Here is something I have kept in case the subject came up. Much more on the link.....
http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1300/who-opposed-civil-rights-act-1964
Who Opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
I see that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took a swipe at Republicans this morning, comparing them to those who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for filibustering health reform legislation. It’s worth remembering that the longest filibuster of the 1964 act was conducted by a still-sitting senator, Robert C. Byrd, who personally spoke against the legislation for 14 hours and 13 minutes on June 9 & 10, 1964.
Be sure to mention that it was opposed by Demorats and Clinton’s mentor Fulbright.
Here’s one related point:
The actual phrase “affirmative action” was first used in President John F. Kennedy’s 1961 Executive Order 10925 which requires federal contractors to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” The same language was later used in Lyndon Johnson’s 1965 Executive Order 11246.
Affirmative action was never intended to provide special treatment, only equal treatment.
Make sure she points out that 80% of the Republicans voted for it but only 60% of the Democrats.
Instead of simply outlawing the Democratic-written Jim Crow laws which required businesses to discriminate against blacks, vast bureaucracies were set up to enforce new federal laws which replaced one type of discrimination with another type.
Here are the House and Senate Vote Totals by Party and Region.
The original House version:
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 version:
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 Civil Rights Act was largely a regional issue as only a few Southern Democrats voted in favor of the bill and no Southern Republicans voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Here is a great source
http://www.eotu.uiuc.edu/pedagogy/grogers/GRP/CRA1964_1.htm
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 resulted from one of the most controversial House and Senate debates in history. It was also the biggest piece of civil rights legislation ever passed. The bill actually evolved from previous civil rights bills in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s. The bill passed through both houses finally on July 2, 1964 and was signed into law at 6:55 P.M. EST by President Lyndon Johnson. The act was originally drawn up in 1962 under President Kennedy before his assassination. The bill originated from two others, and one of which was the Equal Opportunity Act of 1962 that never went into law. This bill made up the core of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Bureau of National Affairs 18-20).
There were many groups involved in the process of drawing up the bill and helping it to become a law. The main groups for the passage of the bill were the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, industrial unions of the AFL-CIO, many church groups, the White House, the Justice Department, and many northern Democrats and Republicans. The major groups that were opposed to the bill were the Coordinating Committee for Fundamental American Freedoms funded greatly from Mississippi, and the Southern Democratic caucus (Bickel 17). These groups voiced their opinion and helped representatives decide how they should vote. The many groups involved crossed party lines to debate and vote for a bill to better America.
Any bill that becomes a law has to go through the House of Representatives and the Senate with a passing vote. The Civil Rights Bill easily passed the House with Northern Democrats and the Republican supporters turning out a vote of 290 to 130. Lyndon Johnson stated after the bill went through the house that it was, “Now a task for the Senate…I hope the same spirit of nonpartisanship will prevail there to assure passage of the bill, guaranteeing the fundamental rights of all Americans” (Kenworthy). The bill then went to the senate where there was much debate and procrastination. Many senators opposed to the bill tried to use the “filibuster” technique, which basically is an extended talk for the purpose of killing a bill or getting drastic modifications. In fact, it was the longest debate in Senate history lasting 534 hours in total. The final vote in the Senate was 76 to 18 to pass their version of the bill since they made minor amendments to it (Bureau of National Affairs 18-21). A quote from Senator John Lesinski, democrat, showed why some were opposed to the bill, “There are still many private rights in America that under our Constitution are beyond the power of government to regulate and one of these is the right to pick and chose one’s associates, one’s friends and one’s customers in a private business” (Calls Bill Unconstitutional 33). The final vote in the House over the amendments the senate made was 289 to 126. This set the way for the bill to be signed by the President to become a law.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 contained eleven titles, or parts, that made the act complete. The first title, “Voting Rights”, made sure that there was no discrimination in literacy tests when determining voting ability. The “Public Accommodations” title said there would be no discrimination or segregation in hotels, motels, restaurants, gas stations, places that served food, theaters, and sports arenas. The Attorney General was given the power to enforce this. Title three, “Desegregation of Public Facilities” did exactly that, it desegregated all public facilities. The “Public Education” title gave the Attorney General the power to sue schools and bring them to court if they didn’t comply. “Civil Rights Commission” made that civil rights commission a permanent body. Title VI, “Federally Assisted Programs”, made sure there was no discrimination in any federal program. “Equal Opportunity Employment” enacted a commission to enforce this title against companies and labor unions. This title forced companies and unions with more than 25 people to not discriminate on the basis of sex, race, religion, color, or origin. Title eight, “Registration and Voting Statistics” made the Secretary of Commerce compile statistics on the denial of the right to vote. “Procedure After Removal in Civil Rights Cases” allowed federal courts to allow appeals of lower courts in the case of discrimination. “Community Relations Service” will provide a service to help communities resolve racial disputes. And the last title, “Miscellaneous” just fills in holes throughout the bill and provides power to federal officers (Summary of Provisions of Rights Bill). This entire bill fixed the previous civil rights bill’s loopholes and was the greatest piece of civil rights legislation of the era.
Though considered to be groundbreaking legislation, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 received very limited coverage in the major magazines of the time. But more disheartening than the amount of coverage the Civil Rights Act received is the lack of information each article contains. Both Newsweek and Time magazines, which are considered to be the leading news magazines of the 1960’s, did not have feature articles on this legislation when it passed through congress.
Make sure she looks at it objectively, not from some current political viewpoint. Those who didn’t live during the Jim Crow era — meaning all young folks today — need to read and watch accounts of the Civil Rights movement.
I’ll get flamed for this, but the “Eyes on the Prize” documentary series by PBS is superb, using film from the day. You can watch much of it on YouTube or get it at your local library. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHonvu-HxqE
She also needs to research the negative consequences of the welfare state that grew out of LBJ’s “War on Poverty,” which was really more about race than about the poor.
I worked in those neighborhoods. Just a mess, believe me. A total political boondoggle.
As with all government intervention in society, there are always good and bad effects. Make sure she sees both sides. Sounds like a good assignment.
You came to the right place. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was really a positive and good thing for us to do. We have a black mark on our history for the ways we treated Blacks. However, what this act led to, in my opinion, is that it began the ball rolling for a lot of other alleged “inequalities” to be brought up, not the least of which is what we now see as the pervasiveness of the multicultural crapola being foisted on us through the schools. If your kid wants to blow the teacher’s mind, I’d suggest checking out some of David Horowitz’ writings and information on Gramsci (sp?) the Italian who a lot of Marxist and liberal academics followed. All of this kind of thought goes back to Civil Rights.
Civil Rights was good but it led to some not-so-good other ideologies that are subverting what is great about this country.
And the presumption of guilt ruling for CRA defendants, were the undoing of the CRA and Blacks in America, and the institutionalization of racism.
Shouldn’t you solicit multiple sources, to find out the real effects? Is there a possibility that just asking freepers may slant your data a bit?
If you would like me to boil it down into its essence, I will, but your daughter won't be able to use it. Essentially, the Civil Rights Act made it possible for anyone regardless of race, creed or color to vote, buy a home, get a job, go to school and all of that is wonderful — should have always been that way.
It has currently evolved to make it illegal for white people to act like jackasses while allowing Blacks, Hispanics and Arabs to do so with the full force, faith and credit of the US government and the Democrat party behind them.
Your daughter is freely allowed to use the first paragraph and you should censor the second. She'll find that out soon enough on her own.
The 1964 Act was the beginning of the politics of racial spoils and the creation of legal structures inimical to merit.
senator Fullbright along with his intern Bill clinton lead a filibuster against it along with Al Gore sr.
She should mention that regardless of the good intent and positive or negative results of the Civil Rights Legislation - one definite effect is that the scope of the law has metasticized to cover any aggrieved group that is willing to label itself. We now have a large political class that see it appropropriate for the Government to identify all groups and problems as one of “civil rights.” That same class distorts the “Civil Rights” argument now to justify Government control and limits on speech and individual freedom on nearly every issue in the USA - religion, homosexuality, immigration, poverty, health care, war and peace, the military, environmentalism, etc....
good discussion via podcast on this...
or ...
http://www.ktlkfm.com/cc-common/podcast.html
(3rd from the top)
Although it is somewhat dated, The Civil Rights Act of 1964, published by Greenhaven Press as part of its "Opposing Viewpoints" series, provides a balanced analysis of the law and its impact by writers from various points of view. Books published by Greenhaven tend to be reliable.
Another book you might consult is The laws that shaped America : fifteen acts of Congress and their lasting impact by Dennis Johnson, published by Routledge, a company that specializes in reference books, in 2009.
The Lincoln Review, which was published by The Lincoln Institute, a conservative black think tank should have some articles that deal with the law. Unfortunately, the site is not searchable, but you can browse the contents of the journals, as well as the letters and the commentaries.
Good luck on your project.
The Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 had been strongly opposed by the southern Democrats(including LBJ). The Civil Rights Bill of 1964 was meant to prevent discrimination based on race, national origin etc. It was strongly opposed by the southern Democrats and supported primarily by Republicans. After it proved popular LBJ switched and supported it.
In debate, supporters stated specifically that it would prohibits quotas and racial preferences. As soon as it passed they changed their story.
Barry Goldwater and other conservatives opposed the bill stating that it would create new government powers and regulations outside the scope of the bill.
Until 1964, Lyndon Johnson ran as a segregationist. Barry Goldwater treated people of all races with respect.