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

Skip to comments.

IN DEFENSE OF TRENT LOTT: Seriously!
Shawn Mercer

Posted on 12/11/2002 8:17:36 PM PST by winin2000

The crux of the onslaught against Trent Lott would seem to be, "How can you argue the U.S. would have been better off electing a segregationist?" Well, it only makes sense to examine that question in the context of both history and, more to the point, what his opponent had to offer.

It is easy to lose sight of just how far the pendulum has swung on what is deemed respectable opinion on matters of race. Not too many years ago, the political spectrum in toto was, by today's standards shockingly "racist." And elected officials, who are now idols of the left, were no exceptions. And I'm not simply talking about the abundant Southern Democrats who were segregationists; there's much more.

Woodrow Wilson, for example, was a dogmatic, practicing white supremacist, enforcing segregated office during his tenure as president of Princeton University and while in the White House. An often forgotten gem of his on the subject of immigration:

“I stand for the national policy of exclusion. . . . We cannot make a homogeneous population of a people who do not blend with the Caucasian race. . . . Oriental coolieism will give us another race problem to solve and surely we have had our lesson.”

I must have missed the news account of Rainbow/Push's protest march in front of Wilson's Presidential Library and think tank.

Too far back you say? Okay, fast forward a few years. Who could possibly have said something as repugnant as:

Californians have properly objected (to Japanese immigration) on the sound basic ground ... that the mingling of Asiatic blood with European or American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results."

Nobody important. Only FDR.

Still not recent enough to the period in question? Okay, let's deal with the gentleman whom Senator, then Governor, Thurmond waged his rebellious campaign against in the first place. The man who is hailed as a visionary for his breaking down the color wall in the military. So happens Mr. Harry Truman wrote in private correspondence:

“I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America.”

And for good measure, he wrote to his daughter that the White House kitchen staff was an "army of coons."

And lest you retort that these examples are not analagous, consider again the specific complaint against Lott. Although none of the Democrat vultures pecking at his carcass will make the straightforward accusation that he is a racist, they wax indignant about the propreity of having in high leadership someone who arguably thinks - who THINKS - America would have been better off under a President Thurmond. Some thoughts, however latent, are just too ugly to tolerate; whether they manifest themselves or not.

Now, that being the case, how can you seriously argue that these examples of rank, personal racism among liberal icons is irrelevant because they were sound on matters of policy. Truman's candid contempt for blacks is fine and dandy because, see, he got the ball rolling on integration. Yet Lott, whom no one can credibly accuse of attempting a recission of any of the substantive "civil rights" laws, is unfit to serve because he might have some deep-seated respect for the segregated society in which he was brought up.

Well, sorry folks, I ain't biting. The opportunism displayed on this forum these past few days is contemptible. From absolutist righties nursing impeachment grudges to self-righteous Yankees who see the Southern GOP base as some kind of albatross politically, most, if not all, calling for Lott's head have ulterior motives. I don't once recall seeing on Free Republic this kind of vitriol on the question of race and the Old South directed at Jesse Helms. And put your whitewash away, my friends; I love the man dearly, too. But the man who was elected to the Senate as commentator on a North Carolina newscast regularly attacking the civil rights revolution never formally repudiated his views on race. He simply stopped talking about it.

Why is Helms fit for Rushmore, yet Lott's sin is unforgivable?

Well, I for one will not let mortal fear of what kind of campaign ad will be run against us two years hence drive me to throw an innocent man to the wolves, giving craven idiots like Al Gore and professional anti-white demagogues like the Black Caucus yet another Republican scalp to hang on their wall.

I hope I've convinced a few folks to join me.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: lott; thurmond; truman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 next last
To: stylin19a
Nothing to be sorry for. I don't know how this will turnout but maybe with some luck things will die down after the media has its run with it and at some point next year Lott may step down from the leadership role.
61 posted on 12/11/2002 9:38:52 PM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: nocommies
are you being sarcastic?

Pretty much. If we kicked out all of the segregationists, we'd lose control of Congress. But if they speak up, they should be whacked right back down.

62 posted on 12/11/2002 9:40:27 PM PST by xm177e2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: winin2000; All
REPUBLICAN SENATE MAJORITY LEADER:
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IS OK
----------
Has Party Backing

I hope everybody likes that soundbite. Because we can "explain" till we're blue in the face, but if we keep defending Lott, we're gonna be hearing it for a lonnnnnnnnnng time.

I say it's not worth losing the whole Republican agenda over him, no matter what other high-minded motives we might have.

Lott expresses regret for remarks; court filing from 1981 surfaces

Can any politician survive this?

From Associated Press (EXCERPT):

"Senate Republican leader Trent Lott tried to help Bob Jones University keep its federal tax-exempt status despite the school's policy prohibiting interracial dating two decades before his recent comments stirred a race controversy.

"Racial discrimination does not always violate public policy," Lott, then a congressman from Mississippi, wrote in a 1981 friend of the court brief that unsuccessfully urged the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the Internal Revenue Service from stripping the university's tax exemption.

IMHO, SD

63 posted on 12/11/2002 9:41:05 PM PST by SerpentDove
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: SerpentDove
When did Lott say racial discrimination was okay? If you're talking about the Bob Jones situation, that was explained to you in another thread.

The issue there was whether the government could punish a private religious school by forcing them to pay taxes unless they agree to permit interracial dating. The students attending that school did not morally believe in interracial dating, including the black students there.

Religion is itself discriminatory. I can't be a rabbi since I'm not Jewish. Should I accuse synagogues of discrimination and demand that the IRS revoke their tax exemption?
64 posted on 12/11/2002 9:48:29 PM PST by puroresu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SerpentDove
"Racial discrimination does not always violate public policy," Lott, then a congressman from Mississippi, wrote in a 1981 friend of the court brief that unsuccessfully urged the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the Internal Revenue Service from stripping the university's tax exemption.

Lest you think you're about to burn your hands on that "smoking gun," it might interest you to know that this case had the support of ... the Reagan administration.

Aww, what the hell, let's throw the Gipper overboard while we're at it!

65 posted on 12/11/2002 9:51:24 PM PST by winin2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: winin2000
This whole flap seems to be over segregation. So maybe someone will tell me what is wrong with a private business deciding who can enter the business? Do conservatives only like freedom of association when it politically convenient?
66 posted on 12/11/2002 9:52:13 PM PST by illbenice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMan55
I don't believe Lott had segregationist policy on his mind by saying he supported Thurmond for president. He was speaking about the good issues he stood for, I think not realizing the super-sensitivity of liberal black "leaders."
67 posted on 12/11/2002 9:54:47 PM PST by fabian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: winin2000
It is simply a fact that "racial discrimination does not always violate public policy".

The problem is that there's a racial double-standard in the enforcement of that principle. The Black Muslims completely exclude other races but they've never been stripped of their tax exemption. And you know what? I agree that they're entitled to have a tax exemption. If their religion forbids race mixing with whites, so be it. It doesn't bother me. It doesn't bother liberals, either, but then they demand that a fundamentalist religious school like Bob Jones U. should have its tax exemption revoked.

Same double standard we see with black churches hosting 'Rat political rallies.

Same double standard we see with the racist Congressional Black Caucus.

Same double standard we see with the demand that historically black colleges should be allowed to remain black, but every other school has to meet a racial quota.

Just more Politically Correct double standards, just like the attack on Lott when the Democrats are up to their rear ends in race baiters, both black and white.
68 posted on 12/11/2002 10:02:13 PM PST by puroresu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMan55
Here's what I was referring to: Pay special attention to the red letters)

REPUBLICAN SENATE MAJORITY LEADER:
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IS OK
----------
Has Party Backing

I hope everybody likes that soundbite. Because we can "explain" till we're blue in the face, but if we keep defending Lott, we're gonna be hearing it for a lonnnnnnnnnng time.

I say it's not worth losing the whole Republican agenda over him, no matter what other high-minded motives we might have.

Lott expresses regret for remarks; court filing from 1981 surfaces

Can any politician survive this?

From Associated Press (EXCERPT):

"Senate Republican leader Trent Lott tried to help Bob Jones University keep its federal tax-exempt status despite the school's policy prohibiting interracial dating two decades before his recent comments stirred a race controversy.

"Racial discrimination does not always violate public policy," Lott, then a congressman from Mississippi, wrote in a 1981 friend of the court brief that unsuccessfully urged the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the Internal Revenue Service from stripping the university's tax exemption.

IMHO, SD

69 posted on 12/11/2002 10:02:36 PM PST by SerpentDove
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: winin2000
"...this case had the support of ... the Reagan administration.<<

Reagan said racial discrimination is ok? I doubt it.

If you want this soundbite to bite you in the @#$, keep defending Lott.
70 posted on 12/11/2002 10:12:59 PM PST by SerpentDove
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: SerpentDove
Dredging up Lott's comments from 1981?? This is absurd.

Why don't we merely dredge up your past life -- I'm sure we can find some idiotic statement or deed that would make you cringe, OR worse yet -- define you as THAT person today.

71 posted on 12/11/2002 10:20:54 PM PST by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
Dredging up Lott's comments from 1981?? This is absurd.

Well, it doesn't look like Lott's significantly changed from 1981 to the present.

Why don't we merely dredge up your past life -- I'm sure we can find some idiotic statement or deed that would make you cringe, OR worse yet -- define you as THAT person today.

Too late. Lott already did it for you.

72 posted on 12/11/2002 10:23:05 PM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
>>Why don't we merely dredge up your past life -- I'm sure we can find some idiotic statement or deed that would make you cringe, OR worse yet -- define you as
THAT person today.<<

I am not Senate Majority leader.

Plus, what I say or do is not really an issue, because it cannot be used to bludgeon the Replublican Party with over and over, as Lott's statements undoubtedly will.
73 posted on 12/11/2002 10:24:26 PM PST by SerpentDove
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: illbenice
This whole flap seems to be over segregation. So maybe someone will tell me what is wrong with a private business deciding who can enter the business? Do conservatives only like freedom of association when it politically convenient?

There's more to it than that. We're talking about segregated schools, poll taxes, and lyching.

You do have a point though. A person ought to able to serve who they want to serve. But that's not the platform Thurmond ran on. He thought segregation was just marvelous.

74 posted on 12/11/2002 10:57:05 PM PST by MattAMiller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: MattAMiller
There's more to it than that. We're talking about segregated schools, poll taxes, and lyching.

We are also talking about 6 trillion bucks spent on 13% of the population since 1965 and that population is STILL segregated, undereducated and the poorest group in the country. There has to come a point when the simple question of "why?" is asked of that group and "why do they vote 97% democrat”?

75 posted on 12/11/2002 11:02:43 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
"Get bent, I meant every word of it. If you don't like it, I don't care. See you at the next election."

I have never liked Trent Lott....but it would be really nice to have him stand up and say this...or something like it.

C'mon Trent...show some BACKBONE.

What Trent Lott said was just a few nice words to someone who has turned 100 years old...Sheesh!!!!

redrock

76 posted on 12/11/2002 11:24:46 PM PST by redrock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: redrock
It really is weird to be defending Trent Lott isn't it. Hell dislike for Lott has been the one issue that FR has always agreed on. This has to be the twilight zone.
77 posted on 12/11/2002 11:27:25 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
We are also talking about 6 trillion bucks spent on 13% of the population since 1965 and that population is STILL segregated, undereducated and the poorest group in the country. There has to come a point when the simple question of "why?" is asked of that group and "why do they vote 97% democrat”?

As things turned out liberals had nothing to gain from integration. So blacks were told "Never mind the issues of intoxication, infedelity, lawlesness, and disrespect for education. All you're problems are caused by whitey. These things are your culture, they define blackness. Any white person who tells you different is a racist. And any black person who tells you different is a race traitor."

This ideaology has had devestating effects on the entire nation and has warped our political dialouge for several decades.

But it doesn't aquit segregationists of anything. In fact they enabled it. They fostered the creation of a disposessed culture within their own borders.

78 posted on 12/11/2002 11:32:56 PM PST by MattAMiller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
LOL!!!!

Rod Serling will be popping out of the woodwork any minute!!!!

It IS realy weird defending Lott....but..he DIDN"T say anything wrong. He was just being nice....

redrock

79 posted on 12/11/2002 11:32:56 PM PST by redrock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: MattAMiller
But it doesn't aquit segregationists of anything. In fact they enabled it. They fostered the creation of a disposessed culture within their own borders.

Total unadulterated BS and that is coming from a son of the south that is not pining for civil war 2.

80 posted on 12/11/2002 11:39:19 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-96 next last

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