Jim Crow and The Donkey: A True History The Left Loves To Ignore

Jim CrowYou know you’ve hit a sore spot when the Left starts screeching.

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow’s producer, Steve Benen, just took a whack at the American Civil Rights Union’s new booklet, “The Truth About Jim Crow,” (TTAJC) which National Review Online writer John Fund wrote about in a recent column.

Default Comments (1)

0 thoughts on “Jim Crow and The Donkey: A True History The Left Loves To Ignore

  1. cordeg says:

    Ken, i’ve been telling this same story for years and i can tell you that today’s Democrats don’t WANT it to be true and therefore refuse to believe what is demonstrably true. if you show them a list of Dixiecrats and show them have virtually all stayed Democrats until their death or retirement — long after the supposed “Party Switch” they all hang their hats on, they will engage in whatever absurd theories they think are necessary to make their myth sound right. i had one even tell me that ‘of course, the politicians couldn’t just change parties overnight, but the racist voters did change!” wait a minute, that means racist Democratic voters became Republicans so they could vote for racist Democratic politicians who had to remain in the Democratic Party? HUH?!? when you point out that for years after the CRA’1964 Democrats continued to win local and statewide political offices often by 100%-to-0% in the areas where black voters had been disenfranchised for decades by Democrats. how odd. then they change their tune and try the Strom Thurmond defense (that “one Southern Democratic Senator” you mentioned), at which point you remind them that old Strom may have been an arch-segregationist when he was a conservative Democrat, but a funny thing happened when he became a Conservative Republican — slowly at first (he was one of only two Republican senators to vote against the VRA in 1965), but surely in any case, he adopted the anti-racist positions of the GOP at large and NOT the other way around, in the process becoming the first Southern Senator to repudiate segregation, the first to hire African Americans on his legislative staff (rather than just as drivers and valets like his Democratic colleagues), and the first to vote to appoint African American judges to federal district courts in the South. apparently, becoming a Republican made him a better man. then they try to say that the racists must have gone to the GOP because the Democratic opponents of civil rights were “conservative” Democrats, not the “good Liberal” Democrats, and you have to go down the line and remind them that blaming Democrats’ racist votes on their conservatism is akin to blaming it on their generally greying hair. Liberal Democrats were more like conservative Democrats (by the meaning “conservative” had in those days, which was mostly about labor unionism and the like rather than racial politics) than conservative Democrats were like conservative Republicans — that is, the shared Democratic Party membership was more important than the shared conservatism across party lines. in fact, as you pointed out, many Conservatives — at least of the Republican variety — voted FOR civil rights while many Liberals — at least of the Democratic variety — voted AGAINST it. if you ranked all the votes on CRA’1964 on the Liberal to Conservative scale (based on their rankings as widely understood and accepted among journalists at the time), you would find that Republicans voting YES were often found on the more Conservative end of the scale than Democrats voting NO. then they’ll change their tune to say it was their “Southern-ness” that made the Democrats racist, and point to percentage breakdowns of Democrats voting FOR and AGAINST and say that because the South became more Republican over time it’s only reasonable to conclude that those Southern Republicans today must be the same old racist Southern Democrats of yore. so, of course, you will have to remind them that racism wasn’t by any means peculiar to the South in the first place, it was simply that the North practiced it differently. instead of Southern segregation wherein blacks lived among whites but were barred from eating at the same counter, drinking at the same fountain, or using the same bathrooms, you had Northern segregation in the form of “sundown towns” where blacks were allowed to work in white neighborhoods (as maids, gardeners, and general laborers) but not allowed to live there — or even remain within town limits after sundown without the potential of being beaten or worse. and then remind them that the mayors and town councils of these “sundown towns” were overwhelmingly Democratic, NOT Republican — that is NORTHERN Democrats who were racists like their Southern Democratic partners. and, you have to point out that it took decades for this trend to become significant, which is a pretty odd reaction if the civil rights acts of 1964, 1965 and 1968 were supposedly the breaking point that drove racists to the GOP. moreover, it turns out that something else was going on at the time: MASSIVE migration from the North to the South as rapid industrialization brought millions of good jobs to the South. some Southern states saw their populations double and even triple over the following couple of decades — something impossible merely by local birthrates. the South became more Republican more so by importing Republicans from the North than it did by “party switchers” already in the South. the demographics of the region changed so drastically, that in very many areas of the South today it is often said — usually with some disdain — that the “native” Southerners are literally outnumbered by the Northern transplants. often, when someone here says they are a Native Floridian or Native Georgian, people say, “Oh, YOU’RE the one!” and, of course, you can even remind them of the words of Meg Greenfield, the late Liberal editorial page editor of the Liberal Washington Post, who admitted in her autobiographical book “Washington” that when she first moved to DC to take the job with the Post she was shocked to discover that the people she THOUGHT had been at the forefront of civil rights activity in congress — Northern Liberals like herself — were actually mostly playing the issue for politics but not really DOING anything substantive, while those who were actually WORKING to enact civil rights legislation were those rascally REPUBLICANS — imagine her horror at this revelation!

    but, even after all that, today’s Democrats STILL won’t believe the truth because they can’t afford to face it: it was THEIR party ALL ALONG that was the problem — North AND South, Liberal AND Conservative — and that the only reason the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, and Housing Rights Act of 1968 were even required to be legislated in the MODERN “Civil Rights Era” was because THEIR PARTY had spent decades working to undermine, water-down, and overturn the numerous Civil Rights Acts that the Republican Party had begun passing a CENTURY EARLIER (starting with the CRA’1866) — legislation authored and pushed through by Republicans both Liberal and Conservative against mostly unanimous Democratic Party opposition — Liberal, Conservative, Northern, and Southern. and, as you noted, even up to the Republican-authored Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 Democrats of ALL these descriptions were nearly as likely to vote AGAINST this legislation s to vote FOR it — and even when voting FOR it mostly did so only after ensuring that the final bill being voted on had been sufficiently watered-down to make it acceptable to them.

    ironically, the recent 100th anniversary of WWI caused the USA Today to look back on Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, and they declared that “for a Democrat” he wasn’t much of a democrat because he supported segregation — suggesting that a typical Democrat did not; yet in fact Wilson was the epitome of a Democrat and not at all unusual for a member of his party. he may well have been not much of a democrat, but only because the Democratic Party was composed of politicians who were not much decmorats, though all Democrats. Segregation and Racism lived through and because of the Democratic Party. Northern. Southern. Liberal. Conservative. For more than a century. Slice the voting stats any way you want to try to make them say something else, but it won’t ever change the underlying fundamental truth of that. and so today, when a Democrat says that “Voter ID” card laws are “tantamount” to black voter suppression, you should respond, “NO — you know what’s ‘tantamount’ to black voter suppression? actual black voter suppression that Democrats promulgated for decades, that’s what. a “Voter ID” is no such thing. it’s simply an identification card. unlike erstwhile Democratic tricks like Literacy Tests and Poll Taxes, a Voter ID card requires nothing more from blacks than it does from whites — yet even when Republicans proposed such legislation with provisions for free-of-charge cards for people who claimed financial hardship to pay a fee, the Democrats in those jurisdictions cried “Tantamount to a Poll Tax!” despite the obvious falseness of the charge. Democrats USE race as a crude marketing tool; it is nothing more significant to them than that.

Leave a Reply

Facebook Comments (1)

Disqus Comments (0)

%d bloggers like this: