Secondly, do you support the idea of an FEPC law? It is a highly Socialistic idea. (See "Civil Rights" vs. A Free Society.) Instead of getting sick, why don't you see what you are endorsing and be certain that you really want to be endorsing it.
As for the anti-lynch law that Truman had advocated. The South considered that insulting. They already had local laws on the subject, and they were being enforced. Unfortunately, I do not have the statistics handy, perhaps you do, but was any one lynched in South Carolina while Strom Thurmond was Governor? He was not advocating lynching, just opposing dictation from Washington. That is quite a different thing.
Personally, as a school boy in 1948, I was an enthusiastic supporter of Harry Truman and his Civil Rights proposals. It was only as I grew up over the next few years that I realized that I had bought a proverbial "pig- in-a-poke"; that the issue was not fairness, at all, but one of the allocation of power and control.
You can certainly disagree. But to want to crucify Lott because he agrees with the Southern view of the time is the sort of ludicrous thought control that really should sicken any Conservative.
William Flax
The rationale for his candidacy and his party was race issues. Like I said, Thurmond has disavowed his views in 1948. Lott must not know this.
I don't have a problem with lynching being a federal crime.
But to want to crucify Lott because he agrees with the Southern view of the time is the sort of ludicrous thought control that really should sicken any Conservative.
I wish Lott would just say that he agrees with the Dixiecrat platform. It would make this issue much more clear and would make it much easier to move him out of his leadership position. Lott has a right to support segregation. He doesn't have a right to represent our party.