The Dixiecrat movement encouraged Northern blacks to vote for Truman, but it ultimately strengthened the Republican party in the South, for many Dixiecrats became Republicans.

Note that many is not the same as the implication of all that you made here.

I admit to the use of hyperbole. Nevertheless, "many" is not "few".

The 1948 ballot is very interesting. Not the 1960s, which is where I was headed, but certainly pertinent to your grandfather's life experience. Not mine, though. I hadn't been born yet.

The House of Representatives debated the bill for nine days and rejected nearly one hundred amendments designed to weaken the bill before passing H.R .7152 on February 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. It is interesting to note that Democrats from northern states voted overwhelmingly for the bill, 141 to 4, while Democrats from southern states voted overwhelmingly against the bill, 92 to 11. A bipartisan coalition of Republicans and northern Democrats was the key to the bill's success. This same arrangement would prove crucial later to the Senate's approval of the bill.

And those Democrats came from where? And the bastions of Republican power after the 1960s shifted to where? Coincidence? I don't think so.

Note also that the Republicans who helped in the passage of that bill lost influence over party politics later in the decade. Some, no doubt, was due to increased Democratic emphasis on social programs, an especially strong motivator among the upper classes. The social activism of the Federal government in extending Constitutional protections to black citizens was a leading factor in the Republicanization of the South. They called it "states' rights", which effect was to support the state's right to restrict freedom of movement, equal access to public facilities, and voting rights to black citizens.

From your same source: "The Democratic leadership and Humphrey could not control the southern wing of the party." This statement is compatible with the interpretation that the "Southern bloc" were considered outside of the leadership of the Democratic Party at the time of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

George Wallace may have died as a member of the Democratic Party, but his Presidential ambitions as a Democrat were fruitless, and his association with racists as a matter of political expediency marginalized him with the party leadership.

The record of the Republicans on civil rights from 1933 until 1964 is not what I was getting at. It's been the shift in that record since then. Like, until now.

Senator Dirksen was a great Senator, and an impressive leader. I wonder if he could be elected today, by either party. He was a man of principle.

The Congressional Quarterly is here. The link you provided was to youdebate.com. Please help me out here: do you know something about this site that isn't obvious? I could find no named moderator, no editorial policy, and no webmaster. Finally, on the Forum section, I found the assertion that the forums are moderated, along with a copyright notice. There is no author credit for any of the "debates", however. I did find a link to email for comments and complaints, and the sponsors: people selling magazines. I accept the Congressional Quarterly as an authoritative source. I can't accept youdebate.com as a source of the same caliber.

You say I may not like a challenge to my "political dogma", an oxymoron for anyone who understands and has ever worked in politics. 'Tis to laugh! There is only one real "dogma" in politics: "What have you done for me lately?"

Yet you have basically supported the broader thesis by pointing out all the exceptions. From where are the Democrats you point to hail? And are they considered representative samples of the Democratic Party's positions, or throwbacks? (Byrd, at least, has made public statements admitting that he was wrong.) Which Party adopted the "Southern strategy" in the late '60s and early '70s? Whom did they invite to the party? What was the overall effect of the invitation?

Regards--
Mary Anne