Before we jump headlong into this new year (it is only the 12th, after all), I have a few things to clear up.
I love to read the comments that people post after my column comes out, even (or, perhaps, especially) the mean ones. I almost never respond to those, because I’ve already had my say, and then it’s everybody else’s turn. But this past week, people just plain got stuff wrong, and it has to be addressed.
Someone named Riverwoman wrote: President Eisenhower did more for civil rights than any other U S President. He was the one that de-segregated the armed forces, he was the one to send Federal troops to protect the “nine”. He originated almost all of the civil rights actions that were credited to Pres. Kennedy & Johnson.
I love the “Riverwoman” thing; it sounds so native. I once had a basketball player named Eagle Woman; she had a sister named White Thunder Woman. Way cool.
However, you got it wrong. Harry Truman, not Dwight Eisenhower, desegregated the armed Forces. Unsure whether he could get a law through Congress, Truman signed Executive Order 9981 on July 26, 1948, ending all segregation in the military. The secretary of the Army, Kenneth Claiborne Royall, was forced to resign in 1949 after refusing to implement the order. Great stand there, Mr. Royall. How does it feel to forever go down in history as a bitch?
Eisenhower did indeed send the troops to Little Rock to protect the Central High Nine. How cool would it have been if Eisenhower had walked those kids into the school himself? Oh, well; history is full of blown opportunities.
Eisenhower did push for some civil-rights legislation, much of which was gutted and/or stalled by the Senate majority leader, Lyndon Johnson. There is no disputing that. Johnson was a flawed man, but when he came to his senses (or, as the cynics would put it, saw which way the wind was blowing), he jumped in with both feet and got things done. I sincerely believe that Johnson, with his J. Edgar Hoover-like collection of dirt on everybody and his “Johnson Treatment” ways of negotiating, got things done that neither Eisenhower nor Kennedy ever could have.
Which leads to the next thing. Vote Chewning writes: Pres. Johnson signed the Civil rights act into law July 2, 1964. The house of Representatives passed the bill – 289 to 124 80% Republican and 63% Democrats voted yes. The Senate voted 73 to 27 with 21 Democrats and only 6 Republicans voting no. KKK member Sen. Byrd filibustered the bill for 14 hours. Richard Nixon, presidential candidate Barry Goldwater and Republican Martin Luther King lobbied for the bill. As you can see your article is misleading in that it indicates that the Democrats were in favor of civil rights Republicans against. There are good and bad in both parties.
First off, Barry Goldwater famously opposed the Civil Rights Act. He did so on constitutional grounds after reading an opinion written by fellow Arizonan and future Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist (who also ridiculously supported Plessy v. Ferguson). Goldwater later regretted his opposition to the bill.
Goldwater had supported civil-rights bills in 1957 and 1960 (and voted in favor of the 24th Amendment, which outlawed the infamous poll tax), but whiffed on the big one, remarking, “You can’t legislate morality.”
We have to get another thing straight, because I don’t want to hear this nonsense this entire election year. The Southerners who called themselves Democrats from the 1870s into the 1960s were a bunch of redneck losers who used the term “Democrat” simply because Abraham Lincoln had been a Republican. It sucks that they used the term “Democrat,” but anyone with half a brain knows that those people have nothing to do with the real Democratic Party; trying to make some lame point by using that is disingenuous times 12.
When Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law, he remarked, “I know the risks are great, and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway.” After a brief detour into George Wallace’s racist American Independent Party camp in the election of 1968, the South became solidly Republican and remains that way today. (Bill Clinton won Georgia, Louisiana and a couple of other Southern states in 1992, and four in 1996; and Barack Obama won Florida, North Carolina and Virginia in 2008, but that’s about it.)
The Southern people who used to call themselves Democrats are now Republicans, and it’s a much better fit for them. (And I’m not saying that Republicans are, by definition, racist. I don’t believe that. Now, Tea Party members … just kidding. Sorta.)
Also, will Republicans please stop invoking the names of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt? Neither of those guys would be welcome in today’s GOP. Lincoln would be tarred and feathered, and Roosevelt would be burned at the stake. Can you imagine the Republicans supporting someone who would take on big business and stand for environmentalism?
This article appears in Jan 12-18, 2012.
Ah refreshing.. Political banter. You don’t see that on every TV station, web site, paper, street sign, etc.. etc..
Oh wait, yeah ya do.
Seriously, how many people actually read what you write. Time to retire dude.
Yawn, who actually reads your comments anyway
I read Danehy every week, first thing!
Good, : ) There were the Dixiecrats, George Wallace & KKK Byrd and some Republicans against Civil Rights. Like I said there were (and are) some good and some bad in both parties. I do want to thank you for you stand for these rights.
I don’t think you’re kidding about the Tea Bagger racist thing. But a year later the tone is decidedly different: quieter, less vitriol, no Sarah Palin fake stumping for a presidential run that will never come. Nice.
@Dave Wilson
I used to read his column before he started to discuss things he has no clue about ie: Politics.
Way to go Tom, set the history strait. It’s kinda’ funny all of what you wrote can be found out, very easily, but this just shows once again, the idiocy of americans and their history. And, what is with these punks probably repugnants, who respond to an article incessantly? Hang Tough! Tom.
Thank you Tucson Weekly/Mr. Denehy. God only knows how many native New Yorkers read your articles weekly. I am one but I’ll bet you dollars to doughnuts there are hundreds more but choose to not praise you. I do. p.s. Your facts are correct and Eisenhower, in his final address to the nation warned us of the military industrial complex costing us billions at the cost of God only knows.
Make no mistake, I enjoy Mr. Danehy’s articles, which is why I showed disappointment with a political tone this week. Uninterested.
I live in up state New York and I read Danehy every week. I visit Tucson several times a year and I find Danehy generally makes sense. I find it interesting that those who said no one reads Danehy must have been reading him. The southern Democrats of the 1930’s-1970’s were very similar to those who fought reconstruction in the 1860’s and 1870’s, supported the Klan put in place the Black codes and fought most civil rights bills. When the majority of Democrats ironically lead by a southerner supported civil rights it is no surprise those southern democrats became solid southern republicans (well almost all)
The sneering that Danehy does at Eisenhower’s Little Rock actions are typical of Tom’s narrow views. A much stronger case – though hypothetical – can be made that the toughness Ike showed was the real beginning of the strong government action that was proved necessary with respect to civil rights, and strong action was implemented a few years later. Matt Holland’s well-documented volume, “Eisenhower between the Wars” (Praeger) notes that Ike saw the need for overwhelming force and sent 1000 paratroopers to Little Rock, successfully. Ike probably did that, not for moral reasons, but rather to uphold the rule of law. Still, it turned out to be an opening move of great consequence. Holland goes on, “Ike, wisely … did not take personal command in Little Rock.” The reason was based upon Ike’s experiences in a similar situation where he had observed the unfortunate political result of MacArthur’s taking personal charge of the Veteran’s Bonus marches at the beginning of the Great Depression.
Seems only repukes read your article this week with which I totally agree. Documentation trumps rhetoric. Your documentation is solid!!! Thanks
Off Topic: Tom D — I enjoyed watching your daughter and her team play in that 3 day tourney at Pima CC last week of Dec. They must have been a non-sanctioned team, right? Seemed weird to have players with jersey #s using digits 6-9, plus your daughter has to be beyond JuCo eligibility.
disingenuous times 12.
Do you dislike the metric system, Tom?
I enjoy most of your columns.
Thanks.
I’m with you Earl. Tom is the first thing I read also. Wish he drank, I’d buy him a beer.
So let’s expand your “rebuttal”, Harry Truman, FDR and John Kennedy would never be accepted into today’s Democrat Party as they were much too conservative (I mean, my goodness, Jack actually cut income taxes…substantially). LBJ never really “woke up”, he was way to dishonest and corrupt for that. He simply saw the opportunity to hop on MLK’s coat tails to create the “Great Society” (and this was planned to be his lasting legacy) which has ultimately degenerated into an entitlement program which cost the taxpayers (those few that do) trillions of dollars and has accomplished nothing more than generational poverty and an increase in the poverty percentages of minority groups and and the majority group. Without that “evil” Republican support, the Civil Rights Acts would have been stalled for at least a generation, and how wonderful of you to promote regional bias with your handpicked quotes…you sir, are an ignorant racist of your own making!
And last, but not least, the fact that Harry Truman had to desegregate the Armed forces by executive order is quite telling! The fact is that while he may have signed the executive order, Ike enforced it and made sure it happened…probably the only saving grace of his presidency.