I think it is good to offer historical perspective, and to appreciate the complexity of the past. I wonder if you overstate your case. When you write, "FDR’s foot-dragging on issues like Jim Crow and lynching (despite the consistent and principled advocacy of his own wife) is generally framed as a regrettable but necessary compromise. For example, here’s how PBS describes it . . . "
You imply that PBS is giving a friendly gloss to something that was more controversial at the time. But, my sense, is that the impression at the time was similar --that he was sympathetic to civil rights claims and foot-dragging based on political calculation.
I also have the sense that there was a clear trend towards the Democratic party becoming the party of civil rights (despite the large block of Southern Democrats) and that, while this process was slow, it was visible, and that it does make a difference to see a party moving in a good direction. I think about this article: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/14/what-todays-progressives-can-learn-from-1948-299749
"Admittedly, Truman found himself in an almost impossible pinch on civil rights. Though the issue had never mattered much in his earlier political career, he had appointed a commission to study it in 1947, and that commission had produced a report entitled “To Secure These Rights” that advocated an expansive program—anti-lynching legislation, the end of the poll tax, a permanent federal enforcement of fair-employment practices."
...
"Selling the plank against Truman’s wishes and at the cost of a Southern walkout was Humphrey’s responsibility. He was just 37 years old, younger than Pete Buttigieg and Stacey Abrams are [in 2020]. Like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, he was just a couple of years into holding the only elective office of his life. He wondered if he was on a political suicide mission.
The eloquent words that Humphrey spoke on July 14 from the convention dais—his call for party and nation to “get out of the shadow of state’s rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights”—were carried nationally by radio and throughout the Northeast on brand-new television wires and have echoed down through history. Much less remembered is the moment on the podium just before a tremulous Humphrey began to speak, when he was reassured by Ed Flynn, the Democratic boss of the Bronx, “You go ahead, young man. We should have done this long ago.”
Flynn was just one of a number of big-city bosses—Jacob Arvey of Chicago, Dave Lawrence of Pittsburgh, Frank Hague of Jersey City—who delivered their compliant delegates to help pass the civil-rights plank in a floor vote, 651½ to 582½. (One Montana delegate split his vote.) Were they idealists? Hardly. They were worried that, without a surge of black voters in November, their machines would lose down-ballot races as Truman was being routed. For their part, ADA members like Humphrey had spent months prior to the convention persuading those bosses to join the civil rights push. Each faction ultimately recognized its need for the other."
well, there’s always a range of views, including at the time. I don’t know that Black activists trying to get him to take a stand against lynching necessarily cared a ton what he felt in his heart when he rebuffed them. James Baldwin I think said that FDR was not worthy of his wife, which I think is a reasonable sentiment and not something Baldwin was alone in thinking.
Thanks for using some paragraph breaks which many long posts forget to do, but you lost me at Hubert Humphrey having only won elected Office once in his life.
He was also elected vice president in 1964 when Johnson ran for reelection after Kennedy was shot in 63.
That is a description of him *at the time* of the 1948 convention (see the comparison with contemporary political leaders who may well go on to higher office in their subsequent careers)
This clarifying essay is so helpful at expanding and correcting the generalizations most of us grew up on.
My own take is that the US will not be over its history of slavery until there is general enthusiasm for reparations. Just thinking ahead.
We could start by replacing all the slave owners and slave traders (Jackson) on our paper currency. Including Franklin.
A funny memory you brought back is my late mother‘s habit of reusing envelopes she received in the mail. She would unseal the seams, turn them inside out and re-glue them to have a new envelope.
I blame the Dixiecrats for Roosevelt's refusing to come down much harder on bigotry (including pushing for a Federal anti-lynching law, which he called "legalized murder" in his speeches)—now that they're all Republicans, we can see clearly just how TOXIC they are!
I'm fed up with a weaksauce Clinton NeoLiberal Democratic Party, and people too STUPID to see what a disaster Donald Trump is going to be!
I think it is good to offer historical perspective, and to appreciate the complexity of the past. I wonder if you overstate your case. When you write, "FDR’s foot-dragging on issues like Jim Crow and lynching (despite the consistent and principled advocacy of his own wife) is generally framed as a regrettable but necessary compromise. For example, here’s how PBS describes it . . . "
You imply that PBS is giving a friendly gloss to something that was more controversial at the time. But, my sense, is that the impression at the time was similar --that he was sympathetic to civil rights claims and foot-dragging based on political calculation.
I also have the sense that there was a clear trend towards the Democratic party becoming the party of civil rights (despite the large block of Southern Democrats) and that, while this process was slow, it was visible, and that it does make a difference to see a party moving in a good direction. I think about this article: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/14/what-todays-progressives-can-learn-from-1948-299749
"Admittedly, Truman found himself in an almost impossible pinch on civil rights. Though the issue had never mattered much in his earlier political career, he had appointed a commission to study it in 1947, and that commission had produced a report entitled “To Secure These Rights” that advocated an expansive program—anti-lynching legislation, the end of the poll tax, a permanent federal enforcement of fair-employment practices."
...
"Selling the plank against Truman’s wishes and at the cost of a Southern walkout was Humphrey’s responsibility. He was just 37 years old, younger than Pete Buttigieg and Stacey Abrams are [in 2020]. Like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, he was just a couple of years into holding the only elective office of his life. He wondered if he was on a political suicide mission.
The eloquent words that Humphrey spoke on July 14 from the convention dais—his call for party and nation to “get out of the shadow of state’s rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights”—were carried nationally by radio and throughout the Northeast on brand-new television wires and have echoed down through history. Much less remembered is the moment on the podium just before a tremulous Humphrey began to speak, when he was reassured by Ed Flynn, the Democratic boss of the Bronx, “You go ahead, young man. We should have done this long ago.”
Flynn was just one of a number of big-city bosses—Jacob Arvey of Chicago, Dave Lawrence of Pittsburgh, Frank Hague of Jersey City—who delivered their compliant delegates to help pass the civil-rights plank in a floor vote, 651½ to 582½. (One Montana delegate split his vote.) Were they idealists? Hardly. They were worried that, without a surge of black voters in November, their machines would lose down-ballot races as Truman was being routed. For their part, ADA members like Humphrey had spent months prior to the convention persuading those bosses to join the civil rights push. Each faction ultimately recognized its need for the other."
well, there’s always a range of views, including at the time. I don’t know that Black activists trying to get him to take a stand against lynching necessarily cared a ton what he felt in his heart when he rebuffed them. James Baldwin I think said that FDR was not worthy of his wife, which I think is a reasonable sentiment and not something Baldwin was alone in thinking.
(Baldwin would have been writing a bit after FDR's death; 50s or 60s.)
I think it's absolutely true that his decisions were not without cost, and that people recognized that.
Thanks for using some paragraph breaks which many long posts forget to do, but you lost me at Hubert Humphrey having only won elected Office once in his life.
He was also elected vice president in 1964 when Johnson ran for reelection after Kennedy was shot in 63.
Accuracy in all things.
That is a description of him *at the time* of the 1948 convention (see the comparison with contemporary political leaders who may well go on to higher office in their subsequent careers)
Good point.
As printed there is ambiguity as to whether it meant ever or up until that time. Just need a couple more words in there to make that clear. Thanks.
This clarifying essay is so helpful at expanding and correcting the generalizations most of us grew up on.
My own take is that the US will not be over its history of slavery until there is general enthusiasm for reparations. Just thinking ahead.
We could start by replacing all the slave owners and slave traders (Jackson) on our paper currency. Including Franklin.
A funny memory you brought back is my late mother‘s habit of reusing envelopes she received in the mail. She would unseal the seams, turn them inside out and re-glue them to have a new envelope.
She said Eleanor Roosevelt did it!
I blame the Dixiecrats for Roosevelt's refusing to come down much harder on bigotry (including pushing for a Federal anti-lynching law, which he called "legalized murder" in his speeches)—now that they're all Republicans, we can see clearly just how TOXIC they are!
I'm fed up with a weaksauce Clinton NeoLiberal Democratic Party, and people too STUPID to see what a disaster Donald Trump is going to be!