Integrating Ole Miss: A Transformative, Deadly Riot

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

So you agree with me Muslims are good but think Arabs are bad?

Where do you extrapolate that from my post? What do muslims or arabs have to do with JFK or Ole Miss?

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Sorry, the Muslim killed RFK. What was I thinkin'? Never mind, Muslims are good.

Maybe you ought to think a bit more (and read a bit more, too.)

[Darnell 8,479]

When I went for my first campus visit, I walked around the Lyceum a lot, asking my son if he studied about the big riot.

When I went for my second campus visit, he took me on a personal tour.

Now that he's no longer at Ol(e) Miss, he doesn't miss it.

But - there was a big thing on NPR within the last 24 hours, going over this stuff.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Maybe you ought to think a bit more (and read a bit more, too.)

Muslims are not good? Is that what your are saying?

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Muslims are not good? Is that what your are saying?

Is English your native language ?

[Ban Hammer 13,566]

Muslims are not good? Is that what your are saying?

quit baiting.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Is English your native language ?

How does any of this change the fact that Democrats are the ones that segregated Mississippi? How does it change that Democrats promote human trafficking and exploitation for profit? You are going to debate the relgion of the guy who capped RFK and ignore the fact that Dems have a solid legacy of racism?

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

How does any of this change the fact that Democrats are the ones that segregated Mississippi? How does it change that Democrats promote human trafficking and exploitation for profit? You are going to debate the relgion of the guy who capped RFK and ignore the fact that Dems have a solid legacy of racism?

There is no "debate" about his religion; it's simply a fact that he was not Muslim as you claimed, but Christian. Pointing out facts is not "debating;" it's called "correcting."

But I would not be surprised if you try to claim he was a Democrat, too...

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

The South had overwhelmingly voted Democrat before 1964. So obviously, most Southern segregationists were Democrats - until the 1950s, there were no Republican governors in Southern states, no Republican senators and only two Republican congress representatives from the South. (Still, there were some Republicans who were segregationists.)

So what happened in 1964 ? The Civil Rights Act, proposed by JFK (Democrat) in 1963, was signed by LBJ (Democrat.) All those Southern Democrat segregationists didn't just fade away or suddenly change their views; they simply switched to the Republican side (including Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms.) And that's when African-Americans, who had overwhelmingly voted Republican since emancipation, switched to the Democratic party.

[Danno 1,228]

The South had overwhelmingly voted Democrat before 1964. So obviously, most Southern segregationists were Democrats - until the 1950s, there were no Republican governors in Southern states, no Republican senators and only two Republican congress representatives from the South. (Still, there were some Republicans who were segregationists.)

So what happened in 1964 ? The Civil Rights Act, proposed by JFK (Democrat) in 1963, was signed by LBJ (Democrat.) All those Southern Democrat segregationists didn't just fade away or suddenly change their views; they simply switched to the Republican side (including Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms.) And that's when African-Americans, who had overwhelmingly voted Republican since emancipation, switched to the Democratic party.

This is retarded logic.... lets imagine at the time, you have a segment of hard core racists.... why would they go to a party (GOP) when their own party was closest to their views.

That would be like today.....let's say the GOP goes for Gay marriage.... would Rick Santorum getting pissed off and switch to the Democrat party.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

This is retarded logic.... lets imagine at the time, you have a segment of hard core racists.... why would they go to a party (GOP) when their own party was closest to their views.

That would be like today.....let's say the GOP goes for Gay marriage.... would Rick Santorum getting pissed off and switch to the Democrat party.

I've already told you why many of these Southern segregationists left the Democratic party - they didn't like the Democrat leaders' support for the Civil Rights Act. Barry Goldwater (the Republican candidate for president in 1964) voted against the Act, and many of these former Southern Democrats switched parties to support Goldwater.

The Democratic dominance of the South originated in many white Southerners' animosity towards the Republican Party's stance in favor of political rights for blacks during Reconstruction and Republican economic policies such as the high tariff and the support for continuing the gold standard, both of which were seen as benefiting Northern industrial interests at the expense of the agrarian South in the 19th century. It was maintained by the Democratic Party's willingness to back Jim Crow laws and racial segregation.[1]

Democrats won by large margins in the region in every presidential election from 1876 to 1948 except for 1928, when candidate Al Smith, a Catholic and a New Yorker, ran on the Democratic ticket; even in that election, the divided South provided Smith with nearly three-fourths of his electoral votes. Beginning in about 1948, the national Democratic Party's support of the civil rights movement significantly reduced Southern support for the Democratic Party and allowed the Republican Party to make gains in the South by way of its "Southern strategy". Today, the South is considered a Republican stronghold at all levels above the local level, and even there Republicans have made generally increasing inroads. Political experts have often cited a southernization of politics following the fall of the Solid South.

In the 1960 election, the Democratic nominee, John F. Kennedy, continued his party's tradition of selecting a Southerner as the vice presidential candidate (in this case, Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas). Kennedy and Johnson, however, supported civil rights. In October 1960, when Martin Luther King, Jr. was arrested at a peaceful sit-in in Atlanta, Georgia, Kennedy placed a sympathetic phone call to King's wife, Coretta Scott King, and Robert Kennedy helped secure King's release. King expressed his appreciation for these calls. Although King himself made no endorsement, his father, who had previously endorsed Republican Richard Nixon, switched his support to Kennedy.

Because of these and other events, the Democrats lost ground with white voters in the South, as those same voters increasingly lost control over what was once a whites-only Democratic Party in much of the South. The 1960 election was the first in which a Republican presidential candidate received electoral votes in the South while losing nationally. Nixon carried Virginia, Tennessee, and Florida. Though Kennedy also won Alabama and Mississippi. slates of unpledged electors, representing Democratic segregationists, would award the states' electoral votes to Harry Byrd.

The parties' positions on civil rights continued to evolve in the run up to the 1964 election. The Democratic candidate, Johnson, who had become president after Kennedy's assassination, spared no effort to win passage of a strong Civil Rights Act. After signing the landmark legislation, Johnson said to his aide, Bill Moyers, "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come."[2] In contrast, Johnson's Republican opponent, Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, believing it gave too much power to the federal government (Goldwater did in fact support civil rights in general; for example the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts as well as the 24th Amendment banning the poll tax. Additionally he was a member of the NAACP).[citation needed]

That November, Johnson won a landslide electoral victory, and the Republicans suffered significant losses in Congress. Goldwater, however, besides carrying his home state of Arizona, carried the deep South: the South had switched parties for the first time. Goldwater notably won only in southern states that had voted against Republican Richard Nixon in 1960, while not winning a single state that Nixon had carried, a complete inversion of the electoral pattern of just four years earlier. Prior to 1956, the region had almost always provided the only victories for Democratic challengers to popular Republican incumbent presidents. Now, however, the South had provided a Republican challenger with electoral victories against a popular Democratic incumbent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I've already told you why many of these Southern segregationists left the Democratic party - they didn't like the Democrat leaders' support for the Civil Rights Act. Barry Goldwater (the Republican candidate for president in 1964) voted against the Act, and many of these former Southern Democrats switched parties to support Goldwater.

Revisionists refuse to accept historical truth, just like they refuse to accept the truth the Civil War was over slavery. They continue to insist it was just about state's rights, in spite of the fact that it was the Southern slave states who wanted the Feds to go after the Northern free states for refusing to recognize that escaped slaves were 'property that needed to be returned to their rightful owners.' When Lincoln denied them their 'rightful ownership', that's when the Southern slave states declared that they would secede from the United States and suddenly believed they could do so legally.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Commie Appeaser

[Danno 1,228]

Revisionists refuse to accept historical truth, just like they refuse to accept the truth the Civil War was over slavery. They continue to insist it was just about state's rights, in spite of the fact that it was the Southern slave states who wanted the Feds to go after the Northern free states for refusing to recognize that escaped slaves were 'property that needed to be returned to their rightful owners.' When Lincoln denied them their 'rightful ownership', that's when the Southern slave states declared that they would secede from the United States and suddenly believed they could do so legally.

Yeah maybe you are right it was all about freeing slaves for the north... it's just kinda strange they passed through union states which still had slavery to do so.

Even the Emancipation proclamation did not apply to those slave state on the union side.

Sorry,