Former United States political party (1948)
POPULARITY
2 episodes with dixiecrat
2 episodes with dixiecrat
2 episodes with dixiecrat
2 episodes with dixiecrat
2 episodes with dixiecrat
2 episodes with dixiecrat
We sit down with and interview Joe Wasp on the Dixiecrat era.The Reading: Abbeville Strom Thurmond: https://tinyurl.com/5n92d4xaID - Early Jim Crow: https://tinyurl.com/3fc6j8uvID - Jim Crow Defense: https://tinyurl.com/2s4c84kcDixiecrat Platform: https://tinyurl.com/5yevt3nmSouthern Commies: https://tinyurl.com/yenrj7p8Books: Take Your Choice: https://tinyurl.com/5maphdk6You and Segregation: https://tinyurl.com/4v7dskawHuey Long Bio: https://tinyurl.com/5xdf8easPlease check out our frens at confederateshop.comX: @dixiepoliscastemail Dixiepolis@protonmail.com
We begin this episode with a look at popular culture of the early 60s, as Hollywood began making more technicolor epics such as "Lawrence of Arabia," and also increasingly addressed social issues in films like "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Judgment at Nuremberg." Folk artists like Joan Baez and Bob Dylan outcompeted rock-and-roll musicians for a place on the pop charts, but new bands such as The Beach Boys kept the spirit of rock alive. President John F. Kennedy tried to make the most of the optimistic mood of the early 1960s, but his domestic policy reforms were sometimes stifled by a conservative coalition in Congress. Among young people, new groups such as the right-wing Young Americans for Freedom and the left-wing Students for a Democratic Society questioned the centrist "Cold War consensus." We end this episode with a deep dive into the Ole Miss riot of September 1962, which was almost certainly the biggest single pro-segregation insurrection of the civil rights era. Despite the efforts of Dixiecrat politicians to foment "massive resistance" to integration, and the violence of vigilante mobs, African-American student James Meredith ultimately was able to enroll in and graduate from the University of Mississippi.Support the Show.
As federal funds meant to aid Black farmers continue to be diverted elsewhere, members of the Congressional Black Caucus demand that Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack reveal who is receiving billions in federal debt relief.And then part two of the discussion bout how the Foreign Agents Registration Act and other laws s are used to target movements for justice and power... Including the African People's Socialist Party and Cop City Protesters...We hear more voices from the program held by the Expose COINTELPRO and Beyond Coalition. Plus headlines on Fascist Indian leader in DC... The show is made possible only by our volunteer energy, our resolve to keep the people's voices on the air, and by support from our listeners. In this new era of fake corporate news, we have to be and support our own media! Please click here or click on the Support-Donate tab on this website to subscribe for as little as $3 a month. We are so grateful for this small but growing amount of monthly crowdsource funding on Patreon. PATREON NOW HAS A ONE-TIME, ANNUAL DONATION FUNCTION! You can also give a one-time or recurring donation on PayPal. Thank you!
On this podcast, I discovered through the "rainbow"
On this podcast, I discovered through the "rainbow"
Welcome to the Instant Trivia podcast episode 859, where we ask the best trivia on the Internet. Round 1. Category: it's my party 1: "Honest Abe" was the first U.S. chief executive from this political party. Republican Party. 2: This country's controversial new prime minister Vajpayee is a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party. India. 3: A Conservative Party member in Canada or a loyalist during the American Revolution. Tory. 4: Strom Thurmond,1956. Democrat. 5: Strom Thurmond,November 1948. Dixiecrat. Round 2. Category: adjectives of the young and the restless 1: "Abby, I hear The Naked Heiress is gonna be on Jeopardy! that's huge!""Mom, please. I am rich and famous." [Sighs]"Honey, don't you think you're being..."...this adjective that means "world-weary" and "cynical"--it doesn't mean "covered in green gemstones". jaded. 2: "Please, Lily, understand, everything I did was to keep you and the twins safe.""Cane, you pretended that you were dead and made me think that I was sleeping with a ghost. I ended up in an insane asylum. You're..."...this 10-letter adjective from the Latin for "look down on" (and favored by Daffy Duck on occasion). despicable. 3: ...this 3-word type of punishment outlawed by the 8th Amendment. cruel and unusual. 4: (Mishael Morgan and Bryton James give the clue as Hilary and Devon from The Young and the Restless.) "Devon, please! You're like a teenage boy, we have the whole night to ourselves""I know, Hilary. I'm sorry. It's just that my passion for you, sometimes it's so overwhelming, so undeniable. It's this adjective, from the Latin for 'devour'". voracious. 5: ...this passionate type of love named for the Greek god of love. erotic. Round 3. Category: "m"-brace me 1: Funnel-shaped amplifying device that's an essential cheerleader accessory. a megaphone. 2: Where your name is if it's up in lights in front of a theater. the marquee. 3: 1 of these equals 39.97 inches. meter. 4: From the French, it's a group of wild animals on exhibit. a menagerie. 5: This state’s university has its main campus in College Park. Maryland. Round 4. Category: marine life 1: The red algae pepper dulse and landlady's wig are types of this found in the North Atlantic. seaweed. 2: The green type of this reptile gained protection in the 20th century because of its popular use in soup. the turtle. 3: The last of many books by Jacques Cousteau was titled "The Human, the Orchid, and" this other "O" creature. octopus. 4: Term for the individual animals that make up coral; it also has a less benign medical meaning. a polyp. 5: Natl. Geographic says without this small shrimplike crustacean, most "life forms in the Antarctic would disappear". krill. Round 5. Category: name game 1: Based on the 1990 census, this color is also the fifth most common last name in the U.S.. Brown. 2: Around the time of this war, Kimberley was a popular name for British boys. the Boer War. 3: This Russian form of George was in the headlines in 1961. Yuri (as in Yuri Gagarin). 4: The name of this villain in "Othello" is a Spanish version of James. Iago. 5: This presidential first name was originally used as a given name to honor Protestant reformer John. Calvin. Thanks for listening! Come back tomorrow for more exciting trivia! Special thanks to https://blog.feedspot.com/trivia_podcasts/
Richard discusses Republicans distancing from FL Governor DeSantis, re-writing American racial history, and an American Dixiecrat President. “Richard Bey Talk” brings Richard Bey to podcasting, with thought provoking entertainment and humor, exploring society and culture, entertainment, news, and politics. Richard is joined by broadcast professional Albert Reinoso to comment on what's happening around us all. Richard Bey is an American talk show host, popular in the 1990's as host of daytime TV's “The Richard Bey Show”, about ordinary people's personal stories, topical news, and personal interviews. Richard Bey has since hosted national radio shows on ABC Radio, SiriusXM Satellite Radio, and “The Wall Street Journal: This Morning.” Follow Richard Bey and "Richard Bey Talk," like, and please subscribe: Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/beytalk YouTube - Richard Bey Talk https://www.youtube.com/@richardbeytalk Spotify (Audio or Video Podcast) - https://open.spotify.com/show/2ySoVTOVeSal8XqXBlmToI Find “Richard Bey Talk” on podcast directories like Google Podcasts, and Apple Podcasts. Like, and please SUBSCRIBE so you won't miss an episode. Thank you.
I read from divorcé to DLO. The Dixiecrat party didn't last too long. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixiecrat The Dixieland music is from here and features a CONTRABASS Saxophone! One of my favorites. https://youtu.be/_t2TpHcVd5A "Hey, Mr. DJ, I Thought You Said We Had A Deal" song from They Might Be Giants: https://youtu.be/PO2iA9VCBRk The word of the episode is "dizzy". Theme music from Jonah Kraut https://jonahkraut.bandcamp.com/ Merchandising! https://www.teepublic.com/user/spejampar "The Dictionary - Letter A" on YouTube "The Dictionary - Letter B" on YouTube "The Dictionary - Letter C" on YouTube "The Dictionary - Letter D" on YouTube Featured in a Top 10 Dictionary Podcasts list! https://blog.feedspot.com/dictionary_podcasts/ Backwards Talking on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmIujMwEDbgZUexyR90jaTEEVmAYcCzuq dictionarypod@gmail.com https://www.facebook.com/thedictionarypod/ https://twitter.com/dictionarypod https://www.instagram.com/dictionarypod/ https://www.patreon.com/spejampar https://www.tiktok.com/@spejampar 917-727-5757
Welcome to the Instant Trivia podcast episode 658, where we ask the best trivia on the Internet. Round 1. Category: Thomas Aquinas, Advice Columnist 1: Dear Uncertain:Christ didn't break the laws against working on this day; they apply to human, not divine work. the sabbath. 2: Dear Worried:It's a slippery slope -- a venial one of these disposes you to a mortal one. sin. 3: Dear Struggling:Sorry, but the poor must pay these, whether the traditional tenth of income or more. tithes. 4: Dear Confused:Baptism is the sacrament of faith; the sacrament of charity is this, the Lord's supper. the eucharist. 5: Dear Baffled:As St. Augustine says, the image of this in man is in the 3 parts mind, knowledge and love. the trinity. Round 2. Category: I Won 1: Pitted against Clarence Darrow, this man won his case on July 21, 1925 and then died 5 days later. William Jennings Bryan. 2: One of the few victories the Romans ever won against this Carthaginian general was at Zuma in 202 B.C.. Hannibal. 3: As the Dixiecrat nominee, this South Carolina senator, then governor, won 39 electoral votes in 1948. Strom Thurmond. 4: The author of "A Beggar In Jerusalem", this concentration camp survivor won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986. Elie Wiesel. 5: This "hazardous" naval officer won the decisive 1813 Battle of Lake Erie over the British. Oliver Hazard Perry. Round 3. Category: It's Always About "U" 1: In 1949 Harry Truman traveled to New York to help lay a cornerstone for this body. the United Nations. 2: Seats are reserved in the Indian parliament for this group that falls outside of the caste system. the Untouchables. 3: Now a democratic republic of central Asia, in 1992 it ratified its first post-Soviet constitution. Uzbekistan. 4: Its atomic weight is 238. uranium. 5: The language known as Hindi is very close to this official language of Pakistan. Urdu. Round 4. Category: Location, Location, Location 1: Suisse is the French name for this mountainous country. Switzerland. 2: Washington Irving gave New York City this nickname in 1807. Gotham. 3: There are only 31 states and 1 federal district in this North American country. Mexico. 4: The Tasman Sea separates Australia and this nation. New Zealand. 5: Robin Hood's nemesis was the sheriff of this district. Nottingham. Round 5. Category: Cooking Terms 1: To brush melted butter on the Thanksgiving turkey at regular intervals. baste. 2: Adding hot or tangy seasonings to food, it's Satan's favorite method of cooking ham or eggs. deviled. 3: This term refers to making sugar brown by heating in a skillet over low heat until melted and golden. caramelizing. 4: This term for vegetables cut into long, thin strips to accompany a salad comes from a French first name. julienne. 5: To do this to herring or salmon, you must split, salt and smoke it. kipper. Thanks for listening! Come back tomorrow for more exciting trivia! Special thanks to https://blog.feedspot.com/trivia_podcasts/
The 1948 DNC convened in July with President Truman's approval rating as low as 32%. Northern Democrats pushed for a strong civil rights platform, which the President was in favor of. Conservative southern Dems were opposed. Moderates feared voter alienation. When the convention adopted the civil rights plank in a close vote, Southern Dems walked out and split off, nominating Strom Thurmond for President. They became known as Dixiecrats, hoping to force a contingency in the House of Representatives, extracting concessions from either Truman or Republican nominee Thomas Dewey. The post-war strikes didn't end. On October 26th the Radio Writers Guild struck for fair wages and for RWG guideline adherence by ad agencies. Their focus was the coming new medium: Television. Negotiations would continue into 1949. On Halloween 1948, the Presidential election was on everyone's mind. The night before, Thomas Dewey ended his campaign at Madison Square Garden. He'd run against FDR in 1944, losing, but received 46% of the popular vote. After President Roosevelt passed away, there were many who felt Dewey made a better post-war choice than Harry Truman. In the 1946 New York Gubernatorial election, Dewey won by nearly 700,000 votes, the most in New York history to that point. Tuesday, November 2nd was the 41st U.S. presidential election in history. Truman was a massive underdog with South Carolina's Governor Strom Thurmond opposing on the Dixiecrat ticket, and another FDR VP, Henry Wallace as the Progressive Party nominee. Meanwhile in the Middle East, The Arab-Israeli war raged on. Fighting started the previous November. It ramped after Palestine was officially dissolved, and Israel declared Independence on May 14th. Count Bernadotte of Visborg was assassinated in September by four members of Lehi, a Jewish Zionist group. One of whom—Yitzhak Shamir would go on to be the Seventh Prime Minister of Israel. Operation Hiram ended on Halloween with Israeli forces claiming to have complete control of Galilee. The fighting would continue into 1949. The Cold War was growing, with Americans investigating potential communist cells within the government, fearing the world could split into two distinct groups: those who supported democracy, and those who supported totalitarianism.
A common argument among the left is that cross-class multi-racial organizing is the key to defeating capitalism and inequity in general, with unions being the most potent tool to accomplish this task. In Part 2 of our examination of Ira Katznelson's book "When Affirmative Action Was White", we analyze his argument that Northern unions and the political allies acquiesced to Dixiecrat demands for the exclusion of southern Blacks during New Deal expansions of union rights. This created an environment where white benefitted more from unions and thus furthering the racial wealth and power gaps. This jives with other scholarship which challenges narratives of interracial unionism as inherently progressive and reframed it as a tool of potential social control of Black workers by White led unions. Finally, we conclude with recommendations on how Black communities can build political infrastructure to support address unemployment and underemployment given the limits of interracial unionism and the likely curtailing of Affirmative Action. Support the show
Universalist social policies like Social Security and Unemployment Insurance are praised as key to eliminating racial inequity. However, Ira Katznelson's book, "When Affirmative Action was White", challenges this argument. He explainins how Northern Democrats conceding to Dixiecrat desires to exclusion of Blacks from critical support provision led to White benefiting more than Blacks, serving as a form of white Affirmative Action. In the first of two conversations on the topic, we compare the history and impacts of the New Deal for White with the history and impact of Affirmative Action for minorities. This comparison reveals the New Deal's support of white communities was more impactful than affirmative action's support of minority communites, which is likely to be severely curtailed by a conservative Supreme Court. Support the show
TOMMY NATION POLITICS: MAIN TUESDAY LIVE SHOW - ‘LIAR.' #Politics #Live #GETINN @IndieNewsNetwork - https://rokfin.com/iNN & www.IndependentLeft.news WWW.TOMMYNATIONPOLITICS.COM
This week on Historia Obscura: how a segregationist senator spent eight decades in politics, creating controversy throughout his life. Special thanks to Patreon subscriber SoDakZak! Subscribe to my Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/historiaobscura! --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/historiaobscura/message
Post by Skyler J. Collins (Editor). Episode 450 welcomes back Jim Carigan to chat with Skyler on the following topics: surviving 2020 in Kentucky; living is learning; facial hair; memorable years in his life comparable to 2020; his Yankee mom and Dixiecrat dad; comparing mask mandates to the Vietnam War draft; recent attention on Federal spending; long term view of the effects of money inflation; 80% of humanity are meat puppets, 80% of the remaining have screwed themselves up, and the remaining 4% of humanity are "with it", and even they disagree among themselves about good and evil; television show recommendations: PBS's "Line of Separation", HBO's "Chernobyl", Netflix's "The Crown", and Prime Video's "The Expanse"; and more.
The Film Review: Movies Music Culture Politics Society Podcast | #TFRPodcastLive
The topics are on the move with TFRPodcastLive Observation Show: When did the Dixiecrat party become the party of counterculture? The failed counterculture movement was over 54-years ago, and its affects are felt still in modern culture; reimagined uses of counterculture are used by the liberals and some conservatives to keep the now generations, on the hamster wheel, locked into drugs violence pedophilia atheist-thought, while letting the freak flags fly. Let's discuss, the phones are open-- 213.943.3358.
The title of Harvard historian Alexander Keyssar,'s new book poses the question that comes up every presidential election cycle: Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College? (Harvard University Press, 2020). Keyssar presents the reader with a deep, layered, and complex analysis not only of the institution of the Electoral College itself, drawing out how it came about at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, but of the many attempts over more than two centuries to reform it or get rid of it. This is an historical subject with keenly contemporary relevance, as we move into the final stretch of the 2020 election cycle, and we consider how the political landscape, party platforms, and the shape of the presidential race all look the way they do because of the Electoral College. Keyssar unpacks the discussions and debates at the Constitutional Convention about how to elect a president, and then dives into the immediate response to the Electoral College as it was implemented in the new system. In going through the history of the Electoral College itself, and the points of contention between the popular vote tallies and the Electoral College results, as well as the many, many attempts to reform or eliminate the Electoral College, Keyssar highlights the two points in American political history when we came closest to doing away with this means of electing the president. The Era of Good Feeling (1815-1825)—when there was really only one functioning party, and the party system itself was in flux as party competition shifted—saw a significant effort to revise the Electoral College and the contingent election system that had been used when no candidate received a majority of the votes and the House of Representatives must designate a winner. Keyssar also maps out the efforts in the 1960s and early 1970s to pass an amendment to the Constitution to replace the Electoral College with direct popular vote. This legislation was filibustered in the Senate by senior Southern Democratic and Dixiecrat senators who saw the disproportional voice that the Electoral College gave to the Southern states—states where the Black vote had been significantly diminished because of regulations and threats that made it extraordinarily difficult and dangerous for African Americans to vote. Keyssar explains that this was known as the “5/5 rule”—in contrast to the 3/5th rule in the Constitution—whereas the southern states were able to count all Black citizens are part of their populations and preclude all of them from voting. Why Do We Still Have The Electoral College also traces the internal shifts within the states as they moved from their initial approach to the distribution of electoral college votes to the establishment of the “unit rule” or “general ticket” that allocates all of a state's electoral college votes to the winner in that particular state. Not only have there been attempts to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College, but there is a long history of the efforts to reform or eliminate the general ticket/unit rule. Keyssar brings the reader forward to the contemporary period through a number of different threads as he outlines multiple dimensions of reform attempts and their failure, all while providing the reader with a deep history of debate about the structure and function of the Electoral College. This unique aspect of the American constitutional system also reflects the continuing impact of the role of race in American politics and political institutions. For those interested, curious, or confused, this book is truly a tour de force on the Electoral College. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day
The title of Harvard historian Alexander Keyssar,'s new book poses the question that comes up every presidential election cycle: Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College? (Harvard University Press, 2020). Keyssar presents the reader with a deep, layered, and complex analysis not only of the institution of the Electoral College itself, drawing out how it came about at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, but of the many attempts over more than two centuries to reform it or get rid of it. This is an historical subject with keenly contemporary relevance, as we move into the final stretch of the 2020 election cycle, and we consider how the political landscape, party platforms, and the shape of the presidential race all look the way they do because of the Electoral College. Keyssar unpacks the discussions and debates at the Constitutional Convention about how to elect a president, and then dives into the immediate response to the Electoral College as it was implemented in the new system. In going through the history of the Electoral College itself, and the points of contention between the popular vote tallies and the Electoral College results, as well as the many, many attempts to reform or eliminate the Electoral College, Keyssar highlights the two points in American political history when we came closest to doing away with this means of electing the president. The Era of Good Feeling (1815-1825)—when there was really only one functioning party, and the party system itself was in flux as party competition shifted—saw a significant effort to revise the Electoral College and the contingent election system that had been used when no candidate received a majority of the votes and the House of Representatives must designate a winner. Keyssar also maps out the efforts in the 1960s and early 1970s to pass an amendment to the Constitution to replace the Electoral College with direct popular vote. This legislation was filibustered in the Senate by senior Southern Democratic and Dixiecrat senators who saw the disproportional voice that the Electoral College gave to the Southern states—states where the Black vote had been significantly diminished because of regulations and threats that made it extraordinarily difficult and dangerous for African Americans to vote. Keyssar explains that this was known as the “5/5 rule”—in contrast to the 3/5th rule in the Constitution—whereas the southern states were able to count all Black citizens are part of their populations and preclude all of them from voting. Why Do We Still Have The Electoral College also traces the internal shifts within the states as they moved from their initial approach to the distribution of electoral college votes to the establishment of the “unit rule” or “general ticket” that allocates all of a state's electoral college votes to the winner in that particular state. Not only have there been attempts to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College, but there is a long history of the efforts to reform or eliminate the general ticket/unit rule. Keyssar brings the reader forward to the contemporary period through a number of different threads as he outlines multiple dimensions of reform attempts and their failure, all while providing the reader with a deep history of debate about the structure and function of the Electoral College. This unique aspect of the American constitutional system also reflects the continuing impact of the role of race in American politics and political institutions. For those interested, curious, or confused, this book is truly a tour de force on the Electoral College. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The title of Harvard historian Alexander Keyssar,’s new book poses the question that comes up every presidential election cycle: Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College? (Harvard University Press, 2020). Keyssar presents the reader with a deep, layered, and complex analysis not only of the institution of the Electoral College itself, drawing out how it came about at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, but of the many attempts over more than two centuries to reform it or get rid of it. This is an historical subject with keenly contemporary relevance, as we move into the final stretch of the 2020 election cycle, and we consider how the political landscape, party platforms, and the shape of the presidential race all look the way they do because of the Electoral College. Keyssar unpacks the discussions and debates at the Constitutional Convention about how to elect a president, and then dives into the immediate response to the Electoral College as it was implemented in the new system. In going through the history of the Electoral College itself, and the points of contention between the popular vote tallies and the Electoral College results, as well as the many, many attempts to reform or eliminate the Electoral College, Keyssar highlights the two points in American political history when we came closest to doing away with this means of electing the president. The Era of Good Feeling (1815-1825)—when there was really only one functioning party, and the party system itself was in flux as party competition shifted—saw a significant effort to revise the Electoral College and the contingent election system that had been used when no candidate received a majority of the votes and the House of Representatives must designate a winner. Keyssar also maps out the efforts in the 1960s and early 1970s to pass an amendment to the Constitution to replace the Electoral College with direct popular vote. This legislation was filibustered in the Senate by senior Southern Democratic and Dixiecrat senators who saw the disproportional voice that the Electoral College gave to the Southern states—states where the Black vote had been significantly diminished because of regulations and threats that made it extraordinarily difficult and dangerous for African Americans to vote. Keyssar explains that this was known as the “5/5 rule”—in contrast to the 3/5th rule in the Constitution—whereas the southern states were able to count all Black citizens are part of their populations and preclude all of them from voting. Why Do We Still Have The Electoral College also traces the internal shifts within the states as they moved from their initial approach to the distribution of electoral college votes to the establishment of the “unit rule” or “general ticket” that allocates all of a state’s electoral college votes to the winner in that particular state. Not only have there been attempts to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College, but there is a long history of the efforts to reform or eliminate the general ticket/unit rule. Keyssar brings the reader forward to the contemporary period through a number of different threads as he outlines multiple dimensions of reform attempts and their failure, all while providing the reader with a deep history of debate about the structure and function of the Electoral College. This unique aspect of the American constitutional system also reflects the continuing impact of the role of race in American politics and political institutions. For those interested, curious, or confused, this book is truly a tour de force on the Electoral College. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The title of Harvard historian Alexander Keyssar,’s new book poses the question that comes up every presidential election cycle: Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College? (Harvard University Press, 2020). Keyssar presents the reader with a deep, layered, and complex analysis not only of the institution of the Electoral College itself, drawing out how it came about at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, but of the many attempts over more than two centuries to reform it or get rid of it. This is an historical subject with keenly contemporary relevance, as we move into the final stretch of the 2020 election cycle, and we consider how the political landscape, party platforms, and the shape of the presidential race all look the way they do because of the Electoral College. Keyssar unpacks the discussions and debates at the Constitutional Convention about how to elect a president, and then dives into the immediate response to the Electoral College as it was implemented in the new system. In going through the history of the Electoral College itself, and the points of contention between the popular vote tallies and the Electoral College results, as well as the many, many attempts to reform or eliminate the Electoral College, Keyssar highlights the two points in American political history when we came closest to doing away with this means of electing the president. The Era of Good Feeling (1815-1825)—when there was really only one functioning party, and the party system itself was in flux as party competition shifted—saw a significant effort to revise the Electoral College and the contingent election system that had been used when no candidate received a majority of the votes and the House of Representatives must designate a winner. Keyssar also maps out the efforts in the 1960s and early 1970s to pass an amendment to the Constitution to replace the Electoral College with direct popular vote. This legislation was filibustered in the Senate by senior Southern Democratic and Dixiecrat senators who saw the disproportional voice that the Electoral College gave to the Southern states—states where the Black vote had been significantly diminished because of regulations and threats that made it extraordinarily difficult and dangerous for African Americans to vote. Keyssar explains that this was known as the “5/5 rule”—in contrast to the 3/5th rule in the Constitution—whereas the southern states were able to count all Black citizens are part of their populations and preclude all of them from voting. Why Do We Still Have The Electoral College also traces the internal shifts within the states as they moved from their initial approach to the distribution of electoral college votes to the establishment of the “unit rule” or “general ticket” that allocates all of a state’s electoral college votes to the winner in that particular state. Not only have there been attempts to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College, but there is a long history of the efforts to reform or eliminate the general ticket/unit rule. Keyssar brings the reader forward to the contemporary period through a number of different threads as he outlines multiple dimensions of reform attempts and their failure, all while providing the reader with a deep history of debate about the structure and function of the Electoral College. This unique aspect of the American constitutional system also reflects the continuing impact of the role of race in American politics and political institutions. For those interested, curious, or confused, this book is truly a tour de force on the Electoral College. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The title of Harvard historian Alexander Keyssar,’s new book poses the question that comes up every presidential election cycle: Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College? (Harvard University Press, 2020). Keyssar presents the reader with a deep, layered, and complex analysis not only of the institution of the Electoral College itself, drawing out how it came about at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, but of the many attempts over more than two centuries to reform it or get rid of it. This is an historical subject with keenly contemporary relevance, as we move into the final stretch of the 2020 election cycle, and we consider how the political landscape, party platforms, and the shape of the presidential race all look the way they do because of the Electoral College. Keyssar unpacks the discussions and debates at the Constitutional Convention about how to elect a president, and then dives into the immediate response to the Electoral College as it was implemented in the new system. In going through the history of the Electoral College itself, and the points of contention between the popular vote tallies and the Electoral College results, as well as the many, many attempts to reform or eliminate the Electoral College, Keyssar highlights the two points in American political history when we came closest to doing away with this means of electing the president. The Era of Good Feeling (1815-1825)—when there was really only one functioning party, and the party system itself was in flux as party competition shifted—saw a significant effort to revise the Electoral College and the contingent election system that had been used when no candidate received a majority of the votes and the House of Representatives must designate a winner. Keyssar also maps out the efforts in the 1960s and early 1970s to pass an amendment to the Constitution to replace the Electoral College with direct popular vote. This legislation was filibustered in the Senate by senior Southern Democratic and Dixiecrat senators who saw the disproportional voice that the Electoral College gave to the Southern states—states where the Black vote had been significantly diminished because of regulations and threats that made it extraordinarily difficult and dangerous for African Americans to vote. Keyssar explains that this was known as the “5/5 rule”—in contrast to the 3/5th rule in the Constitution—whereas the southern states were able to count all Black citizens are part of their populations and preclude all of them from voting. Why Do We Still Have The Electoral College also traces the internal shifts within the states as they moved from their initial approach to the distribution of electoral college votes to the establishment of the “unit rule” or “general ticket” that allocates all of a state’s electoral college votes to the winner in that particular state. Not only have there been attempts to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College, but there is a long history of the efforts to reform or eliminate the general ticket/unit rule. Keyssar brings the reader forward to the contemporary period through a number of different threads as he outlines multiple dimensions of reform attempts and their failure, all while providing the reader with a deep history of debate about the structure and function of the Electoral College. This unique aspect of the American constitutional system also reflects the continuing impact of the role of race in American politics and political institutions. For those interested, curious, or confused, this book is truly a tour de force on the Electoral College. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The title of Harvard historian Alexander Keyssar,’s new book poses the question that comes up every presidential election cycle: Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College? (Harvard University Press, 2020). Keyssar presents the reader with a deep, layered, and complex analysis not only of the institution of the Electoral College itself, drawing out how it came about at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, but of the many attempts over more than two centuries to reform it or get rid of it. This is an historical subject with keenly contemporary relevance, as we move into the final stretch of the 2020 election cycle, and we consider how the political landscape, party platforms, and the shape of the presidential race all look the way they do because of the Electoral College. Keyssar unpacks the discussions and debates at the Constitutional Convention about how to elect a president, and then dives into the immediate response to the Electoral College as it was implemented in the new system. In going through the history of the Electoral College itself, and the points of contention between the popular vote tallies and the Electoral College results, as well as the many, many attempts to reform or eliminate the Electoral College, Keyssar highlights the two points in American political history when we came closest to doing away with this means of electing the president. The Era of Good Feeling (1815-1825)—when there was really only one functioning party, and the party system itself was in flux as party competition shifted—saw a significant effort to revise the Electoral College and the contingent election system that had been used when no candidate received a majority of the votes and the House of Representatives must designate a winner. Keyssar also maps out the efforts in the 1960s and early 1970s to pass an amendment to the Constitution to replace the Electoral College with direct popular vote. This legislation was filibustered in the Senate by senior Southern Democratic and Dixiecrat senators who saw the disproportional voice that the Electoral College gave to the Southern states—states where the Black vote had been significantly diminished because of regulations and threats that made it extraordinarily difficult and dangerous for African Americans to vote. Keyssar explains that this was known as the “5/5 rule”—in contrast to the 3/5th rule in the Constitution—whereas the southern states were able to count all Black citizens are part of their populations and preclude all of them from voting. Why Do We Still Have The Electoral College also traces the internal shifts within the states as they moved from their initial approach to the distribution of electoral college votes to the establishment of the “unit rule” or “general ticket” that allocates all of a state’s electoral college votes to the winner in that particular state. Not only have there been attempts to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College, but there is a long history of the efforts to reform or eliminate the general ticket/unit rule. Keyssar brings the reader forward to the contemporary period through a number of different threads as he outlines multiple dimensions of reform attempts and their failure, all while providing the reader with a deep history of debate about the structure and function of the Electoral College. This unique aspect of the American constitutional system also reflects the continuing impact of the role of race in American politics and political institutions. For those interested, curious, or confused, this book is truly a tour de force on the Electoral College. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The title of Harvard historian Alexander Keyssar,’s new book poses the question that comes up every presidential election cycle: Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College? (Harvard University Press, 2020). Keyssar presents the reader with a deep, layered, and complex analysis not only of the institution of the Electoral College itself, drawing out how it came about at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, but of the many attempts over more than two centuries to reform it or get rid of it. This is an historical subject with keenly contemporary relevance, as we move into the final stretch of the 2020 election cycle, and we consider how the political landscape, party platforms, and the shape of the presidential race all look the way they do because of the Electoral College. Keyssar unpacks the discussions and debates at the Constitutional Convention about how to elect a president, and then dives into the immediate response to the Electoral College as it was implemented in the new system. In going through the history of the Electoral College itself, and the points of contention between the popular vote tallies and the Electoral College results, as well as the many, many attempts to reform or eliminate the Electoral College, Keyssar highlights the two points in American political history when we came closest to doing away with this means of electing the president. The Era of Good Feeling (1815-1825)—when there was really only one functioning party, and the party system itself was in flux as party competition shifted—saw a significant effort to revise the Electoral College and the contingent election system that had been used when no candidate received a majority of the votes and the House of Representatives must designate a winner. Keyssar also maps out the efforts in the 1960s and early 1970s to pass an amendment to the Constitution to replace the Electoral College with direct popular vote. This legislation was filibustered in the Senate by senior Southern Democratic and Dixiecrat senators who saw the disproportional voice that the Electoral College gave to the Southern states—states where the Black vote had been significantly diminished because of regulations and threats that made it extraordinarily difficult and dangerous for African Americans to vote. Keyssar explains that this was known as the “5/5 rule”—in contrast to the 3/5th rule in the Constitution—whereas the southern states were able to count all Black citizens are part of their populations and preclude all of them from voting. Why Do We Still Have The Electoral College also traces the internal shifts within the states as they moved from their initial approach to the distribution of electoral college votes to the establishment of the “unit rule” or “general ticket” that allocates all of a state’s electoral college votes to the winner in that particular state. Not only have there been attempts to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College, but there is a long history of the efforts to reform or eliminate the general ticket/unit rule. Keyssar brings the reader forward to the contemporary period through a number of different threads as he outlines multiple dimensions of reform attempts and their failure, all while providing the reader with a deep history of debate about the structure and function of the Electoral College. This unique aspect of the American constitutional system also reflects the continuing impact of the role of race in American politics and political institutions. For those interested, curious, or confused, this book is truly a tour de force on the Electoral College. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The title of Harvard historian Alexander Keyssar,’s new book poses the question that comes up every presidential election cycle: Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College? (Harvard University Press, 2020). Keyssar presents the reader with a deep, layered, and complex analysis not only of the institution of the Electoral College itself, drawing out how it came about at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, but of the many attempts over more than two centuries to reform it or get rid of it. This is an historical subject with keenly contemporary relevance, as we move into the final stretch of the 2020 election cycle, and we consider how the political landscape, party platforms, and the shape of the presidential race all look the way they do because of the Electoral College. Keyssar unpacks the discussions and debates at the Constitutional Convention about how to elect a president, and then dives into the immediate response to the Electoral College as it was implemented in the new system. In going through the history of the Electoral College itself, and the points of contention between the popular vote tallies and the Electoral College results, as well as the many, many attempts to reform or eliminate the Electoral College, Keyssar highlights the two points in American political history when we came closest to doing away with this means of electing the president. The Era of Good Feeling (1815-1825)—when there was really only one functioning party, and the party system itself was in flux as party competition shifted—saw a significant effort to revise the Electoral College and the contingent election system that had been used when no candidate received a majority of the votes and the House of Representatives must designate a winner. Keyssar also maps out the efforts in the 1960s and early 1970s to pass an amendment to the Constitution to replace the Electoral College with direct popular vote. This legislation was filibustered in the Senate by senior Southern Democratic and Dixiecrat senators who saw the disproportional voice that the Electoral College gave to the Southern states—states where the Black vote had been significantly diminished because of regulations and threats that made it extraordinarily difficult and dangerous for African Americans to vote. Keyssar explains that this was known as the “5/5 rule”—in contrast to the 3/5th rule in the Constitution—whereas the southern states were able to count all Black citizens are part of their populations and preclude all of them from voting. Why Do We Still Have The Electoral College also traces the internal shifts within the states as they moved from their initial approach to the distribution of electoral college votes to the establishment of the “unit rule” or “general ticket” that allocates all of a state’s electoral college votes to the winner in that particular state. Not only have there been attempts to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College, but there is a long history of the efforts to reform or eliminate the general ticket/unit rule. Keyssar brings the reader forward to the contemporary period through a number of different threads as he outlines multiple dimensions of reform attempts and their failure, all while providing the reader with a deep history of debate about the structure and function of the Electoral College. This unique aspect of the American constitutional system also reflects the continuing impact of the role of race in American politics and political institutions. For those interested, curious, or confused, this book is truly a tour de force on the Electoral College. Lilly J. Goren is professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), as well as co-editor of Mad Men and Politics: Nostalgia and the Remaking of Modern America (Bloomsbury Academic, 2015). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Brick by brick, Kamala Harris has methodically built a staircase to success, and on Tuesday, she strutted to the top of it as Joe Biden tapped her as his running mate. “Harris is the first woman of color to be nominated for this position in either of the two major parties’ histories. I would love it if I could follow that sentence up with a rah-rah-woman chant — I really would. Harris is clearly sharp as a tack, driven, and a hard worker — all traits that I admire. But those attributes can only be applauded when they are used for good. With Harris, I am sorry to tell you that is not the case.” - Hannah Cox, Washington Examiner --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app
We got started with a tough subject, the origins of the confederate flag, aka the Dixiecrat whom where democrats.What the hell Netflix.Michael is a bee killer.And just so you know William Randolph Hearts lobbied for weed to become illegal.
We are in Chapter 2 of Ezra Klein's book: "Why We're Polarized" and we are talking about the Dixiecrats (better known as southern democrats) and their impact on the policies and legislation coming out of the golden age of Politics. What does this mean for us today? Do we miss the days of less polarization between parties and more disagreement within them? Does this set up a better world and society for us?This book is great for us - Curtis doesn't always feel at home in the Democratic Party and Luke doesn't always feel welcome in Republican Circles. So - how do we interact in a beneficial way when the way the world is divided doesn't line up with who we are? We plan on spending a few weeks in the book, if you are able - pick up a copy and read along with us. This week our discussion makes it through the second chapter.Join the conversation. Let us know we are wrong.Also, we are rolling out support opportunities if you want to REALLY jump in with us: https://patron.podbean.com/begood (Patron only content rolls out this week!)@begoodpeopleshow on Instagram
The Film Review: Movies Music Culture Politics Society Podcast | #TFRPodcastLive
The Husband and Wife Team Episode 103 of #tfrpodcastlive, discuss American Movie Classic's (AMC's) new original series 'Dispatches From Elsewhere', and doesn't feel the same with the Dixiecrats, that it appears they've been thrown into a story-line, an alternative/alternate world, where what they do, and who they have faith-in are feckless and inept, which makes some American Black leadership feckless and inept? All of this, and Crazy Dee and Tracey look at the blurbs of the week, and more. ------- The Film Review: Movies Music Culture Politics Society Podcast Hosts: Crazy Dee and Tracey Trace | Topics: Various © 2020 Lordlandfilms.com, All Rights Reserved.
The December 26th, 1947 blizzard which struck the eastern seaboard of the U.S. saw, In New York, 25.8 inches of snow fall in less than twenty-four hours. It was the worst storm since the Great Blizzard of 1888. Ocean liners were unable to move. Railroad stations were filled with stranded people. Importing and exporting out of New York ground to a halt, and the Nation’s reliance on truck transportation was immediately evident. A fuel strike ensued. By the morning of December 31st, many people had gone without some combination of a newspaper, fresh bread, milk, fuel, or coal for almost a week. Fire officials declared it a state of emergency. Mayor O’Dwyer took the first available plane home from his holiday vacation in southern California. The radio industry was struck as well. On January 1st, James C. Petrillo, president of the American Federation of Musicians, instituted a nationwide ban on music recording. The ban was aimed at a provision in the Taft-Hartley Act which criminalized a union's collection of money from members for services that are not performed or not to be performed. It made the AFM's Unemployed Musicians slush fund illegal. To make matters worse, week-over-week consumer inflation was reaching highs not seen in modern U.S. history. As President Truman began his full-scale re-election bid, his National approval rating sat at 32%. New York’s Republican governor Thomas Dewey was positioning himself as the most serious challenger for the Presidency. While in the south, Strom Thurmond was moving towards running on what would come to be known as a “Dixiecrat” ticket.
The term Jim Crow derives from a dance . Negro used their feet a certain ways while dancing. Hence the term Jim Crow. After Civil War Negro Americans owned 16 Millions of Acres of land throughout the South and Midwest. Jim Crow laws were state and local laws that enforced racial segregation in the Southern United States . All were enacted in the 19th and early 20th centuries by Dixiecrat aka ( Democrats Party). Jim Crow laws were upheld in segregation in all public facilities in the confederate states of America. President Woodrow Wilson a Southern Democrats initiated the segregation of Federal work place in 1913. You must know those people are your enemies. They don’t have your best interest at heart. They have stolen your wealth and destroyed you thru religions beliefs. Now you have nothing to show for your hard worked. Call in Let’s discuss --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/johnrosemberg/support
Hey y'all! We're back in the Enemy Camp and ‘cross the Mason-Dixon with C Derick Varn, where we sip on some sweet tea and take a gander at the 1854 reactionary tract "Sociology for the South" by George Fitzhugh. Marvel at what just might be the nuttiest Enemy Camp we ever did see—a Dixiecrat who defends slavery as a form of socialism. Finish the War of Northern Aggression! http://patreon.com/swampsidechats http://emancipation.network Read along with us: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1W8RfRHMsWegBdVcNpelMBXkzkunX6moZ
Thom Woodley takes you on a tour of the 1948 presidential election, in which 3rd party Democrat Strom Thurmond runs on a platform of segregationist views - and later goes on to rebuild the Republican party in his image.
Dr. J gives another history lesson using examples from Sen. Kamala Harris, Robert E. Lee & Desegregation Busing.https://www.lionpodcast.comhttps://www.lionpodcasts.comhttps://www.jurisgenus.com
Ezra Taft Benson wanted to run for U.S. President. Dr. Matt Harris describes a few attempts by Benson to run for POTUS, and how Church leaders finally put an end to Benson's political aspirations. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-oIv27fYmA Matt: The Birchers will create this secret organization called the Committee of 1776. It's run by Birchers. It's got Birch footprints all over it, but "we can't reveal ourselves as Birchers because it's too controversial." And they say this in their board meeting. "If we say it's us, then people will be turned off by it. So do not mention that Robert Welch or anybody is behind this. But it's really mostly Birchers doing this. So they draft Benson as their presidential candidate and they draft a man named Strom Thurmond, who was a Dixiecrat in the 1940's, and split off from the Democratic Party because he was so pro-segregation and didn't like the civil rights tack that President Harry Truman was taking. ... And, without going into the details, the ticket fizzles. It doesn't raise enough money. Thurman never had the buy-in, to be honest, that Benson had. Benson was alarmed by it and just giddy about it. President McKay gives the green light for him to do this, by the way, which is interesting, over the protest, of Hugh Brown and some other leaders. ... Elder Benson and his son Reed fly out to Birmingham and they have a three hour meeting with George Wallace and Benson tells Robert Welch, "He's a great guy. We have a lot in common." So, Benson tells Governor Wallace, "I need to get the support of President McKay. I can't do this unilaterally." President McKay knew that there was some pushback when he gave the green light to run with Strom Thurmond. Some of the Apostles told him, including Hugh Brown, "This is stupid. Don't do this." McKay is an old Scottish man. He had a little temper. "Don't tell me what to do." The brethren were sensitive to that, including Hugh B. Brown. So he goes back to Salt Lake and tells President McKay in a highly confidential meeting, "They want me to be the presidential candidate with Wallace." This is on the Independent ticket because there's a Republican Mormon who might wrap up the Republican nomination. So we've got two high profile Mormons running for the same office. GT: This is George Romney, right? Matt: George Romney, right. What really muddies the water is there are a number of brethren who support George Romney and not Benson. That's another challenging issue. GT: And Marion G. Romney is in the quorum. How is he related to George? Matt: They're cousins. So, we've got that dynamic going on, too. Romney has gotten priesthood blessings from President McKay, from other people about running and they tell him, "You're going to run and we support you." President McKay supports George Romney and tells him this. If you were't aware, George Romney is the father of Mitt Romney. Harris tells how LDS leaders ended Benson's political ambitions. Byt the way, Harris' book on Benson is now available for purchase on Amazon! See https://amzn.to/2EHTklK Check out our conversation…. Dr. Matt Harris describes Ezra Taft Benson's attempts to run for POTUS and how his political career ended. Our other interviews about Benson. 252: Benson on Civil Rights & Communism (Harris) 251: Benson and John Birch Society (Harris) 250: How Ezra Taft Benson Joined Eisenhower (Harris)
The liberal like to push this those diversity policies But I look up those since 1950’s . Those policies didn’t work for Black people collectively. Yes America is diverse but segregated at same time. If u travel this country you will notice it. Most American city are segregated for the most part. Black people need to create their own nation. Because this Government have failed us miserably as people of coloure. It’s time for become one nation. Being diverse doesn’t work for as people of coloure in this world. If you noticed other nations they don’t like those Diversity policies . Except us we have been brainwashed by those liberals who are worst than Dixiecrat aka Democrats. Call in Let’s discuss --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/johnrosemberg/support
54 Years Later, We Still Need This Guidance Saturday, May 19th 2018 would have been el-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz (b.k.a. - "Malcolm X") 93rd birthday. To honor his legacy & remind ourselves of the work we have yet to do, we will listen to "The Ballot or The Bullet" in this Buy Black Podcast episode. Full Transcript: Mr. Moderator, Rev. Cleage, brothers and sisters and friends, and I see some enemies. [laughter, applause] In fact, I think we'd be fooling ourselves if we had an audience this large and didn't realize that there were some enemies present. This afternoon we want to talk about the ballot or the bullet. The ballot or the bullet explains itself. But before we get into it, since this is the year of the ballot or the bullet, I would like to clarify some things that refer to me personally, concerning my own personal position. I'm still a Muslim. That is, my religion is still Islam. [applause] My religion is still Islam. I still credit Mr. Muhammad for what I know and what I am. He's the one who opened my eyes. [applause] At present I am the minister of the newly founded Muslim Mosque Incorporated, which has its offices in the Theresa Hotel right in the heart of Harlem, that's the black belt in New York City. And when we realize that Adam Clayton Powell, is a Christian minister, he has Abyssinian Baptist Church, but at the same time he's more famous for his political struggling. And Dr. King is a Christian minister from Atlanta Georgia, or in Atlanta Georgia, but he's become more famous for being involved in the civil rights struggle. There's another in New York, Rev. Galamison, I don't know if you've heard of him out here, he's a Christian minister from Brooklyn, but has become famous for his fight against the segregated school system in Brooklyn. Rev. Cleage, right here, is a Christian minister, here in Detroit, he's head of the Freedom Now Party. All of these are Christian ministers [applause] …all of these are Christian ministers but they don't come to us as Christian ministers, they come to us as fighters in some other category. I am a Muslim minister. The same as they are Christian ministers, I'm a Muslim minister. And I don't believe in fighting today on any one front, but on all fronts. [applause] In fact, I'm a Black Nationalist freedom fighter. [applause] Islam is my religion but I believe my religion is my personal business. [applause] It governs my personal life, my personal morals. And my religious philosophy is personal between me and the God in whom I believe, just as the religious philosophy of these others is between them and the God in whom they believe. And this is best this way. Were we to come out here discussing religion, we'd have too many differences from the out start and we could never get together. So today, though Islam is my religious philosophy, my political, economic and social philosophy is black nationalism. You and I – [applause] As I say, if we bring up religion, we'll have differences, we'll have arguments, and we'll never be able to get together. But if we keep our religion at home, keep our religion in the closet, keep our religion between ourselves and our God, but when we come out here we have a fight that's common to all of us against a enemy who is common to all of us. [applause] The political philosophy of black nationalism only means that the black man should control the politics and the politicians in his own community. The time when white people can come in our community and get us to vote for them so that they can be our political leaders and tell us what to do and what not to do is long gone. [applause] By the same token, the time when that same white man, knowing that your eyes are too far open, can send another Negro in the community, and get you and me to support him, so that he can use him to lead us astray, those days are long gone too. [applause] The political philosophy of black nationalism only means that if you and I are going to live in a black community – and that's where we're going to live, 'cause as soon as you move into one of their….soon as you move out of the black community into their community, it's mixed for a period of time, but they're gone and you're right there all by yourself again. [applause] We must, we must understand the politics of our community and we must know what politics is supposed to produce. We must know what part politics play in our lives. And until we become politically mature, we will always be misled, led astray, or deceived or maneuvered into supporting someone politically who doesn't have the good of our community at heart. So the political philosophy of black nationalism only means that we will have to carry on a program, a political program, of reeducation – to open our people's eyes, make us become more politically conscious, politically mature. And then, we will – whenever we are ready to cast our ballot, that ballot will be cast for a man of the community, who has the good of the community at heart. [applause] The economic philosophy of black nationalism only means that we should own and operate and control the economy of our community. You would never have found—you can't open up a black store in a white community. White man won't even patronize you. And he's not wrong. He got sense enough to look out for himself. It's you who don't have sense enough to look out for yourself. [applause] The white man, the white man is too intelligent to let someone else come and gain control of the economy of his community. But you will let anybody come in and control the economy of your community, control the housing, control the education, control the jobs, control the businesses, under the pretext that you want to integrate. Nah, you're out of your mind. [applause] The political … the economic philosophy of black nationalism only means that we have to become involved in a program of reeducation, to educate our people into the importance of knowing that when you spend your dollar out of the community in which you live, the community in which you spend your money becomes richer and richer, the community out of which you take your money becomes poorer and poorer. And because these Negroes, who have been misled, misguided, are breaking their necks to take their money and spend it with the Man, the Man is becoming richer and richer, and you're becoming poorer and poorer. And then what happens? The community in which you live becomes a slum. It becomes a ghetto. The conditions become rundown. And then you have the audacity to complain about poor housing in a rundown community, while you're running down yourselves when you take your dollar out. [applause] And you and I are in a double trap because not only do we lose by taking our money someplace else and spending it, when we try and spend it in our own community we're trapped because we haven't had sense enough to set up stores and control the businesses of our community. The man who is controlling the stores in our community is a man who doesn't look like we do. He's a man who doesn't even live in the community. So you and I, even when we try and spend our money on the block where we live or the area where we live, we're spending it with a man who, when the sun goes down, takes that basket full of money in another part of the town. [applause] So we're trapped, trapped, double-trapped, triple-trapped. Any way we go, we find that we're trapped. Any every kind of solution that someone comes up with is just another trap. But the political and economic philosophy of black nationalism…the economic philosophy of black nationalism shows our people the importance of setting up these little stores, and developing them and expanding them into larger operations. Woolworth didn't start out big like they are today; they started out with a dime store, and expanded, and expanded, and expanded until today they are all over the country and all over the world and they getting some of everybody's money. Now this is what you and I – General Motors, the same way, it didn't start out like it is. It started out just a little rat-race type operation. And it expanded and it expanded until today it's where it is right now. And you and I have to make a start. And the best place to start is right in the community where we live. [applause] So our people not only have to be reeducated to the importance of supporting black business, but the black man himself has to be made aware of the importance of going into business. And once you and I go into business, we own and operate at least the businesses in our community. What we will be doing is developing a situation, wherein, we will actually be able to create employment for the people in the community. And once you can create some employment in the community where you live, it will eliminate the necessity of you and me having to act ignorantly and disgracefully, boycotting and picketing some cracker someplace else trying to beg him for a job. [applause] Anytime you have to rely upon your enemy for a job, you're in bad shape. [applause]When you — and he is your enemy. You wouldn't be in this country if some enemy hadn't kidnapped you and brought you here. [applause] On the other hand, some of you think you came here on the Mayflower. [laughter] So as you can see, brothers and sisters, today – this afternoon it is not our intention to discuss religion. We're going to forget religion. If we bring up religion we'll be in an argument. And the best way to keep away from arguments and differences, as I said earlier, put your religion at home, in the closet, keep it between you and your God. Because if it hasn't done anything more for you than it has, you need to forget it anyway. [laughter, applause] Whether you are a Christian or a Muslim or a nationalist, we all have the same problem. They don't hang you because you're a Baptist; they hang you 'cause you're black. [applause] They don't attack me because I'm a Muslim. They attack me 'cause I'm black. They attacked all of us for the same reason. All of us catch hell from the same enemy. We're all in the same bag, in the same boat. We suffer political oppression, economic exploitation and social degradation. All of 'em from the same enemy. The government has failed us. You can't deny that. Any time you're living in the 20th century, 1964, and you walking around here singing "We Shall Overcome," the government has failed you. [applause] This is part of what's wrong with you, you do too much singing. [laughter] Today it's time to stop singing and start swinging. [laughter, applause] You can't sing up on freedom. But you can swing up on some freedom. [cheering]Cassius Clay can sing. But singing didn't help him to become the heavyweight champion of the world. Swinging helped him. [applause] So this government has failed us. The government itself has failed us. And the white liberals who have been posing as our friends have failed us. And once we see that all of these other sources to which we've turned have failed, we stop turning to them and turn to ourselves. We need a self-help program, a do-it-yourself philosophy, a do-it-right-now philosophy, a it's-already-too-late philosophy. This is what you and I need to get with. And the only time – the only way we're going to solve our problem is with a self-help program. Before we can get a self-help program started, we have to have a self-help philosophy. Black nationalism is a self-help philosophy. What's so good about it – you can stay right in the church where you are and still take black nationalism as your philosophy. You can stay in any kind of civic organization that you belong to and still take black nationalism as your philosophy. You can be an atheist and still take black nationalism as your philosophy. This is a philosophy that eliminates the necessity for division and argument, 'cause if you're black, you should be thinking black. And if you're black and you not thinking black at this late date, well, I'm sorry for you. [applause] Once you change your philosophy, you change your thought pattern. Once you change your thought pattern you change your attitude. Once you change your attitude it changes your behavior pattern. And then you go on into some action. As long as you got a sit-down philosophy you'll have a sit-down thought pattern. And as long as you think that old sit-down thought, you'll be in some kind of sit-down action. They'll have you sitting in everywhere. [laughter] It's not so good to refer to what you're going to do as a sit-in. That right there castrates you. Right there it brings you down. What goes with it? What – think of the image of someone sitting. An old woman can sit. An old man can sit. A chump can sit, a coward can sit, anything can sit. Well, you and I been sitting long enough and it's time for us today to start doing some standing and some fighting to back that up. [applause] When we look at other parts of this Earth upon which we live, we find that black, brown, red and yellow people in Africa and Asia are getting their independence. They're not getting it by singing, 'We Shall Overcome." No, they're getting it through nationalism. It is nationalism that brought about the independence of the people in Asia. Every nation in Asia gained its independence through the philosophy of nationalism. Every nation on the African continent that has gotten its independence brought it about through the philosophy of nationalism. And it will take black nationalism to bring about the freedom of 22 million Afro-Americans, here in this country, where we have suffered colonialism for the past 400 years. [applause] America is just as much a colonial power as England ever was. America is just as much a colonial power as France ever was. In fact, America is more so a colonial power than they, because she is a hypocritical colonial power behind it. [applause] What is 20th — what, what do you call second-class citizenship? Why, that's colonization. Second-class citizenship is nothing but 20th slavery. How you gonna to tell me you're a second-class citizen? They don't have second-class citizenship in any other government on this Earth. They just have slaves and people who are free! Well, this country is a hypocrite! They try and make you think they set you free by calling you a second-class citizen. No, you're nothing but a 20th century slave. [applause] Just as it took nationalism to remove colonialism from Asia and Africa, it'll take black nationalism today to remove colonialism from the backs and the minds of twenty-two million Afro-Americans here in this country. And 1964 looks like it might be the year of the ballot or the bullet. [applause] Why does it look like it might be the year of the ballot or the bullet? Because Negroes have listened to the trickery and the lies and the false promises of the white man now for too long, and they're fed up. They've become disenchanted. They've become disillusioned. They've become dissatisfied. And all of this has built up frustrations in the black community that makes the black community throughout America today more explosive than all of the atomic bombs the Russians can ever invent. Whenever you got a racial powder keg sitting in your lap, you're in more trouble than if you had an atomic powder keg sitting in your lap. When a racial powder keg goes off, it doesn't care who it knocks out the way. Understand this, it's dangerous. And in 1964, this seems to be the year. Because what can the white man use, now, to fool us? After he put down that March on Washington – and you see all through that now, he tricked you, had you marching down to Washington. Had you marching back and forth between the feet of a dead man named Lincoln and another dead man named George Washington, singing, "We Shall Overcome." [applause] He made a chump out of you. He made a fool out of you. He made you think you were going somewhere and you end up going nowhere but between Lincoln and Washington. [laughter] So today our people are disillusioned. They've become disenchanted. They've become dissatisfied. And in their frustrations they want action. And in 1964 you'll see this young black man, this new generation, asking for the ballot or the bullet. That old Uncle Tom action is outdated. The young generation don't want to hear anything about "the odds are against us." What do we care about odds? [applause] When this country here was first being founded, there were thirteen colonies. The whites were colonized. They were fed up with this taxation without representation. So some of them stood up and said, "Liberty or death!" I went to a white school over here in Mason, Michigan. The white man made the mistake of letting me read his history books. [laughter] He made the mistake of teaching me that Patrick Henry was a patriot, and George Washington – wasn't nothing non-violent about ol' Pat, or George Washington. "Liberty or death" is was what brought about the freedom of whites in this country from the English. [applause] They didn't care about the odds. Why, they faced the wrath of the entire British Empire. And in those days, they used to say that the British Empire was so vast and so powerful that the sun would never set on it. This is how big it was, yet these thirteen little scrawny states, tired of taxation without representation, tired of being exploited and oppressed and degraded, told that big British Empire, "Liberty or death." And here you have 22 million Afro-Americans, black people today, catching more hell than Patrick Henry ever saw. [applause] And I'm here to tell you in case you don't know it – that you got a new, you got a new generation of black people in this country who don't care anything whatsoever about odds. They don't want to hear you ol' Uncle Tom, handkerchief-heads talking about the odds. No! [laughter, applause] This is a new generation. If they're going to draft these young black men, and send them over to Korea or to South Vietnam to face 800 million Chinese… [laughter, applause] If you're not afraid of those odds, you shouldn't be afraid of these odds. [applause] Why is America – why does this loom to be such an explosive political year? Because this is the year of politics. This is the year when all of the white politicians are going to come into the Negro community. You never see them until election time. You can't find them until election time. [applause] They're going to come in with false promises. And as they make these false promises they're going to feed our frustrations, and this will only serve to make matters worse. I'm no politician. I'm not even a student of politics. I'm not a Republican, nor a Democrat, nor an American – and got sense enough to know it. [applause] I'm one of the 22 million black victims of the Democrats. One of the 22 million black victims of the Republicans and one of the 22 million black victims of Americanism. [applause] And when I speak, I don't speak as a Democrat or a Republican, nor an American. I speak as a victim of America's so-called democracy. You and I have never seen democracy – all we've seen is hypocrisy. [applause] When we open our eyes today and look around America, we see America not through the eyes of someone who has enjoyed the fruits of Americanism. We see America through the eyes of someone who has been the victim of Americanism. We don't see any American dream. We've experienced only the American nightmare. We haven't benefited from America's democracy. We've only suffered from America's hypocrisy. And the generation that's coming up now can see it. And are not afraid to say it. If you go to jail, so what? If you're black, you were born in jail. [applause] If you black you were born in jail, in the North as well as the South. Stop talking about the South. As long as you south of the Canadian border, you South. [laughter, applause] Don't call Governor Wallace a Dixie governor, Romney is a Dixie Governor. [applause] Twenty-two million black victims of Americanism are waking up and they are gaining a new political consciousness, becoming politically mature. And as they become – develop this political maturity, they're able to see the recent trends in these political elections. They see that the whites are so evenly divided that every time they vote, the race is so close they have to go back and count the votes all over again. Which means that any block, any minority that has a block of votes that stick together is in a strategic position. Either way you go, that's who gets it. You're in a position to determine who'll go to the White House and who'll stay in the doghouse. [laughter] You're the one who has that power. You can keep Johnson in Washington D.C., or you can send him back to his Texas cotton patch. [applause] You're the one who sent Kennedy to Washington. You're the one who put the present Democratic administration in Washington, D.C. The whites were evenly divided. It was the fact that you threw 80 percent of your votes behind the Democrats that put the Democrats in the White House. When you see this, you can see that the Negro vote is the key factor. And despite the fact that you are in a position to be the determining factor, what do you get out of it? The Democrats have been in Washington, D.C. only because of the Negro vote. They've been down there four years. And they're – all other legislation they wanted to bring up they've brought it up, and gotten it out of the way, and now they bring up you. And now they bring up you! You put them first and they put you last. Because you're a chump! [applause] A political chump. In Washington, D.C., in the House of Representatives there are 257 who are Democrats. Only 177 are Republican. In the Senate there are 67 Democrats. Only 33 are Republicans. The party that you backed controls two-thirds of the House of Representatives and the Senate and still they can't keep their promise to you. 'Cause you're a chump. [applause] Any time you throw your weight behind a political party that controls two-thirds of the government, and that party can't keep the promise that it made to you during election-time, and you're dumb enough to walk around continuing to identify yourself with that party, you're not only a chump but you're a traitor to your race. [applause] What kind of alibi do come up with? They try and pass the buck to the Dixiecrats. Now, back during the days when you were blind, deaf and dumb, ignorant, politically immature, naturally you went along with that. But today, as your eyes come open, and you develop political maturity, you're able to see and think for yourself, and you can see that a Dixiecrat is nothing but a Democrat – in disguise. [applause] You look at the structure of the government that controls this country, is controlled by 16 senatorial committees and 20 congressional committees. Of the 16 senatorial committees that run the government, 10 of them are in the hands of southern segregationists. Of the 20 congressional committees that run the government, 12 of them are in the hands of southern segregationists. And they're going to tell you and me that the South lost the war? [laughter, applause] You, today, are in the hands of a government of segregationists. Racists, white supremacists, who belong to the Democratic party but disguise themselves as Dixiecrats. A Dixiecrat is nothing but a Democrat. Whoever runs the Democrats is also the father of the Dixiecrats. And the father of all of them is sitting in the White House. [applause] I say, and I'll say it again, you got a president who's nothing but a southern segregationist [applause] from the state of Texas. They'll lynch in Texas as quick as they'll lynch you in Mississippi. Only in Texas they lynch you with a Texas accent, in Mississippi they lynch you with a Mississippi accent. [cheering] The first thing the cracker does when he comes in power, he takes all the Negro leaders and invites them for coffee. To show that he's all right. And those Uncle Toms can't pass up the coffee. [laughter, applause] They come away from the coffee table telling you and me that this man is all right [laughter]. 'Cause he's from the South and since he's from the South he can deal with the South. Look at the logic that they're using. What about Eastland? He's from the South. Why not make him the president? If Johnson is a good man 'cause he's from Texas, and being from Texas will enable him to deal with the South, Eastland can deal with the South better than Johnson! [laughter, applause] Oh, I say you been misled. You been had. You been took. [laughter, applause] I was in Washington a couple of weeks ago while the senators were filibustering and I noticed in the back of the Senate a huge map, and on this map it showed the distribution of Negroes in America. And surprisingly, the same senators that were involved in the filibuster were from the states where there were the most Negroes. Why were they filibustering the civil rights legislation? Because the civil rights legislation is supposed to guarantee boarding rights to Negroes from those states. And those senators from those states know that if the Negroes in those states can vote, those senators are down the drain. [applause] The representatives of those states go down the drain. And in the Constitution of this country it has a stipulation, wherein, whenever the rights, the voting rights of people in a certain district are violated, then the representative who's from that particular district, according to the Constitution, is supposed to be expelled from the Congress. Now, if this particular aspect of the Constitution was enforced, why, you wouldn't have a cracker in Washington, D.C. [applause] But what would happen? When you expel the Dixiecrat, you're expelling the Democrat. When you destroy the power of the Dixiecrat, you are destroying the power of the Democratic Party. So how in the world can the Democratic Party in the South actually side with you, in sincerity, when all of its power is based in the South? These Northern Democrats are in cahoots with the southern Democrats. [applause]They're playing a giant con game, a political con game. You know how it goes. One of 'em comes to you and make believe he's for you. And he's in cahoots with the other one that's not for you. Why? Because neither one of 'em is for you. But they got to make you go with one of 'em or the other. So this is a con game, and this is what they've been doing with you and me all of these years. First thing, Johnson got off the plane when he become president, he ask, "Where's Dickey?" You know who Dickey is? Dickey is old southern cracker Richard Russell. Lookie here! Yes, Lyndon B. Johnson's best friend is the one who is a head, who's heading the forces that are filibustering civil rights legislation. You tell me how in the hell is he going to be Johnson's best friend? [applause] How can Johnson be his friend and your friend too? No, that man is too tricky. Especially if his friend is still ol' Dickey. [laughter, applause] Whenever the Negroes keep the Democrats in power they're keeping the Dixiecrats in power. This is true! A vote for a Democrat is nothing but a vote for a Dixiecrat. I know you don't like me saying that. I'm not the kind of person who come here to say what you like. I'm going to tell you the truth whether you like it or not. [applause] Up here in the North you have the same thing. The Democratic Party don't – they don't do it that way. They got a thing they call gerrymandering. They maneuver you out of power. Even though you can vote they fix it so you're voting for nobody. They got you going and coming. In the South they're outright political wolves, in the North they're political foxes. A fox and a wolf are both canine, both belong to the dog family. [laughter, applause] Now, you take your choice. You going to choose a northern dog or a southern dog? Because either dog you choose, I guarantee you, you'll still be in the doghouse. This is why I say it's the ballot or the bullet. It's liberty or it's death. It's freedom for everybody or freedom for nobody. [applause] America today finds herself in a unique situation. Historically, revolutions are bloody, oh yes they are. They have never had a bloodless revolution. Or a non-violent revolution. That don't happen even in Hollywood [laughter] You don't have a revolution in which you love your enemy. And you don't have a revolution in which you are begging the system of exploitation to integrate you into it. Revolutions overturn systems. Revolutions destroy systems. A revolution is bloody, but America is in a unique position. She's the only country in history, in the position actually to become involved in a bloodless revolution. The Russian Revolution was bloody, Chinese Revolution was bloody, French Revolution was bloody, Cuban Revolution was bloody. And there was nothing more bloody than the American Revolution. But today, this country can become involved in a revolution that won't take bloodshed. All she's got to do is give the black man in this country everything that's due him, everything. [applause] I hope that the white man can see this. 'Cause if you don't see it you're finished. If you don't see it you're going to become involved in some action in which you don't have a chance. We don't care anything about your atomic bomb; it's useless, because other countries have atomic bombs. When two or three different countries have atomic bombs, nobody can use them. So it means that the white man today is without a weapon. If you want some action you've got to come on down to Earth, and there's more black people on Earth than there are white people. [applause] I only got a couple more minutes. The white man can never win another war on the ground. His days of war – victory – his days of battleground victory are over. Can I prove it? Yes. Take all the action that's going on this Earth right now that he's involved in. Tell me where he's winning – nowhere. Why, some rice farmers, some rice farmers! Some rice-eaters ran him out of Korea, yes they ran him out of Korea. Rice-eaters, with nothing but gym shoes and a rifle and a bowl of rice, took him and his tanks and his napalm and all that other action he's supposed to have and ran him across the Yalu. Why? Because the day that he can win on the ground has passed. Up in French Indochina, those little peasants, rice-growers, took on the might of the French army and ran all the Frenchmen, you remember Dien Bien Phu! The same thing happened in Algeria, in Africa. They didn't have anything but a rifle. The French had all these highly mechanized instruments of warfare. But they put some guerilla action on. And a white man can't fight a guerilla warfare. Guerilla action takes heart, take nerve, and he doesn't have that. [cheering] He's brave when he's got tanks. He's brave when he's got planes. He's brave when he's got bombs. He's brave when he's got a whole lot of company along with him. But you take that little man from Africa and Asia; turn him loose in the woods with a blade. A blade. [cheering] That's all he needs. All he needs is a blade. And when the sun comes down – goes down and it's dark, it's even-Stephen. [cheering] So it's the, it's the ballot or the bullet. Today, our people can see that we're faced with a government conspiracy. This government has failed us. The senators who are filibustering concerning your and my rights, that's the government. Don't say it's southern senators, this is the government. This is a government filibuster. It's not a segregationist filibuster, it's a government filibuster. Any kind of activity that takes place on the floor of the Congress or the Senate, that's the government. Any kind of dilly-dallying, that's the government. Any kind of pussy-footing, that's the government. Any kind of act that's designed to delay or deprive you and me, right now, of getting full rights, that's the government that's responsible. And anytime you find the government involved in a conspiracy to violate the citizenship or the civil rights of a people in 1964, then you are wasting your time going to that government expecting redress. Instead you have to take that government to the world court and accuse it of genocide and all of the other crimes that it is guilty of today. [applause] So those of us whose political and economic and social philosophy is black nationalism have become involved in the civil rights struggle. We have injected ourselves into the civil rights struggle. And we intend to expand it from the level of civil rights to the level of human rights. As long as you fight it on the level of civil rights, you're under Uncle Sam's jurisdiction. You're going to his court expecting him to correct the problem. He created the problem. He's the criminal! You don't take your case to the criminal, you take your criminal to court. [applause] When the government of South Africa began to trample upon the human rights of the people of South Africa they were taken to the U.N. When the government of Portugal began to trample upon the rights of our brothers and sisters in Angola, it was taken before the U.N. Why, even the white man took the Hungarian question to the U.N. And just this week, Chief Justice Goldberg was crying over three million Jews in Russia, about their human rights – charging Russia with violating the U.N. Charter because of its mistreatment of the human rights of Jews in Russia. Now you tell me how can the plight of everybody on this Earth reach the halls of the United Nations and you have twenty-two million Afro-Americans whose churches are being bombed, whose little girls are being murdered, whose leaders are being shot down in broad daylight? Now you tell me why the leaders of this struggle have never taken [recording impaired ] [their case to the U.N.?] So our next move is to take the entire civil rights struggle – problem – into the United Nations and let the world see that Uncle Sam is guilty of violating the human rights of 22 million Afro-Americans right down to the year of 1964 and still has the audacity or the nerve to stand up and represent himself as the leader of the free world? [cheering]Not only is he a crook, he's a hypocrite. Here he is standing up in front of other people, Uncle Sam, with the blood of your and mine mothers and fathers on his hands. With the blood dripping down his jaws like a bloody-jawed wolf. And still got the nerve to point his finger at other countries. In 1964 you can't even get civil rights legislation and this man has got the nerve to stand up and talk about South Africa or talk about Nazi Germany or talk about Portugal. No, no more days like those! [applause] So I say in my conclusion, the only way we're going to solve it: we got to unite. We got to work together in unity and harmony. And black nationalism is the key. How we gonna overcome the tendency to be at each other's throats that always exists in our neighborhood? And the reason this tendency exists – the strategy of the white man has always been divide and conquer. He keeps us divided in order to conquer us. He tells you, I'm for separation and you for integration, and keep us fighting with each other. No, I'm not for separation and you're not for integration, what you and I are for is freedom. [applause] Only, you think that integration will get you freedom; I think that separation will get me freedom. We both got the same objective, we just got different ways of getting' at it. [applause] So I studied this man, Billy Graham, who preaches white nationalism. That's what he preaches. [applause] I say, that's what he preaches. The whole church structure in this country is white nationalism, you go inside a white church – that's what they preaching, white nationalism. They got Jesus white, Mary white, God white, everybody white – that's white nationalism. [cheering] So what he does – the way he circumvents the jealousy and envy that he ordinarily would incur among the heads of the church – whenever you go into an area where the church already is, you going to run into trouble. Because they got that thing, what you call it, syndicated … they got a syndicate just like the racketeers have. I'm going to say what's on my mind because the preachers already proved to you that they got a syndicate. [applause] And when you're out in the rackets, whenever you're getting in another man's territory, you know, they gang up on you. And that's the same way with you. You run into the same thing. So how Billy Graham gets around that, instead of going into somebody else's territory, like he going to start a new church, he doesn't try and start a church, he just goes in preaching Christ. And he says anybody who believe in him, you go wherever you find him. So, this helps all the churches, and since it helps all the churches, they don't fight him. Well, we going to do the same thing, only our gospel is black nationalism. His gospel is white nationalism, our gospel is black nationalism. And the gospel of black nationalism, as I told you, means you should control your own, the politics of your community, the economy of your community, and all of the society in which you live should be under your control. And once you…feel that this philosophy will solve your problem, go join any church where that's preached. Don't join any church where white nationalism is preached. Why, you can go to a Negro church and be exposed to white nationalism. 'Cause when you are on – when you walk in a Negro church and see a white Jesus and a white Mary and some white angels, that Negro church is preaching white nationalism. [applause] But, when you go to a church and you see the pastor of that church with a philosophy and a program that's designed to bring black people together and elevate black people, join that church. Join that church. If you see where the NAACP is preaching and practicing that which is designed to make black nationalism materialize, join the NAACP. Join any kind of organization – civic, religious, fraternal, political or otherwise that's based on lifting the black man up and making him master of his own community. [applause]
In 1938, at age 19, Wallace contributed to his grandfather's successful campaign for probate judge. Late in 1945, he was appointed as one of the assistant attorneys general of Alabama, and in May 1946, he won his first election as a member to the Alabama House of Representatives. At the time, he was considered a moderate on racial issues. As a delegate to the 1948 Democratic National Convention, he did not join the Dixiecrat walkout at the convention, despite his opposition to U.S. President Harry S. Truman's proposed civil rights program. Wallace considered it an infringement on states' rights. The Dixiecrats carried Alabama in the 1948 general election, having rallied behind Governor Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. In his 1963 inaugural speech as governor, Wallace excused his failure to walk out of the 1948 convention on political grounds. In 1952, he became the Circuit Judge of the Third Judicial Circuit in Alabama. Here he became known as "the fighting little judge," a nod to his past boxing association.[10] He gained a reputation for fairness regardless of the race of the plaintiff. It was common practice at the time for judges in the area to refer to black lawyers by their first names, while their white colleagues were addressed formally as "Mister"; Black lawyer J. L. Chestnut later said that "Judge George Wallace was the most liberal judge that I had ever practiced law in front of. He was the first judge in Alabama to call me 'Mister' in a courtroom." On the other hand, Wallace issued injunctions to prevent the removal of segregation signs in rail terminals, becoming the first Southern judge to do so. Similarly, during efforts by civil rights organizations to expand voter registration of blacks, Wallace blocked federal efforts to review Barbour County voting lists. He was cited for criminal contempt of court in 1959. Information Sourced from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace Body Sourced From; https://youtu.be/wLkCY0f73iE Public Access America PublicAccessPod Productions Footage edited by PublicAccessPod producer of Public Access America Podcast Links Review us Stitcher: goo.gl/XpKHWB Review us iTunes: goo.gl/soc7KG Subscribe GooglePlay: goo.gl/gPEDbf Join us on YouTube goo.gl/xrKbJb
Racial Politics When Barack Obama was elected President in 2008, a great many Americans naively believed it would usher in a new era of racial harmony. Instead, the issue of race in our politics has gotten much worse. In some ways, the relations between the races has been set back years. What has caused this setback? Why hasn't the election of America's first black president improved race relations? The answer to that question rests on a number of factors. First, the President has not been an active and vocal advocate for harmony and has, at times, stoked the hard feelings existing between Whites, Blacks and Latinos. But Barack Obama didn't create these hard feelings. They existed long before Obama ever became President. Though it can be said that Obama hasn't done much to promote reconciliation. Republicans have suffered a defamation at the hands of the Democrats and their leftist political allies. The slander stretches back over 50 years into the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, when Martin Luther King agreed to promote the Democratic Party to his followers in exchange for the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts. Although it required more pervasive Republican support for its passage, credit for the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts never went to the Republicans. Instead, Democrats took credit for it, just as black voters were switching party affiliation. By the time Ronald Reagan was running for President in 1980, those generations who grew up and achieved adulthood during the period of Jim Crow, were middle aged and older. An entire new generation, born and raised during the Civil Rights era, knew only of a time when the righteous cause of racial equality was an issue. As the Republican Party struggled to stem the loss of their former black constituents, they appealed to white voters who were feeling ignored by the Democratic Party's new emphasis on race. This reversal has been routinely mischaracterized by racist Democrats who charge the Republican Party with puposely recruiting former segregationists, klansmen, white supremacists and other unsavory characters, all of whom were welcomed in the Democratic Party. When the most prominent Dixiecrat of them all, Strom Thurmond, announced he was switching party affiliations, the Democrats had the scapegoat they needed. For, while it was true that Thurmond had been Segregations's greatest proponent, he renounced those views to become a Republican. The GOP never adopted any Dixiecrat platform items. Furthermore, none of the other Dixiecrat Democrats ever changed their party affiliations, nor were they required to renounce their segregationist views. Despite the fact that all these Southern Senators and Governors remained Democrats, the Republican Party was smeared as the racists. It's a falsehood that lives on to this very day. Tragically, the Republican Party has been so savaged by these slanders and the Democratic Party has become so positively entrenched in the mind of the average black voter, Republicans do not compete for the black vote. This has served to reinforce feelings that the Republican Party is hostile to people of color. Still, over the years, the failure of the Great Society programs and the utter devastation it has wreaked upon the people those programs were intended to help, who are disproportionately black, has opened the door enough to let in a sliver of sunlight. But as that slim opportunity has presented itself to Republicans before and gone untapped, a historic twist of irony may be about to kick that door open a bit wider, shedding the light of opportunity enough, even the Republican Party in its blindness might recognize it. In the sixth year of the Obama Presidency, no group has had their fortunes suffer more in America than African Americans. As hopeful as Obama's Presidency was in 2009, today it seems as hopeless. While there is no doubt the vast majority of blacks still support President Obama and support him strongly, it appears clear to even the most casual observer, that between a quarter to one-third of black Obama supporters have had their fill. Sensing the loss of black enthusiasm diminishing into ambivalence or even support for Republicans, Democrats are playing racial politics in the most vile manner. They even go so far as to warn of racial violence, like lynch mobs, if a Republican is elected. It's worked in the past, but even if it doesn't work this time by just a handful of percentage points, it would spell an absolute catastrophe for the Democratic Party. In the interests of the future of the nation, but also in the interests of all her people, black, white, latin, asian and anyone else, let's all agree that the use of fear, racism and racial violence need to be repudiated. And today is a good day for it to happen. Right here. Right now.The myth of Dixiecrats becoming Republicans
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
