In lesser hands this interview would have been a shambles and it probably would have become a forum for the Jabberwocky that flew out of his mouth, but this interview with Senator James Eastland (D-Mississippi) gives some idea just how entrenched, how arrogant and how racist the bloc of Senators known as Dixiecrats were.

I am still hot on the trail of the infamous (and somewhat legendary) Meet The Press interview with Senator Bilbo, another Dixiecrat from Mississippi who proudly proclaimed his membership in the KKK in 1946. But until I find it, this will have to do for the Mississippi contingent who made up the States Rights South in the 1950's and 60's.

A sampling of the interview:

Lawrence Spivak: “Senator, by what inalienable right do you ask certain freedoms for yourself and the other white people of Mississippi that you refuse to grant to the Colored people of your state?”

Sen. James Eastland: “ Why they have all the . . .there is no discrimination. Now, I believe in full economic equality, for every man.”

Spivak: “You say there is no discrimination . . . .

Eastland: “Wait, wait, just a minute now. For every man, regardless of race. But there are social questions and we do have a problem that we think we know more about than people who do not have that problem, And that we think the system of segregation is in the best interests of both races. It doesn’t mean . . it’s not based on any doctrine that one man is superior to another. It’s not based on any doctrine that one man is better than another, but that experience has shown that both races develop their own culture and develop better when they’re separated, because there is more to this question of race than merely the color of a man’s skin. There are different characteristics, different traits.”

And it stays pretty much the same for the entire interview.

This interview comes just about a year before the Central high school integration confrontation in Little Rock Arkansas. But you can see just how deeply the resistance was and what a political thorn these Dixiecrats were in the side of any Civil Rights reform on a Federal level. Which is certainly one reason the struggle lasted so long. The irony in all of this is that Eastland rose very high in the ranks of the Senate and, in addition to being second in line of succession to the Presidency in case of emergency he was also the longest serving Senator, having retired in 1978. In short, he wielded an enormous amount of power.

Here is Meet The Press with Senator James Eastland from January 29, 1956.

(Lester Maddox and thug wielding "drumstick" - some drum . ..and pay no attention to the gun)

Lester Maddox addresses a meeting of the New York Press Club on January 29, 1971. With the ongoing campaign to whitewash the Civil Rights Movement and the desire to turn the evolution clock back at least a hundred years, it's good to be reminded from time to time that those practitioners of hate, racism, bigotry and violence under the guise of "democracy and freedom" were very much alive and active and being revered as "misunderstood patriots". And even while their feeble attempts at explaining away hateful behavior fall on largely skeptical ears, there are still those, and they have forums now, who try to drive the point home that all that hate was an illusion, that those lynchings never happened, that passing laws eliminating discrimination were in fact bad for our country. That Lester Maddox wasn't as bad as all the "librul press" painted him to be. That he was just a "lovable boob who talked funny."

Lester Maddox: “You read about some drumsticks I brought up here, not axe handles, pick handles . . drumsticks, souvenirs. Pick in Pickrick means to select, choose, pick out. Rick means to pile up, heap or amass. So these are popular souvenirs for more reasons than the one you heard. And so . . many congressmen and Senators had asked for them. Capitol office officials and staff, black and white. And so they had asked for a number of them. And I brought a box rather than have them mail ‘em on my next trip to Washington. And the Capitol Police wanted to carry them into the dining room and I wouldn’t let them, because the manager of the club and others there wanted them and I said to go outside they can’t take them in. But you read in the paper and broadcast that I brought a boxful of them into the dining room. I read in a Chicago newspaper that I had a box full of them under my table.”

There is an active movement afoot to re-write history. And if the distraction is loud enough and the claims wild enough and told often enough, there is a strong chance you will simply forget what the truth of the situation was and believe the lie.

And you can't afford to do that.

(The Civil Rights Bill of 1957 - a lot of love in the room . . .)

There's been a lot of talk lately about the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, forgetting that it got started as the Civil Rights Bill of 1957 and an offshoot of the Supreme Court ruling on School Desegregation in 1954. The ball was rolling and so was the resistance. Only in 1957 the resistance was more overt, as is evidenced by this discussion, part of The American Forum of The Air as broadcast on July 7, 1957. The debaters were Sen. John Stennis (D-Miss.) and Sen. Arthur V. Hawkins (R-Utah) who co-authored the 1957 bill.

Sen. John Stennis: “I have no doubt about it, this bill is aimed primarily at the South. It’s inspired by those that have been wanting to get this enacted into law with affect of criminal statutes. And even though voting rights are involved some it’s directed primarily to the school problem, the intermingling of the races in the schools.”

Stennis was, needless to say, part of that breed of Southern Democrat known as the Dixiecrat (a cousin to the Blue Dog of today). It's interesting to note that the co-author of the bill, a landmark piece of legislation, was a Republican and part of that extinct breed known as the Moderate Republican.

I am really starting to wonder just how our current Republican Party views their party circa 1957. Would people like Hawkins be condemned or ridiculed? With so many Teabaggers voicing rejection of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, would that mean every piece of progressive legislation authored by a Republican in history be viewed as some neo-Socialist sleight of hand?

Is this what they mean by re-writing history?

Since today is Dr. Martin Luther King's Birthday, and since we are also going through an upheaval in our society by way of the Occupy Wall Street Movement, the common thread of Non-violent and peaceful protest is just as relevant now as it was over 50 years ago.

In this debate, which featured Dr. Martin Luther King and Southern writer/editor James J. Kilpatrick over the subject of non-violent protest and the recent lunchcounter demonstrations going on throughout the South, you get some idea of just how entrenched the mind-set of segregation was. The prevailing echo of "what is it you people want?" seems as clear today as it was then. The peaceful use of protest was just as baffling to the power structure then as it is now.

Dr. King: “There are those who would argue that these demonstrations are uncon-
stitutional and that they are illegal. They would go on to argue that they have no
respect for law. But I would say that this is absolutely wrong. The individuals en-
gaged in sit-in demonstrations are revealing the highest respect for law. And they
respect law so much that they want to see all laws just and in line with the moral
law of the universe. They’re willing to suffer and sacrifice in order to square local
custom, customs and local laws with the moral law of the universe. And they are
seeking to square these local laws with the federal Constitution and with what is
the just law of the land.
Therefore, I am sure, I am convinced, that they are just and that they are truly
American, that somehow these sit-in demonstrations send us back to the deep wells
of democracy that were dug by the Founding Fathers of our nation in formulat-
ing the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. And so in sitting down,
these students are in reality standing up for the highest and the best in the Amer-
ican tradition. And I think it is justifiable because it isn’t a selfish movement. It
isn’t based on seeking merely rights for Negroes or seeking to secure those things
that would apply only to one minority group, but they’re seeking to save the soul
of America.
Truly, America faces today a rendezvous with destiny, and I think these students,
through their nonviolent, direct, courageous action have met the challenge of this
destiny-packed moment in a very majestic and sublime way.”

Some things don't change. And some change takes a very long time.

Not just a message to be brought out once a year to honor a man and his work, to be looked at and nodded and put back on the shelf. The concepts Dr. King brought are still fresh and new - the peaceful use of protest is overwhelming in its power and that desperately needs to be remembered every one of these coming days.

The Debate between Dr. Martin Luther King and James J. Kilpatrick, as heard on The Nation's Future from November 26, 1960.

(George Wallace - if he was still alive he'd be making his own teabags)

Someone once told me they could never get enough of listening to George Wallace because everything he said has some ring of insanity to it. I certainly couldn't argue with him there, but I wonder just how he would fit in with the current state of domestic turmoil we appear to be going through. Probably very nicely I suspect.

Here is an interview, an episode of Meet The Press from October 25, 1964 where Wallace as well as Vermont Governor Phillip H. Hoff (D-VT) talk about the upcoming election and how the landscape has changed, with Alabama heading over to the Republican side for the first time and Vermont headed over to the Democrats, also for the first time.

Wallace though, entertains no end.

George Wallace: “I don’t think there’ll ever be in my lifetime any desegregation to the extent that the liberals are talkin’ about. We have token integration in Alabama as a result of the Federal courts, who themselves have arrogated to themselves the right to determine the policy of schools in our state. People now on the Federal Court system run our country, they have even taken over the Congress, they’ve taken over my state. No governor in the country has authority anymore. One Federal judge, appointed for life, runs the schools and runs government in my state. Reapportioned the legislature to decide what district Congressmen can run from. And I don’t think in my lifetime or your lifetime that we’re going to have any total desegregation in any state in the union.”

For his part though, Wallace scrupulously avoids endorsing any candidate for President since he was all too aware his name carried a certain dose of poison along with it.

One aspect of civility and political intelligence our current crop of electoral luminaries fail to recognize.

(All for the sake of dignity and a sandwich)

Hard to imagine that only 48 years ago today, a group of people, black and white, got on buses and rode South, attempting to bring an end to segregation in bus station waiting rooms and lunch counters. In 1961 it was illegal to mix races in social settings in the south - there were separate bathrooms, restaurants, hotels, waiting rooms, beaches. If you grew up during the end of Apartheid in South Africa, and were witness to the sweeping change that took place in the 1990's there, realize that pretty much the same atmosphere prevailed in the South in America in the 1960's. It was a horrific struggle in Alabama and Mississippi in 1961, but it was the turning point in race relations in America. When the first Freedom Riders went into Alabama, they were not greeted as liberators. Rather as agitators, communist inspired - part of some evil plot as the KKK, White Citizens Council, American Nazi Party and countless other hate groups would like to say. Buses were stoned and burned - Freedom Riders were pulled from buses and clubbed, beaten or tossed in jail on a myriad of trumped-up charges.

In response, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy sent Federal Marshals to enforce Civil Rights laws, ensuring safety of the protesters. It drew national attention and continued a struggle that began in the 1950's when the Supreme Court ruled Segregation of Public Schools was illegal. Slowly things began to change, but it was certainly not overnight. 1961 began a new era in the Civil Rights movement and it would be met with waves of violence from hate groups, bent on preserving a society where racism was the norm, a society run on fear and hate, a society doomed to implode on its own ignorance.

A segment of our society which sadly, still exists today.

Here is an NBC News Special recapping the events in Alabama in May 1961 called "Alabama USA" as well as some local (Montgomery Alabama) news reports, all as it was happening.

(Fear and Ignorance: Priceless)