Jump to content

Talk:Civil Rights Act of 1964

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 131.215.115.31 (talk) at 23:44, 16 November 2017 (→Societal Shift: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Political Repercussions

"The South, which had started to vote increasingly Republican beginning in the 1930s"

Not true, FDR won Southern states overwhelmingly in Alabama he won 84.7% of the vote. The trend started in the 1920s but then there was a reversal in the 30s as it became moved more democratic again.

Should be changed to:

The South, which had begun to shift towards the Republicans in the 1920s

thoughts?---- A;ex 28/10/11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boy.on.laptop (talk • contribs) 23:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporaneous newspaper article(s)

Text of President’s Civil Rights Talk: ‘This Is A Proud Triumph’, The Miami News, Washington (AP), Friday, July 3, 1964, 3A:

“ . . . This is why the Civil Rights Act relies first on voluntary compliance, then on the efforts of states and local communities to secure the rights of citizens. It provides for the national authority to step in only when others cannot or will not do the job. . . ”

Busing

Why do we have an entire section sourced to a David Frum book whose purpose is to argue that civil rights supporters were dastardly liars who tricked waverers into voting for a bill that allowed busing? john k (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted

[moved here from my talk page] "Accepted" by who? Anyone can say anything he likes about a non-existent landmark. It suits you to use a passive without an agent. America is wallowing in post-war guilt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.0.33 (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do a google search of "landmark civil rights act" (with the quotes). You will find that "landmark" is very frequently associated with "civil rights act." Justify your attempt to eliminate the term "landmark" -- blaming it on "post war guilt" is, at best, bizarre. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
North Shoreman is correct. Also, for example, look at the title of the first cited book: Wright, Susan (2005), "The Civil Rights Act of 1964: Landmark Antidiscrimination Legislation". Kierzek (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title VII of the Act.

Found a typo in one of my edit summaries -- obviously it is Title VII, not Title VI, of the Act that prohibits employment discrimination (on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin). Famspear (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken person

There is a mistake in the phrase "President Johnson realized that supporting this bill would risk losing the South's overwhelming support of the Democratic Party." it was actually President Kennedy. The following phrases make it clear: Both Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Vice President Johnson had pushed for the introduction of the civil rights legislation. Johnson told Kennedy aide Ted Sorensen that "I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway."

Both President Kennedy and later President Johnson expressed the same fear that supporting civil rights would alienate white voters in the South and turn them against the Democratic Party. There are many quotes in many sources attesting to this. For example, in NY Times artice of July 2nd 1989: "Hours after he signed it [the Civil Rights Act], the President said to his press aide, Bill Moyers, "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come." Brucehartford (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

>There were white business owners who claimed that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to ban segregation in public accommodations. For example, Moreton Rolleston, the owner of a motel in Atlanta, Georgia, believed he should not be forced to serve black travelers, saying, “the fundamental question…is whether or not Congress has the power to take away the liberty of an individual to run his business as he sees fit in the selection and choice of his customers”.[47] Rolleston used legal means in an attempt to prevent full equality for African Americans, claiming that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a breach of the Fourteenth Amendment. Also, Rolleston argued that the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments were in violation as the bill deprived him of "liberty and property without due process”.[47] In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, Congress claimed that it drew its authority from the Constitution’s commerce clause, disagreeing with Rolleston’s claims.

I don't think this is NPOV. The guy's argument is a canonical libertarian line of argument, and representing it in the surrounding text as having an underlying ideological motivation other than that stated-- it just seems sketchy to me. & there's other stuff like this 2601:C:A200:7F8:644D:63B3:7245:882 (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There's nothing at all neutral about the statement that he "used legal means to attempt to prevent full equality for African-Americans." That wasn't his argument. His argument was that the federal government was barging into private transactions and that no one has a right to stay at his hotel. That's just Wikipedia bias for you.184.80.4.2 (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions

The blanket statement that the Civil Rights Act "outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" is not entirely true. There are various contexts in which discrimination on these bases is legal. For instance, in casting parts for performance arts. Also, religious institutions have some leeway to legally discriminate in hiring based on religion. Et cetera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.60.230.113 (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By Party and Region

I made a small change to the first paragraph, as while the 11 states that made up the Southern Caucus also a century before also made up the CSA, it is to the Southern Caucus that historians cite in opposition to the Civil Rights Act, and not the CSA. Dubyavee (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted my edit, which was hasty. I do think this section is very badly handled regarding region.Dubyavee (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This section is included to try to exculpate Democrats lack of voting for the Act. A number of the 'eleven states' weren't states at the time of the Confederacy. And, in any event, it doesn't change the voting proportions, though the author would like that. What that person wants to say is that 'Southern Republicans' are 'more racist' than 'Southern Democrats'. The definition was intentionally skewed and has nothing to do with overall voting trends between parties and there should have been more granularity as to said votes. Phil Sheo (talk) 00:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MLK and Malcolm X

There is a photo on the page of the two Civil Rights leaders meeting and it says that this is the only time they met … I am pretty sure they debated on television at least once. So I worry that the caption is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.236.44 (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "debate" seems to not actually be between the two men but footage from two different conversations made to look like a debate. My fault. 67.167.236.44 (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copied to Jimmy Quillen

Equality Act

The Equality Act should be mentioned in the Amendments section, since it is a proposed amendment to CRA '64 and readers may come here looking for it if they don't know the name of the bill.   Pariah24 ┃ ☏   01:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Civil Rights Act of 1964. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Societal Shift

I recently reviewed the articles printed in gun magazines from the 1920's to the 1970's. Among a number of key shift points in the focus of articles was an increasing trend toward "Self Defense" concerns coincident with the introduction of CRA 1964. There is a tremendous opportunity for organized research into this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Societal Shift

I recently reviewed the articles printed in gun magazines from the 1920's to the 1970's. Among a number of key shift points in the focus of articles was an increasing trend toward "Self Defense" concerns coincident with the introduction of CRA 1964. There is a tremendous opportunity for organized research into this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Societal Shift

I recently reviewed the articles printed in gun magazines from the 1920's to the 1970's. Among a number of key shift points in the focus of articles was an increasing trend toward "Self Defense" concerns coincident with the introduction of CRA 1964. There is a tremendous opportunity for organized research into this subject.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964&oldid=810711268"