Posted on Apr 11, 2016
How much CREDIT in History should President Lyndon B Johnson be given for his work in the Civil Rights Movement during the 1960's?
7.16K
34
26
6
6
0
Today in 1968, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights(Fair Housing) Act of 1968, banning the discrimination of in the sale of most housing.
Human Rights
Office of the President (POTUS)
American History
Rights
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 8
5
5
0
Considering he and al gore sr. filibustered Eisenhower's Civil Rights bill... which nobody seems to remember or it isn't taught any longer.
Despite the democrat's disapproval, it was a republican held congress that sent a civil rights bill to lbj's desk. Historically, democrats have always opposed civil rights. Today, social justice, is code for special privilege which is exactly opposite "equal protection."
Despite the democrat's disapproval, it was a republican held congress that sent a civil rights bill to lbj's desk. Historically, democrats have always opposed civil rights. Today, social justice, is code for special privilege which is exactly opposite "equal protection."
(5)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
SPC Andrew Griffin
LBJ vs. the Civil Rights Act of 1957
James Taranto digs up some history:
As Bruce Bartlett explains in "Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past"
http://www.amazon.com/Wrong-Race-Democratic-Partys-Buried/dp/ [login to see]
In his January 10, 1957, State of the Union Address, Eisenhower renewed his request for civil rights legislation, which had passed the House but died in the Senate in the previous Congress due to Southern Democratic delaying tactics. . . .
Everyone knew that the critical fight on the civil rights bill would be in the Senate. . . . In that body, the key figure was Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson, who represented the [former] Confederate state of Texas and had been installed in his position by Southern Democrats precisely in order to block civil rights legislation. Until the 1950s, Johnson's record of opposition to all civil rights legislation was spotless. But he was ambitious and wanted to be president. . . .
After dragging his feet on the civil rights bill throughout much of 1957, Johnson finally came to the conclusion that the tide had turned in favor of civil rights and he needed to be on the right side of the issue if he hoped to become president. . . .
At the same time, the Senate's master tactician and principal opponent of the civil rights bill, Democrat Richard B. Russell of Georgia, saw the same handwriting on the wall but came to a different conclusion. He realized that the support was no longer there for an old-fashioned Democrat filibuster. . . . So Russell adopted a different strategy this time of trying to amend the civil rights bill so as to minimize its impact. Behind the scenes, Johnson went along with Russell's strategy of not killing the civil rights bill, but trying to neuter it as much as possible. . . .
Eisenhower was disappointed at not being able to produce a better piece of legislation. "I wanted a much stronger civil rights bill in '57 than I could get," he later lamented. "But the Democrats . . . wouldn't let me have it."
Liberals criticized Eisenhower for getting such a modest bill at the end of the day. But Johnson argued that it was historically important because it was the first civil rights bill to pass Congress since 1875. "Once you break virginity," he said, "it'll be easier next time."
To put it mildly, LBJ was not a consistent advocate of racial equality. Bartlett (both in his book and in this article) quotes LBJ's explanation of why he backed the Civil Rights Act of 1957:
"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."
https://eisenhower.archives.gov/research/online_documents/civil_rights_act.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957
LBJ vs. the Civil Rights Act of 1957
James Taranto digs up some history:
As Bruce Bartlett explains in "Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past"
http://www.amazon.com/Wrong-Race-Democratic-Partys-Buried/dp/ [login to see]
In his January 10, 1957, State of the Union Address, Eisenhower renewed his request for civil rights legislation, which had passed the House but died in the Senate in the previous Congress due to Southern Democratic delaying tactics. . . .
Everyone knew that the critical fight on the civil rights bill would be in the Senate. . . . In that body, the key figure was Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson, who represented the [former] Confederate state of Texas and had been installed in his position by Southern Democrats precisely in order to block civil rights legislation. Until the 1950s, Johnson's record of opposition to all civil rights legislation was spotless. But he was ambitious and wanted to be president. . . .
After dragging his feet on the civil rights bill throughout much of 1957, Johnson finally came to the conclusion that the tide had turned in favor of civil rights and he needed to be on the right side of the issue if he hoped to become president. . . .
At the same time, the Senate's master tactician and principal opponent of the civil rights bill, Democrat Richard B. Russell of Georgia, saw the same handwriting on the wall but came to a different conclusion. He realized that the support was no longer there for an old-fashioned Democrat filibuster. . . . So Russell adopted a different strategy this time of trying to amend the civil rights bill so as to minimize its impact. Behind the scenes, Johnson went along with Russell's strategy of not killing the civil rights bill, but trying to neuter it as much as possible. . . .
Eisenhower was disappointed at not being able to produce a better piece of legislation. "I wanted a much stronger civil rights bill in '57 than I could get," he later lamented. "But the Democrats . . . wouldn't let me have it."
Liberals criticized Eisenhower for getting such a modest bill at the end of the day. But Johnson argued that it was historically important because it was the first civil rights bill to pass Congress since 1875. "Once you break virginity," he said, "it'll be easier next time."
To put it mildly, LBJ was not a consistent advocate of racial equality. Bartlett (both in his book and in this article) quotes LBJ's explanation of why he backed the Civil Rights Act of 1957:
"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."
https://eisenhower.archives.gov/research/online_documents/civil_rights_act.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957
Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past: Bruce Bartlett: 9780230610996: Amazon.com:...
Buy Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past on Amazon.com â FREE SHIPPING on qualified orders
(0)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
SPC Andrew Griffin
It's always best to have all of the facts and that includes the facts omitted from public education in order to make an informed decision. I do not believe the D party changed its root beliefs, I believe they changed their tactics. To prove it, just look at the economic status of the states and or cities governed by democrats and ask yourself, have the democrat politicians really made things better, are the people better or worse off?
Detroit comes to mind and the citizens of that once great city left when the socialist policies destroyed what was left of the middle class. Today, there really is no middle class in Detroit, there are the working poor and the rich. CA is broke and they are driving people out of that state in droves. They should have took heed, "socialism works great until you run out of other peoples money."
Take a good look at the discourse in political ideology on this site, it's the self proclaimed white liberal who tend to be the biggest and worst instigators; name calling and poor behavior. I know you and I have opposing beliefs, but do we spit that same venomous animosity shared with white liberals? No! They want things the way they are, because deep down inside they are a bunch of little LBJ's in my opinion.
LBJ hated black people and I believe his hope was that if he couldn't block civil rights he and the dixiecrats were going to control the population of black Americans with "free stuff." Offering "stuff" for a vote is a bribe; it is about control, nothing more. Now I don't believe the current white liberal hates black people, but I do believe white guilt plays a big role in their support of the original party of segregation. In other words, they vote with their feelings instead of rational thought.
Malcolm X hated the democrat party and he understood that the democrat/dixiecrat politicians offered nothing more than lip-service. I also believe LBJ only signed the civil right bill because the republican held congress had the votes to override a presidential veto. It was better to take the bite from his party than the American people. Also, LBJ would have never got the nod from the DNC after signing that bill and that's why he stepped aside. He was going to lose, the New Hampshire primaries were his final nail.
The liberals like to say that the dixicrats moved to the R party, but I disagree to a point. The 1968 Democratic National Convention was a scene of violent confrontations between police and anti-war protesters as the Democrats split into multiple factions. I believe the faction of the D party that took over the leadership were the 60's Marxists. I hate to admit it, but if it's true that the dixicrats left the Ds for the Rs, I have to ask, what alternative did they have with the failed two party system when the side they initially chose to participate began quoting Marx and Engels? But think of it like this, the Ds still backed Byrd who not only had been a member of the KKK, but was also a leader within the organization. They didn't change their ways, they changed their tactics.
It's always best to have all of the facts and that includes the facts omitted from public education in order to make an informed decision. I do not believe the D party changed its root beliefs, I believe they changed their tactics. To prove it, just look at the economic status of the states and or cities governed by democrats and ask yourself, have the democrat politicians really made things better, are the people better or worse off?
Detroit comes to mind and the citizens of that once great city left when the socialist policies destroyed what was left of the middle class. Today, there really is no middle class in Detroit, there are the working poor and the rich. CA is broke and they are driving people out of that state in droves. They should have took heed, "socialism works great until you run out of other peoples money."
Take a good look at the discourse in political ideology on this site, it's the self proclaimed white liberal who tend to be the biggest and worst instigators; name calling and poor behavior. I know you and I have opposing beliefs, but do we spit that same venomous animosity shared with white liberals? No! They want things the way they are, because deep down inside they are a bunch of little LBJ's in my opinion.
LBJ hated black people and I believe his hope was that if he couldn't block civil rights he and the dixiecrats were going to control the population of black Americans with "free stuff." Offering "stuff" for a vote is a bribe; it is about control, nothing more. Now I don't believe the current white liberal hates black people, but I do believe white guilt plays a big role in their support of the original party of segregation. In other words, they vote with their feelings instead of rational thought.
Malcolm X hated the democrat party and he understood that the democrat/dixiecrat politicians offered nothing more than lip-service. I also believe LBJ only signed the civil right bill because the republican held congress had the votes to override a presidential veto. It was better to take the bite from his party than the American people. Also, LBJ would have never got the nod from the DNC after signing that bill and that's why he stepped aside. He was going to lose, the New Hampshire primaries were his final nail.
The liberals like to say that the dixicrats moved to the R party, but I disagree to a point. The 1968 Democratic National Convention was a scene of violent confrontations between police and anti-war protesters as the Democrats split into multiple factions. I believe the faction of the D party that took over the leadership were the 60's Marxists. I hate to admit it, but if it's true that the dixicrats left the Ds for the Rs, I have to ask, what alternative did they have with the failed two party system when the side they initially chose to participate began quoting Marx and Engels? But think of it like this, the Ds still backed Byrd who not only had been a member of the KKK, but was also a leader within the organization. They didn't change their ways, they changed their tactics.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
He did it for show if you know history he was a racist mean man who didn't like much of the populace. His chair had to be raised higher than all of the others. Many stories about him
(5)
(0)
SPC Andrew Griffin
Please share with me. To be honest I don't know much about him. Looking for the knowledge.
(0)
(0)
PO3 Donald Murphy
Well don't get me or others started about his killings... You know he took out JFK, right?
(0)
(0)
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
Hard to tell his real Motives, Maybe to appeal to the Eleanor Roosevelt Democrats, Catholics like my Parents that were very supportive of the Civil Rights Movement. I understand that he employed a Great Deal of Political Blackmail that he was famous for to get it passed. As far as "Once a Racist, Always a Racist" One only need think of Justice Hugo Black, A man that Joined the KKK for Political Reasons but in the End was one of the Biggest Proponent of Civil Rights.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Rena Schmidt
Kennedy wasn't even dead that long before LBJ had to be sworn in on AF one. He really wanted to be President and it appears at any cost!
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google