The Good Ole South

All I see there is speculation and some pretty maps. I need to see tangible evidence that the Republican party advocated for the 'racist cause' or something. It simply doesn't comport with common sense, to assume the Dixiecrats were angered by Johnson's passing the CRA, and bolted to the party the blacks had supported, who were also instrumental in passing the CRA.

As I said earlier, the only Dixiecrat I know first-hand about, is George Wallace. He ran for president against Nixon in '68 and '72, on the independent third party ticket. After he lost, and was almost assassinated, he returned to being the Democrat governor of Alabama, and was re-elected by landslides for several more terms. He routinely garnered 65-70% of the black vote in the 1970's and 80's.

You can spin things however you wish, but to suggest something as lame as this, is pretty pathetic. The Democrats were sharply divided on segregation, the Republicans had no qualms with CRA, and helped Johnson pass it... then the Dixiecrats got mad and joined the people who were the most fundamental in passing CRA? It doesn't make sense. Why would people abandon their own party, to join the opposite party... who didn't agree with them either?

We know about Wallace, and we know Byrd is still serving in Congress as a Democrat... Lester Maddox was a Democrat until the day he died... It seems to me, the main Dixiecrats stayed Democrat, they just managed to receive some magical redemption from their past views, and carry on in their political careers. Now, here we are 40 years later, and you want to re-write history. Tsk, tsk.
 
Poor Dixie, all those words and all those posts and he still hasn't said what the term "solid South" refers to. He also claims to know all about Maddox, Wallace and others of the period but can't seem to remember how the primaries were run during this period or why because "it was before [his] time." So Dixie, tell us what is meant by the term "solid South" and why the primary system was always used until recently to pick political candidates so taht they didn't have to be voted on in the general election. It is really starting to appear as if you are not as smart as you claim to be.

Why can't you just explain these simple concepts for the people on the board Dixie? Why all this dancing around this issue? Can't you find another tobacco spitter down there to tell you what happened? Instead of posting post after post after post saying nothing and avoiding the qiuestion like the plague why don't you just answer the questions. You are really starting to look dumb on this one mr. smarty pants. Just answer the question. What is meant by the term "solid South"? And how did the primary system in the "solid South" work and why did it work that way?

Since the rest of us are too stupid to know anything about the way things worked in the South you are the only one here really qualified to answer that question. You have already said repeatedly that we are all "pinheads" and that we just can't know anything about the South, bein' from the North and all, but I still can't get you to answer this simple questions. Why won't you answer these questions, Dixie?
 
Dixie said:
Yeah, the slaves were all black, that still doesn't make the issue of slavery in 1864 the same thing as the issue of racism. I understand you want to draw this parallel, but it is borne of ignorance. Racism is the belief that one race is superior or inferior to another. No one in America, in 1864, believed slaves were equal to white people, not even Abe Lincoln or the slaves themselves. This false perception, that the Civil War was fought over racial equality, is simply without merit. Slavery became an issue because of the economic impact it had on agricultural states of the South, not because all Southerners were racist or all Northerners were non-racist.
Click to expand...

Dixie is back again with this same argument... It was shot down back then and I am bumping it for your review...!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top