Okay, enough. I found a link at A Dog's Life to a story about West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, which has the Senator denying being involved in lynching or racist activity while in the KKK as a youth.
Now here's the thing:
If you know much about the history of the Ku Klux Klan, you should know that it is not impossible that he is telling the truth. But then, most people know very little about the KKK, even though they think they know everything.
Before I go on, I'm just going to say this: if you're going to tell me I'm an "apologist for the KKK," you can go tell it to someone else. I have never been, or known, a member. I almost certainly have no ancestors who were members, either, since they were primarily American Indians, or immigrants, which the KKK generally despised. The Esmays, in particular, fought for the Union during the Civil War. So you can keep any slimy insinuations to yourself, mm-kay?
Now, TV and talk shows and newspapers rarely give you enough history to really understand this organization. And, while you can find people today who have received inexcusable harassment from the Klan, this only means they can speak to their own experiences. The actual history of the Klan is far more varied and interesting than most people have any clue about. And countless people, who should know better, get the most basic facts wrong.
---
There was an organization called the Ku Klux Klan, founded in Georgia by General Nathan Bedford Forrest. It was a group of vigilante political enforcers for the Democratic Party. Although preventing black people from voting was part of their mission, their primary purpose was less about harassing black people than it was about harassing the occupational military government in the South right after the end of the Civil War. Catholics and Jews would likely have been members of the organization, although we'll never know for certain because membership was secret, and probably numbered a few thousand at most. It was formally disbanded in 1869. A few ragtag bands continued activity under the KKK banner, but the group petered out and disappeared from any prominence over the next few years.
About 45 years later, in 1915, a self-styled "progressive" named William J. Simmons, born long after the demise of the first Klan, saw a movie called Birth of a Nation. The movie was a highly romanticized story that included heroic--and completely fictional--portrayals of Forrest's Klu Klux Klan.
Young Mr. Simmons hatched a scheme to use the fame of that movie--which was a major hit in its day--to "re-create" the Ku Klux Klan. He had no known affiliation with either the original, long-defunct KKK nor the makers of the movie. He simply had an idea to capitalize on the movie's success, and to create an organization to make himself rich and powerful. And he succeeded brilliantly.
Most people don't know this, but in those days, fraternal organizations were huge. Many if not most working-class people were members of some such organization. This was because they offered services that, today, we think of as stuff that comes from employers, trade unions, or government. Benefits to joining the American Legion, the JayCees, the Odd Fellows, or the Shriners might include discounts for goods and services, medical insurance, legal representation, political lobbying, and even unemployment compensation or educational benefits for your kids. Literally tens of millions of people joined such organizations.
Most of these groups are gone now, because the services they once offered are obtained elsewhere. A few of them still survive, but those which do are all far smaller than they were 60 or 70 years ago.
In 1915, during the heyday of fraternal organizations, Simmons founded his new "Ku Klux Klan" to be just such a group. He started it in Tennessee, with the goal of expanding nationwide. It would feature the pseudo-mystical "secret society" mentality of groups like the Freemasons, with multiple levels, secret rankings, secret rituals, and secret activities. But it would otherwise offer the same kinds of benefits as most of the other fraternal groups. Simmons knew that many people would think they were joining the same organization as they saw in D.W. Griffith's hit movie. He did nothing to disabuse them of that notion.
Simmons had political ambitions, of course. The agenda was surprisingly broad--much moreso than you might think. He had some goals in common with Carrie Nation's Temperence movement, for example, running major campaigns against drunken men who abandoned their family obligations or, worse, beat their wives or children. They also broadly feared immigrants, Catholics and Jews, and of course any black people who attempted to exert political power. They lobbied to reduce immigration, and against the influence of these "unAmerican" groups.
It was a hugely successful enterprise. By the 1930s, the Klan had millions of members, in every state in America. They ran out of lodges just like you see Moose or American Legion or VFW lodges today. They had Ladies' Auxiliary lodges, with millions of female members. Business men, physicians, lawyers, judges, mayors, state legislators, governors, senators, congressmen, were among their membership--often proudly. And not just in the South, but almost everywhere in America.
Simmons' KKK, as a rule, tended to downplay its political views in public. They tried to project an image of respectability and social responsibility. Yes, they didn't like this, that, or the other group, but they rarely talked about overt violence toward them. Indeed, documents written by Simmons and others who ran the organization often emphasized that local Klan lodge leaders should hide the most extreme elements of the Klan's agenda from prospective members, and to only reveal the most strident and virulent anti-Catholic, anti-Jew, anti-immigrant, and anti-black rhetoric to people who had been members for a while, had advanced through the ranks, and were considered trustworthy.
In its public face, the KKK claimed to eschew vigilantism and organized violence, and claimed that it only tried to scare people who were not acting as upright citizens, and to legitimately lobby politicians. Yes, their agenda was clearly anti-immigrant, anti-black, etc. but, at least in its public face, no moreso than other groups.
In private, some of their members were bully boys and thugs. They also often exerted undue political influence on local politicians, and sometimes allowed some of its members to be involved in vigilantism. Yet even still, such activities were often hidden from other members. It would be entirely possible to be a member of a local lodge and have no idea that last week, it was three of your lodge brothers who kicked the crap out of that Italian who made the mistake of wandering into the wrong part of town.
Certainly the KKK was involved in a number of lynchings in the South. But it would be a mistake to believe they were a primary instigator of most lynchings. Most lynchings were far more spontaneous than that, and if there was KKK involvement, it was just as likely that some brothers and sisters from the local lodge showed up at the lynching as that they instigated it. Furthermore, the KKK was in every state in America, and countless lodges would never have been involved in any such activity.
By the late 1930s, the Klan became more infamous. Its secret agenda became known by more and more people, and some left the organization as a result. Simmons and his cronies also tried hard to exert undue influence on the many politicians who were members, and a lot of them didn't like it. The group soon became affiliated with all sorts of political corruption, while other politicians, resenting the armtwisting, publicly disavowed the group.
Many people also became deeply suspicious of the Klan, as they had been of the Freemasons a hundred years earlier, because of its secretive nature. Meanwhile, political friction between Simmons and other officers at the top of the organization began creating fissures within the organization.
Eventually, a number of political crusaders decided to root out KKK infiltration in government, and ran major campaigns against the Klan. This, combined with political friction internally, and the declining influence of fraternal organizations due to FDR's New Deal programs, caused the group to begin a slow implosion. By the 1950s, they were a tiny shell of their former selves, and continued a long decline over the following decades.
Today, the same exact organization founded by Simmons still exists. They have, at most, a few thousand members--most of them pathetic, semi-literate losers. Even most White Supremacists look down on them. And how sad is that?
---
While it cannot be denied that they were always a group dedicated to racial and religious bigotry, if you joined the KKK in the 1920s, 1930s, or 1940s, that probably was not your primary reason for joining. Of course you probably knew they were racists and religious bigots, but then, in all likelihood, so was almost everybody else you knew. That's just the way things were.
So, whether some people would like to believe it or not, yes, it was entirely possible in that era to join the Klan and not ever be involved in a murder, or even be aware that you were part of an organization that advocated murder. That's not the public face that the Klan put out to prospective members, nor is it something that a majority of its members would have been involved in.
You can smirk if you want, but it's the simple truth. While the KKK was (and is) a vile organization, much of its agenda was hidden, even from its own members. And what we know about Robert Byrd is that, in his 20s, he was the Kleagle--or membership coordinator--of a lodge. In other words, his job was to hold social functions to talk people into joining and to collect membership dues. Which made him a minor functionary at best, in a local chapter of a national fraternity. In terms of importance, he was about as important as the lady who passes the collection plate and helps pass out cookies and lemonade after services at your local church.
And if you're snickering, stop it, because that's exactly the kind of organization the KKK strove to be back in those days.
Was Byrd a racist and a segregationist? Yep. Probably just like almost everybody else he knew. Was he a member of a despicable and corrupt racist organization? Yep. No question about it.
Did he think he was in an organization that advocated vigilantism, murder, and broad political corruption? Probably not. At minimum, he deserves the benefit of the doubt. If we've got any evidence that he was involved in a murder, let's hear it. Otherwise, what exactly are we talking about?
Because--and this is where I make my main point--we are talking about things an 83 year old man did 60 years ago.
I understand why some people, politically, find it useful to keep bringing up Byrd's KKK past. It is true, after all, that the press has a deplorable habit of talking about the racist pasts of people like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond, while ignoring people like Robert Byrd, Al Gore Senior, William Fulbright, Fritz Hollings, and so on. So to a certain extent, it's fair for people to play tit for tat.
But at what point do we remind ourselves that we're kicking around old men for our own political pleasure?
Dean, what are you an apologist for the KKK - sorry, just joking!
Great post, very insightful..it's definitely made me want to read more on the subject.
Cheers
Please stop smearing Al Gore Sr.
However, Byrd wrote a letter at around the same time spelling out his racist views. He's a liar no matter how you look at it.
Pointing out the truth about someone, by the way, is not a "smear."
Not to defend Byrd, whom I have no use for, but what his views were 60 years ago is pretty much irrelevant.
Views change, the WORLD changes, and things that were considered perfectly reasonable by society as a whole become UNreasonable.
I suspect that Byrd thought a womans place was in the home. I suspect that the President at the time thought the same thing. Does that make either one of them a bad man? Is that view acceptable today? I'll answer myself, no and no.
Byrds VIEWS 60 years ago are simply irrelevant. Actions are another story, can you point to anything he did then that was illegal? I doubt it.
Ara: If you can back up that "smear" allegation with something beyond "he didn't support everything Strom Thurmond did," I'll listen. Otherwise I stand by the history as I've researched it--click here and here for starters, but there's more. The man's record is nowhere near as good as, say, Barry Goldwater's, who has been pilloried non-stop by "liberal" Democrats for 40 years now as a racist.
Gore's record was moderately better than most southern Democrats. Which isn't saying much, now is it? His record isn't just one of supporting the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but also of attempting to thwart a desegregation decision by the Supreme Court at the same time.
And by the way, you might want to stop smearing the people who voted Gore out of office. And stop smearing Bill Brock, while you're at it.
Dean:
you said:
Ara: If you can back up that "smear" allegation with something beyond "he didn't support everything Strom Thurmond did," I'll listen.
How about if you read everything you supplied to me about Gore Sr.'s racist background?
One of your sources of info documenting Al Gore Sr. as a racist bigot instead seems to support the exact opposite contention, to wit:
Al Gore Sr. Civil Rights Record
funding of schools who appeared to be in violation.
Check it out.
re: Barry Goldwater -- I don't know of a single serious observer that takes seriously the contention that Barry Goldwater was a racist bigot. Do you? If so, I'd like to know about it.
Also, you said:
And by the way, you might want to stop smearing the people who voted Gore out of office. And stop smearing Bill Brock, while you're at it.
I guess I missed that part. When did I smear the people of Tennessee? And as far as Bill Brock goes, I don't think I could pick the guy out of a police line up. Have I ever written or said anything about the man? If so, I stand corrected. My memory isn't what it used to be.
I went back and checked:
Here is the only thing I have written concerning Al Gore Sr.
It doesn't mention anything about Bill Brock or the voters of Tennessee.
Ara: Look, I'll make you a deal. I've said in the past that Gore was a segregationist, and I shouldn't have and I retract that. He did once try to worm around a desegregation decision by the S.C., but that's one event in a lifetime of service that was better than most of his fellow Southern Senators. Fair enough?
However, the same article you quote shows Gore's attempts to thwart desegregation, and his support for the filibuster, and vote against, the 1964 act. Which I think would leave a fair-minded observer saying his record was mixed and lukewarm.
I've heard Goldwater pilloried as a racist my entire life--and indeed, quite often held up as the archetype, the living proof of the Republicans' "turn toward" racism and segregation. You haven't? I dunno what to say.
Finally: when one implies that Gore's "bold" stance on issues like race made him a "marked man" back home, what exactly are you saying about Bill Brock (the man who unseated him) and the voters of Tennessee?
I don't think the issue is about whether he did anything illegal, it's his honesty.
Dean, you said:
I've said in the past that Gore was a segregationist, and I shouldn't have and I retract that. [snip] Fair enough?
Fair enough.
[however] a fair-minded observer [would say] his record [on race] was mixed and lukewarm.
Let me think about it. Hubert Humphrey he wasn't.
I've heard Goldwater pilloried as a racist my entire life--and indeed, quite often held up as the archetype, the living proof of the Republicans' "turn toward" racism and segregation. You haven't? I dunno what to say.
I'm...speechless. There are a number of Republicans and Democrats that I would put in that spot other than Goldwater. Maybe you're hanging out with people with a bone to pick with Goldwater? Can't say.
Finally: when one implies that Gore's "bold" stance on issues like race made him a "marked man" back home, what exactly are you saying about Bill Brock (the man who unseated him) and the voters of Tennessee?
David Maraniss made that point, not I. As I said, I wouldn't be able to pick Brock out of a police lineup.
In fact, I can't find a damn thing about Bill Brock's career from Google. Everything is either about him in the context of Al Gore Sr. or is about his recent involvement with the dockworker's strike in California.
Can you point me to a substantive discussion of Bill Brock's career in the Senate?
I count about three mountains here being made from a single mole-hill. I agree with Gary Utter that Senator Byrd's thoughts of 60 years ago -- if any -- are now irrelevant, and that he should be judged by his actions.
In any case, show me any significant group of white Americans in the 1940s who were not segregationist to one degree or another, and I will show you platoons of Santa Clauses with squadrons of tiny reindeer descending numerous chimneys.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Civil Rights Act of 1964: Democrats like Al Gore's father and Fullbright wrote at length to oppose its passing and explained why segregation was needed.
Al Gore Sr. had authored an Amendment, intended to refer the Civil Rights act to the Judiciary Committee, in order to prevent the federal government from withdrawing funds from schools that, despite their federal funding, continued to practice segregation.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, is not the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The two are sometimes confused, because Title I of the Civil Rights Act, covers "voting rights," and, indeed, should have been sufficient (as should also the U.S. Constitution) to ensure that Amelia Robinson and others did not require to lead the demonstrations that became necessary, nonetheless, in Selma, Alabama, in January of 1965. The Civil Rights Act, also known at the time as Public Law 88-352, was stated thusly: "AN ACT, To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodation, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes." The act had originally been proposed by John F. Kennedy during June of 1963, and was announced to the nation, in a public address by the President, in the aftermath of the Birmingham Children's March and other events of May of that same year. The night of Kennedy's announcement of his intention to fight for passage of such an act, Medgar Evers, a military veteran and NAACP civil rights activist in Mississippi, was assassinated. Kennedy's unpopularity in the South, prior to his fateful visit to Dallas, was largely attributed at the time to his sponsorship of the Civil Rights Act.
Congressional deliberations on this matter began as early as June 5, 1963, when a Republican (and clearly pre-Gingrich) Senate conference committee drafted a document, which stated, in part, that It is the consensus of the Senate Republican conference that: 'The Federal Government, including the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, has a solemn duty to preserve the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States in conformity with the Constitution, which makes every native-born and naturalized person a citizen of the United States, as well as the State in which he resides. Equality of rights and opportunities has not been fully achieved in the long period since the 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution were adopted, and this inequality and lack of opportunity, and the racial tension which they engender, are out of character with the spirit of a nation pledged to justice and freedom.
"The Republican members of the U.S. Senate, in this 88th Congress, reaffirm and reassert the basic principles of the party with respect to civil rights, and further affirm, that the President, with the support of Congress, consistent with its duties as defined in the Constitution, must protect the rights of all U.S. citizens regardless of race, creed, color, or national origin." While the fact that Republican Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act in June of 1964, is usually remembered as the act that "sunk" his Presidential campaign, and marked him, probably unfairly, as a racist, writer Davis correctly emphasizes, that no one points out the nefarious role of Al Gore Sr. in trying to destroy the legislation's effectiveness. What Gore's amendment did, was, a) to avoid any financial penalty for segregation's continuance with respect to certain federal grant programs, and other federal aid; b) to attempt to put the timetable for desegregation into the hands of the racist judges of the South, many of them, of course, Southern Jurisdiction Scottish Rite Freemasons, and allow "federal district judges" to determine if, for example, a school were in compliance with the Civil Rights codes as interpreted by, not a federal Civil Rights Commission, but by the local Confederate "judicial talent".
The "Gore Amendment" was to be a reversal of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, "Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs," and specifically to section 601 of that Act, which stated: No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal assistance." Title VI provided that compliance with the act's provision would be enforced "by the termination of or refusal to grant or to continue assistance under such program or activity to any recipient" failing to "comply with such requirement..." Gore's amendment would add a new section called Sec. 606, to say: "No action shall be taken pursuant to this title which terminates, reduces, denies, or discontinues, or which has the effect of terminating reducing, denying or discontinuing, Federal financial assistance for public education or the school lunch program in any school district unless such school district, or official thereof, shall have failed to comply with an order by a United States district court relating to desegregation of public schools."
He may have recanted later - as most of them did.
I still say Al Gore Sr.was a segregationist.
Rosemary --
Your excerpt is instructive but hardly supports your final sentence on Gore Sr.
But you are entitled to your opinion.
Ara,
Whatever Dude. Tell the Madhatter I said hello...
On Bill Brock: I'm sorry to say that there doesn't seem to be much online about the man. I've read about him in print sources--god, it's weird how much we've come to expect to be able to find everything online.
It's fair to say his career wasn't exactly a barn burner. He was chair of the RNC at one point, did a few other things.
But everything I've read that directly addresses his career--that isn't written as a love letter to Al Gore--has said that he was a pretty typical southern Republican of his day, supportive of civil rights, fiscally conservative in the old-school Goldwater sense, and strongly anti-Communist.
He had a shorter career in Congress--he was a younger man--but as a House member he voted for the Voting Rights Act the same as Gore did. This, even though it's been implied numerous places that, somehow, that vote is what caused Gore his re-election.
The insinuation in all this is that somehow, Brock played on racist sentiment, although how this happened is never specified. Similarly, the picture the Gore fans seem to want to paint is that, after supporting the "racially progressive" Gore throughout the 1950s and most of the 1960s, voters suddenly turned savage on him for his "progressive" views on race. I'm sorry, but how does that compute?
I also have to point this out: I do not know how much credence we should put into votes for earlier civil rights legislation of the 1950s. Most such bills were written by Republicans and northern Democrats, and indeed most were based on a Civil Rights Act first put before Congress by President Benjamin Harrison. What southern Democrats used to do was put amendments into those bills that defanged them. They were easy to vote for because they didn't change much.
I don't honestly know enough about it all, but I do know we should be careful about making any assumptions without knowing a lot more.
(What I love is that we care enough to debate it, though. %-)
Will do, Rosie.
Wow! the body of your research kept me reading and reading. However the juiciest portion was the feed back section. Im 45 and like to think that I have an awareness of history and politics. Alot of what you shared here was awsome and spellbinding. When you try to think about what was society like for your grandparents when they were young and struglling. As far as Goldwater being raciest or KKK or anything along that line never heard anything about that before. You showed a great deal of un biased by bringing up members of each parties. Makes me think looking at the politicans listed that this was deffinately a regional issue as time went on and as other fraternal KKK organizations disolved. The South seemed to hold on longer than the other regions in the USA. I guess that makes sense since that is where it started and probably was the most deep rooted. Being from AZ I never considered AZ part of the south.Now the Southwest that would be a different question all together. Since AZ was the last state to be included in the USA only before Alaska and Hawai.So anyone drawing conclusions that include Goldwater who is from AZ to this era and regional influence is way of off base. Keep wrting this was great stuff.
Wow! the body of your research kept me reading and reading. However the juiciest portion was the feed back section. Im 45 and like to think that I have an awareness of history and politics. Alot of what you shared here was awsome and spellbinding. When you try to think about what was society like for your grandparents when they were young and struglling. As far as Goldwater being raciest or KKK or anything along that line never heard anything about that before. You showed a great deal of un biased by bringing up members of each parties. Makes me think looking at the politicans listed that this was deffinately a regional issue as time went on and as other fraternal KKK organizations disolved. The South seemed to hold on longer than the other regions in the USA. I guess that makes sense since that is where it started and probably was the most deep rooted. Being from AZ I never considered AZ part of the south.Now the Southwest that would be a different question all together. Since AZ was the last state to be included in the USA only before Alaska and Hawai.So anyone drawing conclusions that include Goldwater who is from AZ to this era and regional influence is way of off base. Keep wrting this was great stuff.
Wow! the body of your research kept me reading and reading. However the juiciest portion was the feed back section. Im 45 and like to think that I have an awareness of history and politics. Alot of what you shared here was awsome and spellbinding. When you try to think about what was society like for your grandparents when they were young and struglling. As far as Goldwater being raciest or KKK or anything along that line never heard anything about that before. You showed a great deal of un biased by bringing up members of each parties. Makes me think looking at the politicans listed that this was deffinately a regional issue as time went on and as other fraternal KKK organizations disolved. The South seemed to hold on longer than the other regions in the USA. I guess that makes sense since that is where it started and probably was the most deep rooted. Being from AZ I never considered AZ part of the south.Now the Southwest that would be a different question all together. Since AZ was the last state to be included in the USA only before Alaska and Hawai.So anyone drawing conclusions that include Goldwater who is from AZ to this era and regional influence is way of off base. Keep wrting this was great stuff.
Wow! the body of your research kept me reading and reading. However the juiciest portion was the feed back section. Im 45 and like to think that I have an awareness of history and politics. Alot of what you shared here was awsome and spellbinding. When you try to think about what was society like for your grandparents when they were young and struglling. As far as Goldwater being raciest or KKK or anything along that line never heard anything about that before. You showed a great deal of un biased by bringing up members of each parties. Makes me think looking at the politicans listed that this was deffinately a regional issue as time went on and as other fraternal KKK organizations disolved. The South seemed to hold on longer than the other regions in the USA. I guess that makes sense since that is where it started and probably was the most deep rooted. Being from AZ I never considered AZ part of the south.Now the Southwest that would be a different question all together. Since AZ was the last state to be included in the USA only before Alaska and Hawai.So anyone drawing conclusions that include Goldwater who is from AZ to this era and regional influence is way of off base. Keep wrting this was great stuff.
Wow! the body of your research kept me reading and reading. However the juiciest portion was the feed back section. Im 45 and like to think that I have an awareness of history and politics. Alot of what you shared here was awsome and spellbinding. When you try to think about what was society like for your grandparents when they were young and struglling. As far as Goldwater being raciest or KKK or anything along that line never heard anything about that before. You showed a great deal of un biased by bringing up members of each parties. Makes me think looking at the politicans listed that this was deffinately a regional issue as time went on and as other fraternal KKK organizations disolved. The South seemed to hold on longer than the other regions in the USA. I guess that makes sense since that is where it started and probably was the most deep rooted. Being from AZ I never considered AZ part of the south.Now the Southwest that would be a different question all together. Since AZ was the last state to be included in the USA only before Alaska and Hawai.So anyone drawing conclusions that include Goldwater who is from AZ to this era and regional influence is way of off base. Keep wrting this was great stuff.
Wow! the body of your research kept me reading and reading. However the juiciest portion was the feed back section. Im 45 and like to think that I have an awareness of history and politics. Alot of what you shared here was awsome and spellbinding. When you try to think about what was society like for your grandparents when they were young and struglling. As far as Goldwater being raciest or KKK or anything along that line never heard anything about that before. You showed a great deal of un biased by bringing up members of each parties. Makes me think looking at the politicans listed that this was deffinately a regional issue as time went on and as other fraternal KKK organizations disolved. The South seemed to hold on longer than the other regions in the USA. I guess that makes sense since that is where it started and probably was the most deep rooted. Being from AZ I never considered AZ part of the south.Now the Southwest that would be a different question all together. Since AZ was the last state to be included in the USA only before Alaska and Hawai.So anyone drawing conclusions that include Goldwater who is from AZ to this era and regional influence is way of off base. Keep wrting this was great stuff.
Wow! the body of your research kept me reading and reading. However the juiciest portion was the feed back section. Im 45 and like to think that I have an awareness of history and politics. Alot of what you shared here was awsome and spellbinding. When you try to think about what was society like for your grandparents when they were young and struglling. As far as Goldwater being raciest or KKK or anything along that line never heard anything about that before. You showed a great deal of un biased by bringing up members of each parties. Makes me think looking at the politicans listed that this was deffinately a regional issue as time went on and as other fraternal KKK organizations disolved. The South seemed to hold on longer than the other regions in the USA. I guess that makes sense since that is where it started and probably was the most deep rooted. Being from AZ I never considered AZ part of the south.Now the Southwest that would be a different question all together. Since AZ was the last state to be included in the USA only before Alaska and Hawai.So anyone drawing conclusions that include Goldwater who is from AZ to this era and regional influence is way of off base. Keep wrting this was great stuff.
Wow! the body of your research kept me reading and reading. However the juiciest portion was the feed back section. Im 45 and like to think that I have an awareness of history and politics. Alot of what you shared here was awsome and spellbinding. When you try to think about what was society like for your grandparents when they were young and struglling. As far as Goldwater being raciest or KKK or anything along that line never heard anything about that before. You showed a great deal of un biased by bringing up members of each parties. Makes me think looking at the politicans listed that this was deffinately a regional issue as time went on and as other fraternal KKK organizations disolved. The South seemed to hold on longer than the other regions in the USA. I guess that makes sense since that is where it started and probably was the most deep rooted. Being from AZ I never considered AZ part of the south.Now the Southwest that would be a different question all together. Since AZ was the last state to be included in the USA only before Alaska and Hawai.So anyone drawing conclusions that include Goldwater who is from AZ to this era and regional influence is way of off base. Keep wrting this was great stuff.
Wow! the body of your research kept me reading and reading. However the juiciest portion was the feed back section. Im 45 and like to think that I have an awareness of history and politics. Alot of what you shared here was awsome and spellbinding. When you try to think about what was society like for your grandparents when they were young and struglling. As far as Goldwater being raciest or KKK or anything along that line never heard anything about that before. You showed a great deal of un biased by bringing up members of each parties. Makes me think looking at the politicans listed that this was deffinately a regional issue as time went on and as other fraternal KKK organizations disolved. The South seemed to hold on longer than the other regions in the USA. I guess that makes sense since that is where it started and probably was the most deep rooted. Being from AZ I never considered AZ part of the south.Now the Southwest that would be a different question all together. Since AZ was the last state to be included in the USA only before Alaska and Hawai.So anyone drawing conclusions that include Goldwater who is from AZ to this era and regional influence is way of off base. Keep wrting this was great stuff.
Wow! the body of your research kept me reading and reading. However the juiciest portion was the feed back section. Im 45 and like to think that I have an awareness of history and politics. Alot of what you shared here was awsome and spellbinding. When you try to think about what was society like for your grandparents when they were young and struglling. As far as Goldwater being raciest or KKK or anything along that line never heard anything about that before. You showed a great deal of un biased by bringing up members of each parties. Makes me think looking at the politicans listed that this was deffinately a regional issue as time went on and as other fraternal KKK organizations disolved. The South seemed to hold on longer than the other regions in the USA. I guess that makes sense since that is where it started and probably was the most deep rooted. Being from AZ I never considered AZ part of the south.Now the Southwest that would be a different question all together. Since AZ was the last state to be included in the USA only before Alaska and Hawai.So anyone drawing conclusions that include Goldwater who is from AZ to this era and regional influence is way of off base. Keep wrting this was great stuff.