ADVERTISEMENT

Ike at 125 years old

CO. Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
45,612
22,175
113
American History Magazine just published a special issue about Eisenhower's impact on the world. First, in the interest of full disclosure, I'll state that I think Ike was one of the handful of best presidents in our history and is certainly in the running for the best and most effective presidents in my lifetime. My reasons are many. But i'll just focus here on Ike and civil rights.

I understand that during the time segregation was legal and routinely practiced in the country, Ike followed along. (I'll leave open the question of whether it was Ike had any authority to desegregate the military, a criticism often directed at him). I have often noted that Ike's contribution to civil rights was important and he accomplished that with great leadership skill. His use of the 101st Airborne to enforce a desegregation order was gutsy. Ike was equally aggressive with enforcing the desegregation orders in D.C. and throughout the South. David Nichols wrote one of the Ike pieces in the magazine and he discussed Ike's civil rights record. Ike specifically picked Earl Warren knowing that he was an anti-segregationist and that he would be on the Court when Brown vs. The Board was to be argued and decided. Ike made Warren a recess appointment knowing the political problems with his nomination. When Brown II came before the court, concerning the speed of desecration, Ike personally edited the government's brief in support of rapid desegregation, SCOTUS backed off and entered a slower paced order. Under Ike's command, the D.C.'s school desegregation was done in a week. All of this caused many of the civil rights leaders of the time to send notes of thanks and encouragement to Ike. One thing Nichols mentioned that I didn't previously understand was that Ike intentionally avoided nominating known segregationists to the federal bench. He packed the Supreme Court with anti-segregationists and did the same in the lower courts. Ike did his best to de-politicize the judicial appointments by turning over the vetting to the DOJ and the American Bar Association. All of this had a significant impact on desegregation in the United States.

The interesting part. According to Nichols, Kennedy and Johnson returned to appointing segregationists to the bench in 1961. As a result the civil rights movement moved from the courts to the streets and we ended up with marches, fire hoses, and violence. The violence reached a crescendo in l963. Kennedy and Johnson then started pushing legislation. Kennedy of course was assassinated in November of that year.
 
American History Magazine just published a special issue about Eisenhower's impact on the world. First, in the interest of full disclosure, I'll state that I think Ike was one of the handful of best presidents in our history and is certainly in the running for the best and most effective presidents in my lifetime. My reasons are many. But i'll just focus here on Ike and civil rights.

I agree generally that Ike was a good president in most respects*, and in particular his record in support of civil rights development during the 50s is commendable, under-appreciated and, based on Republican presidents' records after his**, a bit surprising. The country was on much steadier ground back then, and in the next decade, when moderate GOP congressmen and senators had significant influence in the party still . . . it makes me wistful for responsible GOP leadership . . . .

I don't know about the appointment of segregationists by Kennedy and Johnson . . . if that's true, my guess is that Kennedy at least (and likely Johnson too) may have been following a then-existing protocol where sitting senators had heavy influence, if not outright control, over appointments to the federal bench in their states as a matter of comity between the president and senate. (BTW, I doubt that you intended to imply that Kennedy, or Johnson for that matter, was racist. If you were implying that, does Nichols say anything about Kennedy's and Johnson's respective motivations for that?)

* I think Ike shares significant blame for the unholy alliance between the GOP and social conservatives, which he definitely and intentionally cultivated throughout his presidency.

** I am of the firm belief that the GOP's southern strategy starting with the 1968 election intentionally took full advantage of residual political dissatisfaction resulting from desegregation.
 
I agree generally that Ike was a good president in most respects*, and in particular his record in support of civil rights development during the 50s is commendable, under-appreciated and, based on Republican presidents' records after his**, a bit surprising. The country was on much steadier ground back then, and in the next decade, when moderate GOP congressmen and senators had significant influence in the party still . . . it makes me wistful for responsible GOP leadership . . . .

I don't know about the appointment of segregationists by Kennedy and Johnson . . . if that's true, my guess is that Kennedy at least (and likely Johnson too) may have been following a then-existing protocol where sitting senators had heavy influence, if not outright control, over appointments to the federal bench in their states as a matter of comity between the president and senate. (BTW, I doubt that you intended to imply that Kennedy, or Johnson for that matter, was racist. If you were implying that, does Nichols say anything about Kennedy's and Johnson's respective motivations for that?)

* I think Ike shares significant blame for the unholy alliance between the GOP and social conservatives, which he definitely and intentionally cultivated throughout his presidency.

** I am of the firm belief that the GOP's southern strategy starting with the 1968 election intentionally took full advantage of residual political dissatisfaction resulting from desegregation.
Give me more about the unholy alliance.

I have a specific memory about when the evangelicals moved in. I was at our caucus that night. That was 25+ years after Ike.
 
That's an interesting take

As I recall, both from experience and reading, the "under God" message was more about anti-communism and anti-atheism than about the Evangelical movement. In any event, I don't think Ike played much of a role in that, but I will listen to your link when I have the time. I recommend to you learning about the battles Ike had with Joe McCarthy, a political battle that Ike won. McCarthy supporters, I believe, would have identified with the "under God" movement if it existed and attracted evangelicals, not Ike supporters.

As far as my memory is concerned, the Evangelical takeover of the GOP, at least in Colorado had a specific time which was as I mentioned. That is pretty clear political history. Nationally, the same time frame works. This is the first I heard of the movement beginning in the 50's. If that is true, the movement was pretty quiet for several decades. This is the first I heard of Ike's involvement; and I've read most of his autobiographical material and much biographical material about him. I'll definitely follow up.

Finally I sense a little snideness in your post. If I am mistaken, forgive me. But your references to my "personal memory" in the fashion you did is uncalled for. My memory about the Evangelical takeover in Colorado is specific, documented, and correct, not matter how long it was dormant before that.
 
Well, your personal memory is incomplete. I recommend "One Nation Under God" (http://www.npr.org/2015/03/30/39636...ome-under-god-until-the-50s-religious-revival) to flesh out the history of social conservatives' move into GOP politics prior to your personal memory kicks in.
Have you read Hellfire Nation by James Morone? It's got a broader theme, but the latter part of the book touches on some similar issues. As far as the social conservative pairing with the Republican party, he seems to suggest two separate phases - an appeal to southern conservatives on racial grounds starting in the late 1950s, and the Moral Majority as a response to the Carter administration.
 
Have you read Hellfire Nation by James Morone? It's got a broader theme, but the latter part of the book touches on some similar issues. As far as the social conservative pairing with the Republican party, he seems to suggest two separate phases - an appeal to southern conservatives on racial grounds starting in the late 1950s, and the Moral Majority as a response to the Carter administration.

The Moral Majority is a fact

The MM timing is consistent with my memory.

I'm not so sure of the point about the 1950's. All the segregationists were Democrats in those days. The GOP national southern appeal started with the "law and order" campaign of 1968. I'm wondering if there isn't an effort at revisionism at work here. Their segregationist history is very embarrassing for the Democrats.

I'll add your recommendation to my wish list.
 
The Moral Majority is a fact

The MM timing is consistent with my memory.

I'm not so sure of the point about the 1950's. All the segregationists were Democrats in those days. The GOP national southern appeal started with the "law and order" campaign of 1968. I'm wondering if there isn't an effort at revisionism at work here. Their segregationist history is very embarrassing for the Democrats.

I'll add your recommendation to my wish list.
According to Morone, starting in the late 50s, certain Republican leaders (taking cues from Southern Democrats who had won by becoming outspoken segregationists) argued that the Republican party should try to become the "White Man's Party."

I think it's pretty clear that the history of Southern racism in the 50s and early 60s is primarily found in the Democratic party, but the grounds for the "Law and Order" campaign and the Southern Strategy were already laid. In many ways, it might be considered inevitable. Since desegregation was being driven by liberal Northern Democrats, there was bound to be tension within the party, and that was obviously going to spill over into the Republicans, as well.

I'm not sure how related the two changes (southern shift and moral majority) are, though. Morone certainly isn't drawing a cause-and-effect relationship. The GOP have become the "white man's party" without becoming the Evangelical party - or vice versa. For Morone, the issue of sin in politics is part of the fabric of the nation stretching back to colonial days, reflecting who we are as a society, not who we are as partisans. The fights over segregation in the 50s-60s and morality in the 80s are just two examples of how this manifests.
 
According to Morone, starting in the late 50s, certain Republican leaders (taking cues from Southern Democrats who had won by becoming outspoken segregationists) argued that the Republican party should try to become the "White Man's Party."

I think it's pretty clear that the history of Southern racism in the 50s and early 60s is primarily found in the Democratic party, but the grounds for the "Law and Order" campaign and the Southern Strategy were already laid. In many ways, it might be considered inevitable. Since desegregation was being driven by liberal Northern Democrats, there was bound to be tension within the party, and that was obviously going to spill over into the Republicans, as well.

I'm not sure how related the two changes (southern shift and moral majority) are, though. Morone certainly isn't drawing a cause-and-effect relationship. The GOP have become the "white man's party" without becoming the Evangelical party - or vice versa. For Morone, the issue of sin in politics is part of the fabric of the nation stretching back to colonial days, reflecting who we are as a society, not who we are as partisans. The fights over segregation in the 50s-60s and morality in the 80s are just two examples of how this manifests.
Now you are getting into different questions.

Discussions about the role of morality in law and government has always been with us and will never end. Diversity makes it worse. Sooner or later ISIS or its clone will become a participant.
 
Now you are getting into different questions.

Discussions about the role of morality in law and government has always been with us and will never end. Diversity makes it worse. Sooner or later ISIS or its clone will become a participant.
I don't follow your dig on diversity, but it's true, the theme of Morone's book is not the same as the theme of the book Sope shared. I think you'll enjoy it, though.
 
I don't follow your dig on diversity, but it's true, the theme of Morone's book is not the same as the theme of the book Sope shared. I think you'll enjoy it, though.
Homogeneous societies/countries

Don't have many of these issues. Not a dig at diversity, simply a statement of fact.
 
Homogeneous societies/countries

Don't have many of these issues. Not a dig at diversity, simply a statement of fact.
Yeah, I don't think that's true. At least, viewed through the history that Morone provides, diversity was a flashpoint for certain moral battles, but the tendency to put sin front and center in American public life is there, diverse or not. For example, once slavery was ended, people looked for a new moral fight. Some of them moved to a new fight we might associate with diversity-related issues (suffrage); others moved to a fight that didn't care about diversity (prohibition).

I think you're going to see moral fights in both heterogeneous and homogeneous societies.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT