Editor,

Mr. Oberg in his letter to the editor on July 13, states that the Republican party wants to “whitewash” the teaching of the problem of racism in America’s history. The facts suggest otherwise.

The 13th Amendment abolished slavery and was approved by the 38th Congress. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 passed the 39th Congress. The 14th Amendment declared that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. were citizens and penalized states that abridged voting rights and was approved by the 39th. The 15th Amendment forbade the states from denying voting on the basis of race and was approved by the 41st.

The Civil Rights Act of 1875 barred discrimination in public accommodations or conveyances and passed the 43rd. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 created a commission to abolish obstructions of voting rights by state officials and passed the 85th. The Civil Rights Act of 1960 introduced criminal penalties for those obstructing federal court orders and passed the 86th.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination on race, color, religion, sex and passed the 88th. Voting Rights Act of 1965 suspended the use of literacy tests and other voter disqualification devices for 5 years and passed the 89th. The Civil Rights Act of 1968 prohibited discrimination in the sale of or rental of housing and passed the 90th.

In all these amendments and acts, the Democratic Party was split in their votes in favor and the Republican Party was overwhelmingly in favor.

Philip Hage

Woodside

Recommended for you

(11) comments

Wilfred Fernandez Jr

Mr. Hage,

Thank you for making the time to research legislative facts. And for composing an unemotional L.T.E. It is refreshing to read the thinking of an adult.

Ray Fowler

Good morning, Philip

I responded to Mr. Oberg's LTE saying, "So, in your view of how history should be taught... how do you teach about Democrats and the KKK? What do you teach about Democrat presidents like Wilson and Johnson who were racists? What would you teach in school about Executive Order 9066?"

His response? None.

Then I added, "In the words of Professor Carol Swain, 'Democrats falsely claim that the Republican Party is the villain, when in reality it’s the failed policies of the Democratic Party that have kept blacks down. Massive government welfare has decimated the black family. Opposition to school choice has kept them trapped in failing schools. Politically correct policing has left black neighborhoods defenseless against violent crime.'"

During the point-counterpoint discussion that followed Mr. Olberg's LTE, I asked for a reaction to Professor Swain's comments. More crickets...

Ray Fowler

Yikes! I mistakenly wrote "Olberg" instead of "Oberg" in my comment. My error. Sorry.

Tafhdyd

Good morning Ray,

I can see the problem because I almost commented the same way. I was going to add that we haven't heard from Mr. Oberg about the bigotry comment the other day and when I looked back I realized that was Mr. Olbert, not Mr. Oberg. I am guessing you may have been on the same track as I.

Ray Fowler

Hey, Tafhdyd

This keeps going round and round...

I don't believe the injustices we can easily find perpetrated by the Democratic Party in our nation's history represent today's mainstream Democrats. They are good people who cherish the First Amendment, the free enterprise system, and equal treatment for all. However, as you move further left on the spectrum to leftists and progressives found in the Democratic Party, you will also find a perspective that continues to enslave minorities... not with chains but policies.

That being said, the right wing knuckleheads at the Capitol on January 6 do not represent garden variety Republicans. The leftists and progressives would have you believe that anyone who voted for the Donald last year is an insurrectionist. It's just not true. There were plenty of reasons for Republicans to reject Joe in 2020 and Hillary in 2016.

What I personally find intellectually dishonest is the leftists' and progressives' notion that conservatives... all conservatives... are racists. The idea that magically, mystically the "bad" Democrats made a wholesale switch to the Republican Party in the 1960s is pure fiction.

I'm still looking for a reaction from the left side of the aisle in response to Professor Swain's remarks. Crickets.

And I'm still waiting for a response from Mr. Olbert. Thus far, we're not hearing chirping, just clucking.

Tafhdyd

Ray, I am back, I think,

More black and white pigeon with the eight red toes...

We have been to this dance before and I agree with everything you said in the first 2 1/2 paragraphs. You also know I don’t buy the absolute everyone is…etc. Several months back I gave you my breakdown of the Trump voters. I said that only about 15-20 million were knuckle-dragging racist bigots. About 5 mil were never going to vote for a Dem even if it was God himself and 5 mil would vote only for a Repub even if it was Satan himself. I gave you a few other combinations, so yes (or no), all conservatives are not racists, just to be sure I am not in the leftist progressive category.

I still believe that the switcheroo hoax, as Terence calls it, is not fiction. No, every last one did not switch, but enough did to switch the south from Democratic to Republican and maintain their prejudices. A tiger doesn’t change his stripes. I will give you a couple of links that agree with my view.

https://www.chicagoreporter.com/the-political-legacy-of-the-kkk/

https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1751.html

I am not familiar with Prof. Swain so I looked her up and she has good arguments for her views.

BTW, my earlier comment about the name was just my thought on why you might have added the "L". I wasn't expecting it to turn into a big discussion.

Ray Fowler

Hey, buddy...

Sorry I didn't get to this last night... put me in coach... I'm ready to play!

Name game... yes, it can be confusing... no worries.

OK... thanks for the compliment. You like everything I said down to my line, "The idea that magically, mystically the 'bad' Democrats made a wholesale switch to the Republican Party in the 1960s is pure fiction." I understand your position.

The more I kick around this idea, the more layers I find to peel away. Just like we agree that not all Democrats support the progressive agenda and not all Republicans support the insurrectionists, I think we can say that some Democrats steeped in a racist perspective did jump ship to join the Republican Party back when we were kids. However, you cannot point to someone like Strom Thurmond, the original Dixiecrat, and say, "Republicans are now racist," just because he switched to the Republican Party. He does not represent mainstream Republicans. Look at Democratic Party Senators Richard Russell and Robert Byrd. You can't point to those guys and say, "Yep... those racist Democrats never change." They do not represent mainstream Democrats. So, I think we can agree... some Democrats did switch parties... where we will disagree is whether those switches really make a difference.

They can, however, make some difference. That was part of the article about the KKK you sent along. Even though the Klan is small in numbers, they still make news. I think part of the media's fascination with the Klan is that it identifies with some conservative philosophy. That's true, but just because Klan members didn't vote for Joe Biden does not translate to the Republican Party is becoming the party of the Klan. Your source, "The Chicago Reporter," did a lot of good work in investigating racial bias some time ago. Their KKK article talks a lot about research but it's not delivered in the article. Where's the beef?

The other article... hmmm... the source is Online Highways... an internet travel information company. The article provided some good background about the Dixiecrats who ran Strom Thurmond for president in 1948 but it woefully lacked analysis. In my view, neither article makes a case that racist Democrats switched wholesale to the Republican Party in the 1960s.

Like I said, yes, there were some party hoppers. But the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not trigger the hopping. Were racist Democrats going to jump to the party with a higher ratio of affirmative votes in Congress that favored the Civil Rights Act? I don't think so. We did see the rise of Barry Goldwater later in 1964. It was said about him... "While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulates a philosophy that gives aid and comfort to the racists." Who said that? Dr. Martin Luther King. Dr. King is perceptive. Some Democrats may be against the entitlement programs being worked up by Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, so Goldwater's opposition to "free stuff" appeals to them. I'm guessing Dr, King would also be critical of the aforementioned Messrs. Russell and Byrd... both Democrat stalwarts. BTW... while ol' Barry was clearly a states rights kinda guy, the hoppers could not be too happy with Barry criticizing the religious right, supporting gay rights, and defending abortion.

Going back to 1876, the Democratic Party dominated Electoral College tallies for the 11 Deep South states until 1968. Sixty-two percent of the time, they did so by an 11-0 margin. That all changed in 1972 when Richard Nixon swept the South. I'm thinking that had more to do with the Vietnam War than racism. But the South rose again to beat Republicans 11-0 in 1976.

Did some Democrats switch parties in the mid-1960s with bad intent? Yes. Was it the wholesale switcheroo being bantered about in these pages? No.

Which brings me to how Democrats have continued to deny Blacks true equal opportunity. The Democratic Party leadership has used race in a most divisive manner. They point to the right side of the aisle and demean conservatives as racists, and then remind Blacks to keep voting the Democratic ticket because they will get free stuff if they do. As Milton Friedman said, "There's no such thing as a free lunch."

You are correct... Professor Swain does make a good argument. I'm still waiting for someone to rebut it.

Done.

Tafhdyd

Hello Ray,

WOW, did you think about publishing that book you just wrote? Being a two finger hunt and peck guy I would hours getting that one online.

Open Highways? I had to check and as far as I can see the source is U-S-History.com.

I see at the bottom of my page it says brought to you by Open Highways. Looks to me like they are sponsoring the site but not supplying the info. Did you click on the site map near the bottom? They have pages of links to everything under the sun about history from what I can tell. I am sure you can find something of interest there.

Ray Fowler

Hey, Tafhdyd

You're correct. Looks like Online Highways paid to create U-S-History.com. The article re: Dixiecrats has a lot of factual information but it is low on analysis. Interestingly, it features a photo of Hubert Humphrey near the top... he was not a Dixiecrat. Toward the end of the article, the text meanders over to Republican Barry Goldwater and Republican Richard Nixon. I felt there should be more about actual Dixiecrats in the article... that's just me. The name is probably a little too close to History.com... I wonder why they would do that?

https://www.u-s-history.com/about.html

The other link was to The Chicago Reporter. Interestingly, that source is the exact opposite of The Epoch Times with respect to political orientation. The Times has a strong right orientation and the Reporter has a strong left orientation. I'm OK with a source being strong one way or the other. I know Jorg swears by MSNBC, and I swear at MSNBC. But I do admire their honesty about leaning hard left and at the same time acknowledging they are delivering commentary not news.

In a nutshell, we can agree some Democrats jumped ship in the 1960s to the Republican Party and those former Democrats were bad actors when it comes to race. Where we disagree is whether the numbers are significant and if the switching has made a real difference. No and no.

Waxing philosophical again... the real difference since that time has been the Democratic Party's suppression of the Black community... and it has been going on for decades.

Blacks were on the rebound before the Great Depression... Black businesses thriving and a cultural explosion. There was a time before FDR was elected that Black unemployment was lower than White unemployment. Then... it crashed and still has not fully recovered. Blacks didn't get much from FDR. Sixteen years later, while legislation pushed by Democrats gave Blacks more freedom, it came at a price. Over the past several decades, the Democratic Party leadership has extracted a heavy toll on Blacks living in our largest cities. The figurative enslavement continues. It is no surprise why a couple of left leaning readers would not respond to Professor Swain's comments. Those readers are too immersed in leftist and progressive rhetoric to see anything else.

Terence Y

Thank you for your letter, Mr. Hage. Get ready for somebody to push the false narrative of some Republican to Democrat party switcheroo hoax that they, but nobody else, believe. Fortunately, facts speak for themselves. To this day, we still see Democrats handicapping people on the basis of race. Shame on these rabid Democrats for promoting divisiveness instead of unity.

Dirk van Ulden

Let's face it, folks like Mr. Oberg never bother to do their own research. They are parrots and just borrow from the Left's talking points.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for visiting the Daily Journal.

Please purchase an Enhanced Subscription to continue reading. To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.

We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.

A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!