I hope that our Army 'bigwigs' will not attempt to use the military as an instrument for experimenting with the race problem. Integration of the Negro into White regiments is the very thing for which the Negro intelligentisia is striving and such a move would serve only to lower the efficiency of the fighting units and the morale of the average white service man as well.
I am a typical American, a southerner, and 27 years of age, and never in this world will I be convinced that race mixing in any field is good. All the social 'do-gooders,' the philantropic 'greats' of this day, the reds and the pinks ... the disciples of Eleanor ... the pleas by Sinatra ... can never alter my convictions on this question ... but I am loyal to my country ans know but reverance to her flag, BUT I shall never submit to fight beneath that banner with a negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, then to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throw back to the blackest specimen from the wilds.
Quoted in Graham Smith, When Jim Crow Met John Bull, pg. 225.
17 comments:
No, not "another." Not analogous. Not even close.
Not even in the same league.
Interested readers should consult:
James T. Patterson's _Brown v. Board of Education_ pages 80-82.
Michael S. Mayer's "With Much Deliberation and Some Speed: Eisenhower and the Brown Decision" from the Journal of Southern History (Feb. 1986).
Robert F. Burk's _The Eisenhower Administration and Black Civil Rights_.
And read the rest of Ambrose, by all means. Then decide the issue for yourself.
Steve --
this little lusting of books is all well and good, but it does nothing to address the larger point -- what Eiusenhower said isa as bad as what Byrd said. Wortse, in fact, because Byrd was at the time a 27-year old relative nobody. Eisenhower was President of the US at the time that he was justifying the worst bigotry. Are you really going to get into a pissing match with me over civil rights historiography? But if so, are you going to cite pp. 80-82, a 1986 journal article, Burk's book and Ambrose as an example of Eisenhower being GOOD on civil rights? In any case, that is not what is at hand here -- what is at hand is a comparison of Eisenhower and Byrd. YOU said they are not in the same league or ballpark. Yet they in fact are. Eisenhower's record on civil rights is, to be charitable, mixed. What Eisenhower said in 1954 IS worse than what Byrd said in 1945 because it came later from a person with much more power to do good (or bad) on the issue of civil rights. If this is the historiographical extent of what you think bolsters your argument, it is an argument in even worse shape than you think.
I'm quite certain dueling civil rights historiography is not going to work in your favor on this one, Steve. But if you want that fight, bring it on. I mean, I know you have three pages from Patterson and all. But I am willing to put my credibility on civil rights history up against yours.
dc
I am not going to get into a "pissing match" with you or anybody else. I cited some stuff that should be easy enough to find, if anyone is interested. If you want to have a fight about Eisenhower's civil rights record, have it with Patterson, Mayer, Burke, and Ambrose. I am sure Patterson's CV is at least as impressive as yours. At the very least these scholars all say that Eisenhower did not engage in race-hatred.
I am quite certain dueling Eisenhower historiography is not goint to work in your favor on this one, Derek. I mean, I know you have one quotation from Ambrose and all. But I am willing to put my credibility on Eisenhower history up against yours.
ST
Steve , Steve, Steve -- yeah, dueling Eisenhower historiography on civil rights is in fact precisely an issue I'll gladly go after you on. I realize you labored over an MA thesis on Eisenhower and all, but awesome as that is, I think I do ok on this front. My credibility on political history is just as solid as yours, as well, and I might argue moreso if certain career facts are to be established. And since the issue at hand is political history, subset, civil rights, it might be time for you to give an actual argument rather than a one sentence dismissal followed by an undergraduiate term paper bibliography none of which seem to say a whoile lot as to the issue at hand.
What are you talking about with "one quotation from Ambrose"? I did not cite that quotation. If you are going to try lamely to hoist me with the structure of my writing, at least don't be a complete retard about it. I am responding to someone else's use of an Ambrose quotation. Goiven that the sole foundation of this whole thing comes from a virtually stand-alone quotation, I have no idea why you think this would be cutting to me.
Nor was this issue ever about Ike's "race hatred." If you Big Tenters want to cite what other people say and have it stand alone, that is fine. But then when someone else comes in and does the same, and then when you and Tom authoritatively (alas, without any substantial authority) aver that there is no parallel, well, you need to prepare to defend it, not list other people's works that don't actually have anything to do with the issue at hand, as none of those actually compare Byrd with Eisenhower.
I'll repeat it, because I am actually making an argument, and one you have yet to try to refute -- in its implications for the US, Eisenhower's quotation is worse. It is worse because what Byrd said in a letter had no impact on public policy. What Eisenhower believed about race did. This is not about race hatred, it is about his inaction.
Patterson does have a more impressive cv than I do. But let us be very careful about gratuitous cheap shots regarding vitas, Steve; you are not Patterson. You are not even Catsam. In that one I'm pretty sound in asserting the disparity in leagues. In any case, Patterson's argument is a lot closer to mine -- that Eisenhower was not all that great on the issue of civil rights and that his statement in 1954 is a lot worse than Byrd's in 1945. If you would care to posit your own arguments, fine. But i am not certain listing books you've read is very useful, unless you really think that people are going to go and look at three pages here, four there, only to doscover that Byrd's name does not come up at all and thus your listing of those books will reveal nothing about the issue of Byrd's quotation as opposed to Eisenhower's.
dc
Monkey Bars. 3PM Tomorrow. Settle It.
I'm confused. Is this a debate about racism in the past, or modern-day egos?
It just seems that the "I'm smarter than you are" crap gets in the way of genuine discussion regarding an issue that weighed heavily on real people's lives, intelligent and otherwise.
Mr. Catsam believes Eisenhower's statement was worse than Byrd's. Readers can look at both statements and decide for themselves. If they are interested in looking at Eisenhower's civil rights record they can read the books I mentioned.
DC:
I love ya, but you are off your rocker on this one. Granted, President Eisenhower should have done a whole lot more for civil rights. Granted, what he said was reprehensible, and I can't condemn it strongly enough, but to imply his statement and all that it represented about the man was the same (or worse) as Byrd's letter and all that it represents about that man is patently ridiculous.
First off, what is the point? Why bring Eisenhower into the comment thread at all? What does Ike's comment have to do with Byrd? There is no justification for that line of argument except as some kind of defense of Byrd, i.e.: Democrat Byrd was bad, but so was Republican Eisenhower. I'd love for someone to give me a reason why they would try to lessen the condemnation due Byrd for his comments. So, again, what is the point?
You don't need to be a civil rights scholar to compare Eisenhower favorably to Byrd on matters of race. Yes, Ike could have done more about lynchings. Of course, he wouldn't have had to worry about lynchings if folks like Byrd's fellow Klan members weren't actually doing the lynchings. So, yeah, I kind of think the guy who was a member of an organization that lynched black people (and never disavowed that membership), is worse than the president who honestly but wrongly didn't think there needed to be a special federal law against lynchings.
As far as the time difference and importance of the individual position goes, I suppose that would be a convincing argument had Robert Byrd become congressman then Senator, all while maintaining the views in the letter he felt so strongly about that he sent it to a senator not from his state, and a senator who may have been the biggest racist in the history of that institution. I don't have a Byrd biography in front of me, but even given Ike's limited efforts on behalf of civil rights, is there any doubt where Byrd stood on those issues? Byrd opposed Warren and the Brown decision. He opposed the intervention in Little Rock. He vehemently opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which Eisenhower signed.
Or how about the issue that he felt so passionately about in his letter to Bilbo? Considering all the rest of his views in the 1950s, I think it is pretty clear that Byrd had not changed his tune about the integration of any American institution, including the military. Yet it was President Eisenhower who accelerated the completion of the far from finished integration of the U.S. Armed Forces he inherited.
Byrd went on to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964, oppose the appointment of Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court and countless other blacks to federal positions, and say in 2001, "I don't hate anybody... [but] there are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time; I'm going to use that word."
Graham Smith found the 1945 letter in some archive. I came across the quotation a few days after the still-prominent Byrd made his Nazi comments. I repoduced the letter because it was a clear exposition of a pattern of racist actions (not just words) from Robert Byrd that began over sixty years ago and continues to this very day.
Robert Byrd was, is, and always will be a horrible racist and a disgrace to the Democratic Party. He deserves nothing but our contempt. I can't imagine how or why anyone would compare him to Dwight Eisenhower.
TB
Tom --
The problem of course, is that this is the first time you or Tootle have actually made an argument, and it is one on the whole I do not disagree with, save that after 1965 or so Byrd changed with much of the southern Democratic Party on race (many of the unreconstructeds went GOP, of course). But this is the problem with Big Tent posting something and assuming the conclusion is self evident. Because the way I read Anonymous's first post was not to compare their careers in toto, but rather to cmpare the statements in isolation. Why would anyone do otherwise? Anonymous succumbed to the same problem you guys do, though -- leaving something to speak for itself. And then both you and Tootle step in and say there is no comparison -- but in fact with what we were given, which is to say barren statements by two people, one Byrd, one Eisenhower, in fact Eisenhower's is worse. His statement is one made by a sitting president who was reluctant to make the progress on civil rights that he had an ability to effect. Byrd's was from a then ineffectual 27 year old in a letter in private. If the context is different, the responsibility is for the persons making the posts to point out. But to aver that there was no grounds for comparison is absurd and is your own fault when you are not willing to provide the legwork to give your context for the argument. On its own, which is all you gave, the Byrd comment is not, in fact, sifficient to make all comparisons with Eisenhhower invalid. If you are not willing to contextualize your posts, do not then whine when someone else does it for you. In the context presented, the comparison is valid. Even beyond that point, if you do not want that comparison made, when someone first brings it up, you need to give an argument beyond "No, not "another." Not analogous. Not even close." You have not given enough information in your own post to tell others so summarily that their arguments are not valid. By YOUR not following up with an argument, it allows readers who happen to be writing freaking books on civil rights and have jobs that allow them to do so to go with the comparison as given, trite little historiography lessons aside. That you guys were not willing to give even a sentence in response to Anonymous does not then grant you some sort of voice of authority on how the argument plays out. It's all well and good to dismiss, but when the dismissal comes from your own unwillingness to do the work to contextualize what you post, the fault does not lie with the reader.
So fine, you get a B+ on your latest defense. That does not mitigate the D for the vagueness of the initial post and the F's for your initial responses to Anonymous. At least you're passing now.
dc
This post seems to have generated a lot of commentary (maybe a record amount for the Big Tent), and probably not in the direction Tom initially intended. Some of it did seem pretty silly, and probably best settled on the monkey bars (in TX or CO?) rather than on the blog. But I think some good points did come up. Derek's point about the nature of some of the posts is well taken. It's very easy to let the blog become just a page linking articles, columns, and sites that we find interesting or useful, and leaving it at that. Blogging can be time consuming, not only in the writing, abut also in the mining of the 'net, and sometimes the writing gets short shrift. We've all been guilty of it, myself included, and several people have mentioned to me that all the blog looks like at times is a link listing. I'm not saying that it's necessarily bad, but it certainly seems like some commentary or context is often in order. For my part, I'll try to do so when I post a link, and I encourage my fellow bloggers to do so too. Another way we could go is to expand on the types of posts. I just put up some ramblings that have no political or social point at all, but that maybe some readers will enjoy. It's not quite the same as commentary or context, but I hope that it will give the blog some more diversity and more attrativeness to the casual surfer. Maybe with more context and diverse posts we can direct our conversations with you readers a little more, and keep everyone on the same footing. So that we don't have to settle anything on the playground.
Yeah sure, sometimes we can put a couple more comments on some of our posts.
But in this case, I'm sorry, but no. I titled the post "Robert Byrd, Again" because the quotation--which I let speak for itself--was an example of what a scumbag Robert Byrd has been and continues to be. That should have been clear. That should have been enough context. In some cases, I'm going to go ahead and assume that our readers haven't been living in holes the past few years.
More importantly, until someone explains to me the point of dragging Eisenhower into the discussion other than to defend in some way that racist Byrd, I will not admit to even the tiniest degree that we are at fault for any unpleasantness in this debate. So I'm still waiting: What is the point?
Actually, the more I think about the question of our style, I agree about posting on diverse topics, and I think we already do that somewhat (I did move most of my sports talk off Big Tent because it was getting a little orange and brown around here). But I personally really don't give a damn whether we attract the casual surfer or have meaningful conversations with our readers. I really don't care whether or not people think our blog looks like a list of links. That is nothing to feel guilty about. This isn't the Big Oprah.
We started this blog in its earlier form in order to share links that we thought were interesting or funny or thought-provoking in some way. We got tired of sending emails with links or telling our friends to read something. Usually we assume our friends and readers will get why we linked it, but sometimes it needs a bit more explaining. We do that sometimes, too.
Look, I know the bloggers are taking over with the revolution and all, but honestly, this is something I do for fun and to keep up with my friends all over the country. I think that our readers get something out of it, and I think we will continue to grow. (I've seen our numbers, we are growing. Slowly.)
Let me add, though, that I couldn't be happier to have Mark on board saying what he is saying and trying new things. That is exactly the point of the Big Tent--we have all different styles.
Now we just need to find a lady Big Tenter, cause it's kinda turning into a frat party around here.
Tom --
We are talking about the same Robert Byrd who has supported every renewal of the Voting Rights Act, who supported making MLK's birthday a national holiday, and who had an almost 80% approval rating in the latest NAACP report card, right?
It is great that you think your readers do not need contaxt. But I'll say it again -- ain't a soul on Big Tent who can dismiss me on civil rights. You laid out a quotation sloppily, someone else did the same, and then rather than slucidate the differences, you said there was absolutely no room for comparison, thus shutting off the discussion.
Now the little "living in holes" statement is interesting, and I could get into where I;'ve been living and what I've been doing and will be doing the next few years. You can pretend you are engaging (or not engaging, as the case may be) with the random anonymous reader. problem is, I'm not that reader. In between posting the same exact Hanson article back to back (my guess is Big Tent readers might have found their way with just one, but that's just me) you could have showed your readers a modicum of respect. Apparently that is too much to ask. instead people who know a whole lot more than you on the matter of civil rights get reading lists and comments about living in holes. I'd prefer the latter dismissal from someone who has at least once left the country of his birth.
dc
So we finally have someone defending Robert Byrd's record on race. To deal with the substance of that argument, it seems to me that Byrd has pretty consistently been a party regular when he realized that he lost all of the racist legal battles he had fought. Let's not confuse political pragmatism with a discovery of principles. He is a racist--he always has been, and always will be. I think the 2001 comment I quoted above is evidence of that. And he's still in the Senate accusing others of being Nazis.
That said, I'm still mighty confused about what place Eisenhower has in this discussion, except to defend Byrd's comments in some way. This is the third and final time I'm going to ask: What is the point?
I apologized and made a joke about the Hanson link.
Finally, not that it matters, but: SMSS - 3rd Conference Proceedings.
Tom --
Are you being willfully obtuse? When you guys are not censoring comments, are you eating lead paint chips? You ask what place Eisenhower has "in this duscussion" apparently willfully blind to the chronology of the "discussion." The first post, yours, the one that started all of this, was not part of a discussion because you did not deign to say anything of your own related to the quotation you decided was so trenchant and insightful that it stood on its own. So someone else responded by doing exactly what you did. At which point you claim that juxtaposing two quotations without contaxt was simply beyond the pale, an absurd argument, but it is yours, and you have apparently come to like it.
It was at that point that I asserted myself, saying that standing alone, devoid of the context that you two did not bother to provide, Eisenhower's quotation was in fact worse. And it is. I stand by that, and have yet to see a substantial argument against it -- that standing alone, Eisenhower's quotation was worse than Byrd's. It was. It is. period. No one accused Eisenhower of being a racist, a handy little trope that you and Tootle pulled out that alas had nothing to do with anything anyone said, but that allowed you to take an indignant stance because, lacking an actual argument, that is a handy thing to do. So for people who started reading at your last comment, it might seem bizarre that anyone would enter Eisenhower randomly into a discussion. Except there was no discussion. There was a stand alone quotation from Byrd and someone countered with a stand alone quotation by Eisenhower. No discussion. Just two quotations standing side-by side. At which point the juxtaposition becomes worth talking about because, and I'll say it again, since the people who presented the quotations did not have anything to say about them, all anyone else had to go on were those two isolated quotations about which there is actually much to compare.
As for "defending Byrd on race," that is one way to say it. A silly and inaccurate way, but a way. Or another way to say it is that I am inconveniently pointing out what those of us who actually care about history like to call "facts," and that they happen to be facts thaty somewhat muddle your views of Byrd as an unrepentent racist who is a wholly unreconstructed neoConfederate. I do not have all that much use for Byrd, but your caricature of him does not hold. And then, of course, you do not bother to counter those facts. I guess because they are true, and truth is just another weapon in the arsenal over here at Big Tent, easily thrown out when name calling seems more appropriate. That's fine. I can name call with the best of them. But let's not pretend that your ability to ferret out quotations without context gives you some particularly intellectually sound platform from which to cudgel those who disagree with you. Finding quotations makes you a journalist, or perhaps a librarian. An actual historian ought to know that the context matters. Some might even bother to provide that context before accusing other people of drawing illegitimate comparisons in a "discussion" that had the unfortuinate problem of not actually existing.
dc
Post a Comment