Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 24 Aug '10 18:16 / 3 edits
    I find it interesting that the Democrat party is credited with the Civil Rights movement when a Republican, President Dwight Eisenhower, was the first to introduce a Civil Rights Act in 1957. Ironically, it was struck down by the Democrats and LBJ but was subsequently revived under LBJ and the Democrats a few years later.

    My question is, was the Civil Rights Act struck down by the Democrats so as to not give the Republican party "the black vote"? If not, why then did they turn right around and get credit to their party for passing it?

    http://www.history.learningsite.co.uk/1957_civil_rights_act.htm
  2. 24 Aug '10 18:31
    Are they? Aren't black activists credited for the civil rights movement?
  3. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    24 Aug '10 18:37
    Originally posted by whodey
    I find it interesting that the Democrat party is credited with the Civil Rights movement when a Republican, President Dwight Eisenhower, was the first to introduce a Civil Rights Act in 1957. Ironically, it was struck down by the Democrats and LBJ but was subsequently revived under LBJ and the Democrats a few years later.

    My question is, was the Civil Rig ...[text shortened]... their party for passing it?

    http://www.history.learningsite.co.uk/1957_civil_rights_act.htm
    The Democrats in that era that fought against the Civil Rights Acts were mostly southern "Dixiecrats." In those days, northern moderates were Republicans, while Democrats were an odd coalition of liberals and southerners, who were Democrats for no other reason than that the GOP was the party of Lincoln.

    You can hardly compare those dynamics to today's Republican and Democratic parties.
  4. 24 Aug '10 18:44
    Originally posted by whodey
    I find it interesting that the Democrat party is credited with the Civil Rights movement when a Republican, President Dwight Eisenhower, was the first to introduce a Civil Rights Act in 1957. Ironically, it was struck down by the Democrats and LBJ but was subsequently revived under LBJ and the Democrats a few years later.

    My question is, was the Civil Rig ...[text shortened]... their party for passing it?

    http://www.history.learningsite.co.uk/1957_civil_rights_act.htm
    yes you have a point. I always see LBJ getting credit for this when oddly enough he was the one so staunchly against Ikes plan.
  5. 24 Aug '10 18:51 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    The Democrats in that era that fought against the Civil Rights Acts were mostly southern "Dixiecrats." In those days, northern moderates were Republicans, while Democrats were an odd coalition of liberals and southerners, who were Democrats for no other reason than that the GOP was the party of Lincoln.

    You can hardly compare those dynamics to today's Republican and Democratic parties.
    But the Civil Rights legislation was introduced in 1957 and struck down. Then the same people who struck it down introduced it again and voted for it in 1964. Are you telling me that the world changed that dramatically between the years 1957 and 1964? Face it, the Democratic party is now viewed as the party of the Civil Rights movement. Why? It is because their party is credited with it even though they struck it down in 1957. In addition, it is obvious that most African Americans are registered Demorats and view the Republican party as the party of racists/bigots. The roots of this thinking must rest squarely on the shoulders of the Demcrats who rejected and then embraced the Civil Rights movement.
  6. 24 Aug '10 18:53
    Originally posted by whodey
    I find it interesting that the Democrat party is credited with the Civil Rights movement when a Republican, President Dwight Eisenhower, was the first to introduce a Civil Rights Act in 1957. Ironically, it was struck down by the Democrats and LBJ but was subsequently revived under LBJ and the Democrats a few years later.

    My question is, was the Civil Rig ...[text shortened]... their party for passing it?

    http://www.history.learningsite.co.uk/1957_civil_rights_act.htm
    they did the same thing with the Bushes' Latino judicial nominees.
  7. 24 Aug '10 18:54 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    they did the same thing with the Bushes' Latino judicial nominees.
    My guess is that the Democrats are postitioning themselves as the Latino party. All they have to do is remain on course with defending illegals.
  8. 24 Aug '10 18:54
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Are they? Aren't black activists credited for the civil rights movement?
    yeah, but as more or less equal to the whites in power, given that the blacks didn't have the power to do much other than agitate.
  9. 24 Aug '10 18:54
    Originally posted by whodey
    But the Civil Rights legislation was introduced in 1957 and struck down. Then the same people who struck it down introduced it again and voted for it in 1964. Are you telling me that the world changed that dramatically between the years 1957 and 1964? Face it, the Democratic party is now viewed as the party of the Civil Rights movement. Why? It is becaus ...[text shortened]... arely on the shoulders of the Demcrats who rejected and then embraced the Civil Rights movement.
    Those two parties were radically different in 1957. For one thing, Eisenhower was far to the left of modern-day Democrats. The fact that most African-Americans now vote for Democrats has very little to do with the civil rights movement.
  10. 24 Aug '10 18:55
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Those two parties were radically different in 1957. For one thing, Eisenhower was far to the left of modern-day Democrats. The fact that most African-Americans now vote for Democrats has very little to do with the civil rights movement.
    What does it have to do with then?
  11. 24 Aug '10 18:58
    Originally posted by whodey
    What does it have to do with then?
    The perception that Democrats serve the interests of the poor and lower middle class better, mostly.
  12. 24 Aug '10 19:01
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    The perception that Democrats serve the interests of the poor and lower middle class better, mostly.
    maybe the average black is easier to bamboozle.
  13. 24 Aug '10 19:01 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    The perception that Democrats serve the interests of the poor and lower middle class better, mostly.
    True. Since there are more "poor" people than "rich" it would behoove you to convince everyone that you are on the side of the "poor" so as to get more votes. However, I would say that both have contributed, not just one. In short, the Democrat party seems to be much more politically savy than the Republican party.
  14. 24 Aug '10 19:03
    Originally posted by whodey
    True. Since there are more "poor" people than "rich" it would behoove you to convince everyone that you are on the side of the "poor" so as to get more votes. However, I would say that both have contributed, not just one. In short, the Democrat party seems to be much more politically savy than the Republican party.
    there's a weighting factor: the liberalness of the media, masking as the norm.
  15. 24 Aug '10 21:00 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Those two parties were radically different in 1957. For one thing, Eisenhower was far to the left of modern-day Democrats. The fact that most African-Americans now vote for Democrats has very little to do with the civil rights movement.
    "Eisenhower was far to the left of modern-day Democrats."-KazetNagorra

    Care to explain yourself a little further w/this observation? Because that makes no sense what so ever!