The Democratic South and the Civil Rights Movement
...aken a sharp turn to the left. “It would be manifestly unfair and un-American,” Russell said, “to compel the white people of the South by Federal fiat to associate…and eventually absorb a much higher proportion of Negroes that they themselves will have an opportunity to accept and absorb.” To most southerners, depriving blacks of their basic civil rights did not prove hatred or animosity; they were merely fighting to protect the Constitution and their “southern way of life. (Mann)” To the modern reader, such may seem a completely unjustifiable argument, and they would be correct. However, it is easier to understand this way of thinking by reflecting upon the value system present in the south at that time. “When I was growing up in the South,” Georgia senator Herman Talmadge recalled, “it probably would have come as a shock to ninety-five percent of the white people and a substantial majority of the blacks to learn that some folks thought it downright immoral for persons to prefer associating with others of their own race. To us in the South, that seemed about as natural as chitlins, okra, and country music.” But, as Talmadge admitted, “any honest person would have admitted that from the time of Reconstruction on, segregation had often been used as a means to assure the inequality of blacks.” (Graham) It is evident that the 1960’s were a tumultuous time for southern white voters. Many felt that their rights had been infringed upon, because they were unable to imagine an integrated society in which they would be forced to associate with blacks, and also because they believed that national government should not override state authority in dealings with schools and the like. They began to see their good old Democratic party transition towards a left-wing Communist organization (the civil rights movement occurring just after the Red Scare); despite Hubert Humphrey’s earlier reassurance that “You can be liberal without being a Communist sympathizer, and we’re a liberal progressive party out here.” (Harvey) Not only were these events an accurate reflection in the state of the southern environment, but the way in which they were handled by those in charge were, to the voter, a reflection of the national government itself. Probably one of the biggest issues the Democratic Party faced was not social progression for blacks, but stepping in on what were traditionally state issues in a region where state’s rights were number one. Democratic President John F. Kennedy was in power when James Meredith attempted to enroll at the University of Mississippi. His Vice President, Lyndon Johnson, a southerner, was passionate about the civil rights for blacks and urged Kennedy to take whatever action necessary to produce results. He pushed for a civil rights bill, and as he became more outspoken, the bill began to gradually take shape. Kennedy worried that the bill would stir up a long debate in Congress and be difficult to present, and Johnson advised he declare to Congress: Now, I don’t want to come here without talking about our constitutional rights. We’re all Americans. We got a Golden Rule, ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’ Now I’m leader of this country. When I order men into batter, I order them men without regard or color. They carry our flag into foxholes. The Negro can do that, the Mexican can do it, and others can do it. We’ve got to do the same thing when we drive down the highway at places they eat. I’m going to have to ask you all to do this thing. I’m going to have to ask the Congress to say that we’ll all be treated without regard to our race. Although Kennedy did not use those exact words, Johnson still believed that “he’s got to have his bill.” “If I were Kennedy,” said Johnson, “I wouldn’t let [the Republicans] call my signals.” On June 11, 1965, President Kennedy introduced the bill to the American people with his historic televised speech in which he described the legislation he planned to send Congress. Nearing the end of his speech and out of prepared text, he improvised: We have a right to expect that the Negro Community will be responsible, will uphold the law. But they have a right to expect that the law will be fair, that the Constitution will be colorblind, as Justice [John M.] Harlan said at the turn of the century. That is what we’re talking about. This is a matter which concerns this country and what it stands for, and in meeting it I ask the support of all our citizens. Later that night, those who had hoped Kennedy’s speech would calm racial strife were shocked at the cold-blooded murder of the NAACP’s Mississippi field secretary Medgar Evers. A World War II veteran, he had recently gained prominence as the “inspirational leader” of several demonstrations and sit-ins. The south was not ready for integrations. Kennedy also met with predictable opposition from members of the national government. Senator Russell once again voiced his opinion stating, “The outstanding distinction between a government of free men and a socialistic or communistic state is the fact that free men can own and control property, whereas statism denies property rights to the individual.” He continued saying that, “Marxism has not worked and can never work because it does not take human nature into account.” Apparently the “human nature” Russell spoke of was that of the South, where “human nature” allowed discrimination, segregation, and humiliation of a race of beings who were only made different by a color (Graham). As Russell alluded to, other arguments made against the bill included property rights. “Americans, the southerners argued, had a constitutional right to rent or sell their property, merchandise, or services to those of their choosing. ‘They now posses the liberty to consider the matter of race, and even to prefer persons of their own race over members of another face, in their business dealings with others,” North Carolina’s Sam Ervin told the Senate on January 29.’” Southerners believed that the new bill could not guarantee equality because it gave blacks special privileges when being hired. Again, the argument of state’s rights was brought into the spotlight. “This type of police regulation is one which, without a doubt, should be left only to state and local government,” insisted Alabama’s John Sparkman (Mann). It was evident that, although the bill was passed, social and racial tensions were sure to be a result. Another result was the beloved Democratic Party of the south becoming closely scrutinized and looked upon with increasing suspicion by the typical Southern voter. The Republicans spied the growing distrust and began to cautiously wade into the tempestuous waters of southern politics. In 1964 and 65, it had been easy for the Democrats to point out “observable cruelties” such as job and voting discrimination and segregation of public facilities. However, as leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr. gained larger followings, and black militant...