In Defense of Judge Roy Moore

Democrats when confronted with the evidence of their history of racism inevitably try to claim the parties conveniently switched after a century's worth of civil rights legislation had been passed from the 1860s to 1960s. However, logic itself quickly dispels such a fabrication. For after all, a party switch could not have occurred prior to the 1960s, since Republicans were still voting in higher percentages on civil rights legislation. However, a party switch could not have occurred after the 1960s either, since Democrats are undeniably similar to the big government Democrats of the 1930s who created Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security under presidents like Franklin D. Roosevelt. 

​

Democrats invariably refer to Southern Strategy, when southern states began turning Republican after the 1960s. However, as pointed out by historian Larry Schweikart, this occurred after the civil rights movement when the next generation of young southerners became Republican. The old racist Democrats remained in the Democratic Party. 
 

"The idea that 'the Dixiecrats joined the Republicans' is not quite true, as you note. But because of Strom Thurmond it is accepted as a fact. What happened is that the **next** generation (post 1965) of white southern politicians — Newt, Trent Lott, Ashcroft, Cochran, Alexander, etc — joined the GOP. So it was really a passing of the torch as the old segregationists retired and were replaced by new young GOP guys. One particularly galling aspect to generalizations about “segregationists became GOP” is that the new GOP South was INTEGRATED for crying out loud, they accepted the Civil Rights revolution. Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter led a group of what would become “New” Democrats like Clinton and Al Gore."

-Larry Schweikart

​

So is there evidence for whether the racist Democrats who voted against the 1960s legislation remained in the Democratic Party? Yes, when looking at the 112 racist Democrats in the House and Senate who voted against the famed 1964 Civil Rights Act, it can be seen that only three of them actually switched parties, John Jarman, Strom Thurmond, and Albert W. Watson, not enough to change the party dynamics on civil rights.

 

Another way to show that the Democrats today are still the same party they were in the 1860s when opposing civil rights is to look at the party platforms. Democrats in their 1856 party platform criticized the evil banking industry, religious Protestantism, business "monopolies and exclusive legislation for the benefit of the few, at the expense of the many," argued for "free seas and progressive free trade," and said that Congress should stay away from slave owner's rights and choices (similar to arguments today against abortion).

​

Similarly in the Democrat’s party platform of 1900, the party condemns “militarism,” “greedy commercialism,” “private monopolies,” “national banks,” and states “in the interest of American labor and the uplifting of the workingman, as the cornerstone of the prosperity of our country, we recommend that Congress create a Department of Labor, in charge of a secretary, with a seat in the Cabinet, believing that the elevation of the American laborer will bring with it increased production and increased prosperity to our country at home and to our commerce abroad.” Given such words, it should hardly be surprising that Democrats in the early 1900s held close ties to the American Federation of Labor (AFL), an early labor union.

​

Yet another way to prove that Democrats remain irrevocably wedded to their earlier racist predecessors is to see how Democrats today are linked to the racist Democrats of the past who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan leader, gave a 14 hour speech filibustering the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and was the ranking Democratic Senator at the time of his death in 2010, third in line of presidential succession behind only Biden and Pelosi. He was also Hillary Clinton's mentor, and she gave a speech at his funeral.

 

Senator Al Gore Sr. is yet another of the racist Democrats who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and is the father of well-known Democrat Al Gore, who ran for President against George W. Bush in 2000. Bill Clinton's mentor, James William Fulbright, is yet another Democrat Senator who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

​

North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin Jr. was yet another of the 112 Democrats who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. His son Sam Ervin III was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals by Democratic President Jimmy Carter, serving until his death in 1999. Sam Ervin IV like his father and grandfather is also a southern Democrat, currently serving in the North Carolina Supreme Court. Watkins Abbitt Jr. is the son of Watkins Abbitt Sr., who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Abbitt Jr. served until 2012 in the Virginia House of Delegates, originally running as a Democrat, and endorsed Democrat Terry McAuliffe in 2013 for Governor. U.S. Senator Olin D. Johnston of South Carolina was yet another southern Democrat who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Johnston’s daughter Elizabeth Johnston Patterson served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1987-93 and is currently the Chairwoman of the Spartanburg County Democratic Party.

​

That Democrats are still the party in opposition to civil rights legislation can be seen from how they opposed the 2002 Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which mandated medical care for newborn babies who survived late-term abortions. Democrats like Barack Obama argued on the floor of the Illinois state senate that babies fully outside the womb shouldn't be given medical treatment and were not human, in the same way slave-holding Democrats once denied rights to slaves during the Civil War era. Democrats challenged the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in the courts until it was upheld in 2007 (Gonzalez v. Carhart) ensuring that babies who survive abortions will finally have their inalienable right to life under the Declaration of Independence respected. 

​

Democrats are also the party in opposition to 1st Amendment rights and basic democracy, as seen from their support for Obergefell v. Hodges. In 2004, Allred instigated the nationwide destruction of democratically-passed ballot referendum laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Thirty different states including California, Texas, Florida, Ohio, Georgia, and North Carolina passed laws through ballot referendum defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The peoples of those thirty states voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Approximately 40 million voters who voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman had their democratic rights destroyed because Gloria Allred used the courts to declare those laws unconstitutional. 

​

There are also cases of Christian photographers and bakers who have had their rights taken away simply by exercising their 1st Amendment rights by refusing to participate in actions they disagree with like photographing gay weddings or creating wedding cakes with same sex figurines on top. As they have been for nearly 200 years, Democrats remain the party in opposition to civil rights.