[  http://Liberal-Insights.org/civilrights.html  ]

White Supremacy
alive and well
in today's  G.O.P.		 Confederate Flag
    Pages :   [1]   2  of Civil Rights.

        Being such "good Christians", Southerners swear on their Bible Belt that they love their "negra" neighbors and always have, and that they didn't wage a Civil War with the United States of America to defend and perpetuate the enslavement of black people who had been captured in Africa and brought to our shores to work for nothing on their plantations.  There's no question that there were beneficiaries of the practice of slavery and slave-trading in the Northern states as well.  But were the people in the North willing to fight to the death to perpetuate slavery there?  Or did they see slavery as the evil that it was, ban it in most of their own states, and then fight to the death to end it in the rest of the United States of America?

        It's amazing that a careless moment could have brought down Senator Trent Lott, the powerful Republican Leader of the U.S. Senate in Dec., 2002, when he said at the celebration of the 100th birthday of Sen. Strom Thurmond, that America would have faired better in the latter half of the 20th century if, instead of electing the Democrat, Harry Truman, or the Republican, Tom Dewey, it had elected Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond President of the United States of America!  Most Americans outside of Dixie may only have a fuzzy idea of what supporting Strom Thurmond meant in 1948, but Southerners who know anything about their history know full well exactly what that meant.  For Southerners, fighting for "states rights" meant fighting for the right of the former Confederate States to perpetuate segregation and "Jim Crow laws" in the 20th century, just as fighting for "states rights" had meant fighting for the right of states to perpetuate the enslavement of black human beings in the 19th century,  When Southerners, Republicans and "Christian conservatives" try to deny that, show them that you have "the smoking gun", one of many documents that show what they know to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth:

        Since the vast majority of Southerners were too poor to actually own slaves personally, their betters, who did own the slaves, and who made all the important decisions for the community, including the one to wage a war of secession against the United States of America, didn't come right out and tell them "We want you to go to war and risk your life, to protect our right to own slaves."  In most cases, the vast majority of those who actually fight in wars stand to lose much more than they stand to gain, and it's necessary for the rich and powerful to fool the masses into risking their lives for the benefit of those pulling their strings.  The soldiers who fought heroically and/or lost their lives on the front lines may be honored because they believed that they were fighting for some noble cause, but none other than Jefferson Davis himself spelled out how important slavery was to the Southern powers that be.  The issue of free labor, stollen from African slaves was what made civil war necessary for the creation of a Confederacy of States, where white Americans could have the "liberty" to continue profitting from its free black labor force.

        Don't take my word for the real reason the South fought a war to create a separate confederacy of states.  Here's what the President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, said about that when he addressed the Confederate Congress in the aftermath of the fall of Fort Sumpter:

Special Message to the Confederate Congress

        A fortnight after Fort Sumter fell, President Jefferson Davis in a special message to the Confederate Congress explained his view of the nature of the Union and of slavery, and how the threat to black slavery had impelled Southerners to secede and form a new government:

Gentlemen of the Congress. . .
        The declaration of war made against this Confederacy by Abraham Lincoln, the President of the United States, in his proclamation issued on the 15th day of the present month, rendered it necessary, in my judgment, that you should convene at the earliest practicable moment to devise the measures necessary for the defense of the country.  The occasion is indeed an extraordinary one.  It justifies me in a brief review of the relations heretofore existing between us and the States which now unite in warfare against us and in a succinct statement of the events which have resulted in this warfare, to the end that mankind may pass intelligent and impartial judgment on its motives and objects.  During the war waged against Great Britain by her colonies on this continent a common danger impelled them to a close alliance and to the formation of a Confederation, by the terms of which the colonies, styling themselves States, entered "severally into a firm league of friendship with each other for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever. . .  In order to guard against any misconstruction of their compact, the several States made explicit declaration in a distinct article-that "each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.''
        Strange, indeed, must it appear to the impartial observer, but it is none the less true that all these carefully worded clauses proved unavailing to prevent the rise and growth in the Northern States of a political school which has persistently claimed that the government thus formed was not a compact between States, but was in effect a national government, set up above and over the States.  An organization created by the States to secure the blessings of liberty and independence against foreign aggression, has been gradually perverted into a machine for their control in their domestic affairs. . .  In addition to the long continued and deep­seated resentment felt by the Southern States at the persistent abuse of the powers they had delegated to the Congress, for the purpose of enriching the manufacturing and shipping classes of the North at the expense of the South, there has existed for nearly half a century another subject of discord, involving interests of such transcendent magnitude as at all times to create the apprehension in the minds of many devoted lovers of the Union that its permanence was impossible.  When the several States delegated certain powers to the United States Congress, a large portion of the laboring population consisted of African slaves imported into the colonies by the mother country.  In twelve out of the thirteen States negro slavery existed, and the right of property in slaves was protected by law.  This property was recognized in the Constitution, and provision was made against its loss by the escape of the slave. . .
        As soon, however, as the Northern States that prohibited African slavery within their limits had reached a number sufficient to give their representation a controlling voice in the Congress, a persistent and organized system of hostile measures against the rights of the owners of slaves in the Southern States was inaugurated and gradually extended.  A continuous series of measures was devised and prosecuted for the purpose of rendering insecure the tenure of property in slaves. . .  Emboldened by success, the theatre of agitation and aggression against the clearly expressed constitutional rights of the Southern States was transferred to the Congress. . .  Finally a great party was organized for the purpose of obtaining the administration of the Government, with the avowed object of using its power for the total exclusion of the slave States from all participation in the benefits of the public domain acquired by all the States in common, whether by conquest or purchase; of surrounding them entirely by States in which slavery should be prohibited; of those rendering the property in slaves so insecure as to be comparatively worthless, and thereby annihilating in effect property worth thousands of millions of dollars.  This party, thus organized, succeeded in the month of November last in the election of its candidate for the Presidency of the United States.
        In the meantime, the African slaves had augmented in number from about 600,000 at the date of the adoption of the constitutional compact, to upward of 4,000,000.  In moral and social condition they had been elevated from brutal savages into docile, intelligent, and civilized agricultural laborers, and supplied not only with bodily comforts but with careful religious instruction.  Under the supervision of a superior race their labor had been so directed as not only to allow a gradual and marked amelioration of their own condition, but to convert hundreds of thousands of square miles of the wilderness into cultivated lands covered with a prosperous people; towns and cities had sprung into existence, and had rapidly increased in wealth and population under the social system of the South; the white population of the Southern slave­holding States had augmented from about 1,250,000 at the date of the adoption of the Constitution to more than 8,500,000, in 1860; and the productions in the South of cotton, rice, sugar, and tobacco, for the full development and continuance of which the labor of African slaves was and is indispensable, had swollen to an amount which formed nearly three­fourths of the exports of the whole United States and had become absolutely necessary to the wants of civilized man.  With interests of such overwhelming magnitude imperiled, the people of the Southern States were driven by the conduct of the North to the adoption of some course of action to avert the danger with which they were openly menaced.  With this view the Legislatures of the several States invited the people to select delegates to conventions to be held for the purpose of determining for themselves what measures were best adapted to meet so alarming a crisis in their history.  Here it may be proper to observe that from a period as early as 1798 there had existed in all of the States of the Union a party almost uninterruptedly in the majority based upon the creed that each State was, in the last resort, the sole judge as well of its wrongs as of the mode and measure of redress. . .
        . . . In the exercise of a right so ancient, so well established, and so necessary for self­preservation, the people of the Confederate States, in their conventions, determined that the wrongs which they had suffered and the evils with which they were menaced required that they should revoke the delegation of powers to the Federal Government which they had ratified in their several conventions.  They consequently passed ordinances resuming all their rights as sovereign and independent States and dissolved their connection with the other States of the Union.
        Having done this, they proceeded to form a new compact amongst themselves by new articles of confederation, which have been also ratified by the conventions of the several States with an approach to unanimity far exceeding that of the conventions which adopted the Constitution of 1787.  They have organized their new Government in all its departments; the functions of the executive, legislative, and judicial magistrates are performed in accordance with the will of the people, as displayed not merely in a cheerful acquiescence, but in the enthusiastic support of the Government thus established by themselves; and but for the interference of the Government of the United States in this legitimate exercise of the right of a people to self­government, peace, happiness, and prosperity would now smile on our land. . .
        Jefferson Davis.

http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/JeffDavisSpecialMessage.htm
It's not about "slavery" ; it's about the "heritage" (of slavery) :
        Here are some interesting observations made by someone with actual experience of the South:
        "I have spent a lot of time in the South, and as the Civil War is an interest of mine, I spend a lot of time visiting the battlefields.  It always surprises me how little interest there is in the South in the history of the war.  It seems ironic to me that people display the battle flag and defend that by saying it is historical, but then have no interest in the actual history.  Visit any battlefield in the South and you will see 99 out of a hundred license plates are from the North.  Ask people in any town near a battle field for directions and see how many people drive by a battlefield everyday and have no clue what it is about.  Yet there are battle flags and decals all over town.
        The battle flag became popular during the civil rights struggle and has been used as a symbol of resistance to integration and voting rights.  We can debate this or you can ask me for "proof" but that is a bunch of nonsense.  All one needs to do is to ask people who display the flag what their reasons are for displaying it.  They will tell you, providing they think it is safe to do so.  So why play games and pretend?  No white person can claim to be unaware of this.  So whom are we kidding?"

Are TODAY's Republicans
the "Party of Lincoln" ?

        When running for re-election in July of 2004, in a speech to the largely black Urban League, George W. Bush repeated the often repeated claim that his party is "the Party of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass". 
        Does that mean that we would be justified in calling Germany "the country of the Nazis" and referring to any of the former Confederate states as "slave-holding states", because those statements were true in the past?  "My plane is stopping over in Georgia, one of the slave-holding states," on the way to "the country of the Nazis".  Then I'm heading for Jesus' country, (you know, Israel). 
        Everybody knows that most of the black Americans who were "Republicans" in the 19th century became "Democrats" in the twentieth century, not because they no longer wanted freedom and equality for black Americans, but because the Republican Party ceased to be the party of freedom and equality for black Americans.  And everybody who knows anything about American politics, knows that those who are least interested in freedom and equality for black Americans recognized the Democratic Party as their party in the 19th century, but switched their allegiance to the "Republican Party" in the 20th century, when the two parties switched their beliefs.
        The see how silly it is to ignore the historical transformation that have taken place over time in America when it comes to our political parties, imagine people continuing to think of Senators Bob and Liddy Dole, Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, as Democrats because that is what they were prior to the 1970's, or Arriana Huffington, Hillary Clinton as Republicans, because that is what they once were.

        On the other hand, maybe what conservative Republicans mean when they claim to be "the party of Lincoln" is that they agree with the findings of the black historian Lerone Bennett Jr., whose 2003 book, "Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream," argues that Abraham Lincoln's reputation as a great liberator of the oppressed black people of America is very much overblown.  It is perhaps the following sentiments of Abraham Lincoln that today's conservative Republicans identify with:
  • Lincoln publicly referred to blacks by the most offensive racial slur.  In one speech, Lincoln said he opposed the expansion of slavery into the territories because he didn't want the West "to become an asylum for slavery and n- - - - - s."
  • Lincoln envisioned and advocated an all-white West, declaring at Alton, Ill., in 1858, that he was "in favor of our new territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home ...  as an outlet for free white people everywhere, the world over."
  • Lincoln supported his home state's law, passed in 1853, forbidding blacks to move to Illinois.  The Illinois state constitution, adopted in 1848, called for laws to "effectually prohibit free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in this state."
  • "People in the North don't know how deeply involved the North was in slavery," he says, adding that Illinois "had one of the worst black codes in America.  People don't know that. . . .  Black people were hunted like beasts of the field on the streets of Chicago, with Lincoln's support."
  • Lincoln blamed blacks for the Civil War, telling them, "But for your race among us there could not be a war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or another."
  • Lincoln claimed that "the people of Mexico are most decidedly a race of mongrels.  I understand that there is not more than one person there out of eight who is pure white."
  • Repeatedly over the course of his career, Lincoln urged that American blacks be sent to Africa or elsewhere.
  • In 1854, Lincoln declared his "first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia; to their own native land." In 1860, Lincoln called for the "emancipation and deportation" of slaves.
  • In his State of the Union addresses as president, he twice called for the deportation of blacks.  In 1865, in the last days of his life, Lincoln said of blacks, "I believe it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves."
    •         "Such facts may not be well-known, but they are "not hidden in the records. ...  You can't read the Lincoln record without realizing all that," Mr. Bennett says. 
            Lincoln became "a secular saint," Mr. Bennett says, partly because of the circumstances of his 1865 assassination, immediately after the Confederate surrender at Appomattox.  "Without question, I think the manner of his death, the time of his death . . .  all these were major factors in turning Lincoln into the American icon,"  Mr. Bennett says, noting that Lincoln was later praised even by those who had been his harshest critics during his life". . .
            "The myth is an obstacle to understanding," Mr. Bennett says. Lincoln "is a metaphor for our real determination to evade the race problem in this country."   Lincoln gets credit for the Emancipation Proclamation, which did not actually free any slaves, Mr. Bennett says.   "The most famous act in American history never happened," he says, noting that Lincoln issued the proclamation only under pressure from Radical Republicans in Congress men such as Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania and Charles Sumner of Massachusetts.   Along with abolitionists such as Wendell Phillips and Frederick Douglass, the Radicals were "the real emancipators," Mr. Bennett says.  "There were several major white leaders [during the Civil War] who are virtually unknown today, who were far in advance of anything Lincoln believed."   It is a "moral imperative" for Americans to know the truth about Lincoln, Mr. Bennett says.   "Cynics may not believe that the truth will set you free; but lies will definitely enslave you," he says.  "I don't see any way to get away from the duty to tell the truth."
    [ from http://www.scvcamp469-nbf.com/blackhistoriandocumentslincoln.htm ]

    The First Emancipator :
    The Forgotten Story of Robert Carter,
    the Founding Father Who Freed His Slaves
    by Andrew Levy

          "A contemporary of Jefferson and Washington, Carter has largely been forgotten by historians because he seems less heroic than these great men; nevertheless, he managed to do something that they and the other founding fathers - for all their greatness - could not: free his slaves with little or no material gain."

            Garrett A. Morgan was the inventor of the precursors to today's gas masks and of America's traffic signals. Because of the color of his skin, however, there was no mention in the news media of his day of his crucial role in saving dozens of lives in a mining disaster, which was a dramatic illustration of the value of his invention. When they learned that he was black, some short-sighted fire departments actually cancelled their orders of the life-saving masks, which saved the lives of many fireman and then hundreds of thousands of allied servicemen on the battle fields of World War I.

    G.O.P.  lies about their Record on Civil Rights :

    Civil Rights Act of 1964
    Final Vote - June 19 Vote: 73 to 27
    (51 votes needed for passage)

            The use by Republicans of this vote is a perfect illustration of the dictum that "Statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics."  Have you ever wondered why they never refer you to the data upon which their claims are supposedly based?  We will give you that data, (from the C-Span website) because we are not out to misinform you;  and we want you to see for yourself the truthfulness of our claims.
            The Republicans claim that their party has a better record on race relations than the Democratic Party because, they say "81% of Republican Senators voted for the Civil Rights bill, vs. 69% of Democratic Senators."
            Anybody who knows anything about the political scene of those days, as opposed to the political scene today, knows that what was called "the Democratic Party" in those days had two diametrically opposed parts, the extremely conservative "Dixiecrats" of the former Confederate states, who where in the process of divorcing themselves from what we now know as "the Democratic Party" of modern times.  It is those Christian conservative "Dixiecrats" of the deep South - and only those "Democrats" - who voted against all the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960's.  It is precisely because the bigotry of these Southern Christian conservatives did not fit with the newfound liberalism of the Democratic Party in the rest of the country, that they first became "the Dixiecrats" and then not only joined the Republican Party , but actually came to dominate the Republican Party and to imbue it with its Southern Christian conservative stamp.
            When you look at the raw data yourself, what you find is that :

    1. of the "Democrats" who voted against that monumental Civil Rights bill, every last one was a "Dixiecrat" representing a former Confederate state, states that were so unhappy with the Democratic Party's embrace of Civil Rights for blacks at that stage of American history that they would soon replace all of their "Democratic" representatives who weren't racist enough to satisfy their intense bigotry, with conservative Republicans who were!
              While there was not a single Senator representing the states we now recognize as Democratic  ( i.e. outside of the former Confederate states) to vote against Civil Rights, there were six Republican Senators outside of Dixie who opposed the Civil Right bill, led by Sen. Barry Goldwater, the standard bearer of the Republican Party that year, the party's choice not only to lead the party but the country, as President of the United States !  And one of those who ran for Congress that year as "a Goldwater Republican" and who campaigned against the Civil Rights Act was George H. W. Bush.

    2. 90% of African Americans ( whose parents and/or grandparents were likely to have identified with the grand old "Party of Lincoln", prior to the 1960's ) now identify with the new "Party of Lincoln",  while vast numbers of "Dixiecrat" office holders and voters have gone the other way, running from the old "Party of Jefferson Davis" to the new "Party of Jefferson Davis".  Both groups are experts on the question of which party is favorable to civil rights and the one opposed to it, and they agree entirely on the answer.
    The votes in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill :
    Democratic Yeas: 47
    Clinton Anderson (D-NM)
    Bob Bartlett (D-AK)
    Birch Bayh (D-IN)
    Alan Bible (D-NV)
    Daniel Brewster (D-MD)
    Quentin Burdick (D-ND)
    Howard Cannon (D-ND)
    Frank Church (D-ID)
    Joseph Clark (D-PA)
    Thomas Dodd (D-CT)
    Paul Douglas (D-IL)
    James Edmondson (D-OK)
    Clair Engle (D-CA)
    Ernest Gruening (D-AK)
    Philip Hart (D-MI)
    Vance Hartke (D-IN)
    Carl Hayden (D-AZ)
    Hubert Humphrey (D-MN)
    Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
    Henry Jackson (D-WA)
    Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)
    Frank Lausche (D-OH)
    Edward Long (D-MO)
    Warren Magnuson (D-WA)
    Mike Mansfield (D-MT)
    Eugene McCarthy (D-MN)
    Gale McGee (D-WY)
    George McGovern (D-SD)
    Thomas McIntyre (D-NH)
    Patrick McNamara (D-MI)
    Lee Metcalf (D-MT)
    Mike Monroney (D-OK)
    Wayne Morse (D-OR)
    Frank Moss (D-UT)
    Edmund Muskie (D-ME)
    Gaylord Nelson (D-WI)
    Maurine Neuberger (D-OR)
    John Pastore (D-RI)
    Claiborne Pell (D-RI)
    William Proxmire (D-WI)
    Jennings Randolph (D-WV)
    Abe Ribicoff (D-CT)
    Stuart Symington (D-MO)
    Harrison Williams (D-NJ)
    Ralph Yarborough (D-TX)
    Stephen Young (D-OH)     		Not ONE Dixiecrat in favor Republican Yeas: 26
     George Aiken (R-VT)
    Gordon Allott (R-CO)
    Glenn Beall (R-MD)
    Wallace Bennett (R-UT)
    Caleb Boggs (R-DE)
    Frank Carlson (R-KS)
    Clifford Case (R-NJ)
    John S. Cooper (R-KY)
    Carl Curtis (R-NE)
    Everett Dirksen (R-IL)
    Peter Dominick (R-CO)
    Hiram Fong (R-HI)
    Roman Hruska (R-NE)
    Jacob Javits (R-NY)
    Leonard Jordan (R-ID)
    Kenneth Keating (R-NY)
    Thomas Kuchel (R-CA)
    Jack Miller (R-IA)
    Thruston Morton (R-KY)
    Karl Mundt (R-SD)
    James Pearson (R-KS)
    Winston Prouty (R-VT)
    Leverett Saltonstall (R-MA)
    Hugh Scott (R-PA)
    Margaret Chase Smith (R-ME)
    John Williams (R-DE)
    Milton Young (R-ND)
            The only "Democrats" to vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Bill were Dixiecrats of the former Confederate states.  But 6 Republicans from outside of Dixie joined the Dixiecrats in opposing equality for Black Americans.
    Democratic Nays:1
    Robert Byrd (D-WV)     		Dixiecrat Nays: 20
    Harry Byrd (D-VA)
    James Eastland (D-MS)
    Allen Ellender (D-LA)
    Sam Ervin (D-NC)
    William Fulbright (D-AR)
    Albert Gore Sr. (D-TN)
    Lister Hill (D-AL)
    Spessard Holland (D-FL)
    Olin Johnston (D-SC)
    Everett Jordan (D-NC)
    Russell Long (D-LA)
    John McClellan (D-AR)
    Willis Robertson (D-VA)
    Richard Russell (D-GA)
    George Smathers (D-FL)
    John Sparkman (D-AL)
    John Stennis (D-MS)
    Herman Talmadge (D-GA)
    Strom Thurmond (D-SC)
    Herbert Walters (D-TN)

    		Republican Nays: 6
    Norris Cotton (R-NH)
    Barry Goldwater (R-AZ)
    Bourke Hickenlooper (R-IA)
    Edwin Mechem (R-NM)
    Milward Simpson (R-WY)
    John Tower (R-TX)
            For a good book on this subject, read "Walls of Jericho: Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, Richard Russell, and the Struggle for Civil Rights"
            See as much detail as you like on this non-partisan site,
    Legislative history of the major U.S. Civil Rights Bills.

            According to the civil rights scorecard composed by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the proponents and opponents of civil rights has changed little since the 60's.  Indeed, the party of Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, and Jesse Helms should hang their heads in shame. 
            The LCCR based their scores on an analysis of each senator's voting record on 13 major issues.  Of all Senators in the 107th congress, 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans and 1 Independent:

    20 Senators scored
    a perfect 100 %
    ALL of them
    DEMOCRATS     !

    Boxer - California
    Lieberman - Connecticut
    Akaka - Hawaii
    Inouye - Hawaii
    Durbin - Illinois
    Mikulski - Maryland
    Sarbanes - Maryland
    Kennedy, E. - Massachusetts
    Kerry, J. - Massachusetts
    Levin, C. - Michigan
    Dayton - Minnesota
    Wellstone - Minnesota
    Reid, H. - Nevada
    Corzine - New Jersey
    Bingaman - New Mexico
    Clinton - New York
    Reed, J. - Rhode Island
    Leahy - Vermont

    		An unbelievable 31 Senators
    scored ZERO %
    . . . ALL of them
    REPUBLICANS     !

    Sessions, J. - Alabama
    Shelby - Alabama
    Murkowski - Alaska
    Stevens - Alaska
    Kyl - Arizona
    Allard - Colorado
    Craig - Idaho
    Crapo - Idaho
    Lugar - Indiana
    Grassley - Iowa
    Brownback - Kansas
    Roberts - Kansas
    Bunning - Kentucky
    McConnell - Kentucky
    Cochran - Mississippi
    Bond - Missouri
    Burns - Montana
    Ensign - Nevada
    Gregg - New Hampshire
    Smith, R. C. - New Hampshire
    Helms - N. Carolina
    Inhofe - Oklahoma
    Nickles - Oklahoma
    Thurmond, S. - S. Carolina
    Frist - Tennessee
    Thompson, F. - Tennessee
    Gramm, P. - Texas
    Bennett - Utah
    Hatch - Utah
    Enzi - Wyoming
    Thomas, C. - Wyoming

    Overall, Democrats' average score was a very respectable 91%. In contrast, Republicans (including some from very Northern states) scored all of 6% !
    For more details, see the extensive tables at
    http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=002892M

            Most of the older U. S. Senators from the deep South, like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, Phil Gramm, Trent Lott, and Robert Byrd were all Southern Democratic bigots in their youth, but while most of these went on to become bigoted "Dixiecrats", and then Republicans, Democratic Senator Robert Byrd renounced his past and became rather Liberal.  This is the way he answered the question posed to him on CNN by African American reporter Bernie Shaw in Dec. 1993:
    Q: "What has been your biggest mistake and your biggest success?"
    A: "Well, it's easy to state what has been my biggest mistake.  The greatest mistake I ever made was joining the Ku Klux Klan.  And I've said that many times.  But one cannot erase what he has done.  He can only change his ways and his thoughts.  That was an albatross around my neck that I will always wear.  You will read it in my obituary that I was a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
            Contrast that with an interview Thurmond gave Joseph Stroud of the Charlotte Observer in July 1998 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of his presidential bid on the segregationist Dixiecrat ticket.  Asked if he wanted to apologize, Thurmond (speaking apparently for Senate Republican Majority Leader Trent Lott, as well) said,  "I don't have anything to apologize for," and "I don't have any regrets."  Asked if he thought the Dixiecrats were right, Thurmond said, "Yes, I do."

    Important moments in the timeline of African American Slavery in the United States:
    • 1776 Declaration of Independence
    • 1777 Slavery is abolished in Vermont.
    • 1778 Virginia prohibits external slave trade.
    • 1780 Pennsylvania passes a law that allows for the gradual abolition of slavery.
    • 1780-1810 Almost as many slaves are brought into the Unites States as had been brought in over the previous 160 years.
    • 1783 American Revolution (War of Independence) ends
    • 1783 Slavery abolished in Massachusetts
    • 1784 "The Christmas Conference" of the Methodist Church passes a resolution against slave holding.
    • 1786 1,890 of a total of 18,791 methodists are black.
    • 1786 Richard Allen and Absalom Jones establish the Free African Society in Philadelphia. This is a response to the need to create a place of worship, social welfare, and community for free blacks in the area. Similar societies soon emerge in other cities.
    • 1787 Constitutional Convention
    • 1790 The number of black methodists increases to 11,682.
    • 1791 The Bill of Rights is added to the Constitution.
    • 1793 An approximated 18,000 or 19,000 of a total of 73,417 baptists are black.
    • 1799 Second Great Awakening begins with the Cane Ridge camp meeting. The meeting takes place in Kentucky and embraces African-Americans. Many slaves convert to Christianity.
    • 1800 Gabriel's Rebellion is attempted in Richmond, Virginia. Gabriel, the Black Sampson, uses Old Testament themes to as inspiration to rise up against slavery. Slave revolts in South Carolina, North Carolina, George, Louisiana and Mississippi follow.
    • 1800 The state of Virginia passes a law forbidding African-Americans to assemble between sunset and sunrise for religious worship or for instruction.
    • 1830's-1840's There is increased concern among white church men about the religious well-being of slaves in the south. This concern leads to plantation missions.
    • 1831 Nat Turner, a baptist slave preacher, leads a revolt in Southampton County, Virginia, killing at least 57 whites.
    • 1838 Presbyterians divide over slavery.
    • 1844 Methodists divide over slavery.
    • 1852 Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin is published.
    • 1852 Jossiah Priest publishes Bible defence of slavery.
    • 1856 Booker T. Washington is born in Franklin County, Virginia, on April 5. Washington later becomes a leader in the educational, social and political realms of African-American life.
    • 1857 On March 6, the Supreme Court decides that an African-American cannot be a citizen of the U.S., and has no rights of citizenship.
    • 1860 Abraham Lincoln is elected the 16th President on November 6.
    • 1861 Civil war begins
    • 1862 Slavery is abolished in the District of Columbia.
    • 1863 The Emancipation Proclamation takes effect January 1, legally freeing slaves in areas of the South in rebellion.
    • 1865 On January 31, Congress approves the Thirteenth Amendment outlawing slavery in the United States.
    • 1865 Civil War ends
    • 1865 President Abraham Lincoln is assassinated.

        Pages :   [1]   2  of Civil Rights.