I do appreciate the time you have spent verifying your voting histories. However, that does not change the reality of the situation. Civil rights abuses persisted well into the mid 20th century regardless of which party was elected to office. While LBJ may have become unpopular with the southern Democrats, it was only one of a number of factors contributing to his decision not to run for re-election. He was also becoming increasingly unpopular in the north especially among younger voters because of an unpopular war in Viet Nam.
I do thank you for updating your post to reflect Justice Black's participation in Brown v. Board of Education, Supra. However, your observation regarding the political parties to which the U. S. Supreme Court justices belonged in is meaningless since they are appointed for life in order to avoid conflicts with party affiliation. You indicate that Eisenhower (a Republican) ended segregation in the armed forces. The question persists...why was it allowed to continue for nearly a century? I really hope that you are not going to take the position that there were no Republican presidents or Republican Senate/House majorities elected to office between Lincoln and Eisenhower. If one party or the other was the "party of reform" ...it would seem that there would have been reform at a much earlier date.
Although the federal government was empowered to enforce civil rights reform...neither party did very much of anything until they were forced by the people most affected by violations of their rights...either in peaceful non-violent exercise of constitutional rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech espoused by Dr. King ...or the more aggressive forms of protest of Malcom X and Stokely Carmichael.
to post a reply:
login - or -
register