Talk:Dixiecrat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Election box metadata[edit]

This article contains some sub-pages that hold metadata about this subject. This metadata is used by the Election box templates to display the color of the party and its name in Election candidate and results tables.

These links provide easy access to this meta data:

Where did this line come from?

"When the Democrats pushed for civil rights, the Republicans reaped the political benefits of a Southern white backlash."

The 1964 Civil Rights Act had stronger support by the Republicans in Congress then from the Democrats.

68.194.209.63 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that in every vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there are more Democratic ayes than Republican, despite the resistance (and filibuster) of a large number of Southern Democrats. Breakouts by region prove this unusual resistance. <http://www.waterstones.com/waterstonesweb/products/desmond+s-+king/separate+and+unequal/3848047/>, <http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6648204>, or simply see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#cite_ref-King_11-0>. Can you source your statement? 130.126.126.184 (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

could some other people help expand this topic?[edit]

signed CD (February 28, 2005)

what exactly would you like to see? it seems to have most of the relevant facts. Drewish 13:38, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)

I want to compile a list of every person who walked out of the 1948 DNC.

signed CD

Is anyone stopping you? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:04, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

No one is stoping me but I have a limit to how much work I can do and the internet seems to have limited information on this topic.

signed CD

Sounds like time to go to the library, if you are the one who thinks this should be done. The Internet won't have any more information for someone else than it does for you. Newspapers from the time are probably what you need. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:54, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Hi all, I changed some stuff around in the Notable Members and Later Elections area. It sounded like someone was trying to rewrite history by saying most went to the republican party. Not true! The major players remained Democratic and served multiple terms as did the 2 Republicans. These guys had MAJOR political careers. They had power and influence some of our term-limited Senators wished they had right now.

As far as getting an actual list of walkouts - good luck, even in a library... I've come to the conclusion that the walk out created a chaotic mess and no one knew who was doing what, where, when or why... You'll have to sit through hours of reading old print material to catch just a brief mention of somebody so obscure that they're not worth mentioning anyway. The heavy hitters are the US Senators on the list.

thedrez

Thanks Jmabel for catching "Democrat Party" ===> "Democratic Party" - - - don't know what I was thinking, but "Democratic" looked wrong at the time I was writing it. BTW, I used US Senate records on most of these Senators - - where do you suggest I put "reference links" to the sites used to obtain this information. thedrez 15may05

  • Add a references section at the bottom of the article (see Wikipedia:Cite sources for explanations of appropriate citation). You'll have to use your judgment on how best to indicate what you got from where, since conventional footnoting would probably be excessive. If you used a variety of sources, you might look at RINO#Putative RINOs as a model. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:23, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Fulbright[edit]

I notice that William Fulbright was removed from the list recently, anonymously, and without comment. He was certainly a segregationist senator in 1948. I don't know who he supported in the presidential election that year. Our article on him should say, but it doesn't. I'm not restoring, because I'm not sure, but someone should probably look into this. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:47, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Noted! Agree that he seems to have been a signer of Southern Manifesto, but I didn't find any info about affiliation with the Dixiecrats. I'm still looking. thedrez

"Became unelectable"[edit]

What is with these edits by Grazon. What is "became unelectable" supposed to mean, in encyclopedic terms? Politicians lose elections, but "unelectable" is a POV judgment. And "changed" is even more debatable as added here. I think this should be reverted, but I'll give at least 24 hours for someone else to weigh in.

Also is "thirty-five conservative delegates from Mississippi and Alabama" really right? Certainly "thirty-five segregationist delegates…", but in the South at that time, that did not necessarily neatly line up with conservatism in other senses. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The edits should be reverted b/c they are POV.--Alabamaboy 12:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting my mistake. I didn't edit them the way I meant to. Best, --Alabamaboy 00:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Dixiecrat Label[edit]

Another classic example of Wikipedia posters trying to write history to their worldview. No reputable political scientists or research uses the Dixiecrat label any longer as this article suggests. Good grief. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.219.61.10 (talkcontribs) 13 June 2006.

I agree that this label is somewhat dated and now is mostly used as an insult. Jon 21:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
And indeed, the article suggest nothing about current politicians. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Senator Byrd isn't (any longer) a Dixiecrat[edit]

While (current) Senator Byrd of West Virginia may well have been a Dixiecrat early in his Senate Career, his voting record in the past two decades are way too liberal to be considered a Dixiecrat. Jon 21:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, really, no one is a Dixiecrat today. It's mainly a historical term. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
So, why is there a list of relatively recent pols listed as Dixiecrats? Biggest hoot is Jesse Helms. He was a Republican for crying out loud. Looks like Stephen Colbert was right about you people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.152.125.33 (talkcontribs) 20 August 2006.
Helms was quite literally a Dixiecrat. He started out as a Democrat and worked for Richard Russell, Jr.'s 1952 presidential campaign. You can't get a lot more Dixiecrat than that. He only became a Republican in 1970. - Jmabel | Talk 06:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Supremacist[edit]

Some anon keeps removing white supremacist from the lead. The party were rather overtly supremacist: that was exactly why they left the national Democratic Party. The article completely lacks a citation apparatus, but one of the many places this could be cited from is Zachary Karabell, How Harry Truman Won the 1948 Election, Random House (2001) ISBN 978-0-375-70077-4. - Jmabel | Talk 07:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

While an argument could be made for them being racist, I would not make that the very first sentence of the article. It makes them sound like a synonym for the KKK and that white supremacy is their one special issue to the exclusion of all others. To quickly label the party with a zippy one-liner without considering the historical context is to prove the detractors of wikipedia absolutely right. Additionally you should realize that the history of the party does not start when they walk out of the democratic national convention. More importantly, the dixiecrats left the democratic party because it had changed from its initial form to a degree that the republican party was closer to southern democrats than the northern democrats were. Southern democrats would not support the republicans because of the bitter memory of radical reconstruction. Hence, the unwillingness to vote for anything named republican.

Pjanini1 23:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not terribly interested in whether it is in the lead, but it certainly belongs in the article. It was pretty central to their politics. - Jmabel | Talk 20:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

White Supremacy was the entire reason for this political party, although they were never overtly affiliated with the KKK. If you can't say the Dixiecrats were White Supremacists, then you can't say the Nazis were anti-Semitic -- both are simple statements of fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.67.2 (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay if you use your backwards logic then the Islamic / Muslim religion should be amended to read anti-Semitic. I hate it when you yankees or Confederate haters rope every single Confederate into the KKK - White Supremacy group. Sure they had members of the KKK in their short lived party, but correct me if I'm wrong didn't every political party back in that day? Heck only 20 years before the Dixiecrats the freaking President was a member of the KKK, does that mean that his party supported White Supremacy too? Dixieparty (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

References[edit]

This article has no citations. If you have contributed to this article and have sources, please cite them. Thanks, ++Arx Fortis 21:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Re-write[edit]

I suggested the re-write because the article is simply incorrect. The Dixiecrat movement was very temporary and not an event that lasted the rest of the 20th century. Some of the people listed were not Dixiecrats at all. This article has the sound/tone of 6th graders wanting to make some perception reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.72.247 (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is well-sourced, and clarifies how the Dixiecrat movement led to the dissolution of the "Solid South" and the creation of the modern-day Republican and Democratic party alignments. There's nothing of substance there that needs rewriting. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

External Link[edit]

Hello, there is an external link here, http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.jsp?id=h-1477, that might be useful.

Thanks,

Justin --Duboiju (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

conservative dixiecrats[edit]

Take a google book search, JSTOR search, scholar search... you name it. All of them will confirm that the Dixiecrats were socially conservative. BillMasen (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Highly suspicious. Dixiecrats were Democrats (the left-wing party), not Republicans (the right-wing party). Do you honestly think that political parties/politicians which are Left-wing are incapable of racism? What about Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pots, and Guevara? Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, and he fought against Democrats to end slavery. Correct historical context would place Dixiecrats as left-wing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.225.214.82 (talkcontribs)
You are displaying your deep and utter ignorance here. The Dixiecrats' whole complaint was that there were people to their left taking over the Democratic Party, and that old-fashioned racism and social conservatism was no longer as welcome there as it had been. (And there were lots of Democrats backing the Union, as you would know if you read a book now and then: see our articles such as War Democrat and National Union Party (United States).) --Orange Mike | Talk 01:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Portmanteau?[edit]

"The term Dixiecrat is a portmanteau of Dixie, referring to the Southern United States, and Democrat, referring to the United States Democratic Party." is a silly claim. -crat part has nothing to do with "Democrat". See Plutocrat, Aristocrat, 1000's of them! -crat comes from Greek "power", nothing more. Can someone please fix this? Netrat (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That is itself a silly claim. "Dixiecrat" would be meaningless in Greek. The word was an obvious portmanteau term for renegade DIXIE DemoCRATS, and had nothing to do with the ultimate etymology of the word "democrat". If somebody had been trying to create a neologism from Greek roots, they would have had to go with the Classical Greek word for Southern, which is νότιος (notios); so a believer in "Southern Power" would be a "notiocrat". --Orange Mike | Talk 15:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

American Independent Party[edit]

In 1964 the South split three ways between Humphrey the Democrat (with a base in the black vote), Richard Nixon the Republican (with a base among middle class whites), and Wallace the [[ independent (with a base in rural areas and the Deep South). ticket, and swept the electoral votes of the Deep South. With Wallace gone the American Independent Party failed to keep its foothold in the South. Its 1972 candidate was Congressman John G. Schmitz from California, whose strongest showing was 10% in Idaho, but who did poorly in the South. Subsequent southern Dixiecrats running on the American Independent Party ticket included Lester Maddox and John Rarick, but these campaigns did not succeed either.

1. the three way split between Nixon / Humphrey / Wallace happened in 1968 not 1964.

2. Most who voted for Humphrey were white and his base was comprised of Johnson supporters, to the chagrin of the more liberal delegates pledged to Eugene McCarthy and Robert F. Kennedy. So what?

3. The AIP after Wallace was a sorry collection of random racists. You might as well talk about Reagan's relationship with the AIP in his failed bid for the 1976 GOP nomination. Reagan was not a Dixiecrat, but many of the haters who voted for Dixiecrat and AIP nominees also voted for Reagan. Again, so what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrBakerFineShoeMaker (talkcontribs) 04:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

1. corrected. 2. wrong. HHH won about 10% of the white Southern vote, and 2/3 of his vote in the region was black.[Gould p 165 and White p 401] . so what: a big deal = end of the Democratic Solid South, making national victory very difficult. 3. reads like hate-filled POV is not limigted to Wallace voters. Rjensen (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Most of your comments are sound, Rjensen; but I think that the point about Wallace "Dixiecrats" becoming Reagan supporters is a valid one, not "hate-filled". It certainly matches everything I saw in the South in that era. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this article should acknowledge that Truman won because of the black vote which helped to lessen some of the split created by the Dixiecrats. It clarifies how he could win when the Democratic vote was so split. Also some of this conversation about whether or not the Dixicrats had a racist agenda seems like an attempt to apologize for, excuse or rationalize their agenda. Make no mistake, they were the most vehement supporters of legalized segregation, which was textbook racism. And there is an association with the Reagan Republicans as verified by his campaign, which was launched from Philadelphia, Mississippi, the scene of the horrible murder of three civil rights workers. The campaign itself drew the correlation. Let's not be coy about the role that racism played in this history. It is silly and breeds inaccuracy.````` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atom999 (talkcontribs) 02:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction[edit]

Consider (1948 presidential election, first paragraph):

To this end Dixiecrat leaders worked to have Thurmond-Wright declared the official Democratic Party ticket in Southern states. They succeeded only in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina.

But later (same section, 4th paragraph:

On election day 1948, the Thurmond-Wright ticket carried the previously solid Democratic states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina, as well as Alabama (whose Democratic party refused to recognize the Truman-Barkley ticket and had Thurmond on the ballot as its nominee)

Which is correct? Jon kare (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

both. Rjensen (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Could you elaborate? Doesn't one paragraph say that Thurmond was the official Democratic candidate in four states, the other that he was in only one? How am I reading this wrong? Jon kare (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
it names the 4 states where it was listed as the Dem ticket. Rjensen (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Where did the list of Dixiecrats go?[edit]

There was a long list of the Dixiecrats in this article and it has been deleted. Why was it deleted? I have the list and I think it should be added back in. It is here http://jacksonville.com/interact/blog/stanley_scott/2009-05-11/dixiecrat_-_the_states_rights_democratic_party and I believe that site copied it from Wikipedia. I believe the truth about how many Dixiecrats switched to the Republican party can be determined with that list. Is that why it was deleted? Robert Smith 1956 (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It was deleted in February of 2010, as it was grossly incomplete and almost completely unsourced. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Orangemike. I also checked some of the names--most were NOT Dixicrats. So the list if full of false names. (very few of the names listed switched to the GOP as I recall--apart from Thurmond himself.) Rjensen (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I somewhate regretted the loss of the list; but it would be a doctoral-level research project to compile an accurate sourced list of them, and a separate one to compile a list of those from that list who eventually migrated to the Reps. Given that we often don't even have articles, on (for example) the Speakers of the House of most of the state legislatures of that era, I'm not sure that this is where I'd like to spend my research time. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is no one willing to identify and/or enumerate the Dixiecrats? I read in several places that "many Dixiecrats" joined the Republican party. How many? I can only count two Congressional Dixiecrats that switched parties, Jesse Helms who switched in 1970 and Strom Thurmond who switched 1964. The rest returned to the Democratic party and remained there. The term "nearly all" in this article is weasel wording http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word and needs to be corrected if the article is to be accurate. Robert Smith 1956 (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to say that the Dixiecrat voters and their heirs gradually became the Southern Republican voters of the 1964 and later era. Many of the 1948 Dixiecrat officeholders were dead by the time of Nixon's Southern Strategy of 1968, but the ideological lineage is easy to trace. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Felidahouse, 8 August 2011[edit]

Can someone please fix the misspelling of "Soldi South" to "Solid South"?

Thanks, Felida

Felidahouse (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Done--Jac16888 Talk 14:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 October 2013[edit]

Add Dixiecrat to Category:Right-wing populism 68.81.75.121 (talk) 04:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2014[edit]

Add political position as right-wing.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/166817/Dixiecrat

I also think it's a little odd we don't mention them as conservatives since in other articles we bring it up, such as the article on conservative democrats and the timeline of american conservatism.

Clothcoat (talk) 06:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Seems to be mentioned here, albeit not very boldly.

The term "Dixiecrat" is sometimes used by Northern Democrats to refer to conservative Southern Democrats from the 1940s to the 1990s, regardless of where they stood in 1948.[4] Cannolis (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

"Far-Right"[edit]

In its day, the SRDP held mainstream positions by southern standards and attracted a large plurality in the North (as evidenced by the success of George Wallace), while it is fair to call them right-wing it would be out of context to use the term far-right. Moore2012 - July 8, 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 02:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I would say far left would be more accurate. These were the extremist wing of the Democratic party. This kind of discrimination and xenophobia is typical of communist political parties. 204.225.214.82 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)