The Civil Rights Movement: Fraud, Sham, and Hoax


PDA






zelmo73
November 29, 2003, 01:00 AM
According to George C. Wallace, of course. ;)


Personally, I believe that it is the single most effective Democratic conspiracy to dominate the government ever conceived by that political party (by catering to the black vote). But that's just my opinion. :evil:


The Civil Rights Movement: Fraud, Sham, and Hoax (http://www.ushda.org/wallace.shtml)

If you enjoyed reading about "The Civil Rights Movement: Fraud, Sham, and Hoax" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Andrew Rothman
November 29, 2003, 01:20 AM
Welcome to the High Road.

As this is your first post, don't you think it ought to have, you know, something to do with guns, or the specific subject of this board?

Get informed on issues affecting the right to keep and bear arms and other civil rights. Coordinate activism, debate with allies and opponents. Discuss laws concerning firearm ownership, concealed carry and self-defense.

Or are you just trolling?

Drjones
November 29, 2003, 01:20 AM
The Civil Rights Movement: Fraud, Sham, and Hoax

Racist.

You forgot racist.

As well as harmful to the people it claimed to help.

Drjones
November 29, 2003, 01:22 AM
Read it again.

Get informed on issues affecting the right to keep and bear arms and other civil rights

Andrew Rothman
November 29, 2003, 01:23 AM
Oh, I can read just fine. But it's pretty weak to claim that this is anything but off-topic race-baiting.

zelmo73
November 29, 2003, 01:26 AM
Read between the lines, Mpayne. Democrats are notorious for their support of gun control. The Civil Rights Movement is yet another symptom of the plague that is the Democrat agenda.

Andrew Rothman
November 29, 2003, 01:30 AM
Yeah, because letting people vote, sit where they they want on the bus, buy a house in whatever damn neighborhood they can afford and generally be treated as a human being is a bad thing?

Whatever. Read the last item in my sig.

zelmo73
November 29, 2003, 01:31 AM
Uh, hello? I'm thinking for myself here. :neener:





.

Jim March
November 29, 2003, 02:25 AM
Conservative racism of the Wallace type gave Liberals an obvious morally correct issue. The fallacy was in thinking that the Liberal wing was right about just about anything else; on the contrary, just because they got one thing right (the civil rights movement) doesn't mean they're right about welfare, gun control, etc.

Today, it's quite possible to take their oft-touted racial sensitivity (which is now a thing of the past) and shove it right back down their throats:

http://www.equalccw.com/practicalrace.html

:cool:

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
November 29, 2003, 02:40 AM
(correction) Jim March wrote:

Conservative racism of the Wallace type...

I don't think it's accurate to characterize George Wallace as either a racist or as a conservative.

Politically he was a populist, yellow-dog, big(D) Democrat.

On matters of race, he appointed more blacks to higher offices in the Alabama State Government, prior to the Civil Rights Act, than did any previous Governer. His opposition to school integration and the Civil Rights Act was based on the idea of State's Rights and the natural opposition any southerner would have to Federal Government meddling in local affairs, particularly when done so at the behest of a bunch of wealthy Irish-Catholic New Englanders. It wasn't based on any racist hatred of Blacks.

Jim March
November 29, 2003, 05:38 AM
First, Mike Irwin didn't write that, I did.

Second, it really doesn't matter whether or not Wallace was a racist, or to what degree. And it damnsure doesn't matter that he was a Democrat. The term "social conservative" crosses party lines, or at least it did back then.

What matters is that he was politically idiotic in terms of seeing how the issue would play out on the national stage and general public opinion. Segregation and racism was doomed in 1954. Trying to give it CPR as late as '64 or beyond energized the socially liberal/leftist wing of American politics in a way nothing else could...and it's still coasting on the energy Wallace and company imparted.

This is a different world now. Outside of a few dinosaurs like Pat Buchannon, the conservative/limited government wing has embraced racial equality to a degree that *surpasses* the socialists in many ways, and matches them in the rest. Black "political leadership" has become predatory and parasitic on the backs of their own people, promoting a "culture of victimhood" in order to retain personal power. Jesse Jackson's political life would have crumbled had he not had the prior reputation of "supporter of MLKJr" to fall back on.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
November 29, 2003, 06:15 AM
Jim March:

Second, it really doesn't matter whether or not Wallace was a racist, or to what degree. And it damnsure doens't matter that he was a Democrat. The term "social conservative" crosses party lines, or at least it did back then.
It matters in terms of the history of civil rights in the US, i.e., to historians.

The term you used to describe Wallace's beliefs was "conservative racisim." Thats quite different from describing him as a "social conservative."

What matters is that he was politically idiotic in terms of seeing how the issue would play out on the national stage and general public opinion.Segregation and racism was doomed in 1954. Trying to give it CPR as late as '64 or beyond energized the socially liberal/leftist wing of American politics in a way nothing else could...and it's still coasting on the energy Wallace and company imparted.
I disagree. Wallace was one of the longest serving, and most popular governers in American history. He was well on his way towards one of the best third party showings ever in a presidental election before Arthur Bremmer shot him in Laurel, Md back in '72. He very well might have exceeded Thurmond's, Perot's, and Roosevelts showings and he did help to swing the election to Nixon. It's hard to descirbe any politician who was that successfull as an "idiot."

As far as energizing the civil rights movement that we suffer the effects of today, the Kennedy's and LBJ did far more harm in that regard than did Wallace. What Wallace did was energize the political right and set the stage for the shift of the Southern States towards the Republican Party. This is something which every Republican since Nixon with his "southern strategy" in '72 has benefited from, excepting Bush senior in his 2nd run.

This is a different world now. Outside of a few dinosaurs like Pat Buchannon, the conservative/limited government wing has embraced racial equality to a degree that *surpasses* the socialists in many ways, and matches them in the rest.
Socialists aren't interested in equality, only control.

The conservative wing of the republican party embraced civil rights and racial equality as far back as Goldwater's run in '64. If you recall it was Nixon who was first responsible for instituting affirmative action.

Black "political leadership" has become predatory and parasitic on the backs of their own people, promoting a "culture of victimhood" in order to retain personal power. Jesse Jackson's political life would have crumbled had he not had the prior reputation of "supporter of MLKJr" to fall back on.
Not all. There are good Black leaders like Clarence Thomas, Collin Powell, J.C. Watts, Condi Rice, and others.

Jim March
November 29, 2003, 06:46 AM
Clarence Thomas, Collin Powell, J.C. Watts, Condi Rice, and others are all good American leaders who happen to have black skin. But they don't have the degree of leadership in the urban black communities that Jackson and Sharpton :barf: have.

Thomas, Powell and the rest you name aren't "parasites" or "predators". I wasn't disparaging "leaders with black skin", I was talking about the people who dominate urban black politics, with very rare exceptions such as Shannon Reeves (head of the Oakland California NAACP chapter and a very good guy).

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
November 29, 2003, 07:04 AM
Jim March:

Clarence Thomas, Collin Powell, J.C. Watts, Condi Rice, and others are all good American leaders who happen to have black skin. But they don't have the degree of leadership in the urban black communities that Jackson and Sharpton have.

Thomas, Powell and the rest you name aren't "parasites" or "predators". I wasn't disparaging "leaders with black skin", I was talking about the people who dominate urban black politics, with very rare exceptions such as Shannon Reeves (head of the Oakland California NAACP chapter and a very good guy).

These are good points you make. As much as you or I might wish otherwise, people like Rice, Thomas, etc. either don't have a constituiency among Black Americans or are actually reviled as Uncle Toms or sell-outs.

I don't see where or when Black Americans will ever have decent leadership beyond the honest, but only semi-competent, leftist types like D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams.

Nightcrawler
November 29, 2003, 07:11 AM
I know a man, a college professor of mine, whom I shall refer to as "Dr. B.". In the 1960s, Dr. B. drove down to the South, and participated in civil rights marches. He spent the night in jail for it, the same jail, as it would turn out, that Martin Luther King was also being held in. (He never met Dr. King face to face, I don't think, but he marched with him.)

Dr. B. was then considered a bleeding heart liberal.

Dr. B. did a tour in Vietnam ("We were winning when I left," he tells his classes, when someone refers to how Ho Chi Mihn supposedly whupped us).

Dr. B. belonged to the Democratic party for many years, until the early eighties when the national party started moving very far left of center.

Dr. B owns many guns, including an AR-15 type and an M14 type. He has a big shiny NRA belt buckle that he wears in class sometimes. He gives out .30-06 brass so students can use it to get into Brass Roots Organization functions if they so choose (at the same time he encourages us to go to functions from left leaning orgs, so that we can see both sides of the spectrum and think for ourselves).

Dr. B is now considered by his peers in the Political Science department to be a conservative reactionary, a right-wing extremist.

The man's politics have hardly changed in 30 years. It's the country's perception of things that have changed.

I bring this up as a counter to those that say that the Civil Rights movement was a big left wing sham. Because many of the people that supported it, and were considered liberals in their day, are considered conservative now.

Times have changed a lot.

Brett Bellmore
November 29, 2003, 08:23 AM
There were TWO civil rights movements. The first, which was actually trying to secure the right of "people {to} vote, sit where they they want on the bus, buy a house in whatever damn neighborhood they can afford and generally be treated as a human being..." won. Quite some time ago, as a matter of fact. Then it declared victory, closed up shop, and everybody went home to tackle the more difficult job of translating legal equality into social equality by hard work.

Yeah, right. It did what just about every movement that wins did. Rather than admit to victory, and get a life, they changed their goal. Abandoned legal equality in favor of equality of results. Started demanding that the government become it's big brother, instead of an impartial referee.

So now we've got the second civil rights movement, which is indeed a fraud, a sham, and a hoax. Which demands the restoration of Jim Crow, segregates campuses, and in all things rejects the idea that people should be judged by "the content of their character".

But it wasn't always that way.

Thumper
November 29, 2003, 08:55 AM
Honest discussion of the race issue in today's political climate is almost impossible.

There are many problems in some of our minority communities, but they can't be addressed until they can be discussed openly.

The de facto position in our society is that cultural sensitivity WILL be maintained, even at the expence of truth. When truth is a casualty, hope for resolution is a long way off.

Hkmp5sd
November 29, 2003, 09:03 AM
Anyone interested in the current racial/civil rights status in the United States might want to check out a new book. It's is very educational for persons of all races.

SCAM: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America by Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson

JohnBT
November 29, 2003, 11:02 AM
I lived through 1964, and that whole era for that matter, when Wallace was pushing his brand of nonsense. Once was enough.

You realize he later had a change of heart and mind, don't you?

Regarding the Dems and their plans for domination, I vote for the New Deal.

John

Drjones
November 29, 2003, 03:57 PM
Clarence Thomas, Collin Powell, J.C. Watts, Condi Rice, and others are all good American leaders who happen to have black skin. But they don't have the degree of leadership in the urban black communities that Jackson and Sharpton :barf: have.

Jim, that's a very interesting comment.

1) I didn't know that leaders of any skin color have any special obligation whatsoever to people of similar skin color.

2) You knock Thomas, Powell and others for not having "the degree of leadership in the urban black communities that Jackson and Sharpton :barf: have."

Your :barf: indicates a problem with the "leadership" (how you arrived at that term I'll never understand) that sharpton and his ilk provide. I'd describe the actions of sharpton et al as race-baiting, professing the virtues of the "entitlement" mentality, etc. to the black community.

Sharpton, jackson et al have done and are doing more harm to the black/minority community than all the members of the KKK could ever dream of doing.

Thumper
November 29, 2003, 04:04 PM
DJ, not to answer for Jim, but I think you misuderstood his post.

I think you both agree. Read again.

Drjones
November 29, 2003, 04:07 PM
Thumper:

I was thinking that was a possibility.

Jim; ignore my comments.

Sorry...been doing too much eating and too much homework... :o :D

Hope you had a good turkey-day, Thumper!

Thumper
November 29, 2003, 04:13 PM
I did...big doe and two hogs that morning that my dad agreed to cut up after I left, and a big ol' fried turkey for lunch.

:D

Drjones
November 29, 2003, 04:55 PM
Aw, man....I've always wanted to try fried turkey.... *drool*....

:)

Malone LaVeigh
November 30, 2003, 01:30 AM
The idea of the Civil Rights movement being a "conspiracy" of the Democratic Party for political gain is the most hare-brained thing I've ever read here. The Dems, whatever else you think of them, took a HUGE political loss when LBJ signed the Viting Rights Act. It was about the most principled political act in my lifetime, and probably the last one you're ever going to see a political party or politician make. The only thing I can think of that comes close is Howard Dean's opposition to the war.

I wait, but won't hold my breath, to hear anything any Repug has done in the last 50 years that comes close.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
November 30, 2003, 02:46 AM
I wait, but won't hold my breath, to hear anything any Repug has done in the last 50 years that comes close.

In terms of doing the right thing regardless of the political cost, I would put Gerald Ford's pardon of Nixon well above LBJ's support for the Civil Rights Act. Johnson could at least expect a payoff in the form of Black votership for the Democrat party, Blacks still voted in significant numbers for the Republican party back in the 1960's. Ford received no political benefit from the pardon whatsoever.

fallingblock
November 30, 2003, 03:14 AM
"The only thing I can think of that comes close is Howard Dean's opposition to the war."
************************************************************

:eek: That give the term 'principled' a leaner meaning:D .

Jim March
November 30, 2003, 05:25 AM
DrJones, I think you've sorted out what you got wrong already :) but in case anything is still unclear for others (because this stuff MATTERS):

1) I consider Condi Rice in particular an excellent leader, among the best we have today of any skin color. The rest mentioned range from "decent" to "well above average" (NOT including Jesse Jackson, Sharpton, etc.).

2) I do not believe that good leaders who happen to be black should try to "advance their own race" in any special way, with the possible exception of providing role models.

3) If the urban black community by and large prefers Jackson or Sharpton as a community spokesman while openly disparaging Rice, et al, then something is deeply wrong with urban black culture. Well no surprise there, something IS deeply wrong with urban black culture - the rate of urban black-on-black homicides is just...well, "horrifying" is a start, but nowhere near strong enough.

My view: urban black culture has been systematically ravaged over a 200 year period by white racism. The major elements: economic limits were placed on them, welfare programs were structured to destroy families, inadequate police staffing was provided while at the SAME time strict gun control was either applied purely to those communities or enforced with greater zeal. Not that long ago, black-on-black crime wasn't even investigated; while it's rare that a total lack of interest over black homicide victims happens today, there's still a serious disparity in the level of police resources brought to bear after a black is found dead versus a white, in the urban areas, esp. when there's also an economic disparity.

Folks, it is possible for an entire culture to go "clinically insane". The Germans managed it between 1935 and 1945, ditto the Japanese starting even earlier (based on horrorshows in China going back to...1933 I think?). In 1874 or so, most Americans would tell you that "the only good Indian was a dead Indian" and their other racial views were just as warped, to a degree I certainly consider "insane".

So I believe my OWN culture is quite capable of going stark raving bonkers. I think my own culture is at least slightly neurotic in some ways, namely regards gun control and the level of intrusive gov't the people who make up "my culture" seem to tolerate.

Orthonym
November 30, 2003, 05:26 AM
As someone who's multiply eligible to join SCV, I insist that my great-grandpas joined up to fight and die, not to preserve the Slaveocracy, but to resist the unconstitutional usurpations of the Republicans. As far as I know, my ancestors before and during the Lincoln War were honest yeoman farmers.

That said, I have no problem with looking out for the descendents of those people dragged over here in chains from Africa, considering all of those mean and grumpy Jim Crow laws passed in the South AFTER the War.


By "looking out for", I do not mean reparations. I mean undoing ( as much as possible) the bad things previously done, so as to set all of us now alive on an even footing to compete with each other.

The above does not apply, I think, to people recently arrived from Haiti, or Nigeria, or etc. who expect special consideration for the darkness of their skin. Doesn't seniority count for something? Importation of slaves from Africa to the USA officially (and mostly) stopped in 1807. That means, to me at least, that the people who used to be known as "American Negroes" are senior to the Irish, the 1848 Germans, the Ashkenazim, the Italians, as far as having been here for a while counts as having a stake in the country. It should not surprise anyone that those folks (the ORIGINAL Afro-Americans) are grumpy.


Edit: Oh, not to mention the huge Mexican elephant in the living room.

zelmo73
November 30, 2003, 07:23 AM
What about the Native Americans who seem to have been "passed over" in favor of African Amerian culture, Ortho? True, Native Americans receive certain perks such as free health care and the like, but as far as their actual culture is concerned, it is far less respected when compared to the likes of the blacks or, say, the Hispanics.

Hkmp5sd
November 30, 2003, 11:37 AM
The Dems, whatever else you think of them, took a HUGE political loss when LBJ signed the Viting Rights Act.

That was 40 years ago. The democratic party and the civil rights movements are no where near where they were back then. Following the death of MLK, the black movement went from equal rights and living together in peace to Jackson/Sharpton with reparations, Affirmative Action and an endless list of programs that do nothing but make the blacks dependent on the government and prey for their "leaders".

sw442642
November 30, 2003, 04:53 PM
(personal attack deleted) It has nothinhg to do with guns.
Second, the Civil Rights movement was because governments in the United States deprived people of basic rights on the basis of race. Blacks could not vote, go to school, etc. etc. They were beaten and lynched by agents of the state and private citizens - sometimes acting together - if they wanted to exercise their rights. Churches were bombed and little children killed.

Wallace was a flat out and out racist at that time. If he saw the light later, goodie for him. Apologists are full of crap.

If you don't like Al Sharpton now, that is really irrelevant to the reason for the Civil Rights movement.

The curse of the gun world is that we attract crap like this. (personal attack deleted) Without the Civil rights movement, blacks would be still not be able to go to school, live in good neighborhoods, etc. (personal attack deleted)

Thumper
November 30, 2003, 05:18 PM
Bet it doesn't and I bet it gets you banned...if you can't abide by the rules, don't play.

We try for civil discussion here...don't know why you feel you have to jump on Dr. J. He didn't post anything vitriolic here...you did.

If I were you, I'd attempt a rewrite with the attacks redone. Make your points...attacking other members just detracts from your cause.

Drjones
November 30, 2003, 05:39 PM
Thank you for your defense, Thumper.

sw442642, I don't know what your problem is, but I can guess. It's a lot easier to call names than it is to argue your opponents rationally.

I hardly think my hatred of people such as sharpton, jackson and other racist liberals qualifies as "racism." I hate people such as sharpton because of their actions, not because of their skin color. And don't you worry; there are plenty of people of all colors that I hate, if it makes you feel better.

Further, you are out of line. I have said nothing in this thread to warrant an attack like that.

I'll admit I am not PC and am not afraid to express it on other forums. If you have a problem with me or any of my comments, please email me and I'll clear it up for you.

Finally, you don't know me, what color my skin is, nor what my ancestors have been through. Don't judge me.

Let's not drag this thread further OT.

dustind
November 30, 2003, 06:27 PM
This is a great thread, it is great to see people talking openly about this.

sw442642 this thread is about civil rights. What evidence do you have about any members being racist, care to show any examples?

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
November 30, 2003, 07:56 PM
Wallace was a flat out and out racist at that time. If he saw the light later, goodie for him...

This just isn't true, it's countered by Wallace's record of appointing Blacks to State Government prior to the school desregation conflicts.

Wallace was a populist trying to guarantee his re-election when he stood in the school house door, he was not acting on any racist hatred of Blacks.

Malone LaVeigh
November 30, 2003, 08:24 PM
Gerald Ford's pardon of NixonI'd like to know what principle was being stood up for when Ford pardoned Nixon. Criminals shouldn't be prosecuted?
That was 40 years ago.And they're still paying for it. Any southerner who's honest about it today will tell you that the Republican Party is the party for white people. They left in droves after the CRA.

The point I was trying to make is that it's vanishingly rare to see either of the major parties pandering to anything but the lowest passions of their most recrudent constituency. For the Repugs, it started with Nixon's "Southern Strategy." Racism has been an unspoken understanding among southern white Republicans ever since. I don't have to imagine this. My relatives still in Miss. are quite explicit about it.

mountainclmbr
November 30, 2003, 09:22 PM
Granting special privilege due to race is as wrong as granting special gun rights based on which side of the citizen/civil servant line you use to earn your living....Except I believe that Citizens should be able to deny Civil Servants the right to carry guns while under our employment.

Cool Hand Luke 22:36
November 30, 2003, 09:28 PM
I'd like to know what principle was being stood up for when Ford pardoned Nixon

Mercy? Towards a man who was reportedly close to death a few months after leaving the White House? To a man who was reliably reported to be on a suicide watch by the Secret Service at that time?

Although it would have made the leftists in the news media infinitely happy to see Nixon hounded to death, pardoning him and sparing the country that spectacle was the correct thing to do in my opinion, even though it certainly may have subverted the principle of equal justice under the law.

Orthonym
December 1, 2003, 03:26 AM
Wallace was endorsed by the NAACP until he lost an election to a real ignorant yahoo race-baiter, whereupon he swore that he'd never be "out-******ed again!"

Hkmp5sd
December 1, 2003, 06:21 AM
And they're still paying for it. Any southerner who's honest about it today will tell you that the Republican Party is the party for white people.
You really need to update yourself on the current situation in the Civil Rights movement. Read a few books about Jackson, Sharpton, Waters, NAACP, Rainbow/PUSH, etc. Civil Rights has been corrupted into nothing more than scare tactics and big business. Do you really think any of the so-called "Black Leaders" want true fairness and equality? They are making millions perpetuating the hatred and fear between the races.

Any black person that disagrees with any of the "leaders" is attacked by all as an "Uncle Tom". Any white that disagrees with any of them is automatically labeled a racist and attacked by all of them.

Malone LaVeigh
December 2, 2003, 12:16 AM
You really need to update yourself on the current situation in the Civil Rights movement. Read a few books about Jackson, Sharpton, Waters, NAACP, Rainbow/PUSH, etc. Civil Rights has been corrupted into nothing more than scare tactics and big business. Do you really think any of the so-called "Black Leaders" want true fairness and equality? They are making millions perpetuating the hatred and fear between the races.

Any black person that disagrees with any of the "leaders" is attacked by all as an "Uncle Tom". Any white that disagrees with any of them is automatically labeled a racist and attacked by all of them. You're painting with a pretty broad brush there, but I would probably agree about Jackson, Sr. and Sharpton. That doesn't in any way refute what I said about the Republican Party in the South.

Jim March
December 2, 2003, 12:45 AM
The news is not completely bleak within the "black community". Some of the NAACP chapters are bordering on open revolt from the core body...both Sacramento and Oakland (Calif) are led by pro-RKBA individuals. The Oakland NAACP chapter is led by a *Republican* name of Shannon Reeves.

Dunno how many other chapters are waking up...but just the existence of those is reason for hope.

dustind
December 2, 2003, 04:41 PM
You're painting with a pretty broad brush thereThat is amazing. I just got home and opened this thread to say the same about you and your Mississippi republican comment. I guess if you meant party that is a little different. It sounded like you meant the whole state, or the whole south(population) by your first comment.

buzz_knox
December 2, 2003, 04:53 PM
And they're still paying for it. Any southerner who's honest about it today will tell you that the Republican Party is the party for white people. They left in droves after the CRA.

I'm honest, and I say you have no clue what you're talking about. You're also rather incoherent. If you say that whites left the Democratic party, wrong. Most of the people (whites and blacks) in my state belong to the Democratic party, as do most of the people I know. I have never met anyone who changed affiliations due to the CRA. Not one. I choose not to join because I find most of the Democratic party stances offensive, if not outright disgusting, and an abomination of what this country was meant to be. And the constant race baiting and class warfare that forms the basis of their platform simply proves that point.

The CRA was the final Kennedy legacy. He helped get it rolling on a national level, and it's passage was almost guaranteed after his death. LBJ would have been politically castrated if he hadn't signed it. Principled decision? Yeah, right.

Malone LaVeigh
December 3, 2003, 02:38 AM
That is amazing. I just got home and opened this thread to say the same about you and your Mississippi republican comment. I guess if you meant party that is a little different. It sounded like you meant the whole state, or the whole south(population) by your first comment.I thought I made it clear I was talking about the party.
If you say that whites left the Democratic party, wrong.How old are you? I remember when there was effectively no Republican Party in Mississippi. My cousin worked for Carol Gartin in those days, and had a pretty good handle on state politics. She's now a Repug, as are almost all of the white people I talk to there. Maybe you missed the fact that 2 of the last 3 governors have been Repugs.
The CRA was the final Kennedy legacy.It's a bit more complicated than that. Kennedy either wasn't able or willing to push the act through. LBJ was indeed responding to the inevitability of history when he arm-twisted and bribed the last southern Democrats to go along with it. In the final count, the Dems came down on the right side, and I consider that to their credit.

If you enjoyed reading about "The Civil Rights Movement: Fraud, Sham, and Hoax" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!