When Democratic Senator Robert Byrd was serving as a Grand Keagle in the KKK?

Question

Do you think that he felt that his service to such a fine organization would help his political ambitions.

Hmm, Do you think it's more likely you get promoted to one of the highest positions in the KKK by:

[ ] lending disadvantaged people in the comunity a helping hand

or

[ ] by lending your klan buddies an nice long rope so they can "help" the disadvantaged people in the community?

Answer 1

You've got it backwards. It was his service to the KKK that got the Democrats interested in him. He would have been happy staying where he was.

Answer 2

Byrd has since apologized for his membership in the KKK. I don't think anyone can completely excuse membership in such a subversive, divisive, offensive organization. But other prominent, former members of Congress, while not members of the KKK, were just as divisive politically, including Democrat Fritz Hollings (SC) and the late Senator Strom Thurmond (an ex-Democrat-turned Republican also from SC)- both of whom directly opposed integration while holding state offices.

Some peple will argue, perhaps with some veracity, that context matters. After all, in the 1950s and 1960s you couldn't be elected to office in the South as a desegregationist. And, for a while, you couldn't be elected as a Republican- that is until the parties "flipped" and the Democrats became the "good guys" as far as courting the African-American vote. But it is hard to claim that, even with the naivete and latent racism of the era, that grown men like Byrd, Hollings, or Thurmond didn't know what they were doing. NAZI concentration camp guards used the claim of "context" (and "following orders") as excuses at Nuremberg. To some extent context does matter, but grown men do know better. These politicians weren't forced to join the KKK or to promote segregation. They did it consciously and willingly, which is all the more disturbing.

A secondary, but minor, claim made by ex-KKK members is that a long time ago, the KKK was not just about lynchings and anti-black violence, but that it was also a non-profit of sorts, aimed at helping poor white people. Whatever benefits that were had by those poor whites pale in comparison to the atrocities committed by that heinous organization. Bottom line: contextual excuses have some validity to them, but they fall far short of exculpating former clansmen like Byrd and his ilk.

Answer 3

You have to realize, those were very different times. What we understand now was very, very wrong was the norm at the time.

Would you condemn everyone who ever sat back and said nothing during segregation? Sure we know it's wrong now, but how many people never spoke up and said anything when minorities were being sent to the back of the bus or forced to use separate water fountains.

It's a good thing liberals were around to change all that.

Answer 4

I think bombing the world is worse than the KKK (Repubs lose)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/katrina/story/0,,1797513,00.html


And why did the Republicans vote against freeing Mandela or against apartheid??

Answer 5

I think he might have thought that way, but it's more likely that he was a mindless, racist white supremist, in those days. Just like the people in Ruby Ridge.