Daily Hampshire Gazette - Established 1786
P/sunny
76°
P/sunny
Hi 82° | Lo 55°

John Andrulis: Blame Democrats, not GOP, for nation’s Jim Crow era

Nothing could be further from the truth.

In 1956, Arkansas Gov. Orville Faubus (a Democrat) called out the Arkansas National Guard to prevent six little girls from integrating a “whites only” school in Little Rock. A Republican president (Eisenhower), federalized the Guard and sent in the 82nd Airborne Division to escort those students into class.

Gov. George Wallace (a Democrat from Alabama) personally stood in the doorway of a school to prevent integration, until he was removed by U.S. marshals. In Mississippi, a similar scenario occurred when the Democratic governor tried to prevent a black Air Force veteran from enrolling at the University of Mississippi.

In Georgia, Gov. Lester Maddox (a Democrat) handed out axe handles to rednecks. All the southern governors, since the end of Reconstruction in 1877, were Democrats; all vigorously supported Jim Crow laws which not only disenfranchised blacks, but mandated separate schools, drinking fountains and rest rooms and also “back-of-the-bus” seating.

In the House of Representatives, the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed by a vote of 290-130. Eighty percent of Republicans voted “aye,” while only 61 percent of Democrats voted for it. Although the Democrats had a large majority (248 members versus 172 Republicans), they could muster only 152 affirmative votes of the 218 needed for passage. Without the 138 Republican votes, the bill never would have gone to the Senate.

In the Senate, the results were similar: Eighty-two percent of Republicans supported the bill; only 59 percent of the 73 Democrats did so. As in the lower house, despite a clear majority in membership, the Democrats could muster only 46 votes. Without the 27 Republican votes (out of 33 Republican senators), the bill would never have gone to LBJ for signature.

It should also be noted that in 1860, Abraham Lincoln, who opposed expansion of slavery into the territories, received not a single electoral vote from the slave states: these went to one of the three Democrats running, all supporting slavery. Further, the 1864 Republican platform called for adoption of the constitutional amendment. The Republican Party, which was founded to oppose slavery, has been historically opposed to laws restricting enfranchisement on the basis of race. It is the Democrats who have a record of which to be ashamed.

John Andrulis lives in Leeds.

Related

Robert Buscher: Andrulis guest column draws false conclusion

Wednesday, July 31, 2013

To the editor: It appears that guest columnist John Andrulis believes that history ended in 1964 with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of that year. Although the historical facts that he points out are largely correct, he then draws the false conclusion that Republican support of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 equates to Republican opposition to laws … 0

Kelvin Kindahl: Andrulis guest column wrong, cartoon accurate

Wednesday, July 31, 2013

To the editor: In a guest column in Thursday’s Gazette, John Andrulis tries to deny the truth of a political cartoon depicting a Republican elephant dreaming wistfully of a “whites only” voting booth. He points out that it was Southern Democrats who were largely responsible for the Jim Crow laws of the 1950s, and that historically, the Republican Party was … 0

Really? - From The Hill (June 27th). Treasury IG: Liberal groups weren't targeted by IRS like Tea Party By Bernie Becker - 06/27/13 09:06 AM ET Liberal groups seeking tax-exempt status faced less IRS scrutiny than Tea Party groups, according to the Treasury Department’s inspector general. . Russell George, Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration, told Rep. Sandy Levin (D-Mich.) in a letter dated Wednesday that the IRS did not use inappropriate criteria to scrutinize groups with “progressives” in their name seeking tax-exempt status. “Our audit did not find evidence that the IRS used the ‘progressives’ identifier as selection criteria for potential political cases between May 2010 and May 2012,” George wrote in the letter obtained by The Hill. The inspector general stressed that 100 percent of the groups with “Tea Party,” “patriots” and “9/12” in their name were flagged for extra attention, while only 30 percent of the groups with “progress” or “progressive” were highlighted as potentially political. George’s letter does not say why the progressive groups were given extra scrutiny. Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/308131-ig-liberal-groups-not-targeted-like-tea-party#ixzz2a7fmA9wi Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

You missed my point, Gary. This still has nothing to do with the issue at hand. But if it makes you feel better, I'll see your cut and paste from june 27th and cut and paste the following: http://www.salon.com/2013/07/08/how_the_media_outrageously_blew_the_irs_scandal_a_full_accounting/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/16/irs-interviews_n_3607029.html But that's beside the point. This has gotten tiresome again. Go on and cut and paste your last word from random web searches, so that we can end this latest chapter. God bless you, you huffy little tinfoil hat titan.

The Salon article was all editorial, no substance. One mid level IRS employee who doesn't think Louis Lerner had anything to do with targeting tea party groups, ends the issue for you? Where is the proof in the Salon article that just as many progressive groups were targeted? If 30% of progressive groups were targeted but 100% of tea party groups were according to the IRS inspector general something is wrong. As for bringing this up, it was chezdan who brougt this arguement up to 1974 and Paul Weyrich. I was just trying to bring it up to today. As for whether this reaches the White House, just because they say it doesn't - why would you blindly believe that. Lets have a full investigation. Oh no - the Attorney General won't. What a surprise. They've already said its a phoney scandal. Nothing to see here. Move on. Either that or lets have Lois Lerner testify under oath As for the other article it was basically a press release from Elijah Cummings. So if we find out Lois Lerner ordered extraordinary scrutiny of the tea party groups would you think she went too far?

Interesting how Dan left off the most recent - as recently in the news as yesterday - of voter suppression. I'm talking about the IRS targeting conservative tea party groups and their tax exemt status. After all thats what that was all about. The democrats were mortally afraid of this broad based political movement which swept the democrats out of power in the lower chamber in 2010. To quote Dan - " they are designed to keep people more likely to vote Democratic away from the polls. It's all about shaving a couple or three percentage points off the totals. That can be enough in a battleground state like Ohio, Florida or Wisconsin to change the outcome.". By denying tax exempt status to the conservative groups the democrats may have been able to stop a takeover of the Senate by Republicans. Now we are being told the only other political appointee at the IRS, the general council, met with Pres. Obama two days before the memo went out to deny tea party organizations tax exempt status. And as of yesterday, the president is calling these 'phoney scandals'.

That's right Gary, change the subject. You know Republicans are filthy with the stink of voter suppression. Go ahead and talk about the fake IRS scandal, 'cause you know I'm right. You didn't even bother to listen to that Paul Weyrich speech, did ya? If you did, you wouldn't be here spouting this nonsense. btw - an independent study proved there was no more IRS "discrimination" against conservative groups than there was against so-called liberal groups. This is a completely fake scandal ginned up by the felon known as Darrell Issa (R-Criminal).

Are you argueing that denying tax exempt status - and thus the ability to organize and influence public policy - is not voter suppression? Why do you think the IRS did that? To stop them from organizing and voting! Sorry - you are wrong on this one. I know who Paul Weyrich is and have seen him on TV many times (same with Lee Atwater - we all know who these people are). The democrats have the same type of consultants advising them. Every day they sit down with their labor union partners and strategize on how to keep power. For example - Where was hillary in all this Trayvon Martin stuff? Do you think her mostly silent position is cooincidental? After all she is the presumptive heir apparant of Obama. You don't think she has her Paul Weyrich out there telling her to shut up about it? This is going on all the time. To think the democrats and their union allies don't try to suppress conservative votes is ridiculous.

Wow, straight from IRS to the Zimmerman trial! I know a birther comment is probably a bit much to expect at this point, but I thought we'd at least get a tour of Benghazi first. I paid for the full-service Fox talking points treatment, and want my money back!

Does Louis Lerner ring a bell? Took the 5th amendment not to incriminate herself recently? Ran the IRS division that approved tax exempt status? She was an old political hack who previously went after the Christian Coalition in the 1990s. No pattern there. Here is a USA Today link on how conservative groups were targeted and groups with the name 'progressive' were approved for tax exempt status by the IRS division Louis Lerner ran. No voter suppression here - move on - nothing to see - phoney scandals. http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2158831

Yes I did see that article, when it came out waaaaaay back in May before all of the counter-evidence about the targeting of groups from accross the political spectrum came out. But remember, Gary, this thread was not originally about backroom skulduggery imagined by the tinfoil hat media industry. It's about voter supression that conservative justices, their republican cheerleaders in congress and state legislatures uphold publicly without the slightest hint of shame. Your responding to that with the fake IRS issue is really just a way of saying "I know you are but what am I." Well, I'm rubber and you're glue. It bounces off me and sticks to you. I think I've finally found out the proper tone to use with you.

"Now many of our Christians have what I call the 'goo-goo syndrome.' Good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people. They never have been from the beginning of our country, and they are not now. As a matter of fact our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down." —Paul Weyrich, 1980 Short version of that video: Stop them from voting and we win. Not exactly an original thought. In 1974, Paul Weyrich, who had the previous year co-founded the Republican/Conservative Heritage Foundation, founded the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress. Its key purpose was to undermine the impact of liberal and labor groups that Weyrich and his compatriots were keeping conservatives from dominating the national legislature. Key to the success of the extremist conservative movement is suppression of the vote alluded to by Weyrich that Republicans have worked so diligently to implement in myriad forms, finding new pathways when any particular measure is blocked. Unlike the days of Jim Crow when a whole category of citizens was kept from voting by laws directly disenfranchising them, the more recent efforts have been adopted with a patina of fairness attached to them even though they are designed to keep people more likely to vote Democratic away from the polls. It's all about shaving a couple or three percentage points off the totals. That can be enough in a battleground state like Ohio, Florida or Wisconsin to change the outcome. That is what the fights over voter-roll purges, overly restrictive voter-IDs, provisional balloting and early voting have been about. Paul Weyrich knew what he was saying three decades ago. Today, right this minute, Republican operatives are carrying out his vision.

Thanks for the history lesson, John, but we are talking about the 21st century, not the 18th, 19th, or 20th. You can call them Democrats or Republicans or Liberals or Conservatives or Right-Wingers or Libtards or Moonbats or whatever. The bottom line is this: ANYONE who tries to obstruct the right to vote of another legal citizen of this country based on that voter's age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, socio-economic standing, or religion via chicanery, threats, disenfranchisement, poll taxes or other means of exclusion is a traitor to the ideals on which this country was founded. Period. Here's a more recent history lesson for you John, courtesy of Paul Weyrich. Don't know who that is? You'd better watch this video and find out. Then you'll understand the truth behind the political cartoon you are so quick to dismiss as inaccurate: www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GBAsFwPglw

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.