Segregation Forever

The slogan that Strom Thurmond chose for his Presidential run in 1948. I find it disturbing that the man was able to remain a senator for all these years after running such an overtly racist Presidential campaign. Has he since changed his ways?

I don't think he got many political contributions or endorsements from liberals over the years. /images/smile.gif


However, he has certainly changed his views from the radical views he held half a century ago.

An interesting thing along these same lines was the last time George Wallace ran for governor of Alabama. He was supported by many who have vigorously opposed him at an earlier time. He stated that he was never a racist, but was a segregationist, and had changed his ways.

and would vote for him again, but he is clearly demented, and continues to have an outstanding administrative staff which serves his constituents well. his birthplace is 5 miles down the road, his sister died at age 95 a few years ago. i was a big liberal, anti-viet nam , pro minority/womens rights in college 25 years ago.


hey, my first vote was george mcgovern for president, just like the song, and yeah, i would had trouble trying to hide my hair uder a cap at that time.


strom also was the first southern senator to have a black person on his staff, not just token, but hey you never hear about that , do ya. he openly talks about his grandfather who owned slaves, and makes no apologies. the civil rights movement which gave citizens the right to vote really changed the politics. before, you had to be a segregationist, or you could not win.


the excellent public high school (about 50/50 white/black) down the road is strom thurmond high..the home of the rebels..the segregation academy wardlaw is the home of the patriots. go figger..


neal young, we do not need him around...gl

Thurmond remains very conservative (apparently; don't think he's in very good health). People do change, though: Senator Robert Byrd, former majority leader of the Democrats, was a KKK member as a young man; so was one of the paragons of the liberal Warren court, Hugo Black.


No doubt many otherwise liberal people from the south were conservative/racist on race issues; Senator William Fulbright comes to mind.


The "explanation" many have offered, that they were pro-states rights and segregationist, not racist, strikes me as bogus. More likely segregationism and racsim went hand in hand.

"He stated that he was never a racist, but was a segregationist, and had changed his ways."


So now he's not a segregationist? Or he still is a segregationist, but was never a racist? So he gets to be a good guy? So if I just don't want any colored's in my neighborhood, or restaraunt, or bathroom, or anywhere else I choose to go, but otherwise I don't have any problem with them, then I'm not a racist?


My point? Segregation was never o.k. Just because it was 1963 or 1948 doesn't absolve Wallace or Thurmond of any wrongdoing. Regardless of the times or prevailing attitudes, a reasonably intelligent person should know that what's going on is wrong. Either they believed in their cause or they just ran the campaign that would get them the most votes. Niether alternative makes me fell better about them.

While I agree with you, my point is that politics is sometimes a strange game. Many people who were strongly against GW in 1963 because of his segregationist views would back him many years later. Some said he had changed, others felt that the Democratic Party had done them much good and that they would support its candidate no matter who it was.

Did not Lester Maddox say something similar - Segregation now- segregation forever. Whatever happen to that Good 'ol Boy anyway.


Segregation still exists - it is just not codified in any laws anymore - written laws that is.


-zeno

I e-mailed you a story stemming from this post.

Thurmond remains very conservative


What does this have to do with being racist or not?


natedogg

Good question. The most famous racists, at least in my lifetime, have been very conservative. They claim their conservatism leads them to be against federal government interference in state or local affairs. Thus they were against integration, against the voting right laws, in favor of allowing the poll tax, etc.


They claim this isn't racism, but it sure is a cover for racism. "Segregation forever" is racism. It is conservatism.


So I should have said, "Thurmond remains very conservative and thus is probably still a racist, although current political sensibilities don't allow him to still publicly say 'segregation forever.' In fact he probably claims he is now in favor of integration."

strom has always proclaimed the great love and respect each race has for the other....saw the county sheriff the other day...shook hands with the local lawyer...wonder what race they were???oddly enough, it is virtuallly impossible in the gr8 palmetto state to do any significant activity without having involvement from "the other race."...that sure as hell was not true when i lived in the liberal north...gl

Andy, I think people can have policy differences on some of the issues surrounding the racial issues in this country and not be racists. That does not mean there are not conservative racists of course. The problem is that racism may or may not motivate somebody's politics and it is hard to tell if somebody is a racist just on certain policy choices like school integration. Somebody in favor of government mandated segregation is a lot easier to peg than someone against governmental interference in the issue. For instance, the segregationists who claimed "states' rights" were willing to use governmental force to separate the races. In my view this is not conservative because it involves taking freedoms away from people with governmental action. Forced segregation obviously was put in place and maintained because of racism, and the Constitution permitted its dismantling. On the other hand, an issue like affirmative action presents some questions where conservatives may be standing on conservative principles and not racist motives in their opposition. But racism exists all over the country and there are plenty of racial problems in the states that didn't have segregation, as Scalf discussed a bit. On any of these things, to determine if somebody is a racist, you have to look at their beliefs, thoughts, and motivations. And sometimes its hard to get a close enough look at somebody to know. It's easy when they've been in the Klan like Byrd, but most people don't join the Klan. (And it's not youthful indiscretion either.)

I remember many years ago when Mohammed Ali appeared on a talk show and stated his views that whites and blacks should be segregated. He actually pitched the idea that blacks should exclusively be given some number of southern states for their own nation.