I know there were problems on both sides. I know I've said that LBJ's great society to me was a nicely decorated apartheid. Welfare and housing may have solved the problems for a short period but the democratic party looked at it as a long term solution. To me it made the plight of black people worse. Now I fear the message from the democrats is "you can't make it on your own" which is a message "no one" needs to hear. The only ones not listening to that message is women. They have gone on to be better educated and make more many than men in many cases. Other groups , like immigrants and african americans, have believed they need the government.<quoted text>You think I haven't looked at the same things you have?
If you want to talk about political parties, fine, but if you want one to be the good guys and another to be the bad guys you're going to be disappointed in me.
For starters, there were heroes and villains in both the Democratic and Republican Parties during the civil rights era (although heroes and politicians are species that seldom intermingle).
Some people (both for and against) voted their conscience; others voted based on the polling numbers; most probably did both. That applies to all of 'em, from the most junior members of the House of Representatives all the way up through the President of the United States.
The civil rights era finished a major realignment of the parties, both in demographics and in stands on issues, that had begun in the North as early as the 1920s. There was a load of compromisin' on the road to the horizons (where we're at today) on the part of BOTH parties, and again - there's a couple of villains, a whole lot of cold calculators, and an occasional hero in BOTH parties.
Starting in the 60s the national Democratic Party adopted the rhetoric of the civil rights movement. They are still addicted to that rhetoric today, sometimes to the point of fighting battles that have already been won.
Starting in the 60s the national Republican Party made a concerted effort to go after the folks left behind by the Democratic Party's switch on the issue. It started with Strom Thurmond in (62?), and picked up steam when Nixon won the Presidency and went after the Wallace vote.
The "New Conservatism" of William F. Buckley, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan comes into play here too (two of whom later apologized for opposing the Civil Rights laws of the 60s; the third opened his first post-convention Presidential campaign in Neshoba County, Mississippi of "Mississippi Burning" fame). They opposed civil rights legislation as an encroachment of Federal power, and joined forces with the Southern Democrats in their opposition.
So ... the way I see it, you've basically got BOTH parties addicted to the rhetoric of the past, fighting battles that have already been won or lost, both of them routinely making cold calculating decisions based what they think will grant them the prize.
You're looking for good guys and bad guys? Don't look for politicians.
I also wonder if the integration of the armed forces was different in different branches. my husband was army in '68 and felt that the army really was color blind. But maybe that's because he was white.