the majority of times, but if the existence and continuing prevalence of the one drop rule proves something, is that he's equally guilty of the racial crimes of his southern brethen, cuz' he provided the intellectual excuses and ideology that would justify the ocurrence of those crimes.

That "difference of thought" that you're so desperately clinging to is nothing more than baloney, hogwash and a miserable cuento de camino (tall tale). As the saying goes: "A otro perro con ese hueso". El ciudadano norteño puede que haya detestado la esclavitud, pero de ahí a querer ver al negro como a un igual, o verlo pidiendo la mano de su hija, mi hermano, hay un trecho muy laaaargo, que todavía al día de hoy no se ha terminado de andar allá.




Let me start by saying I’m not trying to force my point of view into your head and you will not force your into my head for sure. You are going in a totally different direction. Check my first post here and I see where was my difference. Now to the topic yes even the great emancipator Lincoln himself believed the white race was superior and probably most white people of the era. Lincoln own account he was not going to bring social or political change and also believed like most northerner as you stated to free the black people and settle in Liberia. I'm not diputing all that and I’m not trying to bring innocence into white people as you stated. I just affirmed some fact about the northern democrats being different in term of race relation compare to southerner. That was and continues to be a fact. Now I don’t know what you mean by trying to cling to “difference of though”. Like I said I am not defending anybody and don’t need to just stating fact regarding race in different geography of the United States.

Here is how the congress voted by party and region for the civil right act 1964. Take into account by this time the liberal USED TO BE THE REPUBLICAN. SEE HOW THE REPUBLICAN VOTED IN THE SOUTH. HOPE NOW YOU GET MY POINT.

The only southerner senator who voted for the legislation in the senate was a progresive DEM senator from Texas other than than the southern block voted against the civil rights act in the senate. In the house the same all the republican in the house from the south voted against it.

(WIKIPEDIA)

THE HOUSE YES NO
Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

THE SENATE YES NO
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)

the actual drama involved in these legislation and how the even got to the floor is a book unto itself Wiki and some numbers say nothing of the circumstances involved Sen Richard Russel of Georgia head of the southern senators thought of LBJ as practically a son Kennedy could no more pass a Civil Rights Bill than Obama can do anything about a Health Care Bill . LBJ as the experienced legislator that he was had set the stage for this famous piece of legislation.....Kennedy get his name bandied about but it was LBJ who did it all ....Kennedy was a nobody Senator from Mass when Johnson was the second most powerful man in America

Fred i know all about it and know that senator robert byrd gave an overnight speech of 14 hour just before the votes. it was the democrat majority leader in the senate who orchestrated everything by putting the republican minority derkins on the spot. Dirkens the minority leader gave an memorable speech calling in his troops to come aboard. none republicans from south supported the legislation.

(from the us senate archive)

senate majority leader dem mike mansfeild "I appeal to the distinguished minority leader whose patriotism has always taken precedence over his partisanship, to join with me, and I know he will, in finding the Senate's best contribution at this time to the resolution of this grave national issue."

The senator from Illinois replied: "I trust that the time will never come in my political career when the waters of partisanship will flow so swift and so deep as to obscure my estimate of the national interest. . . . I trust I can disenthrall myself from all bias, from all prejudice, from all irrelevancies, from all immaterial matters, and see clearly and cleanly what the issue is and then render an independent judgment."

LBJ orchestrated the whole thing from beginning to end

from us senate archive

Sources of Legislation
Ideas for legislation can come from many different sources. When an issue is as important and controversial as civil rights was in 1963, the final bill may reflect the ideas of individual citizens, organized groups, members and committees of Congress, congressional staff, and the executive branch.

The specific source of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the President of the United States. John Kennedy began the process of gaining support for the legislation in a nationally televised address on June 11, 1963. Discouraged by the violence accompanying the Birmingham demonstrations, Kennedy urged in eloquent language that Americans take action to guarantee equal treatment of every individual, regardless of color.

Kennedy proposed that Congress consider a civil rights act dealing with the following subjects: voting rights, public accommodations, desegregation of public schools, establishment of a Community Relations Service, continuation of the Civil Rights Commission, nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs, and formation of an Equal Employment Opportunities Commission. One hundred years after Abraham Lincoln announced his Emancipation Proclamation, the executive branch of government readied itself to ask Congress to pass a major civil rights bill into law. (Click for link to Press Release of Kennedy's Request)

a memorial to jfk by lbj signing the bill

Kennedy was an opportunistic junior senator and you have bought into Camelot History
Lyndon Johnson’s work for minorities began in 1928 when he obtained his first job as an elementary school teacher; it was, of course, at this time a segregated school attended by only Mexican Americans. Johnson had 28 pupils who he recalled were "mired in the slums", "lashed by prejudice" and "buried half- alive in illiteracy". Johnson believed that their only way out was by education and he bribed, bullied, cajoled and encouraged his pupils, and they adored him.

During the Great Depression, Johnson worked for one of Roosevelt’s New Deal Agencies, the National Youth Administration. Johnson was ordered by Washington to have a black leader as a close advisor, Johnson feared he would be "run out of Texas", feeling implementation had to be slow as so to not upset deep- rooted customs. Despite this Johnson made great efforts to alleviate black unemployment; 50% by 1932. Despite privately referring to African Americans as "niggers", he sometimes stayed at black colleges and the African American community found him unusually helpful. Johnson however did little to help other minorities such as Hispanics because, there was little political pressure from Washington and Johnson stood to politically gain little from helping them.

When Johnson became a Congressman, he wanted to gain the minority vote and so he considered employing a Mexican or Spanish-American to show his "appreciation" of his Mexican supporters; cynical Texans called his behaviour a publicity stunt. Many felt that any Texan who wanted to represent the segregated state had to appear to be a segregationist and his gesture didn’t. It was however beneficial to Johnson as it won him the minority vote and made him, a politician with national ambitions, look free from sectional prejudices.

Johnson however, due to political expediency, was forced to vote with his fellow Southern Democrats in Congress, against civil rights measures such as banning lynching, eliminating poll taxes and denying federal funding to segregated schools, measures which later would make up ground breaking legislation. As a senator, Johnson’s opposition to Truman’s civil rights programme disgusted Texas blacks. His explanations were clearly within the contemporary Southern political context; he claimed the bills would never have passed anyway. Johnson also claimed he would be more helpful in another place and position, showing his political ambition and recognising he could only go so far in Texas. He also trotted out the standard Southern excuse for not helping African Americans, that he was "not against blacks rights but for states rights".

Johnson, like Eisenhower, thought civil rights legislation would try to force people to change and lead to violence. Despite this politically correct (in Southern eyes) action, Johnson was behind the scenes working to get black farmers and schoolchildren equal treatment in his congressional district, believing small, but real developments would be better than ground- breaking legislation. In 1938 Johnson secured federal funding for housing in Austin, Texas to benefit Mexican, African American and White slum dwellers. Johnson softened this for racist southerners by stating "This country won’t have to worry about isms [communism and fascism] when it gives its people a decent, clean place to live and a job. They’ll believe in the government." This behaviour may make Lyndon Johnson seem a Jekyll and Hyde character on race relations, his African American servants were treated well by Johnson in private until other racists visited Johnson and he put on a show for them to gain their support for his political ambitions.

By the mid-1950’s, Senator Johnson was clearly altering his stance on civil rights issues, being one of few Southern politicians who supported the 1954 BROWN decision by the Supreme Court. He did so because he felt it important to uphold the American Constitution and the Supreme Court's place in that. Johnson felt that the debate of BROWN was merely weakening the Democrats and the whole country. Johnson wanted the South to accept it in order for the South to make economic advances, knowing racial tensions made the area unattractive to investors. By this time Johnson’s presidential aspirations meant he couldn’t appear too narrowly Southern and he was one of only three Southern politicians who refused to sign the Southern Manifesto in protest of BROWN. Johnson’s motivation over this stance was subject to debate; some thinking it was an act of "political valour" and others thinking he used it for political gain.

Johnson continued to remain careful and appeased the Southern racists, such as in 1956 when he killed a civil rights bill in Congress. Again, in keeping with his Jekyll and Hyde stance he changed his opinion in 1957. Whilst assuring Texans that there was "no foundation" to rumours he was promoting a civil rights bill, and stating he was "strongly and irrevocably opposed to forced integration of the races" he orchestrated, though diluted parts which would be offensive to southerners, the 1957 Civil Rights Act.

This dilution made fellow Southerner President Eisenhower’s bill into a largely unenforceable voting rights law. The part of the bill, which allowed federal government to promote integration in schools, was lost, due to the hostility BROWN and BROWN II had received in the South. Despite Johnson’s dilution of the act to make it merely a token gesture, the bill symbolised greater federal interest in civil rights and their enforcing; it also paved the way for more civil rights legislation. Johnson was also important in the passage of Eisenhower’s second Civil Rights Act in 1960.

During his period as John F. Kennedy’s Vice- President, racism became an increasingly important political issue. Vice- President Johnson knew something had to be done "The Negro fought in the war [World War Two], and….he’s not gonna keep taking the shit we’re dishing out. We’re in a race with time. If we don’t act, we’re gonna have blood in the streets." As Vice- President Johnson’s greatest challenge was chairing Kennedy’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity (CEEO).

Johnson didn’t want the job and Kennedy knew it was a ‘hot potato’. Johnson told Kennedy that the CEEO lacked the money and power to be effective, but Kennedy insisted and did his best. He did so because he considered discrimination as ‘un-American’ and damaging to America’s reputation, especially in the Cold War world. James Farmer of CORE, believed Johnson’s motivation to be real and both he and Roy Wilkins of the NAACP rated Johnson higher than President Kennedy on civil rights issues. The CEEO failed to win many plaudits and shortly before Kennedy was assassinated, Johnson urged him to make a ‘moral commitment’ to civil rights.

Johnson became President of the USA, in November 1963 after the assassination of Kennedy. It was then that Lyndon Johnson announced his vision of a "Great Society" for America, with "an end to poverty and racial injustice". Johnson felt he and Congress owed it to the late president to see his civil rights bill passed. However Johnson was warned by other Southerners that he was staking his political career on passing this bill into law. Johnson was convinced that discrimination was morally wrong and wanted change to lead to economic, political and spiritual reintegration of the South within the nation.

The bill didn’t pass unhindered. There were doubters in Congress and it also had to overcome the longest obstruction in Senate history. Its final passing owed much to Kennedy, who had won over the Republican minority before his death. Johnson was sure the bill would have passed if Kennedy were still alive but that it would have been diluted like Eisenhower’s bills. Johnson must also receive credit as he devoted a staggering amount of his time, energy and political capital to ensure the passage of the bill in it original state. He used Kennedy's Kennedy's death, appeals to Southerner’s self- interest and his Southern background to get what has been described as the most important piece of civil rights legislation passed.

The Act has been described by Irving Bernstein as "a rare and glittering moment in the history of American democracy". However everything wasn’t content in America, there were signs of a northern working-class backlash, shown by the increase in popularity for racist presidential hopefuls, in the presidential primaries. Blacks were also dissatisfied saying it hadn’t gone far enough. The result was riots in black ghettos in East Coast cities. The blacks Johnson thought he was helping, repaid him by embarrassing him and the Democrat Party. Despite this, Johnson bravely planned more civil rights legislation.

Johnson hoped his Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965 would help children to get out of the ghettos. The poorer states like Mississippi benefited greatly from the federal funding and by the end of the 1960’s the percentage of African Americans obtaining a high school diploma rose from 40% to 60%. However, a combination of ghetto peer pressure and traditions and reluctant officials limited the Act’s effectiveness. Johnson’s 1965 Higher Education Act was more successful as it gave significant aid to poor black colleges; it led the number of African American college students to quadruple within a decade. Lyndon Johnson’s introduction of Medicare and Medicaid helped to address the issue of poor health in the minorities, African American infant mortality halved within a decade.