Percentagewise, more Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act than Democrats.
It’s rather hard to answer the OP since Lincoln’s presidency was so dominated by the Civil War (not to hijack the thread, but can anyone think of any accomplishment of his presidency that wasn’t war-related?). Old Abe was formerly a Whig and, if I recall, a Railroad Lawyer, so his political notions probably leaned toward the conservative and/or plutocratic, which is the same general spectrum covered by the Republican Party today.
I’m not sure that’s true. LBJ was able to get a surprising number of Southern politicians to vote his way, and the Northern Democrats were united in favor of it. Traditionally, from Reconstruction through the 1950s, Republicans would ally with Southern Democrats to keep Civil Rights legislation from getting passed. The Republicans were usually working to get a quid pro quo on a bill important to their constituencies.
It is true.
From Wiki:
The conservative Southern Democrats who voted against it have, for the most part, switched to the GOP as a result of both the national Democrats’ repudiation of discrimination with that vote and of the GOP’s reactive “Southern Strategy”. Things do keep changing.
The Homestead Act, which gave free land in the West to anyone who was willing to go out and farm it. The Morrill Act, which established the “land grant” college system. The Pacific Railway Act, which gave land to the railroads to encourage them to complete a transcontinental railroad. Those were some.
Well obviously. I was responding to the sillyness of Little Nemo’s comment.
No, traditionally Southern Democrats would filibuster civil rights legislation, with near-unanimous support from Northern Democrats and scattered support from apathetic Republicans. For decades, the only “civil rights bills” even considered by Congress were anti-lynching bills. As one example of the partisan split, the Dyer anti-lynching bill passed the House of Representatives in 1922 with Republicans voting 222-17 in favor and Democrats 102-8 against. It was filibustered in the Senate.
It wasn’t until after World War II that a majority of Northern Democrats came to support civil rights legislation.
Do you have the figures on that? I’ve been looking, but can’t seem to find the recorded roll call vote. It’ll be interesting to see what percentage of Democrats who voted no on the act switched parties.
I’ve found the Senate roll call vote, and ElvisL1ves, it doesn’t seem to back up your statement. 21 Democrats voted against the Civil Rights act of 1964, and of those 21, only one, Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, switched parties. One other, Willis Robertson of Virginia (Pat Robertson’s father), appears to have become a Republican after he left the Senate. The other 19 Southern Democrats who voted no remained good Democrats.
Or at least remained Democrats.
He threw his hands in air
And waved them like he just don’t care
Atlanta
Atlanta
Atlanta’s on fire
We don’t have no water let the mother fucker burn!
Well, “Good Democrat” in that they remained loyal to the party. I’m not judging their personal morality.
In 1955, at the age of ten, I might well have believed blacks were inferior. I felt kind of, I dunno, paternal towards my (many) black chums. My family was poor, but our black neighbors were just a little bit poorer, and none went to catholic school as I did.
As I moved into my teens and saw the world as the bigger picture, I learned the truth. Enrolling in public school for high school was a true (and beneficial) eye-opener.
I think Lincoln went to public school.
I think Bush is still in catholic school.
I think neither could be described as a racist in the meanest sense of the word, and I don’t think Bush is a republican in the same sense that Lincoln was.
And he seems to feel that anyone outside his (perceived) sphere is somehow inferior.
Peace,
mangeorge
I phrased that clumsily. I was referring to conservative Southerners in general, who indeed have generally switched parties. Just as, say, George Wallace was “naturally” a Democrat then, he’d be just as “naturally” a Republican now. It is simply wrong, not just ingenuous, to claim a continuity of existence between the then-Democrats who voted against that bill and today’s Democratic Party, but *not * to claim continuity with today’s *GOP * - and the oft-repeated, rarely-accepted claim of today’s GOP to be the “party of Lincoln” is much further removed than that from the realm of fact.
On racial issues, Lincoln said different things at different times to different audiences — in other words, much like a politician. Entire books have been written on the evolution of Lincoln’s attitudes toward slavery and African Americans…
Thats’ not a very good example; it’s the exception. Warren G Harding publicly supported the bill so the conservative Republicans fell into line. I should point out that not all, or some years even most, Republicans were conservatives. Anyway, when this coalition was successful, anti-lynching and voting bills didn’t even get to the floor. This is according to Russel Nye in Midwestern Progressive Politics.