I suppose that it would make more sense to say that he was an opportunist who simply used code words and innuendo to play the race card in order to win elections throughout 58 years of public life.
It’s not surprising that the Jesse Helms Center would try to obfuscate Helms’ role in Willis Smith’s campaign, as Helms himself did in his autobiography. It’s not plausible, as Helms claims (after being silent about it for decades), that the “Wake Up WHITE PEOPLE” flyer was created by people unaffiliated with Willis Smith’s campaign. Far more plausible is the story as investigated by Ernest Ferguson, that Helms was intimately involved with the Smith campaign and that flyer in particular.
I agree that this would make more sense. But IMO it makes even more sense than that to view Helms as a guy who - for better or for worse - said what he believed in. An opportunist would have moved somewhat to the left and won by far bigger margins.
Agreed. You have to look at the veracity of their quoted sources.
Why not? This is fairly common in political campaigns.
I agree that this is a better source. I would consider the issue unsettled at this point, subject again to the veracity of Hoover Adams versus the others quoted.
Also, this happened:
You can never know for sure what went on in someone’s mind. But based on a predominance of evidence, including his own words (such as “The Negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint…”), reports on his campaigns and his campaign ads, I think it’s reasonable to conclude that Jesse Helms was motivated at least in part by bad feelings about black people.
I agree that that’s a reasonable conclusion. I don’t think it’s the only possible reasonable conclusion, but it’s reasonable and I wouldn’t argue it.
But “motivated at least in part by bad feelings about black people” is a far cry from “unapologetic racist and segregationist”, which is what I disputed.
Interviewed in 2005 and asked about race relations in the 20s and 30s, Helms said: “In so many ways I think the relationship between the races was far better than it is now. I could give you a thousand examples of why I’m convinced of that. I don’t know of anybody who ever persecuted anybody of another race.”
That’s just laughable. Perhaps Helms was just extremely, massively deluded.
He was definitely unapologetic, and I’d say “motivated at least in part by bad feelings about black people” falls square into the boundaries of “racist”. Considering the plausible reports about his involvement in Willis Smith’s campaign, I also think it’s reasonable to conclude that Helms opposed racial integration. So I think it’s fair and reasonable to categorize him as an “unapologetic racist and segregationist”.
Actually, a review of his election/campaign history shows him pulling out the code words and innuendo most frequently when it appeared that he might lose, thus energizing a white racist vote that brought him victory.
Back to the OP: Did John Wayne say this
to Jesse Helms?
:dubious: Of course it would.
+1
Fighting ignorance, here are three sources from Wikipedia for that quote:
[ol]
[li]Luebke, Paul (2007). Tar Heel Politics 2000. University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0-8078-4756-5. Retrieved July 13, 2008.[/li][li]Heineman, Kenneth J. (1998). God is a Conservative: Religion, Politics, and Morality in Contemporary America. NYU Press. ISBN 978-0-8147-3554-1. Retrieved July 13, 2008.[/li][li]Longley, Kyle; Jeremy D. Mayer, Michael Schaller, John W. Sloan (2007). Deconstructing Reagan: Conservative Mythology and America’s Fortieth President. M.E. Sharpe. ISBN 978-0-7656-1591-6. Retrieved July 13, 2008.[/ol][/li]
(You’re welcome.)
nm
Thank you Czarcasm, but I think the “well” is irredeemably “poisened”.
I can sorta see the “racist” part, as it’s implying that being a Negro or a Communist, or working to advance a leftist agenda friendly to Negroes and/or Communists, is a bad thing…but how do you get “segregationist” from that remark?
I know it is, but I’d like to find out the answer to that question, and I’ve been told by a moderator that I can only ask it in this particular thread.
I saw the moderator’s post. We can but hope someone will answer my original question here.
If it walks like a segregationist and quacks like a segregationist…
Ok, but where’s the walk and the, er, quack, in conflating the Civil Rights movement with Communism?
I’m no wikipedia basher, but none of those sources is linkable, so there isn’t any easy way to check what they actually say. And the “talk” page of that article isn’t much help.