Who was really responsible for the Civil Rights Act?

Speaking at the Civil Rights Summit at the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library in Austin, Texas yesterday, President Obama praised President Johnson passing the “most sweeping” civil rights legislation “since Reconstruction” even though “it would anger powerful southern Democrats and committee chairmen.” On radio this morning, Pat and Stu discussed new reports that actually suggest Republicans may have played a larger role in the 1964 Civil Rights Act than they are given credit for.

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV

“The praise of LBJ as a civil rights pioneer is nonsense. First of all, LBJ had earlier voted against civil rights, like banning lynching. He voted against eliminating poll taxes. And [he voted for] denying federal funding to segregated schools. He voted against all the measures that later made up a big part of the legislation that he finally signed,” Pat explained. “This whole thing has been turned upside down. This whole thing has been turned into Democrats are fighting for civil rights and Republicans oppose them. I don’t know how that happens.”

As TheBlaze reports, when it came time to pass the Civil Rights Act, six Senate Republicans voted against the bill, while 21 Senate Democrats opposed it. It ultimately passed by an overall vote of 73-27. In the House, 96 Democrats and 34 Republicans voted against the Civil Rights Act, and it passed with an overall 290-130 vote. While the majority of Democrats in both chambers voted for the legislation, the bulk of the opposition came from Democrats.

The Republicans who opposed the law did so primarily because of “discomfort about forcing private business to comply with public accommodation laws.” The majority of those Republicans actually supported the 1957 and 1960 bills signed by President Dwight Eisenhower.

Furthermore, a 1964 edition of Time magazine actually credits Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) for playing a large role in getting the legislation passed.

“The last thing Democrats want anybody to do – they’re counting on the fact that you don’t do this – is look into who opposed and who favored civil rights. During and before that battle really was won,” Pat concluded. “And still do this day. But they certainly don’t want you to look at the Al Gore seniors of the world and the LBJs of the world. They don’t want you to do that.”

Read TheBlaze full report about the history of the 1964 Civil Rights Act HERE.

Front page image courtesy of the AP

  • http://truthofg.blogspot.com/ Connor Davenport

    A little history lesson left.


  • http://truthofg.blogspot.com/ Connor Davenport

    Also someone should tell Obama Woodrow Wilson is a racist.

  • Anonymous

    If conservatives care so much about civil rights how come they don’t care at all about civil rights for groups of people who are not them?

    • Gdrake

      I don’t understand what does who are not them mean??

      • Anonymous

        Neither does “it”. Then again that’s the case with most of “it’s” ramblings.

    • Anonymous

      They do care, You refuse to see them.

      • BlueMN

        They only care about the 2nd Amendment…well, parts of it.

        • Anonymous

          Then you’re as blind as Fiine Tapestry.

  • Deckard426

    Ku Klux Klansman, Senator Robert Byrd (D) WV, filibustered against the 1964 Civil Right Act, but he’s the darling of the ‘inclusive’ Democratic Party.

  • texastruthtweet

    And Republicans are the racist party? Makes no sense to me.

  • Anonymous

    Johnson is taking credit for it but it wasn’t him and it has been the Democratic party that has been putting minorities down especially the black community. I wanted to say it was EIsenhower who was responsible for it but I know it wasn’t Johnson or the democrats.

  • Anonymous

    As long as the media is run by socialists we will never get the truth. The Koch brothers are wasting their money on ads. They need to buy a mainstream network if they want to exert influence.

  • Anonymous

    Considering what has become of the country’s racial strife, and considering that blacks were getting ahead faster than whites PRIOR to Johnson’s Great Society nonsense, and considering how Johnson actually considered the legislation — coupled with the welfare programs of his administration — to be enslaving of blacks to the Democrat Party and social workers, I’d say the county would have been better off — and black families would be much better off — if Johnson had failed.

  • Anonymous

    Republicans. What was started during the Eisenhower years was then completed by a reluctant Democrat swaying the opposing southern Democrats. We all still remember the “Solid South” don’t we? One word was left out. Make it “Solid Democratic South”. Johnson and later Nixon had to fight the southern Democrats to the *superintendent* level to desegregate schools years after the Civil Rights Act was passed. A newly built High School (’68-ish) built solely for the purpose of continuing segregation sat vacant for decades as fading tensions continue to this day.

    The Democrats never seem to want to “own” anything — another sign of socialism — well, they own the Solid Democratic South.

  • Anonymous

    The Progressive Democrats:

    Here’s a democratic, progressive definition of freedom, care and hope: “Jim Crow Laws”

    Who tried to stop the laws? Republicans. Read up on the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Who proposed it? A Republican and John Mercer Langston, another Republican (you don’t know him? look him up, get reading). What happened to it? It passed! What became of it — very little. What happened to the Civil RIghts Act of 1957? Read up. Read how the bigoted, intolerant, racist, discriminatory, hateful, left-wing-loony, Democrats fought it tooth and nail *including* LBJ, forcing so many changes as to make the Act unenforceable. Nevertheless, Eisenhower (R) signed the bill. Now we get to the Civil Rights Act of 1960 another attempt to extend voting rights. Who opposed it again? No prizes for guessing — the Democrats — the Solid Democratic South. It still passed and who signed it? Eisenhower (R). We finally get to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After endless protests and violence on TV JFK, finally in 1963, offered a novel idea: A Civil Rights Act (that eventually was based mainly on the Civil Rights Act of 1875!). While some of the bigotry and discrimination by Democrats had softened some, the Solid Democratic South stood firm and bigoted. After much wrangling and sensing a change in the weather LBJ (D) was able to get passage and sign the law in 1964. What took so long? Who delayed Civil Rights for decades inflicting untold misery on African-Americans and destroying untold hopes and dreams for everyone? That’s right, the Democrats — the party of “yes”, the party of “hope” the party of “change”, the party of “onward” and the party of “forward”.

    Who wants to now own the narrative? Can’t you tell? The Democrats — the party of delaying Civil Rights for nine decades.

    • BlueMN

      To pretend, as you, and Pat and Stu do, that there is almost a straight line between Lincoln, the Civil Rights Movement and the Tea party is nonsense and dishonest.

      Yes, the Southern Democrats, “states rights” advocates, opposed the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but it was LBJ who broke the filibuster, ordered the arrest and prosecution of Klan members (for the first time since the Grant administration), appointed the first African-American Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, and appointed the first African-American cabinet secretary Robert Weaver.

      So to answer Pat or Stu’s disingenuous question as to when that “all got turned upside down,” it was 1968, when Nixon and the GOP employed their “Southern Strategy” and started courting Southern racists by saying civil rights should be left up to the states and adopting an anti-Federal Government stance (sound familiar, Teabaggers?)

      Ronald Reagan (“I believe in states’ rights”) and GW Bush “proudly” carried on that strategy. Own that.

      • Anonymous

        Republicans own the strategy and they apologized. It was bad and evil, deceiving the Democratic racists thus extending the careers of Democratic racists thus extending the misery of racist influences and policies enacted by Democratic racists.

        The Southern Strategy was a bad move for both Republicans and all freedom-loving Americans. It was a bad move using Democratic strategies. The result being Democratic racists can now use something within recent-ish memory to deceive people of color and obfuscate the entire history of racial freedom in America the freedom that was denied, legislated against and filibustered against by Democratic racists.

        • BlueMN

          Yeah, doesn’t sound like your “owning” it at all. Basically what you said was, “it was all the Democratic racists’ faults.”

          The only deception going on here is the claim by Pat ‘n Stu that the Civil Rights Movement is somehow a Republican notion and that Democrats weren’t the ones taking the risk of losing the South in the years to come.

          Question for you, are you more likely to see a Confederate flag waved at a Democratic Party rally or a Tea Party rally?

          • Anonymous

            At a Racist Democratic rally.

            The Republicans have championed for Civil Rights since their inception. It took a Civil War, a march on Washington DC, tens of thousands of innocent American lives and nine decades for the Democratic Party to reluctantly show the appearances of what they call “progressing”.

          • BlueMN

            HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh, at a “Racist” Democratic rally! Is that what the Tea Party is calling itself these days?

          • Anonymous

            Look at that smiling face.

          • Anonymous

            Hey, there’s two Democrats here. One you may know the other is Democratic Lt. Gov. Lester Maddox. Not your average people, mind you, but duly elected persons of authority.

          • BlueMN

            “Carter and Maddox found little common ground during their four years of service, often publicly feuding with each other. In Georgia, the Governor and Lieutenant Governor were not elected as a team.”

          • Anonymous

            That’s right, Carter and Maddox fought like cats and dogs. They were not running mates. That fact is well known to those who lived through and remembered the time, otherwise one might make assumptions and conclusions based upon photos.

          • BlueMN

            To be fair, I don’t think all or even most Teabaggers are racist. I think you are all too worried about how much taxes the wealthiest have to pay, or your assault rifles to care about race as much.

          • Anonymous

            I think you are one of “them” because you’re changing the subject away from race. You don’t care.

          • BlueMN

            He was a GA State Senator and later Gov. of GA, what state flag should he have posed with?

            “I’ve traveled the state more than any other person in history and I say to you quite frankly that the time for racial discrimination is over. Never again should a black child be deprived of an equal right to health care, education, or the other privileges of society” -Jimmy Carter after being elected Governor of GA

            the Carter peanut warehouse was boycotted by the White Citizens’ Council because he refused to join.

            “When he was sworn in as the 76th Governor of Georgia Jan. 12, 1971 he declared in his inaugural speech that the time of racial segregation was over and that racial discrimination had no place in the future of the state.

            “He was the first statewide office holder in the Deep South to make this declaration in public, and he appointed many Blacks to statewide boards and offices, during his term.”

          • Anonymous

            Now you’re reading. Next, annotate your previous pictures with the factual information you have on those individuals and their political stance.

          • BlueMN

            Read their signs, if you want more, a simple Google search will do:
            Photo 1: Las Cruces, NM Tea Party [libertarian, conservative]
            Photo 2: Council of Conservative Citizens [conservative]
            Photo 3: Baton Rouge Tea Party [libertarian, conservative]
            Photo 4: Tea Party protest, Washington D.C. [libertarian, conservative] Same day Palin and Cruz showed up at the WWII Memorial to protest government shutdown that they had shut down. Did you really think it would be something different?

          • BlueMN

            Wrong photo above, won’t let me edit it out.

            Same guy as photo 4, note the yellow “Don’t tread on me” flags that the Tea Party usurped to the left of the picture.

          • Anonymous

            You’re trying to imply an unspoken conclusion by clever use of photos that are designed to invoke a response from the unwary. Since you have not identified or spoken to any of these people you do not know their intent and you do not know the conclusion.

    • BigMG

      Classic equivocation, BlueMN. States rights for this age meant something entirely different than back in the 1860’s. The equivocal argument goes that those who supported Slavery were States’ Righters. Actually, the use of States Rights as an excuse for rebellion was simply a package sold to the commoners expected to die for a Southern Democrat dictatorship. The Civil Rights Movement has always been a conservative cause, notwithstanding the divisions that eventually destroyed the Whig party in the process. What is left of the Republican party is also window dressing, but everyone who looks honestly at the Democrat party sees only Marxism. Marxism is human bondage.
      BTW, to say that LBJ had any ideological leanings besides Socialism is naive. He was busy covering his butt from murder charges and a host of corruption investigations. Throwing his own party’s KKK Southern Democrats under the bus meant nothing. Besides, how many of them, of any prominence, spent any real time in jail?

      But then the emotional rewriting of history is what Proggers own.

      • BlueMN

        LOL So much tinfoil-hat nuttiness in that comment, if this wasn’t Glenn Beck’s site, I wouldn’t think it was real.

        “The Civil Rights Movement has always been a conservative cause.” LOL Is that why conservatives like Barry Goldwater (R) and Strom Thurmond (D) were so “prominent” in Civil Rights marches?

        The rest of your comment is even farther out of the realm of sanity as to not be worthy of any further response. Talk about emotionally rewriting history.

    • Mark Samuels

      Grow up, it was fought by both parties, finally passing with 39% of democrats and 22% Republicans in the House, along with 37% Democrats, and 20% Republicans in th e Senate. EVERY Southern representative voted against the Act, in fact holding a fillibuster.

      • Anonymous

        Start reading and comprehending. You’re right, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed by the House and Senate and signed into law by LBJ (D). The history leading up to and including that 1964 Act reveals something the Democratic Party would like to forget and have you not know. You might want to reread what I wrote. To hear the narrative today as conveyed by agenda-driven, “heroic” Democrats, the Republican party is racist and wants nothing better than to marginalize people of color. The overview of the history of the Civil Rights Acts post-bellum reveals nine decades of Democratic stonewalling and bigotry *including* the 1964 Act. The Democrats are not the heroes. The heroes are the Civil Rights champions, the millions of people who chose peace over violence and the thousands of innocent American citizens (certain Democrats might take issue with that) that were murdered for the “cause”.

  • http://suzeraining.wordpress.com/ suz

    bho champions modern slavery. leads the way.

  • Sam Z

    This I just another way the Democratic progressives are trying to rewrite history.

  • Anonymous

    This has happened due to the failure of the public schools to teach our country’s history, opting instead for cultural diversity/politically correct curriculum. All by design I might add. If Common Core is allowed to take hold across the country this will only seal the deal. Graduating students today cannot recite the Gettysburg Address (which we were required to learn in school), most can’t name the three branches of federal government, and the majority can’t name one Supreme Court member. So, to not know the history of the Civil Rights movement is no surprise. Yet students can give you every detail of the Kardashians or Miley Cyrus nonsense.

  • Republitards suck

    How much it must hurt to be on the wrong side of history so badly, that you are desperate to rewrite history. Everyone knows the parties were reversed until up to 40 years ago.

  • Anonymous

    “Who was really responsible for the Civil Rights Act?” A very good point of discussion. Unfortunately the dialogue above misses the mark and presents only two possible alternatives – the old ‘black and white fallacy’ – an interesting yet fallacious way to evoke emotional response. Perhaps we might take another path and entertain the idea that maybe, just maybe, it was those brave souls of the Civil Rights movement who daily risked (and in many cases lost) their lives in the pursuit of unmasking the institutionalized forms of segregation and intimidation, of exposing the internal contradictions between thought (universal principles) and action in American society. The Civil Rights Act was made possible only through struggle and subsequent change of consciousness. This had little to do with policy makers…

  • landofaahs

    Although I don’t believe in a poll tax, I also don’t think people receiving welfare etc. should be able to vote themselves largess from the national treasury. Remember that the civil rights movement has been used for the current batch of people claiming rights under that bill that were never intended. Just as the EPA established under Nixon set the stage for nut job environmentalist extremists of today. The Devil is always in the details and each little bit of villainy has the potential to become a monster.

  • Ida Rathernotsay

    After Obama was elected Sean Hannity did a show on the radio where he said that the inaguration plans were ridiculous because Lincoln, the man they were comparing Obama to, was a republican, not a democrat. I remember it because some man called in and got outraged and said Hannity was lying. Hannity tried to tell him to goggle it but the man hung up. Now when you point out that the Democrats were the party that voted against civil rights and giving women the right to vote and were in favor of slavery they will just say “Well, that was the dixicrats. We’ve changed since then”.

  • Greenie Beanie

    Although some have been seduced by the fallacy that scientific knowledge growth shrinks our ignorance, most people realize that the ocean of our ignorance grows much faster than the island of our knowledge.

The 411 From Glenn

Sign up for Glenn’s newsletter

In five minutes or less, keep track of the most important news of the day.