Right after the Civil Rights Act in 1964, all those Dems just made a mad dash for the Republican Party and you could tell easily because Georgia was suddenly a Repub state instead of Dem. Same in other southern states....amazing, earth-shattering political change and the South became Republican! Uh, maybe that isn't anything close to actually what happened. History is a great subject to learn and have some knowledge about.

Later you blather about "distorting history" when it's rather obvious you have no idea about history to begin with.

Historically, that's exactly what happened. Georgia voted Democratic in every election from 1852 until 1964 when it switched to Republican.

Since the poster was saying all of the Dems in the south went Repub, why did the Dems still have large majorities for decades after in most southern states if they had so many become Repubs? Seems that I recall Georgia itself voting for some fellow named Carter too, and I'm pretty sure he was a Dem.

Lets' see......the states that have NEVER voted Dem since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
Alaska
Idaho
Kansas
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
Oklahoma
Utah

...none of these are southern states.

The Democrats had dynasties here and the Republican Party was virtually non-existent. They changed in their Presidential voting pattern while the Republican Party was still building in the South. After '64, Ga. voted for Wallace in '68, in anger at the Voting Rights Act. Since then, the South had voted Republican except for native sons.

The politics of the Republican Party today does not reflect attitudes of 50 years ago but the Party in the South was built by Democrats fleeing their Party because of Kennedy and Johnson's support for the Civil Rights Act.

If this pastor and his ancestors left the Democratic party because of racism as you accuse, then I assume that you, Lion, support and cling to the Democrats and the left wingers in general for your love of NAMBLA and all that is pedophilic. I can tar with an equally ugly and silly brush.
The Civil rights Act of 1964:
House version:
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
Senate Version:
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
It seems to me that the Republicans were much more on board with the Civil rights Act than the Democrats were. Just because you can keep repeating lies does not make it true.
It appears than anyone that disagrees with you is a racist. That is a very Fascistic place to be there.

Go to your history books or google the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Look at the states that were Democratic at the time - and then look at the change that occurred in 1965. The Dixiecrats of the South (Democrats) did not support integration. Let's don't give today's Republicans credit where credit is not due. The Dixiecrats became Republican after Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act.

I truly believe that most Democrats of color truly want to paint every Republican or Conservative as racist. They do it by repeating dogma over and over again. Lets look at two states of the deep south throughout the 60's to present day- Alabama and Georgia. Here are the Senators (remember one serving as class II and the other serving as class III):
Alabama (1964-)
Class II
John J. Sparkman (D)
Howell T. Heflin (D)
Jeff Sessions (R)First elected in 1996
Class III
J. Lister Hill (D)
James B. Allen (D)
Maryon Pittman Allen (D)
Donald W. Stewart (D)
Jeremiah A. Denton, Jr. (R)
Richard C. Shelby (D,R)switched parties in 1994)

Georgia
Class II
Richard B. Russell, Jr.(D)
David H. Gambrell (D)
Sam Nunn (D)
Max Cleveland (D)
Saxby Chambliss (R)
Class III
Herman E. Talmadge (D)
Mack Mattingly (R)
Wythe Fowler(D)
Paul Coverdell (R)
Zell Miller (D)
Johnny Isakson (R)

Here is my point. The south has been predominantly democratic until the early 1990's. The south voted for Reagan, but so did almost every state in 1984. I would state that the old style segregationists were out of power and dying off in the 80's. Yet you want to paint conservatives in the south (with heavy emigration from the north) as racists. We can differ on this. It is far more racist to judge by numbers and put the color of skin over the content of character in hiring decisions, but it has been institutionalized by no less than the US Federal government and civil servants nationwide.
And liberalism has not helped the African American community. In the teeth of segregationist America, there was more family unity, more fathers at home, more academic achievement than there is today in many African American homes. There was much more involved with the south turning "RED" than race. I will submit that there are some quarters of conservative thought that have racist tendencies, just as there as some quarters of La Raza and the NAACP that hold equally odious thoughts.

I would state that the old style segregationists were out of power and dying off in the 80's. Yet you want to paint conservatives in the south (with heavy emigration from the north) as racists. We can differ on this. It is far more racist to judge by numbers and put the color of skin over the content of character in hiring decisions, but it has been institutionalized by no less than the US Federal government and civil servants nationwide.

One thing that I have clearly stated - that I have learned from this experience of blogging here is that NOT ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE RACIST.
Here in Fayette County there are many Blacks who are Republican - check it out.

History is his-story; hopefully validated by fact. The south was a stronghold of the Democratic Party until 1964. Now you disprove that with facts.

Click here to see how the southern Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights bill in 1964 and were devastated when the bill passed." "That's it!"; Richard Russell slumped; and Hubert Humphrey beamed.

Today's conservative comes in all colors - but you can't change the history of the change in the south from Dixiecrats to Republican. Don't take my word for it - ask your history teacher.

The South continued to have democratic senators and congressmen well after the 60's? I am a student of history and the south is more complex than race. It also has better racial relations than most cities of the north. It has more integration now, than most cities of the north. The south was always much more socially and fiscally conservative than other national regions. The south going Republican has much more to do with the leftward veer of the democrats than anything else. Both parties have moved leftward. Politically and historically, the Republicans occupy the center-right and the democrats occupy the left.
Please comment on the affect of liberalism on the Afican American family over the past 45 years. Do you disagree with my comments above on this?

I have stated before that I am so pleased to be living in the south in 2010 as a 70-year-old black woman. I lived most of my life on the west coast of this country. I have never seen so many people of my color in the US in my life until I came to Georgia. African American families are more conservative than liberal. (Women could not wear pant suits to many denominations of the 'black' church until relatively recently.)
Regarding the difference in race relations: Andrew Young once explained the difference. In the north you could get as 'big' (educated/successful) as you wanted - just don't get too close. In the south you could get 'close', just don't get too 'big'. All blacks and whites do not experience 'life' in neat little ideological boxes. All Republicans do not have the same opinion on all issues - and all Democrats do not have the same opinion on all issues. A good discussion would be the effect of 'liberalism' on the American family. All blacks are not alike - and all whites are not alike. I have a feeling that I would probably have more insight on the effect on African Americans of any 'ism’ over the past 45 years than someone who is not African American. However, not all African Americans have had the same experience in this country - right? The attempt is being made throughout the country for 'Americans' to share their experiences as it relates to their individual experiences coming from different communities.

The south going Republican has much more to do with the leftward veer of the democrats than anything else.

This may be true in your experience - but it not the historical fact.

I admire your intent - but you should look at who you're holding up as an example of Southern Democrats since 1964. There are southern Democrats in the Congress, but read their bios before you use them to make your point.

Richard Brevard Russell, Jr.

Richard Brevard Russell, Jr. (November 2, 1897 – January 21, 1971) was an American Democratic Party politician who was a long-time United States Senator from the state of Georgia. He represented Georgia in the Senate from 1933 until his death in 1971. He was a founder and leader of the Conservative coalition that dominated Congress from 1937 to 1963, and at his death was the most senior member of the Senate. He was the leader of racist Southern opposition to Civil Rights for African Americans for decades.

You have proven my point precisely and yet it is infuriating that you do not seem to see it. I do not dispute that the Democrats have been crappy racists historically. The Democratic party of the south for at least two thirds of the 20th century was racist and segregationist. Hearts and minds seemed to undergo an amazing change from the time period of 1970 to 1990 in the south, specifically in Georgia as an example. The Georgian people, white and black alike continued to vote for a string of Democrats to its senatorial positions. Are you stating that Sam Nunn and Max Cleland are racists and segregationists? If not, you will see that the elections from 1968 through 1990 continued to bring Democrats to power in the example states of Alabama and Georgia. But the electorate changed. No longer were ardent segregationalists allowed to serve. The Democrats that were elected were much more progressive than heretofore. Even so, the South continued to elect Democrats until the early to mid 1990's. There was no instantaneous switch to the Republican party like you, Jeff C, and Lion assert.
That is all that I am trying to prove. Feel free to beat up the Democrats on this blog all you want. They certainly were wrong here historically. I am glad that you are a stalwart against overt racism, you are just immune to the racism that the Democrats possess of low expectations and the patting of your heads.
45 years of the Great Society and Democrat policies have played hell with African American families yet you refuse to acknowledge it.

The south going Republican has much more to do with the leftward veer of the democrats than anything else. This may be true in your experience - but it not the historical fact.

I am hardly beating up today's Democrats - since I am one of them. . .I am sick of politicians regardless of the party affiliation that they claim. It's is too bad the 'statesmen' don't run for office in our country. You have been denying a historical fact - and ignoring the facts that I and some others have been sharing with you. I vote in Georgia because of a Democrat. From my experience in California and elsewhere - trickle down economics and an era of greed has played hell not only with African American families - but middle-class families throughout our country. If I felt that the 'south' or Georgia was the same as it was in 1964, I wouldn't be living here.

No longer were ardent segregationalists allowed to serve.

Check Russell's bio again. The 'new south' is an example of how the rest of our country should be - especially in race-relations. (I have stated this before)

There was no instantaneous switch to the Republican party like you, Jeff C, and Lion assert.

Please, please - check your history. Have a nice day.

Being raised as an American citizen, I was taught that George Washington was a hero! In college, I wrote an essay stating that 'fact'. (Lo and behold, my professor was from England - and took me to task. He was raised in England - and from their perspective, George Washington was a 'traitor', insurgent.) This professor and I had an interesting conversation - and I learned a valuable lesson. History can be quite 'different' depending on the perspective of the historian.
It is obvious that you are very proud of the 'new south' - and you should be. If you are still a student, state the facts - and then your opinion and experience.

Show me in the elected positions of Georgia where Democrats by name holding power in 1964 or earlier switching to the Republican party in the 1960's. Show me all the state and federal congressmen that switched parties in the 60's and 70's that suddenly made this state a republican stalwart from 1965 onward. You cannot do this and history is mocking this effort of yours.

I vote in Georgia because of the efforts of a Democratic president and an enlightened Congress.

This is 'historical' - and a fact. Before the passage of the Civil Rights Act, it was almost impossible for an American citizen of color to cast a vote in the south,

It is obvious that you are very proud of the 'new south' - and you should be.

Today, 2010, is the south that you know and love . . .and that is admirable. . but you can't change history. Acknowledge it and be proud of what has been accomplished since 1965.

The 'conservative' states of today have improved immensely in 'race-relations' - but Reagan and the Republican Party used the fear of 'integration' to capture/retain the southern 'vote' since 1965. Strom Thurmond and George Wallace 'changed' because the 'blacks' had the vote - but they were still very 'conservative' regarding 'integration'/social issues. Fiscal conservatism is not just the concern of the south today. The south is still socially 'conservative' - but this does not necessarily incorporate 'racism'.

These 'facts' aren't liberal or conservative - they are history.

Why would the voters of Georgia 'oust' a wonderful American like Max Cleland - who remained a Democrat? He was too liberal. . . and the south has remained 'conservative'.

Here is how it started, Lion being an arse: "Southern Democrats became Republicans when they realized that their children would have to go to school with Black Americans."
All this has been is a quest to show that the show continued to vote for democrats for the next 30 years. So obviously, southern democrats did not immediately become republicans. How could this have happened if they continued to vote for fine upstanding democrats like Sam Nunn, Max Cleland, and Jimmy Carter? It is a simple exercise. The south was called "The Solid South" for democrats all the way until the 1984 election, a full twenty years after the CRA of 1964. Pundits thought that the election of 1980 (where only Georgia voted for Carter in the south) was an anomoly due to Iranian Hostage crisis. The Governors, Congressmen and Senators did not become majority Republican until well into the 90's.

How could this have happened if they continued to vote for fine upstanding democrats like Sam Nunn, Max Cleland, and Jimmy Carter?

Maybe because 'blacks' and 'liberals' used their voting right?

The 'south' you know and love is wonderful - and you are to be commended for being so loyal. The 'south' is the recorded home of my great-grandparents. I am very proud of the progress that has been made in the 'south' - but no matter your loyalty - you can't change history. Don't depend on 'charts' to give you the full story. Do your own research. Ask your relatives who were here in the 60's. I'm interested to know the results of your own research.

Is what I am. My great, great, great, great, great grandfather marched with Sherman through these parts in 1864. I like the south for what it is, generally right to work, friendlier, nicer people than up north. The south is much more integrated than the north. The New England Democrat may vote party line, but they are more racist than most conservatives in my experience. But of course, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, right?

can KISS my Rebel ARSE.

You are with me sometimes, against me other times, but I hold your crustiness with affection.

Nothing like a little fun on a Monday.

I'll say this, they did burn up some nice towns/houses in that little dally to the sea.

You're younger than I thought. I too find the 'south' friendlier in 2010. It wasn't so friendly in 1981 - especially Fayette County. You're absolutely right about 'integration' as far as communities are concerned. In Los Angeles, people of color lived in restricted areas - most on the eastside of town. Schools were community schools - and because communities were segregated - so were the schools. This changed in the late 30's and early 40's. Blacks could move 'west' of Main Street. You have no need to be defensive - but history is history.
On the whole, communities are more integrated here in Georgia than in California. Blacks respect much of the 'New England' area - the Quakers assisted in the Underground Railroad. . . however, there are very few places in our wonderful country where one of color did not incur discrimination. When I was 11, my father took me on a road trip throughout these United States so that I could see and experience the American 'way'. It was an eye opener. (This was in the 50's) Traveling in the south was frightening. Let's all be glad that this country is progressing in the area of 'race'.

Certainly has been rough for blacks. Even notables like WEB Dubois wanted a black separatist movement for awhile. We have improved and some of the best families as those that have crossed racial lines. I see that process accelerating. I question the loyalty of any one group to one political ideology. I do not see the Great Society and democratic policies as one that will liberate disaffected black people. I see the social disintegration of the underclass accelerating. I don't know what to do about it though. Money is not the answer.

I do not see the Great Society and democratic policies as one that will liberate disaffected black people. I see the social disintegration of the underclass accelerating.

As long as history shows that it was the Democrats/pre 1964 Republicans that fought for Civil Rights in this country - minorities will vote Democratic. It has not always proven 'wise' to back one party - and that may soon change. About the underclass - I'm sure that as I give what I can in time and money to the minority underclass, you and your church do the same for the 'white' underclass. The Kennedy's have a wonderful program to assist the 'white' underclass that live in parts of our country. Do unto others doesn' t have a racial criteria.

We really try to help all classes in my church. Nice racist assumption there DM. Maybe you should look outside of your own race to help others. Get your church to help the hispanic and white disaffected as well.

Also, the republicans that voted for the CRA in 1964, do they get a tarring like them southern democrats? How do you differentiate the two groups? Is it just easier to how a grudge for both?

If you attend a church that is integrated - and there are many here in Fayette County, you've missed the message.

Also, the republicans that voted for the CRA in 1964, do they get a tarring like them southern democrats?

No, they were honored for their vision. The Southern Democrats remained staunchly 'conservative' for the era. And some changed their party affiliation in later years - so not to be incorrectly identified with their 'liberal' cousins in the north. No point in arguing - you have been well taught. (You just may flunk a US history course)

You have to check this out. Too funny

Damn! You guys wore it out today--don't you need a break? I have to be careful not to sneak in some of my Eastern NC upbringing and experiences here---besides I might have to ask Kevin for some backup!

In the words of Dana Carvey (sp) impersonating George HW Bush:

"Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent."

I am A B C ing my way out of this one my friend!

ps. Maybe it's my nostalgia, but back in the days in NC me and my conservative friends only fought over bar tabs. I liked Reagan, Bush Sr., and Ford as gentlemen. And I could say I liked them and even some of their policies without being tarred and feathered. Now that Anna's three days from coming home, maybe I should start praying to turn the clock back, in some ways. But life without TIVO is NOT an option!

pss. The coolest iphone app EVER is a $3 download of Samuel Jackson's voice that will say any and everything you can imagine! The "No" series is OH MY GOD Funny!!!!!!!

Hack

I am so very glad to hear that Anna is doing well. Take care of her and let her get her rest - she'll need it for those twins! By the way, what are the babies names?

"The most beautiful things in life cannot be seen or even touched, they must be felt with the heart." - Helen Keller

Zoe (F) and Zack (M)

Simon (M)

Aerial (F)

Gabrielle (F)

Myria (F)

Danylle (F)

and Becca (F)

I need a cool down lap after typing those names!!!

Hack

First and foremost, for Anna's recovery and hopefully a return to normalcy for your family.
Next for our early days back in NC and I'm sure we both have experiences and memories that mean a lot to us and that have indeed become part of our adult persona. Perhaps somewhere down the road we can meet and exchange some history. Being a totally retired person, my schedule is of my making.
Gym

We have improved and some of the best families as those that have crossed racial lines.

What do you mean? Please clarify.

David's Mom does not believe in the right for people from different races to marry? I do and that is why I said those that marry and do not care about the racial differences make some of the best families

That's not what you said. For those who have seen me, it is obvious that crossing of 'racial' lines has been going on in this country for a long, long time. I asked you to clarify your statement - not determine that because I ask you to clarify - to state that I'm against interracial marriage. Race has little to do with what makes the 'best' families. Individual commitment is far more important than 'race'. You must be young. Do you have a debate teacher? Share this exchange with your teacher. Your statement may have been 'taken' as meaning that racially mixed families are better than others.

You make a point of putting words and thoughts into others. It is not fun when someone takes your thoughts, innocoulous though they are and turns it into something evil. You are a small minded lady that refuses to concede any points or thoughts contrary to your dogma. I am amused that you talk down to me, as there are some on this blog that know who I am. The biggest racist is normally one that points it out the most and has the largest chips.
I have served with many people and saw many interracial couples. I respect them for being on the front lines of residual racism and standing up to it for love.

now the personal attacks.

I have served with many people and saw many interracial couples. I respect them for being on the front lines of residual racism and standing up to it for love.

Oh, thank you so much Wedge. Interracial families across America are so grateful for your respect. Geeeez.

PEOPLE MARRY - NOT RACES!!!

You take the time to read the bios of those Democrats who remained in office in Georgia and Alabama during the ' 60's and 70’s. Then look at the platforms of 'conservatism' and 'liberalism'. Lion’s statement is his opinion - and the opinion of others BASED on history. I don't know where you were in 1984, but the rest of the country was well aware of what the term 'solid south' meant. Then came the terminology of 'red states, blue states'. You and others feel comfortable denying what happened in 1964-65. . .go right ahead. Southern Democrats remained 'conservative' - if they wanted to be elected - and southern Democrats after 1964 did not support integration or the CRA. That is history. Wedge, you are one of the few people on this blog who has ever admitted that Jimmy Carter is 'outstanding'. I commend you for this!

"Southern Democrats remained 'conservative' - if they wanted to be elected - and southern Democrats after 1964 did not support integration or the CRA." that southern democrats remained democrats and not republicans like Lion states? Sam Nunn, a democrat, senator from 1972-1997 got plenty of votes from conservatives and was fawned over by the press. Thank you for that admission. And I said that Carter was "upstanding" and we was/is. A good president he was not, though.

. .voted with the REPUBLICANS!! Who in the Sam Hill is your history teacher? You said 'outstanding' - gosh, are you being monitored? Don't want to appear conciliatory on the blog? In 1972, the south had more minority votes/liberal votes than ever - but it is still a part of the conservative bloc - that is not considered by most as 'racist' - but after this exchange with you, I'm beginning to wonder if there are those who just want to rewrite history - and are feeding the 'younger' generation with a picture that just didn't exist. Is this what 'southeners' call 'liberal'/distorted history. Jeff - could you please enlighten me?

Senators - Zell Miller (D), Max Cleland (D), Governor-Roy Barnes (D);

This was the last time that the State had democrats in major offices in the state. This was 36 years after the CRA of 64. The state is still in play for democrats. There was a democrat majority in the state of Georgia until around the year 2000. To say that the state turned more republican because of racism is bullpucky.

I don't need to do that. You prove that history is wrong. You might want to review the words of Lyndon Johnson as he signed the Civil Rights Act.

You spin me right round, baby
right round like a record, baby
Right round round round

I give up. The Republican majority is Georgia is due to all of the segregationists jumping over, but continuing to vote for democrats for 25 to 30 years after. Thanks.

Southern Democrats switched to the Republican Party in the 1960's and 1970's because of the Southern opposition to the Civil Rights laws and integration. Southern Democrats at that time were segregationists. Do you deny that?? That is a simple historical fact. Your silly mention of Nambia is just more poppycock.

I do not believe that everyone who disagrees with me is a racist. But I do object to those who distort history.

Parrot lies often enough and you can believe anything. As George Costanza stated about how he can trick a lie detector test--"The trick to lying is to believe that you are telling the truth"

Lets take Georgia and Massachusetts as a comparison. Georgia is far more integrated than Massachusetts is. I have been all over both states in the past three years and I see far more racism in liberal bastions than here. And it is unmitigated BS to claim that epps is racist. How in the world do you know. Your ad hominem attack was entirely poppycock. I detest the distortion of history and of science. Let's see you detest the IPCC if you are consistent and honest

Sounds like lying.. Lion does a lot of that.. He can't find a brush large enough.

To try and equate Southern Democrats who somehow magically changed to Republicans is like trying to equate an EMT to a Brain Surgeon.

I guess the Southern Republicans morphed into Libertarians.

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?... I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" ~~ Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Carborundum"

But I cannot stand the attack such as "are you still beating your wife?" I like to call out the BS with other forms of BS.
Have you checked out the ole sol recently? It has kicked it up a notch with spots, but the Livinston-Penn magnetic tracking is still trending down to 1500 guass along that linear path

You know that already..

I know it is almost at levels never seen before.. Interesting.

It looks we are headed towards a deep Solar Minimum.. Even NASA is getting concerned.

"Is life so dear or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?... I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" ~~ Patrick Henry
"Illegitimus non Carborundum"

Im going to assume you're just joking on that one.
For the others that dont get the joke, still clinging to gore's completely nonscientific assertion that CO2 is causing global warming, the sun in fact has EVERYTHING to do with our climate.
And if were heading towards a solar minimum, that can only be a good thing, becasue the sooner we prove to the tree hugging hippies that man made CO2 has nothing to do with whats going on, the sooner we can avoid hidden anti-capitalist agendas like cap and trade.
And if you guys want to look at a political party as racist, The Dems political philosophy is INHERENTLY racist. To sum it up, Oh, you poor black person, you cant do anything for yourself, and no one expects anything from you since you are after all, just a black person, so the gov't will give you money and cheese to make up for your obvious handicap. Oh and since we get to raise taxes and create agencies to disburse this pity aid, were pretty much just in charge of everything, as long as we keep the black person poor and ignorant and convinced they cant live without us. When you get down to it, thats generally how all democrats think. They might not say it as ugly as that, but the ugliness it implies is there anyway.