Was Slavery on the Way Out?

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Can you link to a specific place on the senate.gov site that elaborates on this?

Sure thing.....at the time there were 33 Republicans, with 21 of them identifying as conservative. Dirksen and his Republican caucus delivered 27 votes to close the filibuster attempt which means the majority of the "Conservative" Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to pass....only 6 held out.

Source

Mansfield’s Democratic caucus had 67 members in 1964, but barely 40 expressed strong support for cloture. In addition to the 22 southern senators leading the filibuster, several Democratic senators, most noteworthy Carl Hayden of Arizona, the Senate’s president pro tempore, opposed cloture on principle. At best, Mansfield and Humphrey hoped to get 42 Democrats. This meant that Dirksen had to deliver at least 25 votes from his 33-member caucus that was divided among 21 conservatives, five moderates, and seven liberals. As both sides counted heads, Mansfield announced that cloture would be attempted in early June. “You have to hit bedrock sometime,” he warned. You have to “have a showdown.”

With six wavering senators providing a four-vote margin of victory, the final tally stood at 71 to 29—27 Republicans and 44 Democrats joined forces to support cloture. They were opposed by nay votes from six Republicans and 21 Democrats. The Senate’s civil rights proponents had achieved a remarkable victory. Outside, on the east front plaza of the Capitol, CBS newsman Roger Mudd also ticked off each vote on a large chart. An elaborate relay system allowed Mudd to get news from the press gallery within seconds of each vote cast. He announced the results to a waiting nation. Cloture had been invoked.

21 Democrats opposed....

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NavyDoc

Hey you may be right, but we'll never know. The point of the thread wasn't what slavery would have been like in the 1880's though. It was what the state of slavery actually WAS in the 1860's.

Also, keep in mind, there are many inventions from black inventors that may not have been made if slavery weren't abolished. It's also possible that the industrial revolution would be held off by a few years or go in a completely different direction.

George Washington Carver immediately comes to mind.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Ok let's try this again. Voting for Civil Rights wasn't really about parties. It was about North vs South.

Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s?

80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill. Less than 70% of Democrats did. Indeed, Minority Leader Republican Everett Dirksen led the fight to end the filibuster. Meanwhile, Democrats such as Richard Russell of Georgia and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina tried as hard as they could to sustain a filibuster.

Of course, it was also Democrats who helped usher the bill through the House, Senate, and ultimately a Democratic president who signed it into law. The bill wouldn't have passed without the support of Majority Leader Mike Mansfield of Montana, a Democrat. Majority Whip Hubert Humphrey, who basically split the Democratic party in two with his 1948 Democratic National Convention speech calling for equal rights for all, kept tabs on individual members to ensure the bill had the numbers to overcome the filibuster.

Put another way, party affiliation seems to be somewhat predictive, but something seems to be missing. So, what factor did best predicting voting?

You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.

You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the south. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.

This is a far more complicated discussion than just Democrat vs Republican.

That's funny, because Robert Byrd who identifies as a liberal, spoke for 14 hours trying to keep the Civil Rights bill from passing......oh....and was a member of the KKK and was in office until 2010.

Funny how all of this gets swept under the rug....

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Yea, I was born in Charleston and have friends of the family living there that I see on a regular basis plus I also lived in West Point, Mississippi. One thing I learned about the South is that they have a strange fascination with that war. I learned more about than I liked. Though some of the stuff I presented in the this thread is stuff I learned independently later (though it took a while since I was burnt out on this topic after moving to Maryland), because naturally, the South has a revisionist ideal of the war that they maintain so that they can idolize it.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Right North vs South. Byrd is from West Virginia (which was actually founded because they didn't agree with Virginia seceding from the Union) which has since adopted more southern ideals since the 1860's.

I really suggest you stop trying to turn this into a Democrat vs Republican pissing contest. I'm not trying to pick on a certain political party. Conservatives have existed in both political parties throughout the years, and this issue has always traditionally been a North vs South issue anyways. Not a Democrat vs Republican issue.

a reply to: NavyDoc

One example of a black slave inventing things isn't enough proof to establish that all the black inventors and innovators from 1860 to 1880 would still be able to do what they did. I'd say that would largely come down to luck.

Also, keep in mind. 20 years is a LONG time for a market. The slave market is no different. That is a whole generation. For reference, look at all the industries that were on top of the world in the 80's or 90's and are now a shadow of their former self.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Right North vs South. Byrd is from West Virginia (which was actually founded because they didn't agree with Virginia seceding from the Union) which has since adopted more southern ideals since the 1860's.

You initially said liberal versus conservative. I was simply pointing out that the conservative republicans were the only reason this passed. The liberal AND conservative democrats were pushing for filibuster. It was only due to the conservative republicans at the time that this went through.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

So 21 Democrats opposed Cloture, and yet you still insist that there was no gradual shift in political ideology as time went on?

You're shooting yourself in the foot by insisting the the parties didn't switch, and then in same breath point out that the Democrats held back then what would be considered far-right social ideology today.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NavyDoc

One example of a black slave inventing things isn't enough proof to establish that all the black inventors and innovators from 1860 to 1880 would still be able to do what they did. I'd say that would largely come down to luck.

Also, keep in mind. 20 years is a LONG time for a market. The slave market is no different. That is a whole generation. For reference, look at all the industries that were on top of the world in the 80's or 90's and are now a shadow of their former self.

I think I was agreeing with you.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Sorry, I realized I was walking down the wrong path conversationally and changed directions.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Gotcha. Lol. Must have misunderstood.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: Vasa Croe

So 21 Democrats opposed Cloture, and yet you still insist that there was no gradual shift in political ideology as time went on?

You're shooting yourself in the foot by insisting the the parties didn't switch, and then in same breath point out that the Democrats held back then what would be considered far-right social ideology today.

No...I am saying that the liberal/conservative ideology so many hold dear to is not what it seems. These are people who identified as liberals or progressives at the time. There was no party switch like what people make it out to be.

Fact is that out of 33 Republicans, 21 of them identified as conservative. Out of the 33, 27 in total voted to pass the act which means the majority of the conservative party on the Republican side passed it. Without them, the liberal and conservative democratic party would not have passed the act.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I'm still not following, how is that not evidence of a shift in political ideology over time? Just because they kept the title of "liberal"?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Sorry, I realized I was walking down the wrong path conversationally and changed directions.

No worries...I will stop now....did not mean to redirect anything and I understand where you are coming from. I really have no dog in the fight either way. People are always going to have issues and debates over slavery and whatnot. Sure there are those in the US that were for and against it. Most slaves were sold to slave owners by their own people which I find even more offensive but that is for another discussion....

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I agree. The Trans-Atlantic slave trade was one of the WORST travesties this world has ever seen. In fact, there are STILL warlords in Africa selling their brethren into slavery. I'm glad the one to Europe and America was shut down.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I'm still not following, how is that not evidence of a shift in political ideology over time? Just because they kept the title of "liberal"?

Political ideology may have switched, but parties did not. If we are going to debate the past and decisions made and chastise others for those decisions then the ones that made them should be held to the same fire. Byrd, who was the major force behind hindering the act passing identified as a liberal democrat all the way up until his last day in office in 2010. He was a member of the KKK and spent 14 hours speaking trying to persuade those voting not to pass on the day it passed. Quite the record for a liberal democrat for the Civil Rights Act.

I would say it is more of a sleight of hand that has been pulled by making it seem as if the conservative party, on both sides, were the ones that had the issue with Civil Rights, when it was very much the opposite. So unless liberal and conservative have different meanings now than before then there has been no shift.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Don't lie. The Democrats that opposed desegregation were CLEARLY conservative. It is only after the Civil Rights Act happened did they jump ship and turn the Republican party conservative. I really hate seeing that narrative pushed like it is some champion victory for equal rights from conservatives. Liberals were responsible for the Civil Rights Act just like Liberals are responsible for modern Civil Rights laws. It's ALWAYS conservatives who are fighting these laws, because THAT is what conservatives do. They resist change. It is what makes them conservative.

I think you are confused. Words meant different things back then. Liberalism used to be very conservative. John Locke and the enlightenment movement created the term. Look it up. The real definition is much more like a libertarian today. A progressive is not liberal by the old definition. Progressives were not always very progressive. Like Woodrow Wilson who didn't think women should vote or their tie to eugenics.

Conservatives (Republicans) without a doubt starting with Lincoln until JFK were the leaders in civil liberties.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I agree. The Trans-Atlantic slave trade was one of the WORST travesties this world has ever seen. In fact, there are STILL warlords in Africa selling their brethren into slavery. I'm glad the one to Europe and America was shut down.

Yeah....it is one of the sickest things I can imagine one human doing to another. Deeming someone not fit to be a free person and selling them....

This is where I hate the racial divide crap. Nobody ever gets upset at those that began it or perpetuated it. It is always only that that were white in the south that were bad.....

a reply to: Vasa Croe

That's where I think we disconnect, is that I do believe "liberal" means something different from what it used to mean in the political context.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Don't lie. The Democrats that opposed desegregation were CLEARLY conservative. It is only after the Civil Rights Act happened did they jump ship and turn the Republican party conservative. I really hate seeing that narrative pushed like it is some champion victory for equal rights from conservatives. Liberals were responsible for the Civil Rights Act just like Liberals are responsible for modern Civil Rights laws. It's ALWAYS conservatives who are fighting these laws, because THAT is what conservatives do. They resist change. It is what makes them conservative.

I think you are confused. Words meant different things back then. Liberalism used to be very conservative. John Locke and the enlightenment movement created the term. Look it up. The real definition is much more like a libertarian today. A progressive is not liberal by the old definition. Progressives were not always very progressive. Like Woodrow Wilson who didn't think women should vote or their tie to eugenics.

Conservatives (Republicans) without a doubt starting with Lincoln until JFK were the leaders in civil liberties.

This. "Liberal" as used in contemporary American politics is more about leftist philosophy and statism rather than the classical definition of "liberal." American definitions of "liberal" and "Conservative" do not translate well into other countries either.