Replies

The times were complicated.

That the old Jim Crow South was immoral should be plain on the face of it. But if you were a "conservative" from the South, you probably did not see it at the time, or if you saw it, you probably didn't see a solution.

This is where terms such as "conservative" and "rightist" get confusing. Jim Crow was a Democratic Party institution. The oppression of Black citizens can be reasonably laid directly at the feet of Democrats, who resisted extending full citizenship rights to Blacks for most of a century following the end of Reconstruction. If you consider that the Democrats were also the Slavery party in the south, and the slavery appeasement party in the North, their history of racial oppression goes back considerably further.

We use "conservative" typically to refer to classic liberalism, whigism, which is to say respect for individual liberty and limited government. The article refers to the proponents of Jim Crow as "conservatives" and "Rightists", but this is correct only if by conservative you mean "traditionalist" rather than "classic liberal". And rightist is correct if what you mean is nationalist.

It is this confusion of terms that allows Democrats to avoid responsibility for 150 years of racialist oppression, while ignoring that Republicans fought for color-blind citizenship all throughout the bad old days, and continue to fight for it into the present day.

The "states rights" issue also complicates the discussion. Republicans believe in the 9th and 10th ammendments, which means that they certainly believe in "states rights". Power is intended to be divided between different levels, and different departments, as a bulwark against abuse by any one institution. If the feds are out of control, you have state and local law to provide a check on their power. Likewise, if local authorities are out of control, there are state and federal authorities that can be called on to intervene.

But for Democrats, "States Rights" was perverted into a justification for the oppression of their black citizens.

Republicans always opposed this perverted version of "states rights". And it is this perversion that now makes it difficult to have a reasoned discussion of the real, constitutional, issues. Any discussion of the 9th and 10th ammendments recalls the old Democrat position, and almost ends the discussion before it starts. Again, its a propaganda ploy, intended to lay Democrat crimes at Republican feet. We must not sit still for it.

Finally, most civil rights legislation has been passed by the Republicans, historically, sometimes with and sometimes without Democrat support. Republicans were certainly uneasy with certain provisions of the 1965 law, on constitutional grounds, and I well remember the concerns and the discussions. The party was torn between the need to be faithful to the constitution, and the desire to put a quick end to Jim Crow.

It is sad and sick to see the Democratic party now claiming credit for a fight that they were on the wrong side of for a century, back when to be a Republican in a southern town was to be a very lonely man.

As for Martin Luther King, to prove that he was a flawed man is to prove nothing. Jim Crow was immoral. To fight it was dangerous and lonely, and I have nothing but respect for anyone who got out of their easy chairs and into the fight. We all believe that, if it came right down to it, we would be willing to put our lives on the line for freedom. But it did come down to it, and it was a flawed preacher, and his flawed followers, who stood up. For all of his flaws, he is the bigger man than his detractors, who were content to see oppression continue into yet another generation.

His views on some issues insured that he would never be a Republican. But his opposition to Jim Crow put him squarely in line with the Republican party principles, and squarely against the institutional Democrat party . We should not now let the Democrats tell our history. They have a lot to answer for. Lets let them answer for it.

What you said. Better than I could.

You get it, marron. You truly do.

Birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

Thanks marron.

Re your post #27:

Terrific synopsis of the 50s and 60s in explaining the complicated vocabulary of 'democrat', 'republican' 'conservative,' 'liberal', etc. as they related to the plight of the black person in America.

I printed it out so I can refer to it often. Thanks for the post.