Southern Segregationist Democratic Senators

[Frodo]

I have included all those Democrats (specifically those with significantly more info on them than others) who signed the Southern Manifesto, plus those senators who were known segregationists but were not around at the time of the signing.  They are separated state-by-state:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Virginia:

Harry Byrd, Sr.
Willis Robertson

North Carolina:

Sam Ervin, Jr.

South Carolina:

Coleman Blease
James Byrnes
Olin Johnston
Strom Thurmond

Florida:

Spessard Holland
George Smathers

Georgia:

Richard Russell, Jr.
Walter George

Alabama:

John Sparkman
Lister Hill

Mississippi:

John Stennis
James Eastland
Pat Harrison
Theodore Bilbo

Louisiana:

Russell Long

Arkansas:

William Fulbright

Texas:

Price Daniel

[Democratic Hawk]

Potentially all - not because they were segregationists however but because they were Democrats. I haven't voted, I'll need to weed out the populists from the conservatives me thinks

Dave

[TomC]

Ervin for sure. Maybe Long. Maybe Fulbright. That's probably it. I'd rather be a Rockefeller Republican than a Dixiecrat.

[Democratic Hawk]

Ervin (NC), Byrnes (SC), Johnston (SC), Holland (FL), Russell (GA), Hill (AL), Stennis (MS), Harrison (MS) and Long (LA)

Thing is with a lot of these segregationists, it wasn't borned out of racism, it was more an issue of resisting federal encroachment on the rights of states

I'd have likely voted for some of the others for Senate. That said, I'd have backed my choice in the Democratic primary back then, which was, of course, the only election that mattered, but if my choice didn't win, I'd have sat the general out

On defense, Fulbright (AK) would have had no chance and as much as I'd have agreed with him economically, Bilbo (MS) was too much of a race-bater

Dave

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Bilbo was a nutcase.

[Nym90]

Ervin (NC), Byrnes (SC), Johnston (SC), Holland (FL), Russell (GA), Hill (AL), Stennis (MS), Harrison (MS) and Long (LA)

Thing is with a lot of these segregationists, it wasn't borned out of racism, it was more an issue of resisting federal encroachment on the rights of states

I'd have likely voted for some of the others for Senate. That said, I'd have backed my choice in the Democratic primary back then, which was, of course, the only election that mattered, but if my choice didn't win, I'd have sat the general out

On defense, Fulbright (AK) would have had no chance and as much as I'd have agreed with him economically, Bilbo (MS) was too much of a race-bater

Dave

Opposing federal encroachment on states' rights is all well and good, but if someone thought that was important enough to be worth denying blacks equal rights over, I'd seriously question that person's judgement. It's a pretty weak argument if you ask me. At best, those making that argument can't see the forest for the trees, and at worst, they simply opposed civil rights and were attempting to make up excuses for why.

I'd have supported some of them as the lesser of two evils in their Senate races, and also in marginal cases simply because they did help the Democrats to be in power and thus were advancing the cause of civil rights indirectly in that way, but I can't see myself supporting anyone who would've signed the Southern Manifesto if they'd run for President. The other excuse, that some of them were doing so only because they had to in order to remain in office and didn't actually support it, is a little more viable and understandable, but it still makes them wishy washy and not willing to stand up for what they really believe in.

[Democratic Hawk]

The other excuse, that some of them were doing so only because they had to in order to remain in office and didn't actually support it, is a little more viable and understandable, but it still makes them wishy washy and not willing to stand up for what they really believe in.

Very true. Given the time and the place, for some of them a segregationist stance was nothing more than a matter of political expediency

Indeed, many Southern Democrats came to embrace civil rights once it became clear that there was no going back and later in their political careers they were increasingly supported by African-Americans, just as disaffected whites began to support Republicans. Of course, the breach between the Democratic Party and southern whites, at the congressional level, wasn't fully attained until 1994. Democrats represented the majority of House districts until then, and although the Senate had become rather competitive, Democrats, more often than not, had the numerical edge

Dave

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

No.

[GOP = Terrorists]

I'd rather be a Rockefeller Republican than a Dixiecrat.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

[Boris]

I wouldn't support any of them, but Fullbright probably fits my views the most.

[Colin]

Potentially all - not because they were segregationists however but because they were Democrats.

Dave

Don't lie to us Dave. Underneath that chain smoking exterior is a true rascist.

As for me I probably wouldn't vote for any of them.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

None

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'd rather be a Rockefeller Republican than a Dixiecrat.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

I'd rather be neither

Oh, the poll. In a primary? None. In a General Election? Would consider one or two of them, maybe, but it would depend on the Republican candidate. I would happily vote for, say, Nixon, over all of them.