Changes

On the Democrat side, 153 of 244 House and 46 of 67 Senate members voted yes.  That is 63% of Democrat house members and 69% of Democrat Senate members.  These numbers become even more bleak for the "party myth" idea when you compare the yes and no votes from Northern and Southern democrats.  Virtually every Southern Democrat voted against the Civil Rights Act, meaning that Southern voters had no reason to punish them.  Additionally, while the bill was on the Senate floor it was the subject of filibustering from Southern Democrats for 57 days,<ref>[https://www.aei.org/articles/how-the-south-came-to-rise-again-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964/ How the South Came to Rise Again: The Civil Rights Act of 1964]</ref> the longest filibuster in U.S. history.  It was a Northern Republican, [[Everett Dirksen]] of [[Illinois]], who broke the filibuster. Dirksen was a noted [[conservative]], along with then-House Minority Leader [[Charles A. Halleck]], a prominent member of the [[Conservative Coalition]] who was also an advocate for the legislation. The two became famous during the time, with the Congressional Leadership Statement then being known as "[[The Ev and Charlie Show]]".<ref>[https://www.cop.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Ev_and_Charlie_Show.htm "The Ev and Charlie Show"]</ref>

On the Democrat side, 153 of 244 House and 46 of 67 Senate members voted yes.  That is 63% of Democrat house members and 69% of Democrat Senate members.  These numbers become even more bleak for the "party myth" idea when you compare the yes and no votes from Northern and Southern democrats.  Virtually every Southern Democrat voted against the Civil Rights Act, meaning that Southern voters had no reason to punish them.  Additionally, while the bill was on the Senate floor it was the subject of filibustering from Southern Democrats for 57 days,<ref>[https://www.aei.org/articles/how-the-south-came-to-rise-again-the-civil-rights-act-of-1964/ How the South Came to Rise Again: The Civil Rights Act of 1964]</ref> the longest filibuster in U.S. history.  It was a Northern Republican, [[Everett Dirksen]] of [[Illinois]], who broke the filibuster. Dirksen was a noted [[conservative]], along with then-House Minority Leader [[Charles A. Halleck]], a prominent member of the [[Conservative Coalition]] who was also an advocate for the legislation. The two became famous during the time, with the Congressional Leadership Statement then being known as "[[The Ev and Charlie Show]]".<ref>[https://www.cop.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Ev_and_Charlie_Show.htm "The Ev and Charlie Show"]</ref>

[[File:Albert Gore Sr..jpg|thumb|right|190px|Democrat Sen. [[Albert Gore, Sr.]] fervently opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and unsuccessfully sought to weaken the bill.]]

[[File:Albert Gore Sr..jpg|thumb|right|175px|Democrat Sen. [[Albert Gore, Sr.]] fervently opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and unsuccessfully sought to weaken the bill.]]

[[Barry Goldwater]], known for having been a staunch leader of the conservative wing of the [[Republican Party]] during the 60s, is often falsely smeared by [[liberals]] as a "racist" for having voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Among such, [[NPR]] has propagated mischaracterizations of the [[Arizona]] senator that have been refuted.<ref>[https://www.newsmax.com/John-Gizzi/Barry-Goldwater-Reagan-Civil-Rights-Act-San-Francisco/2014/07/18/id/583541/ NPR Wrong on Goldwater '64, Civil Rights, Say 4 Who Were There]</ref> In contrast to whitewashing attempts by [[liberal deceit|deceitful leftists]], Goldwater was a strong proponent of civil rights, having voted in favor of the 1957 Civil Rights Act.<ref name="HR. 6127. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1957."/> He had also been a member of the [[NAACP]] at the time, and his only opposition to the 1964 bill came from his objections to Titles II and VII on a constitutional basis in opposing excessive federal government powers,<ref>[https://www.heritage.org/node/11300/print-display Barry M. Goldwater: The Most Consequential Loser in American Politics]</ref> stating:<ref name="Barry Goldwater on the Civil Rights Act: The Antecedent to Rand Paul">[https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/126630 Barry Goldwater on the Civil Rights Act: The Antecedent to Rand Paul]</ref>

[[Barry Goldwater]], known for having been a staunch leader of the conservative wing of the [[Republican Party]] during the 60s, is often falsely smeared by [[liberals]] as a "racist" for having voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Among such, [[NPR]] has propagated mischaracterizations of the [[Arizona]] senator that have been refuted.<ref>[https://www.newsmax.com/John-Gizzi/Barry-Goldwater-Reagan-Civil-Rights-Act-San-Francisco/2014/07/18/id/583541/ NPR Wrong on Goldwater '64, Civil Rights, Say 4 Who Were There]</ref> In contrast to whitewashing attempts by [[liberal deceit|deceitful leftists]], Goldwater was a strong proponent of civil rights, having voted in favor of the 1957 Civil Rights Act.<ref name="HR. 6127. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1957."/> He had also been a member of the [[NAACP]] at the time, and his only opposition to the 1964 bill came from his objections to Titles II and VII on a constitutional basis in opposing excessive federal government powers,<ref>[https://www.heritage.org/node/11300/print-display Barry M. Goldwater: The Most Consequential Loser in American Politics]</ref> stating:<ref name="Barry Goldwater on the Civil Rights Act: The Antecedent to Rand Paul">[https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/126630 Barry Goldwater on the Civil Rights Act: The Antecedent to Rand Paul]</ref>

{{quotebox-float|"''It so happens that I am in agreement with the [anti-racial segregation] objectives of the Supreme Court as stated in the Brown decision.'' I am not prepared, however, to impose that judgment of mine on the people of Mississippi or South Carolina. . . . That is their business, not mine.  I believe that the problem of race relations, like all social and cultural problems, is best handled by the people directly concerned . . . [and] should not be effected by engines of national power."}}

{{quotebox-float|"''It so happens that I am in agreement with the [anti-racial segregation] objectives of the Supreme Court as stated in the Brown decision.'' I am not prepared, however, to impose that judgment of mine on the people of Mississippi or South Carolina. . . . That is their business, not mine.  I believe that the problem of race relations, like all social and cultural problems, is best handled by the people directly concerned . . . [and] should not be effected by engines of national power."}}