The Dixiecrat Platform

The Smoking Gun ^ | August 14, 1948 | The States Rights Democratic Party

[Poohbah]

Ya know, most people recognize this line of argument for what it is.

It's known as "So's yer old man!"

It does nothing to make Lott's remarks acceptable.

And whining about the double standard is, well...whining.

[kcvl]

"The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man. He rose Germany up from the ashes." -- Louis Farrakhan (1984) who campaigned for congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in 2002

'Hymies.' 'Hymietown.' -- Jesse Jackson's description of New York City while on the 1984 presidential campaign trail.

"Jews — that's J-E-W-S." -- Democratic state representative Bill McKinney on why his daughter Cynthia lost in 2002

[kcvl]

"These laws [segregation] are still constitutional and I promise you that until they are removed from the ordinance books of Birmingham and the statute books of Alabama, they will be enforced in Birmingham to the utmost of my ability and by all lawful means." -- Democrat Bull Connor (1957), Commissioner of Public Safety for Birmingham, Alabama

"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." -- Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler's Book, "Inside The White House"

(On New York) "K*ketown." -- Harry Truman in a personal letter

[kcvl]

"I think one man is just as good as another so long as he's not a n*gger or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a White man from dust, a nigger from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, Yellow men in Asia and White men in Europe and America." Harry Truman (1911) in a letter to his future wife Bess


"There’s some people who’ve gone over the state and said, ‘Well, George Wallace has talked too strong about segregation.’ Now let me ask you this: how in the name of common sense can you be too strong about it? You’re either for it or you’re against it. There’s not any middle ground as I know of." -- Democratic Alabama Governor George Wallace (1959)

[kcvl]

This was the same Hollings who had been quoted by a television reporter as using the word "darkies" in an off-the-air interview (he said he didn't recall using the word); who had used the term "wetbacks" during his 1984 presidential bid; who had labeled Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition "the blackbow coalition"; who had called then-Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) "the senator from B'nai B'rith."

[kcvl]

As Governor of South Carolina Ernest Hollings blocked de-segregation of the University of South Carolina

[kcvl]

Democrats Exploit Blacks
USA Today ^ | 12-15-02 | Clinton LeSueur


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/807089/posts?page=1

Clinton LeSueur, a Republican, ran against Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson in Mississippi in the November elections. He received 45% of the vote.

[Poohbah]

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

[nicollo]

Of all people, I failed to include a third category for third parties: personality.

The 1912 bolt was above all about a certain personality. I think Anderson in 1980 was, too. La Follette's 1924 third party, one of the more successful ever, was also more about personality than the movement he tried to represent. Like the Thurman bolt of 1948, La Follette tried to personally adopt a transition between the two major parties. Thankfully, La Follette's "Progressive-Socialist" party has been as forgotten as -- up until Lott's idiocy -- the Dixiecrats of 1948.

Both disappeared. Too bad Lott reminded us of the latter.

I'm not inclined to hang him for it, and I'm not inclined to reward our enemies for the stupidity of one of our own. He ought be sent off to fight the Indians, like Gen. Burnside, although we ought be careful not to turn him into a Gen. McClellan. That's why I advise a slow dismemberment. Let the outrage follow its course. If we satisfy it too quickly it will go unsatiated. Nothing prompts more attacks than appeasement of them.

I might invite the bouncer's attentions by stumbling over my whiskey and some guy's girlfriend, but my friends would do better to sit down with him than to get thrown out, too. He'll enjoy beating us up too much. If he smacks me once and I'm gone, I'll never get back into the club, and if I try, he can punch me without provocation. My friends could blame it all on me, and he'd be all happy to act on it. Instead, if they defend my person while blaming my idiocy, he'll have to walk me to the door, and let them stay. He'll have no more excuse to beat me up. And my friends can come back another day.

[amendment_x]

No, the rights of "states" were ultimately viewed as an extension of the rights of the citizens of that particular state. Therefore the term "states' rights" is not a misnomer. The idea was that the citizens imbued their state with far more power than the federal government, an idea which lost sway with the South's defeat, massive immigration, and the rise of the socialist juggernaut. The Dixiecrats were correct in their constitutional thought to the extent that segregation was a local issue that had never been previously thought to come under the aegis of the 14th Amendment. After all, the same Congress who passed this wonderful amendment also enacted legislation which continued the practice of segregation in the D.C. public schools. In a matter of speaking, then, Trent Lott was actually articulating the conservative position (although he might have added a disclaimer about his disagreement with segregation). Along the same lines, and although highly agitating when articulated, the notion that the Brown decision was intellectually dishonest arises from the same such adherence to law and Constitution. What I find disgusting in all of this is that mere words can be used to crucify a conservative, but truly heinous actions usually glorify a liberal (e.g. abortion). In conclusion, the strongest argument is that Trent was talking about "states' rights," a fact which has been almost completely obscured by the media, Occam be damned.

[amendment_x]

Sorry, that message was supposed to be in reply to El Gato.

[Bluntpoint]

Occam's razor can be pretty sharp.

Show me one "state's rights" platform, in the period that we are talking (1948) that did not have a pro-segregation slant.

Occam's suggests if talks like a duck and it walks like a duck, that it is intellectually lazy, if not intellectually dishonest, not to just call it is a duck.

[Bluntpoint]

"Instead, if they defend my person while blaming my idiocy, he'll have to walk me to the door, and let them stay."

Well said.

[Bluntpoint]

"I'd say Lott was more of a spirited temperament -- or a manipulative cast of mind, than a reflective or analytical one, but I suspect we're all like that about some things. We can break down other people's basic ideas into what we take to be their components, but our own basic ideas are foundation or the indissoluble atoms of our mental world."

Beautiful.

And very true. Bias, no matter how disciplined you may think you are, always colors your perspective.

[Bluntpoint]

Don't get me wrong, I agree with most antiseptic, dispassionate reviews of pure state's rights issues.

However, in most cases, historically speaking, state's rights has been used by people who want to defend the indefensible and they use "state's rights" as cover.

Again, I am talking in the past.

[RWG]

Actually, this is a pretty good platform. Needs a couple of revisions but altogether acceptable. Section 6 does seem to have predicted what has happened.

[Bluntpoint]

"a couple of revisions"

Tell us what you would change?

[Bluntpoint]

"a couple of revisions"

Tell us what you would change?

[Bluntpoint]

Apparently, and the very reason we are discussing this stuff today, Strom seem mighty parcial to the black issue.

The Dixiecrats did not separate themselves from the Democrats in 1948 based upon national defense, fiscal policy or union vs. corporate matters. Their platform was segregation. Period.



This is what Thurmond said in a nationwide radio address on the eve of the 1948 election:

"Don't forget the so-called civil rights program would bring about the end of segregation in the South, forcing mixing of the races in our hotels, in our restaurants, in our schools, in our swimming pools and in all public places. This change in our customs is not desired by either the white or the colored race."


Remember these great words from the platform that Lott said would have changed this county for the good:

(From the Dixiecrat ballot, with Strom at the top of the ticket)

REMEMBER

A vote for Truman electors is a direct order to our Congressmen and Senators from Mississippi to vote for passage of Truman’s so-called civil-rights program in the next Congress. This means the vicious FEPC-anti poll tax-anti-lynching and anti-segregation proposals will become the law of the land and our way of life in the South will be gone forever.

[x]

Anderson's campaign must have been personality driven, since it left so few traces, but I can't imagine him being called charismatic or compared to TR anywhere outside of his own mind and the offices of the New Republic. John McCain has a lot in common with John Anderson, though, right down to his first name, white hair and touchy irritability.

I'd say there are four kinds of third party voters: 1) the ideological, 2) the disaffected, who are fed up with both major parties, 3) the distressed, who are responding to hard times or a crisis, and 4) special interest voters, who are usually voting for a sectional interest, but who in other countries vote their religion, or ethnicity or class or occupation.

Those who always want to vote for the most rightward or leftward candidate, the most "conservative" or the most "progressive" alternative fit in category #1. Single issue voters either fall under #1 or #4. Voters swayed by personalities usually fit in category #2. They may not know that they are disillusioned with politics as usual until the right candidate comes along, but afterwards they're sure. Yankee reformist, "good government" or "clean government" types usually belong in category #2. A lot of the support for Eugene McCarthy or John Anderson, Perot or McCain was of this sort, and not really ideological. The distressed voters (#3) showed up during the Populist movement and the Depression. Maybe some George Wallace voters fit in this category as well. We need category #4 to account for the Dixiecrats. Some Populists and "Farmer-Labor" types also fit into these category.

In Mississippi and South Carolina, the Dixiecrats were the local Democratic machine. They broke with Truman over his timid support of civil rights. Otherwise, they would have voted for him (though perhaps they'd oppose other measures of his in Congress). I don't think they had any conception or intention of winning. They just wanted to keep Truman from winning those electoral votes. Opposition to civil rights was always their main focus, though some people will try to gloss this over today.

Outside the South there was virtually no support for Thurmond and Wright. Only crackpots like Murray Rothbard supported the State's Rights Democratic Party. That Rothbard's view has attracted some support is a sign that people today understand the 1940s as little as Rothbard did. The political situation, possibilities, and the available options were very different then. Rothbard's method is usually to exclude what people thought and said at the time and recast the historical situation in terms of his own preoccupations. More on the Dixiecrats.

Counterfactual questions: What if Dewey had won? Would anything have been different? What if the Dixiecrats suceeded in preventing either candidate from winning a majority of the electoral vote and the House of Representatives had to decide the election? What if FDR had lived? Would he have been able to keep his coalition together? And what if Eisenhower had run as a Republican (or as a Democrat)?