democrats and republicans: in their own words...democrats and republicans: in their own words a 124...

Democrats and Republicans:In Their Own Words

A 124 Year History of Major Civil Rights EffortsBased on a Side-by-Side Comparison

of the Early Platforms of theTwo Major Political Parties

2

Introduction:

What is a Party Platform?A party platform is a document produced by a political party every four years

(prior to each presidential election) that sets forth that party’s beliefs and values aswell as its policy positions on important issues of the day. While a platform ad-dresses dozens of issues and sets forth that party’s vision for America, this booklethas compiled the position of the two major parties only on civil rights and racialjustice issues – a subject at the forefront of American policy debates for decades.

The Democrats and Republicans platform declarations on this subject that ap-pear in this booklet commence with the year 1840 and continue until the 1964 plat-form immediately preceding the creation and passage of the three major landmarkcivil rights measures in 1964 and 1965: the 24th amendment abolishing the poll tax,the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. These civil rights decla-rations reveal how, or whether, the parties embraced the belief set forth in theDeclaration of Independence that “all men are created equal, and are endowed bytheir Creator with certain inalienable rights.”

The following excerpts have been taken directly from the platforms and havenot been altered. Annotations have been added to chronicle the history of specificcivil rights events and issues mentioned by the platforms across the years.

ON RACIAL JUSTICE & CIVIL RIGHTS 3

THE DEMOCRATS’ PLATFORM THE REPUBLICANS’ PLATFORM

1840, 1844, 1848

[Republican Party not yet formed.]

1840, 1844, 1848

All efforts by abolitionists . . . to in-terfere with questions of slavery . . . arecalculated to lead to the most alarmingand dangerous consequences and . . . havean inevitable tendency to diminish thehappiness of the people and endanger thestability and permanency of the union. †

† In the years preceding this platform, numer-ous occasions had arisen in Congress in which pro-slavery forces sought to extend slavery and anti-slavery forces sought to prohibit it. For example,in 1820, the Democratic Congress passed the Mis-souri Compromise. That law first repealed the pro-visions of the original 1789 anti-slavery law for-bidding the extension of slavery into any federalterritory, and then authorized the extension of sla-very into new federal territories. Founding Fathersstill alive at that time – including John Adams,Thomas Jefferson, and Rufus King – loudly de-nounced the Missouri Compromise and the ex-pansion of slavery. Subsequently, John Quincy Ad-ams and Daniel Webster became congressionalleaders in opposing slavery while those such as JohnC. Calhoun fought aggressively to strengthen andexpand it. This plank in the Democratic platformcondemned the efforts of abolitionists such as JohnQuincy Adams (a member of Congress at thattime, and titled the hell-hound of abolition for hisefforts against slavery), asserting that the end ofslavery would not only reduce the happiness ofAmerica but would also lead to its destruction.

1852

[Republican Party not yet formed.]

1852

The Democratic Party will resist allattempts at renewing – in Congress orout of it – the agitation of the slaveryquestion [i.e., will oppose all efforts toabolish slavery].

1856

The Democratic Party . . . will abideby and adhere to a faithful execution ofthe acts . . . settled by the Congress of

1856 †

As our Republican fathers, when theyhad abolished slavery in all our nationalterritory, ordained that no person shallbe deprived of life, liberty, or property

† This was the first Republican platform, andit contained only nine planks; however, six ofthe nine set forth bold declarations of equalityand civil rights for African-Americans, basedon the principles enshrined in the Declarationof Independence. This emphasis on racial jus-tice was the primary reason that the Republi-can Party was formed.

In May 1854, the Democratic-controlled Con-gress passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act, extend-ing slavery into federal territories where it hadpreviously been forbidden, thus increasing the na-tional area in which slavery would be permitted.This law led to what was called “bleeding Kan-sas,” where pro-slavery forces came pouring intothe territory and fought violent battles againstthe anti-slavery inhabitants of that territory. Fol-lowing the passage of this pro-slavery law, a num-ber of the anti-slavery Democrats in Congress –along with anti-slavery members from other po-litical parties, including the Whigs, Free-Soilers,

DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS: IN THEIR OWN WORDS4


without due process of law, it becomesour duty to maintain this provision ofthe Constitution against all attempts toviolate it for the purpose of establishingslavery in the territories of the UnitedStates. . . . [W]e deny the authority ofCongress, of a territorial legislation, [or]of any individual or association of indi-viduals, to give legal existence to slaveryin any territory of the United States. †

† The 1850 act mentioned here (the FugitiveSlave Law) was passed by the Democratically-controlled Congress. That law required North-erners to return escaped slaves back into slaveryor else pay severe and repressive fines. In manyinstances, the law became little more than an ex-cuse for southern slavehunters to kidnap FreeBlacks in the North and force them into slaveryin the South. If a black was simply accused of be-ing a slave – regardless of whether he actually wasor not – under the Fugitive Slave Law he was de-nied the benefit of both a jury trial and the rightof habeas corpus, despite the fact that those rightswere explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution.The Fugitive Slave Law was disastrous for blacksin the North, and as a consequence of the atro-cious provisions of this law, some 20,000 blacks inthe North fled the United States to Canada. Infact, the Underground Railroad reached the heightof its activity during this period, helping thou-sands of slaves escape from slavery in the Southall the way into Canada simply to escape the reachof the Fugitive Slave Law that the Democratspassed and were affirming in this plank.

†† This plank affirms the support of theDemocrat Party for the recently delivered 1857Dred Scott decision declaring that blacks were notpersons but instead were property and therefore

and Emancipationists – formed the RepublicanParty to fight slavery and secure equal civil rightsfor black Americans. The name of the new partyreflected its committment to the principles of free-dom and equality first set forth in the governingdocuments of the “Republic” (hence “Republican”)before pro-slavery members of Congress had per-verted those original principles.

† This plank reiterates Republican support forthe original anti-slavery acts of the early federalgovernment. Specifically, this plank affirms Repub-lican support for the principles expressed in theoriginal 1789 federal anti-slavery law (the North-west Ordinance), in which the Founding Fathers(“our Republican fathers”) forbade slavery in anyof the federal territories then held. As a result,Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, andother states entered the nation as free states.

†† When the Constitution was written in1787, the overwhelming majority of states wantedto ban the slave trade but strenuous objectionsfrom North Carolina, South Carolina, and Geor-gia prevented that ban from being included inthe Constitution. However, a clause was success-fully inserted in the Constitution allowing Con-gress to ban the slave trade in twenty years. In1794, Congress banned the exportation of slaves

1860

[W]e brand the recent reopening ofthe African slave trade – under the coverof our national flag, aided by perversionsof judicial power †† – as a crime against

1850: “the act for reclaiming fugitivesfrom service or labor.” † . . . [We sup-port] non-interference by Congresswith slavery in state and territory, or inthe District of Columbia [i.e., we op-pose all congressional attempts to abol-ish slavery in any area of the nation].

1860

The Democrat Party will abide bythe decision of the Supreme Court ofthe United States upon these questionsof constitutional law. †† . . . [T]he en-



actments of the state legislatures to de-feat the faithful execution of the Fugi-tive Slave Law † are hostile in charac-ter, subversive of the Constitution, andrevolutionary in their effect.

had no rights. That infamous decision by theCourt announced that African Americans “hadno rights which the white man was bound to re-spect; and that the Negro might justly and law-fully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.” Notonly did Democrats affirm their support for thisdecision with this plank in their platform but theyeven distributed copies of the Dred Scott decisionalong with their platform to affirm their beliefthat it was proper to have slavery and to holdAfrican Americans in bondage.

† The attempts by the “state legislatures todefeat the faithful execution of the Fugitive SlaveLaw” (refer to the note about this law on previ-ous page) refer to what were called “Personal Lib-erty Laws” passed by Northern anti-slavery states.These laws provided that if an individual was ac-cused of being a slave, he could have the benefitof an attorney, the right of habeas corpus, and ajury. They also prohibited state officials fromassissting in the return of any fugitive slave. Eachof these legal protections were direct affronts tothe atrocious federal law.

The Fugitive Slave Law, passed by the Demo-cratic Congress, had been designed to assist slaveowners. For example, under that law a $10 feewas paid to a federal official who ruled that ablack was a runaway slave but only $5 was paid ifhe ruled that the black was free. Not surprisinglyin the decade following the passage of the Fugi-tive Slave Law, 332 individuals were ruled to berunaway slaves but only 11 free. Furthermore,under the Fugivite Slave Law, federal marshalswere authorized to impress any citizen into hunt-ing for a slave, thereby making every citizen –even anti-slavery citizens – assist in sending es-caped slaves back into slavery. The “Personal Lib-erty Laws” about which the Democratic platformhere complains were an attempt by Northernstates to protect the constitutional rights of Af-rican Americans.

humanity and a burning shame to ourcountry and age; and we call upon Con-gress to take prompt and efficient mea-sures for the total and final suppressionof that execrable traffic. ††

out of any state, and on January 1, 1808 – in ac-cordance with the constitutional provision – Con-gress completely banned the slave trade. In the1857 Dred Scott decision, the U. S. Supreme Court– disregarding the constitutionally-authorizedban – declared that Congress could not interferewith slavery or prohibit it in any territory, thereby“reopening the African slave trade [through] per-versions of judicial power.”

†† Republicans won the election of 1860 and,in accordance with this plank in their platform,they begin to take action to end slavery. For ex-ample, in 1862, they passed a federal law prohib-iting slavery in the federal territories – a directaffront to the 1857 Dred Scott decision in whichthe U. S. Supreme Court had forbidden Congressfrom ending slavery in any territory. In 1863,Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation– another act directly refuting the Supreme Courtdecision. The Republican Congress had indeedbegun pursuing measures for the “total and finalsuppression of that execrable traffic.”

DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS: IN THEIR OWN WORDS

1864

As slavery was the cause and now con-stitutes the strength of [the Civil War], †

and as [slavery] must be always and ev-erywhere hostile to the principles of re-publican government, justice and the na-tional safety demand its utter and com-plete [elimination] from the soil of theRepublic; and while we uphold andmaintain the acts and proclamations bywhich the government in its own defensehas aimed a deathblow at this giganticevil, we are in favor, furthermore, of suchan amendment to the Constitution . . .as shall terminate and forever prohibit theexistence of slavery within the limits ofthe jurisdiction of the United States. ††

† Many today assert that the Civil War wasnot over slavery, but historical records prove oth-erwise. The secession documents of the South-ern states that left the Union, as well as theofficial documents of the Confederate Statesof America, describe that Southern nation as aconfederation of “slave-holding” states. Accord-ing to historical records, slavery was the pri-mary distinction between the North and theSouth, and Rebels were therefore fighting forthe existence of a slave-holding nation.

†† In 1860, the Republicans – for the first timein history – had won the national elections and in1861 therefore took control of the Presidency, House,and Senate. They promptly passed a number ofcivil rights laws, including laws abolishing slaveryin all U. S. territories and in Washington, D.C. Theyalso passed laws that began to open courts of jus-tice to allow African American participation.

Even though they had already “aimed a death-blow at this gigantic evil,” they realized that progressthrough such laws was too slow. They thereforecalled for a constitutional amendment to give thema single means to finally and totally end the evil.Thisplatform plank was the first official call by a politi-cal party for what became the 13th Amendment tothe Constitution abolishing slavery.

1864

The direct interference of the mili-tary authorities of the United States inthe recent elections held in Kentucky,Maryland, Missouri, and Delaware † wasa shameful violation of the Constitu-tion; and a repetition of such acts in theapproaching election will be held asrevolutionary, and resisted with all themeans and power under our control.

† At the outbreak of the Civil War, the elevenpro-slavery states that seceded from the Unionto form the slave-holding Confederate Statesof America were almost completely Democratic;in fact, every southern Democratic member ofthe U. S. Congress gave up his seat and joinedthe Confederacy. However, the states of Ken-tucky, Maryland, Missouri, and Delaware (called“border states” because they were the bufferstates caught between the Union States and theConfederate States) did not secede, even thoughthey were pro-slavery and largely Democratic.When the election of 1864 occurred, the pro-slavery forces in those border states used vio-lence to keep anti-slavery Republicans from vot-ing. Federal troops were therefore sent in to pro-tect the ballot boxes and ensure that all citizenscould vote. It was this protection of voting rightsthrough the use of federal troops that the Demo-crats here denounce.

6


1868

The Democratic party . . . demand[s]. . . the abolition of the Freedmen’sBureau and all political instrumentali-ties designed to secure Negro su-premacy. † . . . Instead of restoring theUnion, it [the Republican Party] has –so far as in its power – dissolved it, andsubjected ten states, in time of pro-found peace, to military despotism andNegro supremacy. † †

1868

This Convention declares its sympa-thy with all the oppressed people whichare struggling for their rights.

† The “political instrumentalities” that the Democrats believed were “designed to secure Negrosupremacy” included not only the Freedman’s Bureau but also the various civil rights laws that had beenpassed by Republicans. By 1868, Republicans had not only abolished slavery but also passed civil rightslaws repealing the Fugitive Slave Act, removing color restrictions, and opening juries, marriage, voting,employment, education and military service to African Americans. Democrats vehemently opposedeach of those civil rights laws, and Democratic President Andrew Johnson even vetoed several of thebills, but Republicans had overridden each of his vetoes. So opposed were Democrats to equality forAfrican Americans that at the passage of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery,only 19 of the 82 Democrats (23%) voted to end slavery while 100 percent of Republicans – 118 of 118 –voted for the Amendment. Democrats were so accustomed to the suppression of black Americans thatsimply to give them equality – to make blacks and whites equal under the law – meant “Negro su-premacy” to the Democrats, which they condemn in this platform.

†† The years from 1865-1868 were marked not by profound peace – as Democrats here claim – butrather by profound violence, with numerous deadly mob attacks against African Americans. The tenstates that were “subjected to military despotism and Negro supremacy” were ten of the Democraticstates that had seceded from the Union during the Civil War to form the slave-holding nation of theConfederate States of America. The “despotism” to which those states were subjected included thefederal requirement that the southern states rewrite their state constitutions, and have citizens in thosestates ratify those new constitutions, to recognize the civil rights of African Americans.

Since the newly enfranchised black voters outnumbered white voters in many Democratic southernstates, only if blacks were prevented from voting couold the civil rights provisions in the state constitu-tions be defeated. Therefore, massive riots erupted in many southern Democratic states, with Demo-crats attacking black voters on their way to the polls and causing the deaths of thousands. Federaltroops were eventually sent in to quell the violence and allow voting to proceed. With federal protec-tion of black voters, those constitutions eventually did pass, thus providing civil rights for AfricanAmericans. (Unfortunately, however, within ten years, those states were released from Reconstructionand federal troops were withdrawn. Democrats regained control of those states and revised their con-stitutions to exclude civil rights for blacks.)

Therefore, this platform statement is patently false: there was no profound peace, and the “militarydespotism” about which Democrats here complain was simply the use of federal troops to protect ballotboxes and allow African Americans to vote.





1872

We pledge ourselves to maintain theunion of these states, emancipation, andenfranchisement, and to oppose any re-opening of the questions settled by the13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments of theConstitution. † We demand the imme-diate and absolute removal of all disabili-ties imposed on account of the rebellion[Civil War] †† which was finally subduedseven years ago, believing that universalamnesty will result in complete pacifi-cation in all sections of the country.

1872

During eleven years of [congressional]supremacy, it [the Republican Party] has.. . . suppressed a gigantic rebellion, eman-cipated four millions of slaves, decreedthe equal citizenship of all, and estab-lished universal suffrage [voting]. Com-plete liberty and exact equality in the en-joyment of all civil, political, and publicrights should be established and effec-tually maintained throughout the Unionby efficient and appropriate state andfederal legislation. † Neither the law norits administration should admit any dis-crimination in respect of citizens by rea-son of African Americans, creed, color,or previous condition of servitude.

† Republicans were first elected as the major-ity party in 1861. Over the next eleven years, theypassed almost two dozen civil right laws – andthree constitutional amendments – to reverse thebarriers of discrimination, segregation, and in-stitutional racism.

† This is a false and misleading promise, forDemocrats had relentlessly opposed thoseAmendments – and the civil rights laws basedon them. Not only had Democrats stridently op-posed the 13th Amendment (see note on p. 7 aboutthis Amendment), but not a single Democrat inCongress voted either for the 14th Amendment(declaring that former slaves were full citizensand therefore entitled to all the rights and privi-leges of any other citizen in the state in whichthey lived) or the 15th Amendment (granting ex-plicit voting rights to black Americans). In fact,in the civil rights bill of 1871 to punish Klan vio-lence, not one Democrat in Congress voted forthat bill. The same was true with other major civilrights laws. Therefore, voting records prove thisplatform declaration by Democrats to be patentlyfalse.

†† The “disabilities” about which Democratshere complain were restrictions that Congress hadplaced upon the most strident racist individualsand states after the War. For example, Congressrequired that before the former ConfederateStates could be readmitted, they must first ratifyboth the 13th and 14th Amendments (and the 14th

Amendment forbid former Rebels from holdingoffice), and then create new state constitutionsthat guaranteed equal civil rights for black Ameri-cans. These “disabilities” – necessary to ensurethat progress was made in civil rights – had adirect negative impact upon Democrats since vir-tually every Confederate was also a Democrat.



1876

When, in the economy of Provi-dence, this land was to be purged ofhuman slavery, and when the strengthof government of the people by thepeople and for the people was to bedemonstrated, the Republican Partycame into power. . . . The RepublicanParty has preserved . . . the great truthspoken at its cradle, that “all men arecreated equal, that they are endowed bytheir Creator with certain inalienablerights among which are life, liberty, andthe pursuit of happiness, that for theattainment of these ends, governmentshave been instituted among men, de-riving their just powers from the con-sent of the governed.” Until these truthsare cheerfully obeyed – and if need bevigorously enforced – the work of theRepublican party is unfinished. The per-manent pacification of the Southernsection of the Union, and the completeprotection of all its citizens in the freeenjoyment of all their rights, are dutiesto which the Republican Party is sa-credly pledged.

1876

The Democratic Party of the UnitedStates . . . reaffirm[s] our faith in thepermanence of the federal union, ourdevotion to the Constitution of theUnited States, with its amendmentsuniversally accepted † as a final settle-ment of the controversies that engen-dered civil war; and do here record oursteadfast confidence in the perpetuityof Republican self-government, in ab-solute acquiescence in the will of themajority, †† – the vital principle of re-publics – . . . [and] in the equality of all

† This statement is completely false. Just asthe Democrats had fought every civil rights billand amendment to the Constitution (see note onp. 7 about opposition to the Amendments), theywere still doing so at the time this platform dec-laration was written.For example, in the 1875 civilrights bill to prohibit segregation and racial dis-crimination, not one Democrat in Congress votedfor that bill. Significantly, Republicans did passthat bill over the strident and virtually unanimousopposition of Democrats, but following its pas-sage, it would be another 69 years before the nextcivil rights law was passed. Why? Because in 1876,Democrats gained control of the U. S. House, andwith a divided Congress, Democrats successfullyblocked any further progress in the civil rightsarena until the mid 1960s.

†† Democrats said they were willing to abideby the will of the majority but they used severalmeans to keep blacks from being part of that ma-jority. After regaining control of the south in 1876,Democratic state legislatures enacted poll taxes,literacy tests, “grandfather” clauses, multiple bal-lots, hide-and-seek polling places, Black Codes( Jim Crow laws), forced segregation, white-onlyprimaries, property ownership requirements, andannual voter registration fees to prevent blacksfrom having any voice and to exclude them frombeing part of any majority. Therefore, the clausein this platform affirming the “will of the major-ity” actually means only the white majority.


1880

It [the Republican Party] suppressed arebellion which had armed nearly a mil-lion men to subvert the national author-ity. It reconstructed the Union of theStates, with freedom instead of slavery asits cornerstone. † It transformed 4,000,000human beings from the likeness of thingsto the rank of citizens. It relieved Con-gress from the infamous work of huntingfugitive slaves, †† and charged it to see thatslavery does not exist.

1880

The existing administration is therepresentative of conspiracy only, † † and

† This reference to a nation with “slavery asits cornerstone” refers to a famous speech by thesame title given by Democrat Rep. AlexanderStephens of Georgia, who left Congress to be-come the Vice President of the Confederacy. Inhis speech (“African Slavery: The Corner-Stoneof the Southern Confederacy”), Stephens firstcorrectly acknowledged that the Founding Fa-thers had never intended for slavery to remainin America because their ideas “rested upon theassumption of the equality of races.” ButStephens then declared: “This was an error. . . .Our new government [the Confederate Statesof America] is founded upon exactly the oppo-site idea; its foundations are laid – its corner-stone rests – upon the great truth that the Negrois not equal to the white man. That slavery – sub-ordination to the superior race – is [the] naturaland moral condition [of the Negro]. This – ournew government – is the first in the history ofthe world based upon this great physical, philo-sophical, and moral truth.” Thus, by defeatingthe Confederacy, Republicans had defeated thenation with “slavery as its cornerstone.”

†† See the notes about the Fugitive Slave Lawand its repeal on pp. 4-5.

citizens before just laws of their ownenactment, . . . [as well as] in the faith-ful education of the rising generation †

† Democratic support for the “faithful edu-cation of the rising generation” did not includeeducation for African Americans. In fact, 87 per-cent of the Democrats in Congress voted againstthe 1872 education bill to help African Ameri-cans. Segregated, inferior, and dilapidated schoolsfor blacks became the norm in the southern statesunder Democratic control.

The Democrats were outspoken in their at-tempts to segregate African Americans from pub-lic schools For example, in 1872 Democratic U. S.Representative James Harper of North Carolinawidely distributed a piece called: “SeparateSchools for Whites and Colored with Equal Ad-vantages; Mixed Schools Never!” And in 1875,the Democratic Executive Committee of Ohioissued a piece on public education to “expose”what they called the dirty “tricks” of the Repub-licans, complaining: “The Only Positive Actionof the Republican Party on the School Questionin Ohio, is to Destroy the System by Requiringthat Whites and Blacks be Educated Together.”

The Democratic opposition to open educa-tion for black youth sometimes went beyondwords to acts of violence – as when Democratsburned eight schools in Memphis in which blackyouth were being taught. Additionally, sincechurches in the South frequently provided edu-cation for youth, such churches were also regu-larly burned . Therefore – contrary to the Demo-crats’ claim in this platform – the evidences ofthe widespread Democratic opposition to equaleducation for black youth in those years are nu-merous and abundant, their support for “thefurhtered education of the rising generations”meant only for white students.

† †The Democrats are here complainingabout the manner in which Republican Ruth-erford B. Hayes (the President at that time) had

10


ON RACIAL JUSTICE & CIVIL RIGHTS

its claim of right to surround the bal-lot-boxes with troops and deputy mar-shals, to intimidate and obstruct theelection, and the unprecedented use ofthe veto to maintain its corrupt and des-potic powers, insult the people and im-peril their institutions.

won the presidency, claiming that the outcome of the 1876 election was the result of a “conspiracy.”The 1876 election had been between Republican Rutherford B. Hayes and Democrat Samuel Tilden,

and 185 electoral votes were needed for either to win the presidency. When the votes were counted,Democrat Tilden had received 184 electoral votes and Republican Hayes had received 165. Neither hadreceived the necessary votes, but there was a total of 20 disputed electoral votes that had not beencounted. If Republican Hayes received all 20 of those votes, he would became President; if DemocratTilden received even one of those votes, he would became President.

The uncounted votes came primarily from the disputed southern states of Florida, Louisiana, andSouth Carolina. In those three states, dual election results had been reported – one tally in each stateshowed Republicans had won, the other tally showed Democrats had won. In each of those three states,Democrats had been extremely active both in suppressing the black vote through violence and in alter-ing the counts at the ballot box. Democrats therefore claimed that they had won those three states.However, Republicans counted the suppressed African American votes and ignored the fraudulentvotes. They therefore claimed that they had won those three states.

Since the Electoral College did not count the disputed votes, and since neither presidential can-didate could win without them, Congress was required to determine who would become President.A commission of 15 members was convened to hear the issue. The commission investigated anddetermined that there had been voter suppression through the killing, injuring, and intimidation ofblack Americans by Democrats. The commission therefore awarded the election to Republican Ru-therford B. Hayes. The Democratic House, however, refused to ratify the findings of the commis-sion and threatened a filibuster. The result was that America remained without a President.

This situation continued for four months until a solution, known as “The Great Compromise,” wasproposed. Democrats offered to ratify the commission’s report – but only if the last federal troops werewithdrawn from Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, thereby officially ending Reconstruction inthe South. If Republicans did not agree to the Democratic proposal, America would have no Presi-dent. The proposal was finally agreed to, and federal troops departed from the three remaining statesin which they had been stationed. (Following the withdrawal of those last federal troops, from thatpoint forward the South became known as the “solid Democratic South.”) As a result of this agree-ment, Rep. Rutherford B. Hayes became President, and because of these circumstances, Democratscomplain that “the existing administration is the representative of conspiracy only.”

11




1884

Asserting the equality of all men be-fore the law, we hold that it is the dutyof the government in its dealings withthe people to mete out equal and exactjustice to all citizens of whatever nativ-ity, race, color, or persuasion (religiousor political). We believe in a free ballot †

and a fair count, and we recall to thememory of the people the noble struggleof the Democrats in the Forty-fifth andForty-sixth Congresses by which a re-luctant Republican opposition was com-pelled to assent to legislation making ev-erywhere illegal the presence of thetroops at the polls, †† as the conclusiveproof that a Democratic administrationwill preserve liberty with order.

1884

The Republican Party, having itsbirth in a hatred of slave labor and adesire that all men may be truly free andequal, † is unalterably opposed to plac-ing our workingmen in competitionwith any form of servile labor. †† . . . Weextend to the Republicans of the South– regardless of their former party af-filiations – our cordial sympathy; andwe pledge to them our most earnest ef-forts to promote the passage of suchlegislation as will secure to every citi-zen of whatever race and color the fulland complete recognition, possession,and exercise of all civil and politicalrights.

† Significantly, contrary to this claim, it wasonly Democratic state legislatures that institutedpoll taxes to limit African American influence,thus conclusively refuting their claim of a beliefin a “free” ballot.

†† See note on pp. 10-11 explaining how Re-construction came to an end when federal troopswere removed from the polls.

† See note on the birth of the Republican Partyon p. 3.

†† While there were many forms of “servilelabor,” two of the most repugnant included thatinstituted under the “Black Codes” and that offorced apprenticeships, both of which becamewidespread in the South in the years followingthe Civil War. The “Black Codes” created crimi-nal offenses for minor charges such as vagrancy(often imposed against a black when he was look-ing for a job), insubordination, disrespect, andother such verbal “offenses” that resulted in jailtime. The “convicted” individual was sentencedto plantation labor that often was the equivalentof slavery. Forced apprenticeships were similar, butwere imposed on black minors rather than adults.Black youth were forcibly taken from parents andforced into “apprenticeships” that were nothingmore than a means of cheap labor for former slaveowners.



1888

No mention of racial equality or civilrights.

1888

We reaffirm our unswerving devotionto the national Constitution and the in-dissoluble Union of the States, to theautonomy reserved to the States underthe Constitution, to the personal rightsand liberties of the citizens in all thestates and territories of the Union, andespecially to the supreme and sovereignright of every lawful citizen, rich or poor,native or foreign born, white or black,to cast one free ballot † in public elec-tions and to have that ballot dulycounted. We hold the free and honestpopular ballot, and the just and equalrepresentation of all the people, to be thefoundation of our republican govern-ment and demand effective legislationto secure the integrity and purity of elec-tions, †† which are the fountains of allpublic authority. We charge that thepresent administration and the Demo-cratic majority in Congress owe their ex-istence to the suppression of the ballot.

† See notes on poll taxes on pp. 9 and 11.

†† African American Rep. John Roy Lynchpersonally experienced vote-counting difficultiesfrom those Democrats whom he described as “theballot box stuffer [and] the shot-gun holder of theSouth.” As he explained to a public gathering: “Inmy state, the ‘official return’ is an official fraud.When I ran for Congress in the Sixth District ofMississippi in 1880, I know that there were notless than 5,000 votes [cast] for me that were countedfor the [Democrat] that ran against me. Now, bearin mind, the official report gave him 5,000 of myvotes. . . . Now, I say that is wrong.” Numerousother African American legislators experiencedsimilar difficulties, and the records of multiple con-gressional hearings during that time confirm themassive voter fraud committed by Democratsagainst African American candidates.



1892

We demand that every citizen of theUnited States shall be allowed to cast onefree and unrestricted ballot in all publicelections, † and that such ballot shall becounted and returned as cast; that suchlaws shall be enacted and enforced as willsecure to every citizen, be he rich or poor,native or foreign-born, white or black, thissovereign right guaranteed by the Con-stitution. . . . We denounce the continuedinhuman outrages perpetrated uponAmerican citizens for political reasons incertain southern states of the Union. ††

1892

We warn the people of our commoncountry, jealous for the preservation oftheir free institutions, that the policy offederal control of elections to which theRepublican party has committed itselfis fraught with the gravest dangers. . . .It strikes at the North as well as at theSouth and injures the colored citizeneven more than the white; † it means ahorde of deputy marshals at every poll-ing place, armed with federal power.

† This was a completely erroneous assertion.The Democrats had engaged in extensive effortsto suppress black voting, and those efforts hadbeen successful. For example, in Mississippi in1892, there were 70,000 more blacks than whitesin the state but white voters outnumbered blackvoters by a margin of 8 to 1. And in Birming-ham, even though some 18,000 blacks lived inthe city at the turn of the century, only 30 wereeligible to vote. In Alabama and Florida, thenumber of black voters was reduced by nearly 90percent, and by the 1940s, only 5 percent of blacksin the Democratic South were registered to vote.In fact, in 1965 in Selma, Alabama – a city withmore black residents than white residents – thevoting rolls were 99 percent white and only 1 per-cent black. Clearly, Democratic voter suppres-sion efforts had been successful, however Repub-licans had sought to have federal protections atthe polling places to protect African Americansfrom corrupt local officials, and it is to this prac-tice of protecting black voters with federal mar-shals that Democrats here object.

† See the notes on poll taxes on pp. 9, 11 and 13.

†† The “inhuman outrages” perpetuated uponAfrican Americans in the South were largely com-mitted through the Democrats’ Ku Klux Klan.

It is indisputable historical fact that the Klanwas started by Democrats. In fact, during con-gressional hearings on the subject, one prominentDemocrat testified that the Ku Klux Klan “be-longs to . . . our party – the Democratic Party.”And the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klanwas prominent Democrat Nathan BedfordForrest, an honoree at the 1868 Democratic Na-tional Convention. Recall also that every Demo-crat in Congress voted against the 1871 bill to pun-ish Klan violence (see note on p. 8 about this bill).

Why were blacks so often the target of Klanviolence? According to African American U. S.Rep. John Roy Lynch: “More colored than whitemen are thus persecuted simply because they con-stitute in larger numbers the opposition to theDemocratic Party.” African American U. S. Rep.Richard Cain of South Carolina, a bishop of theAME denomination, agreed, declaring: “The badblood of the South comes because the Negroesare Republicans. If they would only cease to beRepublicans and vote the straight-out Demo-cratic ticket there would be no trouble. Then thebad blood would sink entirely out of sight.” Itwas these Democratic and Klan “inhuman out-rages” to which Republicans here object.



1900

It was the plain purpose of the Fif-teenth Amendment to the Constitutionto prevent discrimination on account ofrace or color in regulating the electivefranchise. †† Devices of state govern-

1900


1896

The Constitution of the UnitedStates guarantees to every citizen therights of civil and religious liberty. TheDemocratic Party has always been theexponent of political liberty and religiousfreedom, † and it renews its obligationsand reaffirms its devotion to these fun-damental principles of the Constitution.

1896

We proclaim our unqualified con-demnation of the uncivilized and pre-posterous practice well known as lynch-ing, † and the killing of human beingssuspected or charged with crime with-out process of law.

† This statement is completely erroneous. Notonly had Democrats stridently opposed all of thetwo dozen civil rights laws passed to that point.In fact, in 1893 when Democrats won the Presi-dency, the House, and the Senate, they immedi-ately passed laws repealing the civil rights lawsthat had not yet been struck down by the SupremeCourt, and specifically repealed all civil rights lawsprotecting black voting rights or punishing Klanviolence. They accomplished all of this within onlytwo years after taking control of Congress.

Just as Democrats had opposed political lib-erty for African Americans they also opposed re-ligious liberty. For example, in 1865, when the 13th

Amendment was passed to abolish slavery, promi-nent African American minister Henry HighlandGarnet was asked to preach a sermon in Con-gress to commemorate that happy event. WithRepublican support (no Democrats joined in in-viting him to preach his sermon), Garnet didpreach that sermon in Congress on Sunday, Feb-ruary 12, 1865, becoming the first African Ameri-can to speak in the halls of Congress.

The records are indisputable and unequivocalthat Democrats opposed both the political andreligious freedoms of African Americans.

† Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynch-ings were by far the most effective. Between 1882and 1964, 4,743 individuals were lynched – 3,446blacks and 1,297 whites. Republicans led the ef-forts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and theirplatforms consistently called for a ban on lynch-ing, but Democrats successfully blocked everyanti-lynching bill and the Democratic platformsnever did condemn lynchings.

†† Democrats had strenuously and unani-mously opposed the 15th Amendment that providedvoting rights for African Americans (see note onp. 8 regarding this Amendment). By 1900, Demo-crats began actively seeking a repeal of the 15th

Amendment (as well as the 14th Amendment). AsDemocratic U. S. Senator Ben Tillman from SouthCarolina explained: “We made up our minds thatthe 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitutionwere themselves null and void.” According toprominent Democrat leader A. W. Terrell of Texas,the 15th Amendment was what he called “the po-litical blunder of the century.” Democratic U. S. Rep.Bourke Cockran of New York and Democratic U.S. Senator John Tyler Morgan of Alabama agreedwith Terrell and were among the Democrats seek-ing a repeal of the 15th Amendment. In fact, Demo-cratic U. S. Senator Samuel McEnery of Louisianaeven declared: “I believe . . . that not a single south-



ments, whether by statutory or consti-tutional enactment, to avoid the pur-pose of this amendment are revolution-ary and should be condemned. †

ern Senator would object to such a move.” (Thesouthern Senators were almost exclusively Demo-crats.) Fortunately, Democrats were unsuccessfulin their efforts to repeal the 14th and 15th Amend-ments.

† For the dozen separate devices used byDemocratic state governments to circumvent the15th Amendment, see the note on p. 9.

†† The 14th Amendment, in establishing rightsof citizenship and civil rights for African Ameri-cans, also included a provision declaring thatstates which abridged these freedoms would suf-fer a reduction in their representation at the Elec-toral College, thereby weakening their ability toinfluence a presidential election.

Because of the Black Codes and disenfran-chisement tactics used by Democratic states in theSouth, the rights of citizenship of black Ameri-cans were seriously curtailed, including their rightto vote. For example, in addition to the suppres-sive voting numbers given on p. 14, in 1890 in Mis-sissippi, even though there were 70,000 more blackvoters than white voters, eligible white voters out-numbered eligible black voters by a margin of al-most ten to one; in Alabama, the number of blackvoters was reduced from 181,000 in 1901 to only3,000 in 1902; and in Texas, the number of blackvoters was reduced from almost 100,000 in the1890s to only 5,000 by 1906. The above clause inthe platform is calling for those states to be pe-nalized under the 14th Amendment, with a loss intheir representation at the Electoral College.

1904

We favor such congressional actionas shall determine whether by specialdiscrimination the elective franchise inany state has been unconstitutionallylimited, and if such is the case, we de-mand that representation in Congressand in the electoral college shall be pro-portionately reduced as directed by theConstitution of the United States. ††

1904

The race question has broughtcountless woes to this country. The calmwisdom of the American people shouldsee to it that it brings no more. To re-vive the dead and hateful race and sec-tional animosities in any part of ourcommon country means confusion, dis-traction of business, and the reopeningof wounds now happily healed. †

† Contrary to this claim, the “wounds” werenot “happily healed.” Lynchings were still occur-ring frequently and the Ku Klux Klan was enter-ing its second national revival of membership andactivity, with several Klan members at that timeeven being elected Democrats.



1920

We urge Congress to consider themost effective means to end lynchingin this country, †† which continues tobe a terrible blot on our Americancivilization.

1920


1912

No mention or racial equality or civilrights.

1912


1908

The Republican party has been formore than fifty years the consistentfriend of the American Negro. It gavehim freedom and citizenship. We de-mand equal justice for all men with-out regard to race or color; we declareonce more and without reservation forthe enforcement in letter and spirit ofthe Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fif-teenth Amendments to the Constitu-tion, which were designed for the pro-tection and advancement of the Ne-gro, and we condemn all devices thathave for their real aim his disfranchise-ment for reasons of color alone as un-fair, un-American, and repugnant tothe supreme law of the land. †

1908


1916

No mention or racial equality or civilrights.

1916


† See note on pp. 9 detailing the various waysthat Democrats kept African Americans fromvoting.

†† See note on p. 15 about lynchings.


1924


1924

We urge the Congress to enact at theearliest possible date a federal anti-lynching law so that the full influence ofthe federal government may be wieldedto exterminate this hideous crime.†

† See note on p. 20. One of the many Repub-lican attempts to ban lynchings had occurred in1921 when Republican U. S. Rep. Leonidas Dyerof Missouri introduced a federal anti-lynchingbill, but Democrats fought its passage. That de-lay was costly. The NAACP sadly reported that“since the introduction of the Dyer Anti-Lynch-ing Bill in Congress on April 11, 1921, there havebeen 28 persons murdered by lynchings in theUnited States.” The Dyer bill was eventuallykilled by Democrats. In fact, Democrats killedevery single anti-lynching bill introduced inCongress – even those occasionally introducedby an individual Democrat. As a result of thesteadfast Democrat obstruction on this issue,Congress never passed an anti-lynching bill. (Seealso note on p. 15 about lynching laws.)

1928

We renew our recommendationthat the Congress enact at the earliestpossible date a federal anti-lynchinglaw so that the full influence of thefederal government may be wielded toexterminate this hideous crime. †

1928


1932

For seventy years the RepublicanParty has been the friend of the Ameri-can Negro. Vindication of the rights ofthe Negro citizen to enjoy the full ben-efits of life, liberty, and the pursuit ofhappiness is traditional in the Repub-lican Party, and our Party stands

1932


18



1936

We favor equal opportunity for ourcolored citizens. We pledge our pro-tection of their economic status andpersonal safety. We will do our best tofurther their employment in the gain-fully occupied life of America, particu-larly in private industry, agriculture,emergency agencies, and the Civil Ser-vice. We condemn the present NewDeal policies which would regimentand ultimately eliminate the coloredcitizen from the country’s productivelife and make him solely a ward of thefederal government.

1936


† African Americans had historically beenloyal to the Republican Party. In fact, in the 1932presidential election during which this platformwas written, incumbent Republican PresidentHerbert Hoover received more than three-fourthsof the black vote over his Democratic challengerFranklin D. Roosevelt. Why had Republicansreceived so much African American support? In1875, African American Republican U. S. Rep. Jo-seph Hayne Rainey had explained: “We intendto continue to vote so long as the governmentgives us the right and necessary protection; and Iknow that right accorded to us now will never bewithheld in the future if left to the RepublicanParty.” Consequently, black Americans – longbeing the victims of Democratic-sponsored rac-ism and segregation – continued their loyalty toRepublicans well into the 20th century.

pledged to maintain equal opportunityand rights for Negro citizens. †

19



† The President at this time was DemocratFranklin Delano Roosevelt. In an unusual movefor Democrats, Roosevelt in 1932 had invitedblack Americans to vote Democratic in the elec-tions. However, Roosevelt understood his Party,and made only subtle overtures to black Ameri-cans while avoiding any overt civil rights prom-ises. While Roosevelt created what becameknown as his “Black Cabinet” to advise him onissues of importance to black Americans, and al-though he did begin to include black Americansin economic programs, he did little for civil rightsand in fact did not even introduce a single bill toprotect or promote civil rights.

†† It was under Roosevelt that Democrats forthe first time placed language in their platformcalling for an end to racial discrimination; yet de-spite the new language in their platform, Demo-crats in Congress still killed every civil rights billintroduced in that era.

1940

We pledge that our American citi-zens of Negro descent shall be given asquare deal in the economic and po-litical life of this nation. Discrimina-tion in the civil service, the army, navy,and all other branches of the govern-ment must cease. To enjoy the full ben-efits of life, liberty and pursuit of hap-piness, universal suffrage must be madeeffective for the Negro citizen. Mobviolence shocks the conscience of thenation and legislation to curb this evilshould be enacted.

1940

Our Negro citizens have participatedactively in the economic and social ad-vances launched by this Administration,including fair labor standards, social se-curity benefits, health protection, workrelief projects, decent housing, aid toeducation, and the rehabilitation oflow-income farm families. † We haveaided more than half a million Negroyouths in vocational training, education,and employment. We shall continue tostrive for complete legislative safeguardsagainst discrimination in governmentservice and benefits and in the nationaldefense forces. We pledge to uphold dueprocess and the equal protection of thelaws for every citizen, regardless of race,creed or color. ††

20



1948

Lynching or any other form of mobviolence anywhere is a disgrace to anycivilized state, and we favor the promptenactment of legislation to end this in-famy. †† One of the basic principles of

1948

The Democratic Party commits it-self to continuing its efforts to eradi-cate all racial, religious, and economicdiscrimination. † We again state our

1944

We pledge an immediate congres-sional inquiry to ascertain the extent towhich mistreatment, segregation, anddiscrimination against Negroes who arein our armed forces are impairing mo-rale and efficiency, and the adoption ofcorrective legislation. The payment ofany poll tax should not be a conditionof voting in federal elections and we fa-vor immediate submission of a consti-tutional amendment for its abolition. †

We favor legislation against lynchingand pledge our sincere efforts in behalfof its early enactment.

1944

We believe that racial and religiousminorities have the right to live, de-velop, and vote equally with all citi-zens, and share the rights that areguaranteed by our Constitution. Con-gress should exert its full constitutionalpowers to protect these rights.

† While Franklin D. Roosevelt began a changein the way national Democrats treated AfricanAmericans, it was his successor, Harry S. Truman,who was even more courageous. He became thefirst Democratic President to advocate for strongcivil rights protections. Truman introduced an ag-gressive 10-point civil rights legislative packagethat included an anti-lynching law, a ban on thepoll tax, and desegregation of the military, but con-gressional Democrats killed his proposals, includ-ing his proposed Civil Rights Commission.

Truman – like FDR before him – learned that itwas difficult for rank-and-file Democrats to reshapetheir long-held views on race. The depth of thisopposition was easily seen in significant elementsof the Democratic Party. For example, when MaFerguson (Texas’ Democratic gubernatorial candi-date) dared to criticize the Klan’s role in the south-ern Democratic Party, she was directly opposed inher Democratic primary with a Klan candidate, thuscosting her the cohesive support of the TexasDemocratic Party. In fact, a number of Klansmenran on the various Democratic tickets in that era

† It was not until 1964 that the poll tax wasfinally abolished through the passage of the 24th

Amendment to the Constitution. A repeal of thepoll tax had been proposed on at least fourteenoccasions prior to its final approval, and on five ofthose occasions the House had actually passed aban; but each time Senate Democrats kept the polltax alive. It was nearly eighty-five years after thepoll tax to limit African American influence wasinstituted by Democrats before the ban on the polltax was finally approved by the U. S. Senate. Sig-nificantly, 91 percent of the Republicans in Con-gress voted to end the poll tax – a level of supportmuch higher than that of Democrats; and of the16 Senators who wanted to keep the poll tax alivein 1964, 15 of them were Democrats. The 24th

Amendment banned poll taxes, but only for fed-eral elections. Two years later, however, in 1966,the U. S. Supreme Court finally struck down polltaxes for all elections, including state and local. (Seealso the notes about poll taxes on pp. 9, 11, and 13.)

†† See notes on pp. 15 and 18 regarding Re-publicans attempts to ban lynching.

21



this Republic is the equality of all indi-viduals in their right to life, liberty, andthe pursuit of happiness. This right ofequal opportunity to work and to ad-vance in life should never be limited inany individual because of race, religion,color, or country of origin. We favor theenactment and just enforcement of suchfederal legislation as may be necessaryto maintain this right at all times in ev-ery part of this Republic. We favor theabolition of the poll tax as a requisite tovoting. † We are opposed to the idea ofracial segregation in the armed servicesof the United States.

belief that racial and religious minori-ties must have the right to live, the rightto work, the right to vote, the full andequal protection of the laws, on a basisof equality with all citizens as guaran-teed by the Constitution. †

and were elected; and at the national level, severalDemocratic U. S. Senators were members of theKlan. Despite the existence of the Klan and otherracist groups within the Democratic Party, Trumannevertheless worked to change his party. In 1946,he became the first modern President to institute acomprehensive review of race relations – and notsurprisingly, he faced strenuous opposition fromwithin his own party. In fact, Democratic U. S. Sena-tor Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi called on every“red blooded Anglo Saxon man in Mississippi toresort to any means” to keep blacks from voting.

The website for the Democratic NationalParty properly acknowledges Truman’s importantcontributions, declaring that, “With the electionof Harry Truman, Democrats began the fight tobring down the barriers of race and gender.” Truly,it was under Harry Truman that Democrats be-gan – that is, they made their first serious efforts– to fight against the barriers of race.

† Southern Democratic Governors, fearingthat Truman might succeed in his civil rights goals,denounced his civil rights agenda and proposed ameeting in Florida of what they called a “south-ern conference of true Democrats” to plan theirstrategy to halt civil rights progress. That sum-mer at the Democratic National Conventionwhen Truman placed into the national Demo-cratic platform the strong civil-rights languagethat appears above, it resulted in a walkout ofsouthern delegates. Southern Democrats thenformed the Dixiecrat Party and ran South Caro-lina Democratic Governor Strom Thurmond astheir candidate for President. Thurmond’s bid wasunsuccessful. (Strom Thurmond later had a dra-matic change of heart on civil rights issues and in1964, he left the Democratic Party. In 1971, as aRepublican U. S. Senator, Thurmond became thefirst southern Senator to hire a black in his sena-torial office – something no southern Democratin the U. S. Senate had ever done.) † See notes on previous page about poll taxes.

22



1952

We condemn bigots who inject class,racial, and religious prejudice into pub-lic and political matters. Bigotry is un-American and a danger to the Republic.The Republican Party will not mislead,exploit, or attempt to confuse minoritygroups for political purposes. All Ameri-can citizens are entitled to full, impar-tial enforcement of federal laws relatingto their civil rights. . . . We will proveour good faith by appointing qualifiedpersons, without distinction of race, re-ligion, or national origin, to responsiblepositions in the government; † federal ac-tion toward the elimination of lynching;federal action toward the elimination ofpoll taxes as a prerequisite to voting; ap-propriate action to end segregation in theDistrict of Columbia; [and] enacting fed-eral legislation to further just and equi-table treatment in the area of discrimi-natory employment practices.

1952

The Democratic Party is committedto support and advance the individualrights and liberties of all Americans. Wewill continue our efforts to eradicatediscrimination based on race, religion,or national origin.

† Republican World War II hero Dwight D.Eisenhower became President in this election.Eisenhower determined to eliminate racial dis-crimination in all areas under his authority. Hetherefore issued executive orders halting segre-gation in the District of Columbia, the military,and federal agencies. Furthermore, he was thefirst president to appoint a black American –Frederic Morrow – to an executive position onthe White House staff.

1956

We will continue our efforts to eradi-cate discrimination based on race, reli-gion, or national origin. We know thistask requires action not just in one sec-tion of the nation but in all sections. Itrequires the cooperative efforts of indi-vidual citizens and action by state andlocal governments. . . . We are proud ofthe record of the Democratic Party insecuring equality of treatment and op-portunity in the nation’s armed forces,the Civil Service, and in all areas underfederal jurisdiction. The DemocraticParty pledges itself to continue its effortto eliminate illegal discriminations of all

1956

We shall ever build anew, that ourchildren and their children, withoutdistinction because of race, creed, orcolor, may know the blessings of ourfree land. The Republican Party pointsto an impressive record of accomplish-

23




kinds, in relation to (1) full rights to vote,(2) full rights to engage in gainful occu-pations, (3) full rights to enjoy securityof the person, and (4) full rights to edu-cation in all publicly supported institu-tions. Recent decisions of the SupremeCourt of the United States relating tosegregation in publicly supportedschools † and elsewhere have broughtconsequences of vast importance to ournation as a whole and especially to com-munities directly affected. We reject allproposals for the use of force to inter-fere with the orderly determination ofthese matters by the courts.

ment in the field of civil rights and com-mits itself anew to advancing the rightsof all our people regardless of race,creed, color, or national origin. In thearea of exclusive federal jurisdiction,more progress has been made in thisfield under the present Republican Ad-ministration than in any similar periodin the last 80 years. † The many Negroeswho have been appointed to high pub-lic positions have played a significantpart in the progress of this Adminis-tration. Segregation has been ended inthe District of Columbia governmentand in the District public facilities in-cluding public schools, restaurants, the-

† Given the actions of President Eisenhoweron civil rights issues (see note on previous page re-garding Eisenhower and civil rights), it was not sur-prising that in his 1956 reelection, Eisenhower –like Republican Presidents before him – receivedsignificant support from black voters.

Following his reelection, Eisenhower contin-ued his civil rights efforts. In 1957, he proposed abold civil rights bill to increase black voting rightsand protections – proposals promptly blocked byDemocratic Senator James Eastland of Missis-sippi, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Com-mittee. In fact, Eastland is credited with killingevery civil rights bill that came before his com-mittee in the 1950s, and his committee was liter-ally known as the burial ground for civil rightslegislation in the U. S. Senate. When Senate Re-publicans sought to keep Eisenhower’s civil rightsbill from going to Eastland’s burial ground, only10 Senate Democrats joined in that effort. Nev-ertheless, those few Democrats, combined withthe strong Republican numbers, was sufficient;they were able to prevent Eisenhower’s bill fromgoing to Eastland’s committee.

With Eastland unable to kill the bill in com-mittee, other Senate Democrats responded with afilibuster against the civil rights bill. In fact, SouthCarolina’s Senator Strom Thurmond, still a Demo-

† In 1954, the Supreme Court in Brown v.Board of Education finally struck down state seg-regation laws in education, thus reinstating whatRepublicans had done nearly seventy-five yearsearlier in the 1875 civil rights bill. The southernDemocratic response to the Court decision end-ing segregated education was two-fold: a responseof words, and a response of actions.

In the category of words, 100 Democrats inCongress – 19 U. S. Senators and 81 U. S. Repre-sentatives – passed the “Southern Manifesto” de-nouncing the Court’s decision. Those 100 Demo-crats declared that desegregation was “certain todestroy the system of public education” and thatthere would be what they called an “explosive anddangerous condition created by this decision.”

At the state level Democratic Governor Her-man Talmadge of Georgia issued a written at-tack on the Court decision and promised thatthere “will never be mixed schools while I amGovernor.” Mississippi Democratic GovernorJames Coleman, when asked in an interview on“Meet the Press” whether the public schools ofMississippi would ever be integrated, succinctlyreplied, “I would say that a baby born in Missis-sippi today will never live long enough to see anintegrated school.” This was typical of what manysouthern Democrats did in the category of words.

But the Democratic response went beyondwords and also included actions. Following the



1954 school desegregation decision, southernDemocratic Governors went to extreme lengthsto keep the Court decision from going into effect.For example, in 1956, Democratic Governor AllanShivers of Texas deployed the Texas Rangers tokeep blacks from entering public schools in Mans-field. The following year, 1957, Democratic Gov-ernor Orval Faubus of Arkansas called out theNational Guard to keep black students from en-tering Central High School in Little Rock. How-ever, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhowerintervened and federalized the Arkansas NationalGuard to take it away from Governor Faubus. Hethen replaced the Arkansas Guard with 1,200troops from the elite 101st Airborne Division, or-dering them to protect the nine black students whohad chosen to go to Central High. Democrats inthe U. S. Senate strongly protested againstEisenhower’s actions to protect these black stu-dents. For example, Georgia Democratic SenatorRichard Russell specifically complained about us-ing “the whole might of the federal government,including the armed forces . . . to force a commin-gling of white and Negro children in the state-supported schools of the state.”

Georgia Democratic Governor Marvin Grif-fin also attacked Eisenhower’s actions but praisedArkansas Governor Faubus for his attempt to pre-vent blacks from entering Central High School.Governor Griffin promised that as long as he heldoffice, he would “maintain segregation in theschools; and the races will not be mixed, comehell or high water.” To prepare for the possibilitythat Eisenhower might do in Georgia what hehad done in Arkansas, legislation was introducedin the Democratically-controlled Georgia legis-lature so that if desegregation was attempted, thepublic schools of the state would be dissolved andreplaced with state-run private schools so thatblacks could be excluded. These type of schoolsbecame known as “segregation academies.”

Meanwhile, in Arkansas, Democratic Gov-ernor Faubus, unable to prevent black studentsfrom attending school because of the federal pro-tection they received, simply shut down theschools for the next year to prevent further at-tendance. And Virginia Democratic GovernorJames Almond – like other southern Democratic

crat at that time, set the record in the U. S. Senatefor the longest individual filibuster speech evergiven in Senate history – over twenty-four hoursof continual speaking in his attempts to blockEisenhower’s 1957 civil rights bill. The stiff Demo-cratic opposition in the Senate resulted in a wa-tered-down version of Eisenhower’s original bill.

Despite the fact that the bill was much weakerthan introduced, Eisenhower did succeed in cre-ating a Civil Rights Division within the U. S. Jus-tice Department. This division subsequently playeda prominent role in helping secure civil rights inthe South during the 1960s and 1970s. That lawalso started a Civil Rights Commission that be-came instrumental in publicizing the effects ofsouthern segregation and racial oppression.

In 1959, Eisenhower presented a second civilrights bill to Congress. That bill was met withunyielding opposition in the House by Demo-cratic Representative Howard Smith of Virginia,Chairman of the House Rules Committee. Smithwould actually disappear from Congress for weekson end in order to keep his committee from act-ing on the civil rights bill. As had happened inthe Senate with the earlier Eisenhower civil rightsbill, a few House Democrats were willing to join

aters, and playgrounds. The EisenhowerAdministration has eliminated dis-crimination in all federal employment.Great progress has been made in elimi-nating employment discrimination onthe part of those who do business withthe federal government and secure fed-eral contracts. This Administration hasimpartially enforced federal civil rightsstatutes, and we pledge that we will con-tinue to do so. We support the enact-ment of the civil rights program alreadypresented by the President to the Sec-ond Session of the 84th Congress. Theregulatory agencies under this Admin-istration have moved vigorously to enddiscrimination in interstate commerce.Segregation in the active Armed Forces



of the United States has been ended.For the first time in our history there isno segregation in veterans’ hospitals andamong civilians on naval bases. This isan impressive record. We pledge our-selves to continued progress in this field.. . . The Republican Party accepts thedecisions of the U. S. Supreme Courtthat racial discrimination in publiclysupported schools must be progressivelyeliminated. † We concur in the conclu-sion of the Supreme Court that its de-cision directing school desegregationshould be accomplished with “all de-liberate speed” locally through FederalDistrict Courts. . . . This progress mustbe encouraged and the work of thecourts supported in every legal mannerby all branches of the federal govern-ment to the end that the constitutionalideal of the law, regardless of race, creed,or color, be steadily achieved.

with the Republicans to get that bill beyondSmith’s committee. In fact, Democratic Housemember Emanuel Celler of New York, chairmanof the House Judiciary Committee, exerted ex-traordinary effort to move the bill forward eventhough he was strongly opposed by other mem-bers within his own party. When the bill finallypassed the House and arrived in the Senate, itwas gutted by Democrats before being passed intolaw, once again preventing the federal governmentfrom intervening on behalf of black Americanswhose civil rights were being violated in the South.

Nevertheless, massive gains were made incivil rights through Eisenhower’s leadership andwith the aid of Republicans and some Demo-crats in Congress.

† This refers to the Court’s Brown v. Boardof Education school desegregation decision. Sig-nificantly, Eisenhower’s Attorney General hadappeared before the Court to urge the elimina-tion of segregation.

Governors – also shut down public schools in hisstate rather than permit black students to attend.

In 1960 in Louisiana, where Democratic Gov-ernor Jimmie Davis supported segregation, it re-quired four federal marshals to accompany littleRuby Bridges so she could attend a public el-ementary school in New Orleans. When Rubyentered that school, every other parent in thatschool pulled their children out of the school, andfor the entire year, little Ruby was the only stu-dent in that school building – just Ruby and herschoolteacher from Boston.

Some Democratic southern Governors, how-ever, did work for integration – including Ten-nessee Governor Frank Clement, Florida Gov-ernor LeRoy Collins, and Kentucky GovernorHappy Chandler – but these tended to be theexceptions among southern Democratic Gover-nors rather than the rule, and their admirable be-havior was clearly overshadowed by the negativebehavior of the others.



1964

Opposition to discrimination basedon race, creed, national origin or sex.We recognize that the elimination ofany such discrimination is a matter ofheart, conscience, education, as well asof equal rights under law. ††

1964

Ending discrimination based on race,age, sex, or national origin demands notonly equal opportunity but the oppor-tunity to be equal. . . . We are firmlypledged to continue the nation’s marchtowards the goals of equal opportunityand equal treatment for all Americans,regardless of race, creed, color, or na-tional origin.

1960

We supported the position of theNegro school children before the Su-preme Court. † We believe: the Su-preme Court school decision should becarried out in accordance with the man-date of the Court; continued vigorousenforcement of the civil rights laws toguarantee the right to vote to all citi-zens in all areas of the country; actionto prohibit discrimination in housingconstructed with the aid of federal sub-sidies; removal of any vestige of dis-crimination in the operation of federalfacilities or procedures which may atany time be found. We pledge the fulluse of the power, resources, and lead-ership of the federal government toeliminate discrimination based on race,color, religion, or national origin andto encourage understanding and goodwill among all races and creeds.

1960

We shall also seek to create an affir-mative new atmosphere in which to dealwith racial divisions and inequalitieswhich threaten both the integrity of ourdemocratic faith and the proposition onwhich our nation was founded – that allmen are created equal.

† See note on previous page about Brown v.Board of Education.

††This era marked the passage of three land-mark civil rights measures: the 1964 Civil RightsAct, the 1964 Constitutional Amendment abol-ishing the poll tax (see note on abolishing polltaxes on page 20), and the 1965 Voting RightsAct. How did these landmark measures becomelaw?


When Democrat John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960, he had been less willing thanEisenhower to utilize executive orders to promote civil rights. He even delayed for more than two yearsthe signing of an executive order to integrate public housing. However, following the violent racialdiscord in Birmingham in 1963, Kennedy sent a major civil rights bill to Congress – a bill based on thefindings of Eisenhower’s 1957 Civil Rights Commission. Kennedy worked aggressively for the passageof that civil rights bill but was tragically assassinated before he could see its success.

Democratic presidential successor Lyndon Johnson picked up the civil rights measure, but like hispredecessors, he faced stiff opposition from his own party. In fact, Democratic Senators Robert Byrd ofWest Virginia and Richard Russell of Georgia led the opposition against the 1964 Civil Rights Act,including lengthy and extended filibuster speeches. Republican Senator Everett Dirksen resurrectedlanguage proposed by Eisenhower’s Attorney General in 1960, thus breaking the filibuster of the civilrights bill and allowing Johnson to sign into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964, followed by the VotingRights Act of 1965.

These two important civil rights acts were signed into law under a Democratic President, but it wasthe Republicans in Congress who made possible the passage of both acts, for Democratic PresidentJohnson had been unable to garner sufficient Democratic support to pass either bill. At that time,Democrats had 315 members in Congress, holding almost two-thirds of the House and two-thirds ofthe Senate. President Johnson needed only a majority – only 269 votes – to get those bills passed; butout of the 315 Democrats, only 198 voted for passage. Democrats had it completely within their powerto pass those bills and did not do so. The bills passed because Republicans overwhelmingly came to theaid of Democrat President Johnson: in fact, 83 percent of Republicans voted for those bills, a percentageof support almost twenty points higher than that of the Democrats. If not for the strong support ofRepublicans, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would never have becomelaw – not to mention the fact that the heart of both bills came from the work of Republican PresidentDwight D. Eisenhower.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act had banned discrimination in voting, public accommodations, education,federal programs, or employment. The 1965 Voting Rights Act had banned literacy tests and authorizedthe federal government to oversee voter registration and elections in counties that had used such tests.Those two Acts – along with the 24th Amendment to the Constitution – were the final culmination ofa century of civil rights legislation, and of even a longer period of attempts to secure equal rights andracial justice for African Americans. What was the effect of these three measures?

The positive impact of these changes was immediate. For example, within a year, 450,000 new southernblacks were successfully registered to vote and voter registration of black Americans in Mississippi alsorose sharply – from only 5 percent in 1960 to 60 percent by 1968. The number of blacks serving in federaland state legislatures rose from only 2 in 1965 to 160 by 1990. The disenfranchisement laws and policieslong enforced by southern Democratic legislatures had finally come to an end.

28


democrats and republicans: in their own words...democrats and republicans: in their own words a 124...

Documents