This thread doesn't just show that the filibuster does, in fact, have a considerable "racial history" but that the argument of its defenders -- that it somehow promotes compromise -- is completely wrong.
https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/1374467896840097792
When Southern Democrats filibustered anti-lynching bills in the 1930s, they walked away with a total victory. The bills never became law, and no compromise measures were passed.
The filibusterers won everything they wanted. Their opponents got nothing.
The filibusterers won everything they wanted. Their opponents got nothing.
https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/1096133447628795904
When Southern senators filibustered civil rights bills in the 1960s, they walked away in complete defeat.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 wasn't watered down as a result of their defiance; indeed, it was strengthened.
Liberals got everything they wanted. The filibusterers lost.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 wasn't watered down as a result of their defiance; indeed, it was strengthened.
Liberals got everything they wanted. The filibusterers lost.
These two facts are, of course, related.
Segregationists waged an all-out campaign of "massive resistance" against civil rights in these years, and they refused to make *any* compromise at all with the forces of integration.
Which is exactly why they relied on the filibuster.
Segregationists waged an all-out campaign of "massive resistance" against civil rights in these years, and they refused to make *any* compromise at all with the forces of integration.
Which is exactly why they relied on the filibuster.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
