Monday, January 11, 2010
Reid vs. Lott
Here's the best lefty argument why Harry Reid's "racist" statement about Barack Obama was different in kind from Trent Lott's comments about Strom Thurmond (who had run for president on a platform of "Segregation Forever!"). I do not agree with all of it, but this analogy is true enough, even if it tediously turns on a comparison to Nazism:
Claiming that Harry Reid's comments are the same, is like claiming that referring to Jews as "Hebrews" is the same as endorsing Nazism. Whereas a reputable portion of black people still use the term Negro without a hint of irony, no black person thinks the guy yelling "Segregation Forever!" would have cured us of "all these problems."
The Republicans hurt themselves by comparing Reid's comments to Lott's, because it reminds everybody that Lott was seeming to cozy up to an ugly (if bipartisan) moment in American history. If we wish to make the point that the chattering classes hold Republicans to a different standard on these questions than Democrats, let's find better cases to compare.
MORE along the same lines from one of the National Review's writers.
28 Comments:
By 
John, at
Mon Jan 11, 01:04:00 PM:
I remember watching the Lott/Thurmond moment on CSPAN when it was first broadcast. In context, it was pretty clear that Lott wasn't endorsing Thurmond's platform, but expressing his affection for a senile old man. Politicians are all ass-kissers, and that's all that Lott was doing at that moment.
By 
, at
Mon Jan 11, 01:21:00 PM:
I agree with John and I would also say I am pretty disgusted with all the fair-minded leeway Democrats are extending to Reid whereas they give not a second of thought or excuse to republicans period.
Reid screwed up and the reason it hurts so badly is Americans of all ideological stripes are sick of being called racist if they simple disagree with the almighty Obama and/or the inevitable opportunistic shake down by Shaprton and Jesse Jackson.
2 sets of rules.
By , at
Mon Jan 11, 01:55:00 PM:
" If we wish to make the point that the chattering classes hold Republicans to a different standard on these questions than Democrats, let's find better cases to compare."
I completely agree with TH. Repubs are allowing themselves to be diverted away from the important issues on which they have great political traction in exchange for an issue in which they have a cloud over their heads.
Also agree with John.
My suggestion for moving on would be for President Obama to invite Harry and Trent for a beer on the White House lawn. Trent is pretty light though.
M.E.
By , at
Mon Jan 11, 02:25:00 PM:
I have not been back to reread Lott's comments, but as I recall, Lott's remarks amounted to opinion. What Reid said was absolutely true. Therefore, not a good comparison, though I would readily concede that if it was DeMint who uttered the statement instead of Reid the dems would be having apoplectic fits. The double standard is deeply frustrating.
By , at
Mon Jan 11, 02:44:00 PM:
The silence that intrigues me deals with the issue of abortion. Black women have abortions at rates significantly higher that white women. If the positions were reversed and Republicans FAVORED abortion while dems opposed it, you KNOW the captive media would argue that the pro-abortion position was based on racism.
In view of the dems pro-slavery, anti-black history, why isn't their position, and that of Reid, Pelosi et al, viewed as racism?
By , at
Mon Jan 11, 03:00:00 PM:
What's most revealing about the Reid incident is how everyone is reacting.
Democrats, understandably, are defensive. They hope to excuse Reids obvious racism by it's banality and by pointing out his public service record.
Republicans are on the attack, merely to extract a pound of flesh as payback for all the cynical election-oriented race-baiting the Democrats have done against Republicans for eons (and no doubt will continue to do). Understandable reaction on the part of GOP pols too, I think, and maybe it'll even have the salutory effect of moderating the ugly Democrat leap to racism in elections henceforward. I doubt it'll work, but it's certainly worth an effort.
Pundits reactions are more nuanced and far more interesting.
The interchange between Rev. Al and Ann Coulter is very interesting, as Ann struggles to find some traction for her political approach to this problem (and fails, I think), while Rev. Al, the master race baiter par excellance, sits essentially mute on the subject of Reid's comments.
He's obviously uncomfortable about the whole subject, and he is obviously offended by Reid, but Rev. Al's political programming won't let him tee off as he no doubt wishes he could. If Ann had only said, "Rev. Al , tell us what the lesson of Reid's comments ought to be", and then sat silent (Hah! Fat chance!), she might have got a bigger reaction out of the otherwise irrepressible Sharpton than she got by needling him. You know he wanted to talk about it- you just know he did.
Patterico directly contrasts the LAT tone of Lott coverage versus the present day Reid coverage, and comes away convinced the paper is willing to excuse practically anything in defending the immoral actions of Democrat politicians. Some news.
The biggest lesson here is that racism has become such a political token, to be played, that Americans have trouble taking it seriously. Too bad.
By , at
Mon Jan 11, 03:23:00 PM:
I just love that the word negro is still being used in 2010.
By , at
Mon Jan 11, 03:30:00 PM:
My skin crawls every time I hear the comparison between Lott and what Harry Reid said. If we go back to both the transcript and the tape of what Lott said, one is left to wonder whether he meant going back to more "simple days" or whether he was just kissing Strom Thurmond's ass. Nonetheless there was very little there if anything there for Lott to be politically quartered.
Actually, had Lott not been a Southern white man he probably would have kept his job?
By , at
Mon Jan 11, 03:41:00 PM:
The easily offended and the quickly outraged on both sides contribute only to the problem.
Politics has devolved into a badly written, over acted, episode of "The Jerry Springer Show".
By Brian Schmidt, at
Mon Jan 11, 04:02:00 PM:
"Lott was seeming to cozy up to an ugly (if bipartisan) moment in American history."
I'm going to disagree with TH and defend the Republican Party - except that I'm defending the Republican Party of 1948, not the one of recent decades.
In the runup to the 1948 election, Truman had desegregated the military. This infuriated white Southern racists (I hope it's not considered too offensive to call them racists) who then went ballistic when Hubert Humphrey won passage of a civil rights plank in the Democratic platform. That's when Thurmond, the person Trent Lott said would have stopped all these modern problems, walked away from the Democratic party and ran independently first, before their ultimate decision to become Republicans. All this covered here: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/01/trent-lott-revisited.php
The Republican Party of 1948 doesn't deserve blame for Thurmond's run (nor do Democrats). The modern Republican Party can claim him, though.
By , at
Mon Jan 11, 05:57:00 PM:
Screw you, you ignorant offensive twit. Calling modern Republicans "racists" simply reveals your astounding ignorance. I understand your frustration with the fact that climate hasn't cooperated with your silly GW religion, but go insult others with your foul minded hate.
By , at
Mon Jan 11, 06:16:00 PM:
Except he said Obama could get elected because he doesn't speak in a "Negro dialect." It's kind of like saying Joe Lieberman could do well nationally because he doesn't sound all Jewy. But, yeah, bringing up Trent Lott doesn't really help anyone.
By Brian Schmidt, at
Mon Jan 11, 06:22:00 PM:
Dear Anon, I'm sorry I unintentionally offended you. I referred to white Southerners who bolted the Democratic Party in the 1948 election due military desegregation and civil rights as racist. Do you really disagree with that?
By , at
Mon Jan 11, 08:11:00 PM:
1)As a member of WhiteBreadNation with some American Indian in my genetic makeup- which also describes all my cousins and many of their spouses- I did not find Reid's remarks offensive. He stated a political truth: that ∅bama's election was made more likely by his lighter skin color and by his ability to switch accents/dialects. The POTUS said something along the same vein in his autobiography, when he talked about being nonthreatening.
2)What I DO find offensive about Senator Reid is the way he often plays the race card himself. The way that Democrats have repeatedly played the race card the past year, especially WhiteBread Democrats, I find very annoying. You disagree with the POTUS: you are a racist.
3) I therefore laugh at Senator Reid now: heist on his own petard.
4) I agree that had a Rethuglican made a similar remark, we would NOT have found the Black Caucus as forgiving. The race card is used to bash Republicans. Over and Over. Given such phenomena as the Civil War and Senator Byrd, this tees many people off, myself included.
5) However, I do not see Trent Lott's statement as being equivalent to Reid's. While it may be that Lott was simply trying to praise an old man on his birthday, he could have chosen much less controversial words to do so. For example: " We appreciate his lifetime of service ,his commitment to a strong defense, and his ability to change with the times." (From what I have read, post 1964 Strom DID change w the times. Moreover,Strom never joined the Klan, unlike a certain Senator of the Democratic Party.)We would NOT have been better off if we had enacted Strom's 1948 Dixiecrat platform of keeping Jim Crow. Period. As such it was an idiotic thing for Trent Lott to say. It would not surprise me to find out that Trent Lott is none too bright. But also recall that Trent Lott got a lot of heat from the Republican side for what he said.
6) My hope is for a moratorium on playing the race card in the future.
By , at
Mon Jan 11, 08:23:00 PM:
Brian Schmidt
I'm going to disagree with TH and defend the Republican Party - except that I'm defending the Republican Party of 1948, not the one of recent decades.
By this statement are you saying that like the 1948 Dixiecrats, the Republican Party "of recent decades" supports Jim Crow?
If not , WTF do you mean by that statement?
By , at
Mon Jan 11, 08:28:00 PM:
"The Republican Party of 1948 doesn't deserve blame for Thurmond's run (nor do Democrats). The modern Republican Party can claim him, though. "
So, that statement wasn't purposeful. BS. It's a clear statement that you believe modern Republicans are racist.
By , at
Mon Jan 11, 10:35:00 PM:
Democrats can get away with this because they keep black interest groups dependent on the party by giving them occasional handouts as if they were the Democratic party's pets.
By Brian, at
Tue Jan 12, 01:26:00 AM:
Boludo says "I agree that had a Rethuglican made a similar remark, we would NOT have found the Black Caucus as forgiving."
I partially agree with that - an isolated statement or single word would be viewed in context. As TH pointed out, many older African Americans still use the term Negro. If one of them had been Republican, I think she would've been given a pass. Of course, not many African American Republicans in the modern period.
I don't think the modern Republicans support Jim Crow, although I understand that Thurmond, unlike Wallace, never expressly renounced his segregationist views.
Anon at 8:28: yes, the modern Republican Party can take credit for Thurmond from 1964 to 2002. I haven't expressed my view of the modern Republican Party as a whole, though.
By Cardinalpark, at
Tue Jan 12, 09:20:00 AM:
I actually don't think it's the content of what Reid said in any event that is meaningful. It is how people, and especially the mianstream media, choose to react to it that is instructive.
Think carefully about the following question - if those comments had been made by Mitt Romney, what might the mainstream press reaction have been? I ask specifically about Romney for a reason.
By , at
Tue Jan 12, 11:31:00 AM:
Brian Schmidt:
I don't think the modern Republicans support Jim Crow..
Then perhaps you shouldn’t make statements that imply it.
although I understand that Thurmond, unlike Wallace, never expressly renounced his segregationist views.
Actions speak louder than words. I do not say this to denigrate Wallace’s change of heart, which also showed itself in deeds. Strom Thurmond's actions as a public official after he joined the Republican Party speak for themselves.
In 1970, he became the first Southern senator to hire a black staffer and he was the first to recommend a black man to be a federal judge. He then sent his daughter to a heavily integrated public school. During the 1970s, Thurmond continued to distance himself from his fellow Southern Senators, nearly every single one of whom was a Democrat, when Thurmond supported black judicial nominees for the federal bench.
You didn’t know this , Brian? I knew it , at least the bit about black staffers, and it was very easy to document. I simply Googled thurmond black staffer.
Given such behavior on Strom Thurmond’s part , IMHO the Republican Party would have no problem in “taking credit for Thurmond” for his acts as a public official after he joined the Republican Party.
Strom’s treatment of his daughter Essie is another issue. I recommend her autobiography
By Brian Schmidt, at
Tue Jan 12, 02:27:00 PM:
Boludo - I did know about the African American staffer, although I didn't know he was the first from the South, and I'm not sure that I know it now. For one thing, the South had black Senators during Reconstruction and I think there's an excellent chance that they had some African American aides. More generally, the American Spectator, your source, is an unreliable source.
In any event I said that Thurmond hadn't renounced his segregationist views AFAIK. If you've got a quote somewhere, I'd love to see it.
Here's something a little more highbrow: I've often read that William F Buckley renounced his earlier support for white supremacy in the National Review, but I've never seen a quote (yes, I've looked). Again, a link with a quote would be really interesting.
By , at
Tue Jan 12, 04:49:00 PM:
Brian:
In any event I said that Thurmond hadn't renounced his segregationist views AFAIK.
My reply was and remains: actions speak louder than words. While as far as we can tell he didn’t renounce his segregationist view, his deeds- such as enrolling his daughter in an integrated public school, said much more.
For one thing, the South had black Senators during Reconstruction and I think there's an excellent chance that they had some African American aides.
Agreed. Perhaps it should have been more precisely phrased “first Post-Reconstruction Southern Senator,” or “first white Southern Senator.”
More generally, the American Spectator, your source, is an unreliable source.
EXCUSE ME for citing American Spector a source that for libs is unclean, a source that is verboten. I have heard this line time and again from the other side of the aisle. Every time someone has tried that maneuver on me I have proved that “unreliable,” a.k.a. “verboten” or “unclean,” is a nonsense claim regarding the information I cited. As it is in this case.
Here is what the New York Times said.
In 1970, he became the first Southern Senator to hire a black staff member and sponsor a black man as a Federal judge. In 1983, he voted for the holiday honoring Martin Luther King Jr. He says he never had any prejudice. "I merely followed the law." (Chorus. What, never? Captain. No, never! Chorus. What, never? Captain. Hardly ever!)
Time Magazine also corroborates what American Spectator says about the first black staffer.Here is CNN.
PLEASE INFORM ME HOW THE ABOVE SOURCES ARE NOT RELIABLE Please.
Perhaps he wasn’t the first white Senator from the South to do so. If not a lot of sources say he was. Including sources that libs worship.
Strom was a stubborn old coot who refused to express regrets about anything he did, which is why, as far as we can tell, he made no public statement of regret about Dixiecrats and segregation. But as I said, actions speak louder than words. Like the American Spectator article said, he sent his young daughter to an integrated school. Since you believe that the American Spectator is an unreliable source, which is usually lib-speak for "verboten" or "unclean," here is an editorial that originally appeared in the Washington Post, which points out the public school his daughter attended was 50% black.
Would have been better that Strom publicly renounce segregation but enroll his child in a private school? So many libs talk the talk without walking the walk such as when they avoid the substantially black public schools and enroll their children in private schools like Sidwell Friends. Like I said, actions speak louder than words. But not for libs, apparently. Which is why I am a Post Liberal.
Regarding WFB, I have read it, but you can track that down as readily as I can.
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Jan 12, 08:20:00 PM:
Those Reconstruction-era black Senators were Republicans, by the way.
The way that the Republican party is routinely slurred as racist is one of the greatest political hatchet-jobs in the history of democracy, one which flies completely in the face of facts and history.
The Republican party was born out of the abolitionist movement for God's sake! The Democrats were the party of slavery and segregation.
The 'Solid South?' Democrat! The South didn't break Republican until Ronald Reagan's election in 1980, (mostly as a revolt against Jimmy Carter's weakness and ineptitude) and it still isn't finished. The Texas Legislature didn't flip to Republican (for the first time in 130 years) until 2002.
The 1960 Civil Rights Act was filibustered by Democrats for 125 straight hours (the longest single filibuster in American history) and was signed into law by President Eisenhower, Republican. 80% of Republicans voted for Civil Rights Act of 1964, compared to around 65% of Democrats, after being filibustered by other Democrats (including Senator Byrd) for 83 days. The 1965 Voting Rights Act was also more strongly supported by Republicans than by Democrats (though by smaller margins).
Which President dined with Booker T. Washington at the White House? Theodore Roosevelt, Republican. Why said this, "The action of President Roosevelt in entertaining that nigger will necessitate our killing a thousand niggers in the South before they will learn their place again," in response? Senator Benjamin Tillman, Democrat.
Which President enthusiastically endorsed the racist caricatures in the KKK-glorifying film 'Birth of a Nation?' Woodrow Wilson, Democrat.
What currently sitting Senator once wrote this charming line? "I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds." Why, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, already mentioned.
And concerning Byrd's disavowal... while I've little doubt it was genuine eventually, his initial presentation of it was a lie. He joined the Klan in 1942 and claimed to have "lost interest after about a year." This is contradicted by a racist letter to a segregationist in 1944 (part of which I quoted above) and another letter in support of the Klan's initiatives in 1947. In fact, it was his Klan brothers who encouraged him to run for office in the first place. As late as 1997, he advised young people interested in politics to avoid the Klan... not because it's wrong, but because it would be an impediment to a political career. An 'albatross around your neck. Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena." In 2001, he said to Fox News, "[T]here are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time..."
But somehow, modern liberals have convinced themselves that Republicans are (and some believe have always been) the party of racism, and the Democrats that of enlightenment and equality.
By Brian Schmidt, at
Tue Jan 12, 08:49:00 PM:
Boludo:
1. Tigerhawk posted something interesting recently about an apology deficit as a failure to take responsibility. Applies in spades to Thurmond. A few affirmative action hires, if they even occurred, hardly makes up for his past.
2. We're agreed the quote about first Southern Senator with black staff is likely wrong.
3. Your NY Times verification on the first staff hire isn't a NY Times report, it's a Maureen Dowd Op-Ed, which get little to no fact-checking and therefore does little to help you. If you're happy to have Thurmond on your side, I suggest you take Dowd as well. She's useless.
4. Your Time and CNN sources on first staff hire are somewhat better, but they're tossed-off half-sentences, not central to the reports so they provide not too much confidence in their accuracy.
5. Time and CNN confirm that American Spectator was wrong about the date of the hire - it was 1971.
6. You have not provided outside support for any of Spectator's other claims.
7. The CNN transcript led me to Thurmond's biographer and her book, "Strom Thurmond and the Politics of Southern Change." She discusses racial issues extensively. On page 413 she describes his hiring of Tom Moss, in what looks like an attempt to beat out Fritz Holling from hiring a black aide first. Nowhere that I found did she describe this as the first by a post-Reconstruction Southern Senator.
8. Given South Carolina's racial history, I think it's quite likely that Moss was the first black hire for a post-Reconstruction Senator from that state. That's all that's been established on that issue.
9. Lots of misinformation in the Right blogosphere that Thurmond was the first Senator from anywhere to hire a black aide.
10. The biography says on page 486 that Thurmond helped a black man chosen by, wait for it, Jimmy Carter, become the first black federal judge in South Carolina. Again, one state and not the entire South.
11. Looks like Judge James Lopez Watson precedes Carter's selection as the first judge to head a federal court in the South:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lopez_Watson
No evidence of Thurmond's involvement. There may be other judges too. There's a black judge appointed by Carter in Alabama, but I'm not sure if it's earlier or later.
12. I just did a quick check on the integrated public school claim, didn't come up with much info.
By Brian Schmidt, at
Wed Jan 13, 02:52:00 PM:
To wrap up this discussion of the accuracy of The American Spectator and whether Thurmond modestly or greatly modified his previous racist policies, I'll point out that Boludo apparently didn't see this sentence in the Spectator that precedes the ones he quoted:
"Although Thurmond was born and raised in the segregated south, he eventually renounced his past."
We know that sentence was wrong. We know that both parts of the next sentence in the Spectator was wrong. It's possible the sentence about his daughter is right, although it's unconfirmed and doesn't say anything his other three legitimate children. The last sentence about exceeding other Southern senators in supporting Carter's appointment of black judges, strikes me as unlikely given that we know at least one judge was appointed in Alabama.
All in all, I'm not impressed with the Spectator or with the right blogosphere's tendency to rely on it or even exaggerate its mistakes.
By , at
Thu Jan 14, 03:16:00 PM:
2. We're agreed the quote about first Southern Senator with black staff is likely wrong.
Here is what I said: “Perhaps he wasn’t….” “Perhaps” does not mean the same as “likely.” At least it doesn’t in the dictionary I use. Maybe in yours.
3. Your NY Times verification on the first staff hire isn't a NY Times report, it's a Maureen Dowd Op-Ed, which get little to no fact-checking and therefore does little to help you. If you're happy to have Thurmond on your side, I suggest you take Dowd as well. She's useless.
Since MoDowdy is not your cup of tea, and I must admit she is not my favorite columnist, here is another NYT source. Those who discredit MoDowdy as a source usually can document why she is not accurate. You have not so documented.
4. Your Time and CNN sources on first staff hire are somewhat better, but they're tossed-off half-sentences, not central to the reports so they provide not too much confidence in their accuracy.
PROVE THEM WRONG. I note that you considered them accurate enough for the hiring year.
6. You have not provided outside support for any of Spectator's other claims.
I provided “outside support” for his daughter's attending a public school that was 50% black. Which you ignore.
9. Lots of misinformation in the Right blogosphere that Thurmond was the first Senator from anywhere to hire a black aide.
Like YOUR misinformation that I didn’t provide documentation for anything in addition to the black staffer issue. Interesting. Interesting also that you claim there is misinformation but you do not document your claim. Neither do you provide examples of such “misinformation,” nor do you document why it is “misinformation.” Since you know so much about it, please inform us WHO was the first Senator from the South or anywhere for that matter to hire a black staffer. Distinguish between secretarial staff and aide. And document it. Who what where, when.
11. Looks like Judge James Lopez Watson precedes Carter's selection as the first judge to head a federal court in the South: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lopez_Watson)
No evidence of Thurmond's involvement.
One does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out. LBJ appointed him in 1966. Strom was not a member of the LBJ Fan Club. That in no way contradicts what American Spectator said, because A.S. talked about judicial endorsements in the 1970s. For that reason I wonder why you even brought it up.
Interesting that you cite Wikipedia. So you consider it a good source. May I then assume that you support Wikipedia’s statement that he was the first southern senator to appoint a black aide. Or rather do you view Wikipedia like you do like CNN and Time: a valid source of information when it supports your point of view about A.S. - re date of appointment- but not a valid source of information when it does not support your point of view, as when CNN and Time supported A.S. on “first black staffer.”
It's possible the sentence about his daughter is right, although it's unconfirmed and doesn't say anything his other three legitimate children.
You ignored the confirming evidence I provided. Moreover, three and probably all of his four legitimate children graduated from Aiken High, an integrated public school. Google or Factiva it.
By , at
Thu Jan 14, 04:04:00 PM:
Brian:
All in all, I'm not impressed with the Spectator or with the right blogosphere's tendency to rely on it or even exaggerate its mistakes.
BTW, I got the AS by Googling information, not by first searching out AS.
First Black Staffer hired by Southern Senator: supported by NYT (two links), CNN, Time, Wikipedia.
You have provided no documentation whatsoever to show any other white Senator from the South, or any Senator from anywhere for that matter, hired a black staffer before Thurmond. And I don't mean a secretary. I have also found information on Senate staff hiring in a source that has always been an unequivocal opponent of Jim Crow which supports American Spectator, perhaps with the proviso of modifying "Southern Senator" to "Senator from the Deep South." The source also compares Strom’s hiring practices favorably to some Northern Senators. As I said, this source has always been an unequivocal opponent of Jim Crow. IOW, it has no inherent bias towards Strom.
Daughter in integrated elementary school: check. I might add that I am not very impressed by your having ignored my finding additional documentation for that. Plus children in integrated high school.
First Southerner to endorse black for Federal judge: you found endorsement documentation. Re first: not sure, but plausible.
Regret for segregation view: Actions speak louder than words. I ran across an article in which featured both Strom and George Wallace in a conciliatory mode. How conciliatory or how sincere, I leave up to the reader. This source was also vehemently opposed to Jim Crow. The only response I saw to that article vehemently disparged Wallace and those who voted for him. That implies that the responder found Strom’s words of conciliation to be sincere, but not Wallace’s. Why else would the responder not also have disparged Strom? Actions, words.
I find AS a more plausible information source than you, because you have not provided any documentation to show that they are wrong ( I did) - just that you don't like them.
I am not linking to these articles nor to high school information because you either ignored or discounted my previous documentations. If you are the information maven you consider yourself to be, as when you discount my previous documentations, you can find what I have discussed.
That you either ignore or disparge my documentation also shows there is no point in further discussion with you.
By Brian, at
Thu Jan 14, 09:05:00 PM:
Well, Boludo is disappointed in me and unwilling to read this, so I'll just have to carry on as best I can in case anyone else is interested.
1. Boludo's right about the Washington Post cite confirming that Strom's youngest daughter attending an integrated first grade class in public school. I had overlooked his earlier link, and I'd apologize for that omission except he's not reading this.
Furthermore, the Post cite had sufficient detail and focus on that specific issue to give a certain level of confidence that it's true. This contrasts to Boludo's other sources. The Post cite, from the 1970s, says Thurmond was the first South Carolina congressional member to hire black staff, not a reference to a first Southern senator.
Boludo's also right that he said "perhaps" African-American senators had hired a black staff member, and it was (unintentionally) wrong of me to conflate that with "likely".
2. From the wiki article on Thurmond, I found this Slate article on the legend that Strom had renounced his positions, when in fact he hadn't:
http://www.slate.com/id/2075453/
Lies or mistakes can become accepted beliefs, including the one that Thurmond had accepted that Dixiecrats were wrong.
Boludo adds two more citations that are both tossed-off one liners: a wiki reference that leads to another one liner, and a NY Times one-liner. The NY Times does reference The Almanac of American Politics - that's a little more promising, but I'd have to look it up.
The question I'm asking is whether there's any real confirmation of the accepted belief of him being the first senator or first Southern senator to hire black staff. The fact that two Senators in the South and one in the Northeast were themselves African-American and preceded the hire suggests to me the statement is likely wrong. The two best sources, the biography and the Washington Post, don't provide support for those statements, only for being the first in South Carolina. To answer Boludo's question, I can't exclude the idea of Thurmond being first, but I think it's unlikely.
3. I guess Boludo disagrees with TigerHawk's post about the apology deficit, but I'm going to stand with TigerHawk on that one.
More generally, I'd be impressed with Strom's actions for the benefit of blacks if any of the actions showed any political courage. I know his primary accomplishment in Congress was to funnel truly massive amounts of pork from the rest of the country to South Carolina, and I understand the black community got some of it, but that doesn't strike me as courageous. Nor does the first black hire in South Carolina, in 1971.
Finally, Boludo refuses to provide us information about Aiken High School and whatever else he was talking about, so I can't comment on it.
