The Dixiecrats - Would We Have Been Better Off Had Thurmond Won in 1948?

Lew Rockwell Report ^ | 1949 | Murray Rothbard

[Wallace T.]

May 11, 1949

370 Central Park West
New York 25, N.Y.

Headquarters,
States Rights Democrats
Jackson, Miss.

Gentlemen:

The New York Times this morning carried a report which, if true, is just about the best political news of the year. Indeed, it may be the most significant development since the advent of the New Deal.

Although a New Yorker born and bred, I was a staunch supporter of the Thurmond movement; a good friend of mine headed the Columbia Students for Thurmond, which I believe was the only such collegiate movement north of the Mason-Dixon line.

My support, however, was not extremely enthusiastic, because, although I agreed wholeheartedly with the platform and Thurmond’s campaign speeches, I felt that it was keyed too much to purely Southern interests. Sure, the Civil Tyranny program must be combatted, but what about the myriad invasions of states rights in other fields by the power-hungry Washington bureaucracy? In other words, while you always claimed that yours was a national movement, by talking only of the Civil Tyranny program you threw away any attraction to Northern and Western voters.

I have always felt that it is imperative for the States Rights movement to establish itself on a nation-wide scale. Obviously, we are now living in a one-party system, a party of Socialists in fact if not in name, and only courageous Southern Democrats in Congress have so far blocked their program. But as far as Presidential elections go, the Republicans are through – the Socialist Administration has too much power to bribe voters with wild promises. If things go on as they are, it is only a question of a few years for the socialist program to go through and destroy this land of liberty.

Therefore it is essential to form a new party, of States Righters, consisting of Southern Democrats and real Republicans (omitting the me-too Republicans) to launch a dynamic offensive against National Socialism in this country before it is too late. I am greatly elated over your new platform because I believe it points in that direction.

Would you please send me a copy of your new platform and constitution? Do you plan to start a newspaper of nation-wide circulation? This would be of great help in establishing a national States Rights movement.

I would like to add that, as an economist, I enthusiastically support your proposals on national debt and taxes – in fact, taken all and all, from the news reports I would say that your new platform is one of the best in American history. Indeed, it is one of the finest political statements in America since Calhoun’s Exposition.

It could grow into a mighty movement if you have the will and vision. There are millions of Americans throughout the country, Republicans and Democrats, who would flock to your banner. They are weary of being led by the nose by New Deal politicians of both parties – they are tired of being deprived of their votes because there is no anti-socialist and pro-liberty party to which they can turn.

You, gentlemen, can be a means of succor for these millions - and not only these, but America itself. National Socialism has always meant poverty, tyranny, and war. America is slipping down the road and has already gone far; it must be restored to the right path if the great dream of our forefathers of a nation dedicated to liberty is not to vanish from the earth. Yours can be that mission.

Sincerely yours,
Murray N. Rothbard

Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995), the founder of modern libertarianism and the dean of the Austrian School of economics, was the author of The Ethics of Liberty and For a New Liberty and many other books and articles. He was also academic vice president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and the Center for Libertarian Studies, and the editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.

Copyright © 2002 by the Ludwig von Mises Institute

Murray Rothbard Archives

     

[Wallace T.]

If Rothbard's letter is typical of sentiment about the Dixiecrats, it would appear that the racial element was not in the forefront. As I recall, the economist was a New Yorker of Jewish background, not exactly the stereotype of a racist.

[tpaine]

Doesn't change the nature of the debate.
77 -DB-

I thought we just agreed on the nature of the debate about Lotts comment. - That it was political, not racial.

- DB, this will really confuse 'Cat', as she desperately needs this thread to be about race, as it will justify her rather odd posts. - Please, say it isn't so.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

I do not intend to endorse these actions. I am merely trying to explain how the Johnson administration attempted to get them past the Supremes.

I for one found the commerce clause approach disingenuous and specious.

We might debate the appropriateness of the 13th. However, the 13th clearly provided Congress with the power appropriate legislation to eradicate the "badges and incidents" of slavery. As such, legislation can reach not only to states but also to individuals. We might agree that the power was misappropriated, but the amendment clearly granted to Congress the power under the amendment. I might add that southern states were coerced into ratifying the amendment as a condition of reconstruction.

The 14th and 15th amendments could not be used to reach the action of individuals because those amendments only restrict state action. As such they could not prohibit discriminatory action by restraurant owner or hotel managers in the Jim Crow south. So, the only amendment that could address it was the 13th.

[nanny]

I think you may have a hard sell here. Most people cannot conceive of actual states rights. They have been educated to believe wanting states rights is just code word for segregation. They do not realize that to most people in the south, ending segregation was not that monumental - but having it forced and implemented by the federal government was a big deal.

Our high school superintendent taught Civics and I remember discussing it and he said there would be absolutely no problem within the school when they segregated - it was long overdue. He said the problem would be the federal government would use it as an excuse to take over the schools and that would be the end of our good education system. That was in 1956.

Segregation would have ended on it's own. Most people where I lived were more than ready for it and it had begun in many instances. What they did not like was the federal government taking powers they should not have.

Now we cannot hire and fire as we like or as we need to profitably run our businesses. We cannot sell or rent as we need to do what is best for our familes. Can you imagine putting a first grader on a bus to ship him miles across town to another school when there is one within blocks of his home? Can you imagine that just the use of a word - one word can cause you to lose you job, your livelihood - no matter how good a person you are. You cannot even speak as you like? We have no control over what is taught in our schools?

You know the really ironic thing - this country is even more segregated than ever. It is harder now to be friends with a black person than it was when I was young. There is more animosity and hatred in this country than there was in 1940 and 50.

We in this country have some really serious problems right now. We may very well be on the verge of losing our country and/or being attacked by nuclear weapons or biological weapons - and we are actually spending our time wringing out hands and being oh so outraged that someone said something that could be perceived as RACIST. What is wrong with this country?

[Johnny Shear]

"N______, don't let the sun set on your back"

Somewhere in my parents photo albums there is a picture that they took in Texas on their honeymoon in 1926 of an arch over the entrance to a town with that slogan but the last word wasn't back, it was ass.

I grew-up in a small town in Indiana. Up until the early to mid 60's, there was a sign that said..."Niggers, don't let the sun set on you in *Incert city name here*. it was at the edge of town, heading towards a much larger city with a high population of blacks.

This town with a population of 7,000, didn't get it's first black resident (A community leader) until the late 80's. I'll bet he's still the only one.

I can't imagine being a black person and seeing that sign back then and knowing towns like I have described exist. It's what makes me cut blacks some extra slack...I don't know how something like that would affect me...I'm quite sure it wouldn't be in a positive way.

[Petronski]

I don't care about all the good things the dixiecrats might have tried to do, segregation is an obscenity.

[alrea]

the problems of the inner city and failing schools is that they reflect a failure of will rather than ill will

It is not "will" that is failing in the inner city, unless it is the will of those that want a job for life. The schools and the inner city governments are full of union controlled one party socialist zombies that are about protecting their masters. You probably never lived in South Carolina either.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

I am out there in the wilderness crying for the return of this nation to the principles of state's rights. I do so because it reflects the nation our founders designed and it is the most conducive to freedom. However, the term itself has been misappropriated by racists who sought to oppress black folk for their short-sighted economic and political reasons. We as a nation are still too immature to begin to return to those founding principles. Unfortunately, state's rights is considered code words for segregation. As much as the Dixiecrats, et al. advoated limited government they also advocated an oppresive racially motivated system that cannot be countenanced.

[nanny]

[I can't imagine being a black person and seeing that sign back then and knowing towns like I have described exist. It's what makes me cut blacks some extra slack...I don't know how something like that would affect me...I'm quite sure it wouldn't be in a positive way.]

Did it have a bad effect? I'm sure.

Now do you think there are, today, some areas of America that have an unspoken, unwritten sign that says essentially the same thing to someone not of their economic status? Of course.

I don't think anyone is defending that - we are just saying when the federal government attempted to change things - they destroyed much more than they fixed.

I realize that to some, in fact alot, of people today for someone to say something that can be perceived as racist is worse than anything. Worse than murder - worse than child molestation - just the most heinous thing imaginable. Why is that?

I don't want to disabuse some of you hand-wringers - but there were many, many places in this good old south, and 'land of the angels' too, I will bet, that this little old poor girl couldn't go. There were many stores and hotels, I would have been escorted out of also.

There were many poor kids in Texas whose education wasn't quite the same as that of say, HIghland Park in Dallas.

There are enough problems in this country today to keep us busy for a while - why in the world do we insist on sackcloth and ashes because of this. I just don't understand it. Is it easier to sit and moan and groan about a statement, interpreted to be racist, when we are saying and doing nothing about the real dangers facing us in this country. This kind of garbage, decrying non-existant racism, just serves to keep us more and more divided when we need to be together to try to keep this country safe and afloat.

[rdb3]

It isn't worth it anymore. So, no further comment(s).

Birth of Tha SYNDICATE
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[Captain Kirk]

Again...you misunderstand Rothbard who was always hatching new strategies to "borrow in" existing movements, left, right, or center. Four years after this letter, Rothbard was supporting Adlai Stevenson, some years after that he was praising the leftist Peace and Freedom movement, eventually he supported Perot, Buchanan and Bush. You need to view this from Rothbards' Machivillian (strategic) mindset. One could have equally imagined him rationalizing support for Henry Wallace in 1948!

[Wallace T.]

Dr. Rothbard's sense of judgement in foreign affairs was often lacking. There was no moral equivalence between the Allies and the Axis in World War II, nor between the Western democracies and the Communist bloc in the Cold War. Even Pat Buchanan understood this. Whatever its flaws, our system is inheriently superior to fascism and communism. Also, Naziism and Communism were agressive ideologies with aspirations to world domination, as is militant Islam today. The USA and her allies were well justified in their opposition. Both Rothbard and his intellectual heirs such as Lew Rockwell and Justin Raimundo do not appear to understand these realities.

My reservations in this area notwithstanding, Rothbard was unusually perceptive in the economic and the domestic political arena. In his letter, written while Richard Nixon was a freshmen Congressman, Kevin Phillips was in grade school, and Ronald Reagan was a New Deal liberal and a labor leader, he anticipated the "Southern strategy" uniting the conservative wing of the Democratic Party with the GOP. Like several other thinkers, such as John T. Flynn, H.L. Mencken, and Robert L. Dabney, Rothbard foresaw the consequences of bad political and cultural decisions on our country.

No man is perfect, including Senator Lott or Dr. Rothbard. Yet his letter, written 53 years ago, perceived the need to develop a coalition to preserve the political concepts of the Founding Fathers. Rothbard deserves credit in this area.

[rightofrush]

Containment worked and with a whole lot fewer casualties. Be thankful Truman was FDR's veep and not Henry Wallace.

You mean that if Wallace had been VP, that China and Cechoslovakia would have gone communist, there would have been a Berlin blockade, and N. Korea would have invaded S. Korea?

[rightofrush]

Sweet reason is wasted on carpet baggers.

[rightofrush]

Think Libertarian.

[rightofrush]

As we see from some of the replies here, a typical disruptors agenda is being displayed, -- in an effort to shift the threads constitutional topic into a flame war about race

Hear! Hear!

[rightofrush]

Sorry, but it's asinine to equate a lawful group like the ACLU with the thugs of the KKK.

Arm them both with automatic weapons, put them all in the Rose Bowl, and sell tickets.

[foreverfree]

bump

[foreverfree]

Be thankful Truman was FDR's veep and not Henry Wallace.

Er, Henry Wallace was VP in FDR's third term (1941-1945).

foreverfree

[foreverfree]

A sickening "what is FR coming to" thread.

That may aptly describe all of these Lottgate related threads. :-(

foreverfree