Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The States' Rights Democratic Party (Dixiecrat Party)
Google search: dixiecrat party ^ | December 13, 2002 | historical information

Posted on 12/13/2002 9:42:53 AM PST by an amused spectator

The Dixiecrat Party, prominent in the current discussions on Trent Lott, was a branch of the Democrat Party. This is important to note. These Democrats never left the Party, and I believe that the Democrat Party has never apologized for their actions.

Dixiecrat Party United States (Political Parties)

Four states voted for the Dixiecrat ticket in 1948:

"...Truman's own civil rights initiatives, including the formation of the Committee on Civil Rights and the Fair Employment Practices Commission, had advanced the civil rights debate to a new level, and he could not turn the clock back. The planks were adopted, prompting thirty-five southern Democrats to walk out. They formed the States' Rights [Democrat] party, which came to be popularly known as the Dixiecrats."

South Carolina Governor J. Strom Thurmond [veteran of D-Day as a member of the 82nd Airborne] and Mississippi Governor J. Fielding Wright were nominated, respectively, for president and vice-president.

"Alabama was one of the most important Dixiecrat states thanks especially to three men who may be properly referred to as the "Dixiecrat triumvirate": former-Governor Frank M. Dixon, state Democratic Executive Committee chairman Gessner T. McCorvey, and Birmingham attorney and political boss Horace C. Wilkinson."


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: democrats; dixiecrats; liberalhypocrisy
I find it interesting that it's kind of hard to find out who the 35 Southern Democrats were.

Louisiana is an interesting part of the list, too.

1 posted on 12/13/2002 9:42:53 AM PST by an amused spectator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator
It is also interesting to note that back then it was the Republicans who were down there fighting for integration while the Democrates were fighting for segregation.
Amazing what the media FAILS to cover in their skewed reporting doncha think?
2 posted on 12/13/2002 9:49:51 AM PST by Roadstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roadstar
Actually, the Dixiecrats splintered from the Democrats specifically because they opposed the Democratic position on civil rights and immigration.

The Democratic party, regardless of the reason, moved away from a pro-segregationist viewpoint. The Dixiecrats were the stubborn members who refused to go along with the party.
3 posted on 12/13/2002 10:06:28 AM PST by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator
These Democrats never left the Party

What's infinitely more telling is that they were never asked to leave.

4 posted on 12/13/2002 11:00:43 AM PST by Flashman_at_the_charge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
See post #4. :-)
5 posted on 12/13/2002 11:05:25 AM PST by an amused spectator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator
That's fine. Now which one of them reasserted their belief in the 1948 platform as recently as last week? Can we have that list?
6 posted on 12/13/2002 11:13:35 AM PST by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: an amused spectator
I saw post #4. I'm not trying to defend the Democrats of 1948, but the fact is that the Dixiecrats organized as they did because they opposed the overall movement of the Democratic party to a non-segregationist position.
7 posted on 12/13/2002 11:14:58 AM PST by Dimensio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
That's fine, and for the record I think Trent Lott is a dumbass who should resign his leadership position, but what I want to know is:

Who did Robert Byrd vote for for President in 1948?
8 posted on 12/13/2002 11:45:02 AM PST by Argus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Argus
Gee......

Do you think... No! Really?

What party is he today...You don't say!
9 posted on 12/13/2002 12:47:54 PM PST by republicanwizard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Argus
"Who did Robert Byrd vote for for President in 1948?"

All this talk about Byrd is barking up the wrong tree. He left the KKK in the 1940's and has long admitted it was a mistake. Bringing up Byrd may be fun, but it's a misguided tactic.
10 posted on 12/13/2002 2:09:42 PM PST by mg39
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mg39
I wouldn't employ it as a tactic. I think Lott should resign from the leadership on the merits, and that's the end of it. But I'm still curious as to who Byrd voted for in that election.
11 posted on 12/13/2002 2:51:40 PM PST by Argus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
The Democratic party, regardless of the reason, moved away from a pro-segregationist viewpoint. The Dixiecrats were the stubborn members who refused to go along with the party.

The Democratic Party evolved away from the rural and Southern party it had been back when it was the National Democracy and Stephen Douglas had been its leading light in the Old Northwest.

The tipping point was 1928, when the urban component of the Party (Tammany Hall and other urban machines, backed by Jewish, Irish, and Italian ethno-Democrats) succeeded in nominating Al Smith.

Franklin Roosevelt held the coalition together, but the South became increasingly the junior partner and urban socialists, Brain Trusters, and Marxists proliferated in the Democratic command structure. After World War II, the South's participation in Democratic politics was limited to its congressional delegation for the most part, and the old Southern chairmen's hold on national policy through the appropriation power.

Which is what a) the Imperial Presidency and b) the liberals' embrace of the civil rights movement were all about, IMHO -- defeating the brake the "mossbacks" exerted on galloping socialism.

12 posted on 12/13/2002 4:52:31 PM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mg39
He left the KKK in the 1940's and has long admitted it was a mistake.

Saying "I Left the KKK" is like saying "I was a little bit pregnant" or "I regret being a death camp guard".

SOrry, apologies don't wash for Kleagle Byrd.

13 posted on 12/14/2002 6:07:04 AM PST by an amused spectator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus; Dimensio
Which is what a) the Imperial Presidency and b) the liberals' embrace of the civil rights movement were all about, IMHO -- defeating the brake the "mossbacks" exerted on galloping socialism.

To put it bluntly, the Democrats haven't changed much at all in the last 70 or so years.

The adoption of the phony civil rights platform was because some Democrat sharpers figured out that they could enslave the minorities on new plantations - this time centered in the big cities.

54 years after the Dixiecrat revolt, the Democrat overseers reign supreme in the festering urban centers of this country. Hell, they even got the American Indians in South Dakota to pick a few bales of cotton for them this cycle.

14 posted on 12/14/2002 6:14:06 AM PST by an amused spectator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

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