Did Don Imus Go Too Far (Again) With His Latest Comments?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

Right - the government stepped in and ended slavery. We could have an entirely separate thread on the causes of the Civil War, but the market didn't sort it out.

Well if it was just goverment that wanted to end slavery they would have had a hard time winning the war with a 100 or so guys.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well if it was just goverment that wanted to end slavery they would have had a hard time winning the war with a 100 or so guys.

I'll respond when you offer up anything more than a straw man argument.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

I'll respond when you offer up anything more than a straw man argument.

Well I guess we won't debate this today.LOL

[saden1]

Slavery was put to an end by one side of this nation (The Union) on moral grounds (got to love Abe Lincoln) as well as tactical grounds. And of course who can forget the Jim Crow Years that only ended 40 years ago.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

Slavery was put to an end by one side of this nation (The Union) on moral grounds (got to love Abe Lincoln) as well as tactical grounds. And of course who can forget the Jim Crow Years that only ended 40 years ago.

and the Republican Party.

(just throwing a little zing out there, not trying to start another debate)

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

and the Republican Party.

(just throwing a little zing out there, not trying to start another debate)

Only by name, not ideology. It's actually pretty fascinating how the transformation took place. The party of Lincoln is a nice marketing slogan though.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by saden1

Only by name, not ideology. It's actually pretty fascinating how the transformation took place. The party of Lincoln is a nice marketing slogan though.

Race was certainly a major factor in the transformation of southern voting patterns, but abortion, the drug culture, sexual liberation, and the idea that the Democratic Party sort of looks down on religion were also important. It's tempting for Democrats to pretend that the switch was merely the result of the racism of white southerners, but these other issues are critical as well.

In addition, I think there has been an attempt to convince people that the Democrats have always been for racial justice. Not so. I beleive that of the 27 votes against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 22 were Democrats. Every Senator from the old south (save Ralph Yarborough of Texas), plus Robert Byrd of West Virginia comprised that 22. The Democrats had a southern strategy and benefitted from it greatly long before the Republicans did.

From Wiki:

By party and region
Note : "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

• Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
• Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
• Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
• Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

Ralph Yarborough had an interesting career. Democrats in Texas attempted to play the race card way back in the day. Again from Wiki:

Ralph Yarborough was urged to run again for state attorney general in 1952, and he planned to do so until he received a personal affront by Governor Allan Shivers who told him not to run. Out of spite, Ralph Yarborough then ran in the primaries for governor in 1952 and 1954 against the conservative Shivers, drawing support from labor unions and liberals. Yarborough denounced the corrupt "Shivercrats" for veterans' fraud in the General Land Office and for endorsing the Republican Eisenhower/Nixon ticket for President instead of Democrat Adlai Stevenson in 1952. Shivers portrayed Yarborough as an integrationist supported by communists and labor unions. The 1954 election was particularly nasty in its race-baiting by Shivers as it was the year that Brown v. Board of Education was decided, and Shivers made the most of the court decision in order to play on voters' racism. In one particularly odious episode, a black man was hired to drive around East Texas in a Cadillac full of Yarborough stickers and to be obnoxious and insult gas station attendants. The man would say he was busy and had to hurry "to work for Mr. Yarborough." Yarborough made it to the primary runoff and came surprisingly close to beating Shivers despite receiving almost no newspaper endorsements, being out-fundraised, and being the target of nasty attacks