Thursday, January 14, 2010

What You REALLY Should Know About Lott, Thurmond, et al

Roeser (bookmark his NEW blogsite at THIS url, by the way) knows history, largely because he was there for a lot of it. And he paid attention.

A slice:

Thurmond’s campaign against Truman in 1948 was almost meticulously waged on constitutional grounds vis-à-vis the states. If Lott had had sufficient stomach for a fight, a little bit of history would have been an invaluable “teaching moment” for his own defense where he could cite the wide differences between Thurmond a non-Klan member and Bobby Byrd and Harry Truman, both Klan members. But Republicans had no heart for the fight—nor did Lott. Actually, getting rid of Lott was, on other grounds, advantageous for the GOP. As one who knew Lott when he was the Democratic chief of staff to pro-segregationist House Rules Chairman Bill Colmer (who represented Pascagoula where Quaker had a major plant), Lott was always too much of a sharpster for me. As a lobbyist I found Colmer easier to negotiate with than Lott who frequently asked what would be in it for ol` Trent.

Bet you didn't know that, eh? Plenty more where that came from.


Anonymous said...

I understand the argument presented by Roeser—Thurmond defended his segregationist campaigns on the basis of states’ rights in the context of Southern culture and was, compared to his southern brethren, “less racist” or “objectionable” due to his race record (e.g. supporting anti-lynching law, desegregating the National Guard in his home state).
But it seems that Roeser is trying to lead readers to be sympathetic to Thurmond…no thanks! Thurmond bore a child with a black person and kept it under wraps (even though in 1957 he labeled an anti-discrimination housing bill as “race mixing”), regularly used the n word with his friends (but never in public speeches, that would be impolite), and tacitly supported the goals of the KKK (though he never joined that group and opposed their violent tendencies). Whatever.

Dad29 said...

I think you mis-read Roeser.

He was defending the principle of States' Rights, not Thurmond.