Eleanor Roosevelt had to be the champion in the fight to make lynching a federal crime.
She was dismayed that FDR would NOT fight to stop lynching.
Eleanor made the fight against lynching one of her top priorities. She succeeded with little help from FDR.
Does this make Dems proud? Or do they try to forget the bad things of their "heros"?
Eleanor had to travel the country fighting for years in order to pass this law.
"In March 1936, Eleanor wrote a 'personal and confidential' letter to NAACP Executive Secretary Walter Francis White expressing dismay that the atrocity of lynching would not be addressed by the Congress or the president:"
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/oct11.html
2007-03-27 00:30:22 · 12 answers · asked by junglejoe 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Do libs know enough history to even know who FDR is? If they did would they even care. I think black history is the only history class they go to so they will not feel as guilty.
2007-03-27 00:48:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Democrats do not "proudly ignore" lynching. Unfortunately, lynching continued in the U.S. until about 1954. Many of the questions here are repeats, but this one is not. Most of us were not born when Roosevelt was president and the facts in your question are new to me. While it's shameful, at least one prominent Democrat--Eleanor Roosevelt--spoke out against it. It took until President Truman's administration to integrate our Armed Services. But to expect Democrats today to be knowledgeable about events that happened 72 years ago does not equate to ignoring them. There's also a great fundamental unfairness about your question. How far back in history are any of us supposed to go to search for issues we should feel guilty about? Did Republicans rush forward to condemn lynching when Billie Holiday sang "Strange Fruit'? Is it President Eisenhower's fault the Civil Rights movement didn't start a decade earlier? Did the Supreme Court fail in its duty by not using a crystal ball to know that "separate but equal" would not work? Do you want us to search our historic consciousness to find issues the political parties ignored generations ago? I think we have enough problems in 2008 to fix rather than agonizing over problems that were not fixed in the 1930's? Who fought for Prohibition? Who foresaw that Probation would give rise to gangsters like Al Capone? Who first decided baseball should be integrated? Come on--stick to issues we can solve. There's plenty.
2007-03-27 00:49:32 · answer #2 · answered by David M 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't understand the point of this question. Maybe its meant to be a red herring? I am hardly upset at something that happened generations ago. Why weren't Republicans more upset about the Credit Mobelier scandal during Grant's administration ? Republican crooks made millions at the expense of the intercontinental railroad in 1867- 1869 . You will note that the Democrats in the south were conservative for the most part and more akin with the Republicans of today.
2007-03-27 00:38:41 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sure...proud of Eleanor. She took a stand and never wavered.
FDR was an imperfect man, but he served this nation well through some of its darkest days. We emerged a stronger nation and to this day we benefit from his legacy.
Just drive around state and national parks today. Most of the infrastructure dates back the WPA and CCC efforts. Sadly, our government has basically done nothing since that time.
2007-03-27 00:34:31 · answer #4 · answered by KERMIT M 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Meany and FDR have been stable a pair of lot of subject concerns, yet no longer each and each element. workers of government are workers additionally. Their stable to verify and signify themselves should not be infringed on the inspiration of a susceptible diagnosis touching directly to income. workers do no longer artwork for unfastened and hence wages and advantages are consistently an argument. Collective bargaining is the optimum effective thank you to signify those pastimes of workers.
2016-12-15 09:55:24 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As a Democrat, I am not proud of the civilright history of my party before the war. But the Southern Democrats you allude to are now Republicans. Strom Thurmond, for one, was a prominent Democrat until 1948.
2007-03-27 00:35:09 · answer #6 · answered by Matthew P 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There were a lot of Presidents, that could careless about opprossed minorities in this nation.
The list is huge, and yes FDR was one of them. So was Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, US Grant, etc.
It was another time, a sad time from the past.
2007-03-27 00:34:39 · answer #7 · answered by Villain 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is precisely my complaint against Politicians of all shades.. They are a disgrace and have no morality except for the search for votes. Anyone who places their faith in Politicians and or Party politics deserve the disappointment that will come their way.
2007-03-27 00:52:36 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lets pretend for a moment that your interpretation of history is correct. What did republican presidents do to stop lynching?
2007-03-27 00:45:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am a republican, and I agree with FDR.
Lynching is murder and all states had laws against murder so what is the point of adding federal red tape to something that is already covered ?
2007-03-27 00:43:10 · answer #10 · answered by snowball45830 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋