Five Decades of Lies Help Dems Create Monolithic Black Vote


As recently as 1956, nearly 39 percent of blacks voted Republican in that year’s presidential election. After the Civil War, Abe Lincoln’s Republican Party easily carried the black vote — where blacks were allowed to vote. Unwelcome in the Democratic Party, most blacks voted Republican and continued to do so through the early part of the 20th century. It wasn’t until 1948, when 77 percent of the black vote went to Harry Truman, who had desegregated the military, that a majority of blacks identified themselves as Democrats.

Yet, as a percentage of the party, more Republicans voted for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats. For his key role breaking the Democrats’ filibuster and getting the act to pass the stalled Senate, Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen, a conservative from Illinois, landed on the cover of Time magazine. President Lyndon Johnson called Dirksen “the hero of the nation.” The Chicago Defender, then the country’s largest black daily newspaper, applauded Dirksen’s “generalship” for helping to successfully push through the bill.

Older black voters sometimes explain they’re opposed to Republicans because of the “racist” Southern strategy. But Richard Nixon speechwriter Pat Buchannan, credited with inventing the “Southern strategy,” considered the Democratic Party the party of the racists. Buchanan said: “We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states’ rights, human rights, small government and a strong national defense, and leave it to the ‘party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.’”

But before that, another pivotal event occurred that helped the GOP-as-racist meme. In 1960, during the presidential campaign, Martin Luther King Jr. was arrested following a sit-in at a segregated lunch counter in Atlanta. Hundreds of other protestors were released, but King was jailed on a trumped-up probation violation for failing to have a Georgia driver’s license.

King’s aides reached out to then-Vice President and Republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon. They also reached out to the Democratic nominee, John F. Kennedy. Bobby Kennedy called the Atlanta judge handling the case. Shortly after that call, the judge released King. Nixon, according to Harry Belafonte, a King supporter, “did nothing.” Is that true?

Nixon, it turns out, had a much closer relationship with King than did Kennedy.

In the Nixon Presidential Library in Yorba Linda, Calif., records show considerable handwritten notes and correspondence between Nixon and King. This includes a 1957 letter from King acknowledging their previous meetings, which thanked Nixon for his “assiduous labor and dauntless courage in seeking to make the Civil Rights Bill a reality,” and praised him for his “devotion to the highest mandates of the moral law.”

But in 1960, on the eve of the election, Nixon was in a tough spot. Nixon’s public silence might be misconstrued as acceptance of King’s arrest. On the other hand, as a candidate for his boss’s job, Nixon worried about the political costs of appearing ungrateful if he chastised President Dwight Eisenhower for not taking stronger action. Eisenhower, however, was content to let the Justice Department handle the matter.

According to historian and presidential biographer Stephen Ambrose, while Nixon made no public comments, he telephoned Attorney General William Rogers to find out if King’s constitutional rights were being infringed, thus opening the door for federal involvement. Nixon, a lawyer, was concerned about the ethics of calling a judge to get him to release someone.

Nixon, writes Ambrose, told his press secretary: “I think Dr. King is getting a bum rap. But despite my strong feelings in this respect, it would be completely improper for me or any other lawyer to call the judge. And Robert Kennedy should have known better than to do so.” That Bobby Kennedy, also a lawyer, nevertheless made a phone call to the judge did not alter the issue of whether it was appropriate. In retrospect, an easy call, but not at the time.

Two million pamphlets titled, “‘No Comment’ Nixon Versus a Candidate With a Heart, Senator Kennedy,” were distributed in black churches. Never mind that in 1956 Nixon revealed he was an honorary member of the NAACP. Or that Nixon pushed for passage of the ’57 civil rights bill in the Senate. Or that Time magazine wrote that Nixon’s support for civil rights incurred the wrath of one of his segregationist opponents, Sen. Richard Russell, D-Ga., who sarcastically called Nixon the NAACP’s “most distinguished member.”

But the GOP-is-racist meme can be heard nightly on MSNB-Hee Haw and in political science and history classes all over the country. Actor Morgan Freeman calls the tea party racist. Democratic National Committee Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., tells us that the GOP wants to “literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws.”

Keeping blacks ignorant of history remains crucial to this caricature of the Republican Party — and to the monolithic Democratic black vote. Not so black and white, is it?

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Mary Sue

    Oh, is that how it started…I hadn`t even heard of that.

  • davarino

    Hmm, dems really have pulled one over on black people. And what is it the dems have done for them? After how many years? How many more years do they need? Do you really think that free obama phone is going to lift the black community out of the mess they are in? No, they are being used. Just like the soviets used dupes here in America. They called them "useful idiots", and the useful part was to destroy America. And thats the other part of the equation of how blacks became mesmerized by the dem party. Blacks were used by the KGB to foment unwrest. If the KGB could pin that on the Republican party and shift attention away from the dems, who by the way have been pretty much pro communist, then use that to discredit the anti communist party. If America is so bad, why is it no one wants to move to Moscow?

    Yes, I have to admit, I have been watching "The Americans". Great show

    • SHUTTHEFUCKUP

      ignorant racist scum.

      • Mary Sue

        noob. You have nothing to add.

  • RRick

    Sure, evil Moscow's hand is everywhere. Like that BBC weather forecast reading, "winds from Siberia and Northern Russia explain the recent cold spell on the isles"… Nothing unusual. But strangely, many individuals from the West have moved to Russia recently. They just don't advertise it. Try googling "Daniel Dolan" for today's news as an instance. And right here in my home town, some 500 miles east of Moscow, westerners are buying land and settling. They bring families. I wonder why…

  • AlgerHiss

    If I see 100 black Americans in line to vote, I know full well at least 90 of them will vote just as hard-core leftist as they possibly can.

    If I was a recruiter for communism, and saw 100 black Americans and 100 others of any mix, I'd certainly go recruit in the group of black Americans. I'd surely get the highest success rate there.

    If I were a college professor teaching Marxism 101, and I wanted to fill my class quickly, I'd recruit the black students first. Again, going with the odds, my hit rate would be highest.

    I hate making these observations, but someone please tell me why I shouldn't: They're based on cold, hard facts and data.

  • John Stone

    What the left gets away with, more than anything else, is playing the outsider. They are never responsible for anything because they are always the opponent of the system. A second rule here is that the less successful a person is the less enthusiasm they have for the social system they function in. This combination sets the stage for the least successful among us to want change, which is to say a new system where they imagine the outcome will be better for them. So, promise a new system that gives benefits related to grievance instead of benefits for productivity, and naturally the most aggrieved have an enthusiasm for it. And as the new lefty leadership is not responsible for anything, the more aggrieved their followers are the better.

  • http://shugartpoliticalaction.shugartmedia.com/uncommonsense/ Chris_Shugart

    No one has ever explained to me what the rationale would be for Republicans to keep blacks in perpetual social and economic bondage. What's the percentage in that? There's no logical thought process that can make a case for it. I guarantee that any free-market type person would tell you that a prosperous and upwardly mobile black population would be a boon to the US economy. But guess who's opposed to seeing that happen? The liberal politicos who stand to benefit from keeping their black constituency forever in service of the destructive policies of the Democrat Party.

  • BQI

    There is a series of videos at this blog site. The videos tell the history of Blacks and the Democrat Party. It dispels the notion of the Southern Strategy. It also has a video on Black Genocide showing how Planned Parenthood goals set by eugenicist Margaret Sanger are being fulfilled. The final link consists of quotes from Margaret Sanger, racist and founder of Planned Parenthood. The blog site is Black Quill and Ink: http://blackquillandink.com/

  • watsa46

    Soon, the Blacks and Hispanic will realize that they can't put all their eggs in the same bag. It is already starting.

  • trickyblain

    "Yet, as a percentage of the party, more Republicans voted for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats."

    Never has there been a more misleading "stat." The American South was dominated by Democrats. There were only a handful of Republicans. While 93 percent of Southern Dems voted against it, all 11 Southern Republicans did so as well (100 percent).

    In the more civilized North, 96 percent of Dems voted for it while 85 percent of Republicans did so.

    The South was totally against it; the North overwhelmingly supported it. It was a regional, not a party issue.

    And which party was it that introduced the bill to begin with?

    "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come"
    -LBJ, correctly predicting the future, the night after signing the CRA of 1964 into law.

    • Russ P.

      Think about why it is significant that a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You point out that 100% of Southern Republicans voted against it. Yes… but Republicans were a tiny minority in the south, so that figure is not particularly significant. The significant fact here is that the South was very racist and was utterly dominated by the Democrats. Oh, weren't Southern Democrats real Democrats?

      • Russ P.

        Also, LBJ is famously quoted saying that, "I'll have those ni**ers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." Why didn't you use that quote instead of the one you used.

        I think my earlier post was deleted because I quoted LBJ using the word "ni**er".

        • trickyblain

          I didn't use that quote because I didn't think of it at the time. But Johnson was, like most Texans at the time, a bigot.

          Kennedy, who essentially drafted it, was not.

          • Russ P.

            OK, we agree that Johnson was not as pure as the wind-driven snow. I hesitate to call him a "bigot," because that word is waaaaay overused by your side. He was not nearly as much of a "bigot" as many other Democrats of his era.

            Here's the bigger point, tricky. The fact was pointed out that a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the 64 CRA. Now that is a fact whether you like it or not. And why is it significant? It is significant because your side has created and maintained a massive lie that Republicans are historically the party of racism, when if fact the truth is exactly the opposite. The Democrats have historically been the party of racism.

            Most people on the street, if asked, would probably guess that it was the Republicans who fought the 64 CRA. So it is important to correct the historical record.

            For more on this topic, please see the little article I wrote at
            http://russp.us/racism.htm

      • trickyblain

        They sure as hell weren't the dreaded "liberals" that folks on this site are constantly whining about.

        Republicans were a minority — only 11 of them — but all voted against the CRA. Can't really dismiss 100 percent, regardless of minority status.

        It was regional; at the time, as you point out, conservative Democrats dominated the South. Therefore, the Democrats in the South had considerable influence in terms of the no vote percentage.

        Yet in the North, over 95 percent of Dems voted for it, as did 85 percent of Reps. Ergo, a Southern thing.

        Did the South automatically become cured of racism when it shifted to the Republican party in the mid/late 60's?

        • Russ P.

          Think about it. There were 11 Republicans in Congress in the entire racist-dominated South! To make a big deal of the fact that they all voted against the CRA is a distractionary ruse when the Democrats in the south voted overwhelmingly against it.

          By the way, let's not forget that at one time the KKK terrorized any Southern Republican that dared to vote in favor of civil rights for blacks. Also, back in 1964, no Republican who was strongly in favor of black civil rights had any chance of getting elected in the South.

          Did the South automatically become cured of racism when it shifted to the Republican party in the mid/late 60s, you ask? You tell me. Is there more or less racism in the South now that Republicans are dominant? We both know the answer to that question, don't we.

  • Russ P.

    I just spent 10 minutes writing a comment only to have it immediately deleted. Why should I waste my time here?