Talk:Dixiecrat/Archive 1

Untitled
Where did this line come from?

"When the Democrats pushed for civil rights, the Republicans reaped the political benefits of a Southern white backlash."

The 1964 Civil Rights Act had stronger support by the Republicans in Congress then from the Democrats.

68.194.209.63 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that in every vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there are more Democratic ayes than Republican, despite the resistance (and filibuster) of a large number of Southern Democrats. Breakouts by region prove this unusual resistance. , , or simply see .  Can you source your statement?  130.126.126.184 (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

could some other people help expand this topic?
signed CD (February 28, 2005)


 * what exactly would you like to see? it seems to have most of the relevant facts. Drewish 13:38, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)

I want to compile a list of every person who walked out of the 1948 DNC.

signed CD


 * Is anyone stopping you? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:04, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

No one is stoping me but I have a limit to how much work I can do and the internet seems to have limited information on this topic.

signed CD


 * Sounds like time to go to the library, if you are the one who thinks this should be done. The Internet won't have any more information for someone else than it does for you. Newspapers from the time are probably what you need. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:54, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Hi all, I changed some stuff around in the Notable Members and Later Elections area. It sounded like someone was trying to rewrite history by saying most went to the republican party. Not true! The major players remained Democratic and served multiple terms as did the 2 Republicans. These guys had MAJOR political careers. They had power and influence some of our term-limited Senators wished they had right now.

As far as getting an actual list of walkouts - good luck, even in a library... I've come to the conclusion that the walk out created a chaotic mess and no one knew who was doing what, where, when or why... You'll have to sit through hours of reading old print material to catch just a brief mention of somebody so obscure that they're not worth mentioning anyway. The heavy hitters are the US Senators on the list.

thedrez

Thanks Jmabel for catching "Democrat Party" ===> "Democratic Party" - - - don't know what I was thinking, but "Democratic" looked wrong at the time I was writing it. BTW, I used US Senate records on most of these Senators - - where do you suggest I put "reference links" to the sites used to obtain this information. thedrez 15may05


 * Add a references section at the bottom of the article (see Cite sources for explanations of appropriate citation). You'll have to use your judgment on how best to indicate what you got from where, since conventional footnoting would probably be excessive. If you used a variety of sources, you might look at RINO as a model. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:23, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Fulbright
I notice that William Fulbright was removed from the list recently, anonymously, and without comment. He was certainly a segregationist senator in 1948. I don't know who he supported in the presidential election that year. Our article on him should say, but it doesn't. I'm not restoring, because I'm not sure, but someone should probably look into this. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:47, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Noted! Agree that he seems to have been a signer of Southern Manifesto, but I didn't find any info about affiliation with the Dixiecrats. I'm still looking. thedrez

"Became unelectable"
What is with these edits by Grazon. What is "became unelectable" supposed to mean, in encyclopedic terms? Politicians lose elections, but "unelectable" is a POV judgment. And "changed" is even more debatable as added here. I think this should be reverted, but I'll give at least 24 hours for someone else to weigh in.

Also is "thirty-five conservative delegates from Mississippi and Alabama" really right? Certainly "thirty-five segregationist delegates&hellip;", but in the South at that time, that did not necessarily neatly line up with conservatism in other senses. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. The edits should be reverted b/c they are POV.--Alabamaboy 12:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting my mistake. I didn't edit them the way I meant to. Best, --Alabamaboy 00:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Dixiecrat Label
Another classic example of Wikipedia posters trying to write history to their worldview. No reputable political scientists or research uses the Dixiecrat label any longer as this article suggests. Good grief. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.219.61.10 (talk • contribs) 13 June 2006.


 * I agree that this label is somewhat dated and now is mostly used as an insult. Jon 21:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And indeed, the article suggest nothing about current politicians. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  12:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Senator Byrd isn't (any longer) a Dixiecrat
While (current) Senator Byrd of West Virginia may well have been a Dixiecrat early in his Senate Career, his voting record in the past two decades are way too liberal to be considered a Dixiecrat. Jon 21:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, really, no one is a Dixiecrat today. It's mainly a historical term. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So, why is there a list of relatively recent pols listed as Dixiecrats? Biggest hoot is Jesse Helms.  He was a Republican for crying out loud.  Looks like Stephen Colbert was right about you people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.152.125.33 (talk • contribs) 20 August 2006.
 * Helms was quite literally a Dixiecrat. He started out as a Democrat and worked for Richard Russell, Jr.'s 1952 presidential campaign. You can't get a lot more Dixiecrat than that. He only became a Republican in 1970. - Jmabel | Talk 06:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Supremacist
Some anon keeps removing white supremacist from the lead. The party were rather overtly supremacist: that was exactly why they left the national Democratic Party. The article completely lacks a citation apparatus, but one of the many places this could be cited from is Zachary Karabell, How Harry Truman Won the 1948 Election, Random House (2001) ISBN 978-0-375-70077-4. - Jmabel | Talk 07:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * While an argument could be made for them being racist, I would not make that the very first sentence of the article.  It makes them sound like a synonym for the KKK and that white supremacy is their one special issue to the exclusion of all others.  To quickly label the party with a zippy one-liner without considering the historical context is to prove the detractors of wikipedia absolutely right. Additionally you should realize that the history of the party does not start when they walk out of the democratic national convention.  More importantly, the dixiecrats left the democratic party because it had changed from its initial form to a degree that the republican party was closer to southern democrats than the northern democrats were.  Southern democrats would not support the republicans because of the bitter memory of radical reconstruction.  Hence, the unwillingness to vote for anything named republican.

Pjanini1 23:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not terribly interested in whether it is in the lead, but it certainly belongs in the article. It was pretty central to their politics. - Jmabel | Talk 20:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

White Supremacy was the entire reason for this political party, although they were never overtly affiliated with the KKK. If you can't say the Dixiecrats were White Supremacists, then you can't say the Nazis were anti-Semitic -- both are simple statements of fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.67.2 (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay if you use your backwards logic then the Islamic / Muslim religion should be amended to read anti-Semitic. I hate it when you yankees or Confederate haters rope every single Confederate into the KKK - White Supremacy group. Sure they had members of the KKK in their short lived party, but correct me if I'm wrong didn't every political party back in that day? Heck only 20 years before the Dixiecrats the freaking President was a member of the KKK, does that mean that his party supported White Supremacy too? -[User:Dixieparty|Dixieparty]] (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is a presiding example why Wikipedia is not, and should never be, considered an authoritative source on anything political, especially anything right-of-center. If the States' Rights Democrats were white supremacists, then so was the entire Democrat Party of the time. In fact, I believe that the labelling of a legitimate political party as "white supremacist" in BIG EMPHASIZED INFO-BOXES is a propaganda move done by the subtle leftism that dominates all politically charged Wikipedia articles that exist..


 * As the gentleman before me pointed out, the fact that Klansmen existed in the Dixiecrat candidacy does not make the entire body a white supremacist movement. The stated goal of the States' Rights Democratic Party was not solely segregation. The Dixiecrat goal that was reiterated over and over again was an extremist interpretation of the Tenth Amendment that prevented federal intervention and dictation over the states, including but not limited to racial segregation.


 * The Dixiecrats declared that racial segregation, anti-miscegnation laws, and other unfortunate, dark aspects of America's past had a right to exist in what was supposed to be an union consisting of individual sovereign states. In other words, the states had the right to enforce segregation if they so chose. There are ten articles adopted by the Dixiecrats, but only one is mentioned in the article. Guess which one that was?


 * While undoubtedly in favor of segregation, by their own admission, the primary goal of the States' Rights Democratic Party was to preserve an originalist, and extremist, interpretation of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which would protect not only Jim Crow, but the autonomy and sovereignty of the states that the federal government would go on to further and further destroy.


 * We shouldn't deny the obvious and full-throated endorsement of segregation, but to declare that a single argument from a larger charter means their only purpose was white supremacism is ridiculous. In that very article, notice the structure of the sentence and the catch at the end: We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, [and] the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed civil rights program.


 * --2602:306:39D6:CBA0:C879:E58B:DDBA:107E (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The split coincided immediately with the Democratic party voting to adopt Humphrey's civil rights plank into its official platform. If the entire party was opposed to adopting a civil rights platform, surely the vote would have gone otherwise. Also, I question your assertions that the Dixiecrats were a "legitimate political party", and that opposition to civil rights must necessarily be a hallmark of "right-of-center" politics. --Dystopos (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Re-write
I suggested the re-write because the article is simply incorrect. The Dixiecrat movement was very temporary and not an event that lasted the rest of the 20th century. Some of the people listed were not Dixiecrats at all. This article has the sound/tone of 6th graders wanting to make some perception reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.72.247 (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is well-sourced, and clarifies how the Dixiecrat movement led to the dissolution of the "Solid South" and the creation of the modern-day Republican and Democratic party alignments. There's nothing of substance there that needs rewriting. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

External Link
Hello, there is an external link here, http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.jsp?id=h-1477, that might be useful.

Thanks,

Justin --Duboiju (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

conservative dixiecrats
Take a google book search, JSTOR search, scholar search... you name it. All of them will confirm that the Dixiecrats were socially conservative. BillMasen (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Highly suspicious. Dixiecrats were Democrats (the left-wing party), not Republicans (the right-wing party). Do you honestly think that political parties/politicians which are Left-wing are incapable of racism? What about Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pots, and Guevara? Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, and he fought against Democrats to end slavery. Correct historical context would place Dixiecrats as left-wing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.225.214.82 (talk • contribs)
 * You are displaying your deep and utter ignorance here. The Dixiecrats' whole complaint was that there were people to their left taking over the Democratic Party, and that old-fashioned racism and social conservatism was no longer as welcome there as it had been. (And there were lots of Democrats backing the Union, as you would know if you read a book now and then: see our articles such as War Democrat and National Union Party (United States).) -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  01:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Portmanteau?
"The term Dixiecrat is a portmanteau of Dixie, referring to the Southern United States, and Democrat, referring to the United States Democratic Party." is a silly claim. -crat part has nothing to do with "Democrat". See Plutocrat, Aristocrat, 1000's of them! -crat comes from Greek "power", nothing more. Can someone please fix this? Netrat (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is itself a silly claim. "Dixiecrat" would be meaningless in Greek. The word was an obvious portmanteau term for renegade DIXIE DemoCRATS, and had nothing to do with the ultimate etymology of the word "democrat". If somebody had been trying to create a neologism from Greek roots, they would have had to go with the Classical Greek word for Southern, which is νότιος (notios); so a believer in "Southern Power" would be a "notiocrat". -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

American Independent Party
In 1964 the South split three ways between Humphrey the Democrat (with a base in the black vote), Richard Nixon the Republican (with a base among middle class whites), and Wallace the [[ independent (with a base in rural areas and the Deep South). ticket, and swept the electoral votes of the Deep South. With Wallace gone the American Independent Party failed to keep its foothold in the South. Its 1972 candidate was Congressman John G. Schmitz from California, whose strongest showing was 10% in Idaho, but who did poorly in the South. Subsequent southern Dixiecrats running on the American Independent Party ticket included Lester Maddox and John Rarick, but these campaigns did not succeed either.

1. the three way split between Nixon / Humphrey / Wallace happened in 1968 not 1964.

2. Most who voted for Humphrey were white and his base was comprised of Johnson supporters, to the chagrin of the more liberal delegates pledged to Eugene McCarthy and Robert F. Kennedy. So what?

3. The AIP after Wallace was a sorry collection of random racists. You might as well talk about Reagan's relationship with the AIP in his failed bid for the 1976 GOP nomination. Reagan was not a Dixiecrat, but many of the haters who voted for Dixiecrat and AIP nominees also voted for Reagan. Again, so what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrBakerFineShoeMaker (talk • contribs) 04:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. corrected. 2. wrong. HHH won about 10% of the white Southern vote, and 2/3 of his vote in the region was black.[Gould p 165 and  White p 401] . so what: a big deal = end of the Democratic Solid South, making national victory very difficult. 3. reads like hate-filled POV is not limigted to Wallace voters. Rjensen (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of your comments are sound, Rjensen; but I think that the point about Wallace "Dixiecrats" becoming Reagan supporters is a valid one, not "hate-filled". It certainly matches everything I saw in the South in that era. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this article should acknowledge that Truman won because of the black vote which helped to lessen some of the split created by the Dixiecrats. It clarifies how he could win when the Democratic vote was so split. Also some of this conversation about whether or not the Dixicrats had a racist agenda seems like an attempt to apologize for, excuse or rationalize their agenda. Make no mistake, they were the most vehement supporters of legalized segregation, which was textbook racism. And there is an association with the Reagan Republicans as verified by his campaign, which was launched from Philadelphia, Mississippi, the scene of the horrible murder of three civil rights workers. The campaign itself drew the correlation. Let's not be coy about the role that racism played in this history. It is silly and breeds inaccuracy.````` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atom999 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction
Consider (1948 presidential election, first paragraph):


 * To this end Dixiecrat leaders worked to have Thurmond-Wright declared the official Democratic Party ticket in Southern states. They succeeded only in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina.

But later (same section, 4th paragraph:


 * On election day 1948, the Thurmond-Wright ticket carried the previously solid Democratic states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina, as well as Alabama (whose Democratic party refused to recognize the Truman-Barkley ticket and had Thurmond on the ballot as its nominee)

Which is correct? Jon kare (talk) 10:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * both. Rjensen (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you elaborate? Doesn't one paragraph say that Thurmond was the official Democratic candidate in four states, the other that he was in only one? How am I reading this wrong? Jon kare (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * it names the 4 states where it was listed as the Dem ticket. Rjensen (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Where did the list of Dixiecrats go?
There was a long list of the Dixiecrats in this article and it has been deleted. Why was it deleted? I have the list and I think it should be added back in. It is here http://jacksonville.com/interact/blog/stanley_scott/2009-05-11/dixiecrat_-_the_states_rights_democratic_party and I believe that site copied it from Wikipedia. I believe the truth about how many Dixiecrats switched to the Republican party can be determined with that list. Is that why it was deleted? Robert Smith 1956 (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It was deleted in February of 2010, as it was grossly incomplete and almost completely unsourced. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Orangemike. I also checked some of the names--most were NOT Dixicrats. So the list if full of false names. (very few of the names listed switched to the GOP as I recall--apart from Thurmond himself.) Rjensen (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I somewhate regretted the loss of the list; but it would be a doctoral-level research project to compile an accurate sourced list of them, and a separate one to compile a list of those from that list who eventually migrated to the Reps. Given that we often don't even have articles, on (for example) the Speakers of the House of most of the state legislatures of that era, I'm not sure that this is where I'd like to spend my research time. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is no one willing to identify and/or enumerate the Dixiecrats? I read in several places that "many Dixiecrats" joined the Republican party. How many? I can only count two Congressional Dixiecrats that switched parties, Jesse Helms who switched in 1970 and Strom Thurmond who switched 1964. The rest returned to the Democratic party and remained there. The term "nearly all" in this article is weasel wording http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word and needs to be corrected if the article is to be accurate. Robert Smith 1956 (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be more accurate to say that the Dixiecrat voters and their heirs gradually became the Southern Republican voters of the 1964 and later era. Many of the 1948 Dixiecrat officeholders were dead by the time of Nixon's Southern Strategy of 1968, but the ideological lineage is easy to trace. -- Orange Mike   &#x007C;   Talk  20:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Felidahouse, 8 August 2011
Can someone please fix the misspelling of "Soldi South" to "Solid South"?

Thanks, Felida

Felidahouse (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Done-- Jac 16888 Talk 14:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 October 2013
Add Dixiecrat to Category:Right-wing populism

68.81.75.121 (talk) 04:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2014
Add political position as right-wing.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/166817/Dixiecrat

I also think it's a little odd we don't mention them as conservatives since in other articles we bring it up, such as the article on conservative democrats and the timeline of american conservatism.

Clothcoat (talk) 06:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Seems to be mentioned here, albeit not very boldly.

The term "Dixiecrat" is sometimes used by Northern Democrats to refer to conservative Southern Democrats from the 1940s to the 1990s, regardless of where they stood in 1948.[4] Cannolis (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

"Far-Right"
In its day, the SRDP held mainstream positions by southern standards and attracted a large plurality in the North (as evidenced by the success of George Wallace), while it is fair to call them right-wing it would be out of context to use the term far-right. Moore2012 - July 8, 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 02:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say far left would be more accurate. These were the extremist wing of the Democratic party. This kind of discrimination and xenophobia is typical of communist political parties. 204.225.214.82 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

This is the correct interpretation. The current page only tries to put far left policy/belief on the right side of the political spectrum, much like Nazism exists on the left, but people say it's only on the right. Camtasty (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No. "Far left" would be entirely inaccurate. This was the right wing of the Democratic party that broke off. They were the ones using the term "communist" to label the liberal faction that triggered their split from the party. And Nazism is not something that "exists on the left." Learn history before speaking about it. --Dystopos (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Split
The term "Dixiecrat" has a long history and is not always immediately associated with the States' Rights Democratic Party. Because of this, I think the term and the short-lived political party should have separate articles. Charles Essie (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Right-wing to Far-right
I think the party in question should be marked "Right-wing to far-right." I think we should take into account that racism was very extreme in the early and mid-20th century before the civil rights movement and that it was a time when it was taken for granted. In the early 20th century, imperialism and racism were socially pervasive, if not far-right. (Ex. Theodore Roosevelt for example, made many racist remarks about Koreans and they are clearly extreme right by modern standards, but we do not call Theodore Roosevelt extreme right.)--삭은사과 (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2020
The “Dixicrats” are not far right, it’s far left politically. If they broke from the democrats and remerged with the democrats, that makes them democrats and thus left wing, not right. 2600:8800:2201:35A0:80CE:1F27:6543:F9A1 (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Page Name
Why is this page titled "Dixiecrat" if it's the specific page for the States Rights Democratic Party of 1948. Shouldn't the page title be something like "The States Rights Democratic Party". In academic discourse this party is often referred to for short as the States' Rights Party, sometimes also the segregationist party/ticket or and even the Dixiecrat Party, though i've seen the later term used to describe Wallace's third party runs as well which brings me to, the expression Dixiecrat is a term broadly used for Southern White Democrats; often but not always the term additionally includes either more conservative than other Democrats and/or supportive of JimCrow or other racist policies. Members of the party are often called "Dixiecrats" for short but its a far from ubiquitous label and even farther from exclusive. It is actually rare to hear of a politician being called a Dixiecrat and actually be a member of this party-whose candidates seem to be more often than not labeled "the segregationist candidates" as well. The term pre-dates this incredibly short lived party and although most of its leading supporters returned to the Democratic Party after 1948, many, most notably Strom Thurmond, did not. The expression Dixiecrat can yes be used to refer to this party's supporters but is far from the proper title for the encyclopedic page about this party. Nicknames in are unwise titles for encyclopedic articles in general but especially for incorporated political organizations. I propose that the Page be re-titled accordingly, going forward the page can perhaps auto-directed from or be included as an option on the disambiguation for "Dixiecrat". OgamD218 (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Dixiecrat is the more WP:COMMONNAME. Please use WP:RM if you would like to propose a move. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 06:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rhododendrites for restoring. I agree that the current title is preferable, as the common name. --JBL (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Rhododendrites, JBL, Dixiecrat is more commonly used simply because the term is easier for lay people to remember-that doesn't mean it belongs as an encyclopedia title. It would be different if the 'Dixiecrat' was exclusively used in reference to the States' Rights Democratic Party but that is not even close to the case; the word is not even usually used in reference to the States' Rights Democratic Party. Dixiecrat is essentially slang, a loosely definable term that generally means a southern white democrat that was politically conservative and/or opposed to the civil rights movement. Those often called Dixiecrat include politicians spanning decades and not just the year 1948. George McGovern's third party runs and supporters are regularly called Dixiecrats as well and discussed much more regularly, as are the bloc of white southern democrats who filibustered civil rights legislation. An encyclopedia should not be using an ambiguous nickname as a the page title for to a serious entity such as a political party. OgamD218 (talk) 09:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME means that we do typically use the easier term -- whichever is most commonly used. If there's sufficient ambiguity, there's a valid conversation to be had. I'd certainly be curious to see sources that call George McGovern (or his supporters) dixiecrats, for example. But if you use the process outlined at WP:RM, it will attract additional opinions to this thread. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Rhododendrites Fair enough, you do seem more familiar with policy on this and I can't deny that "Dixiecrat" is the term most often used for the SRDP. I still feel there is something inherently flawed in using a fairly ambiguous nickname as the title for a political party's page. (Also, I meant to say George *Wallace-I too would certainly be curious to see sources calling George McGovern a Dixiecrat.) OgamD218 (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If there were an article about the general phenomenon of conservative Southern Democrats, there would be a live question of which content should be at this title. But I do not believe we have such an article.  And the introduction to this article is pretty clear about what its topic is, and why. --JBL (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ogam, you're challenging WP:COMMONNAME, a rule we've used fairly successfully for a couple of decades now. Like WP:ENGVAR, I think it's one of our endearing traits. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  01:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2021
The party was Democrat and not Republican. Please update to reflect. 73.31.232.50 (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read the article. --JBL (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Origin of the term Dixiecrat
It is believed the term Dixiecrat was coined by Howard Brubaker(1882-1957). Please research. This information is relevant.208.95.80.189 (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Westport Town Crier And Herald Archives, Feb 7, 1957, p. 2https://newspaperarchive.com › ... › 1957 › February 07 He is credited with coining the term “Dixiecrat” to characterize the bolting ... —(Photo by Peter von Schmidt) COLUMNIST HOWARD BRUBAKER in a portrait done ...

Clarion-Ledger from Jackson, Mississippi on February 11, 1957 ...https://www.newspapers.com › newspage ... as "Dixiecrats", Mississippians have some slight interest in the recent death of the man credited with coining that word. He was Howard Brubaker, ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.95.80.189 (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Political orientation of Dixiecrats
Stop calling it a "conservative offshoot", the intention is obvious. Let's understand history as it was, not how the liberal media monopoly wants it rewritten. 166.182.253.157 (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please explain your statement, which makes no suggestions for improvement but merely tosses a slur and walks away. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  17:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't know liberals were fond of the "stainless banner" and opposed racial integration...We might need some sources for that. DN (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Remove unsourced claim
No citation exists for dixiecrats being "far right". Follow wiki's rules, please. 107.77.241.39 (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Read the references. The entire point of the Dixiecrat movement was to advocate for far-right racial and social policies. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  01:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No citations for it being far left either...shocking. DN (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

white nationalism
Full transparency, I have reached out to editors on that article to get some opinions as to whether or not Dixiecrats might fall into that category as well. I tried to be as neutral and unbiased in my question as possible. DN (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

If far-right, please cite source
Seems like the wiki page is promoting a false hood. In these polarized times one might forget there is a such thing as a conservative Democrat. How is the Dixiecrats of the south labeled far right, unless trying to skew facts?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Democrat

Should be edited to say Centre to center-right. Not Far-Right.

If a conservative Democrats isn't far right. Then the Dixiecrats weren't either.

Not far right. It's obvious that's a far stretch. 98.186.218.242 (talk) 05:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * We say what sources say. We do not use original research for very good reasons. Please at least look at the citations and the evidence already presented in the article and here Far-right politics...DN (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * IP is actually correct in one sense, which is that far right isn't sourced anywhere in the article. I've added a CN tag because of this. Toa Nidhiki05 19:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It has been removed because it is not appropriate. The Dixiecrats fall into the far-right political spectrum as it is currently defined and does not necessarily require a citation saying as much, as the party is now defunct. The history of their political beliefs is all that's left of them, and it is clear what their political beliefs were. DN (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If it’s so obvious, find a citation and add it. Shouldn’t be too hard, right? WP:NEEDCITE advises to find citations, even if you personally think it’s unnecessary. Toa Nidhiki05 21:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NEEDCITE is a great page, it has helpful gems like A "citation needed" tag is ... never, in itself, an "improvement" of an article and If a statement sounds plausible, and is consistent with other statements in the article, but you doubt that it is totally accurate, then consider making a reasonable effort to find a reference yourself. In the process, you may end up confirming that the statement needs to be edited or deleted to better reflect the best knowledge about the topic. -- JBL (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I will humor the dissent here with a few citations and notes...Britannica Strom Thurmond was a dem, then a dixiecrat, then finally a republican (which aligns with far right) mostly because he opposed civil-rights . A more recent academic source may include John S. Huntington who is a history professor at Houston Community College. He earned his Ph.D. in History from the University of Houston in 2016, and earned a B.A. and M.A. in History from Texas Tech University in 2009 and 2006, respectively....Toa...see above...DN (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the 'I'll humor dissent here' was a bit bitey, don't you, DN? Maybe try to avoid doing that; we're looking for solutions here, not a way to build a better flame war. What we need here is not Synthesis, wherein you interpret what the sources are saying between the lines. Sometimes we can get away with that, but if there is any sort of dissent, the sources become key. Thus, they must be Reliable and they must explicitly support, word-for-word the statement it is tied to. Without sourcing, pigeon-holing Dixecrats as 'far-right' is opinion. To my mind, they weren't about right or left, but of a specific mindset about race, but that is my opinion. I can't add it into the article without explicit sourcing, as it would almost immediately be challenged. For the same reason, I again removed the html interview article, because it did not explicitly state how Democrats n general pejoratively referred to Southern Democrats as Dixiecrats. It is clear to me that you want this material in; to do so, you're going to need really solid sources. At present, you don't have those. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "I think the 'I'll humor dissent here' was a bit bitey"...That's your perspective, and hardly on topic at that, so what I will point out to you is that even mentioning that kind of thing here, as opposed to my talk page, is very concerning. I will leave it at "I disagree" for now. Point one, your response here is not indicative of WP:AGF, making personal criticisms and playing the victim card doesn't work here, so I'll give you some time to consider that. Point 2, your revert is also not indicative of AGF, and you have presented no evidence or explanation to the contrary (edit) ONLY YOUR "OPINION". Point 3, explicit in-line citations are not required for inclusion of related topics in the info box AFAIK. Even so, I quoted the "overlap of white nationalism with white supremacy and racial segregation" which explains why this needs to be included and you seem to be ignoring that for some reason. I have other things to do IRL ATM, but I will happily continue this convo later. DN (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * DN contacted me via my user-talk page to discuss how I might have addressed their posting on their page instead of here; I pointed out that since the comment seemed to address any content that differed from theirs, I had made the assumption that it was intended for the wider audience of the talk page contributors, and not a specific editor. As this wasn't the best example of AGF, I let DN know that, moving forward, if I see problematic edits, I'll ask the user what their intent was before acting on it.
 * DN, the correct usage of sources is to quell dissent, not add to it. Your comments make assumptions about the source material that are not explicitly made within the source material. The combining of several statements within a source to make a claim not espoused within the source material is Synthesis; it isn't allowed here within Wikipedia, as editors are not presumed to be notable enough to add their interpretation of sources.
 * The reason why we set a higher bar here - the explicit-ness of comments culled from the source material - is to ensure that we are gleaning the actual content of the RS, and not what we wish the source material said. The explicitness of the source becomes ever more important when there is dissent between editors during the revision process. If editors are taking away a different interpretation of a source you provide, it is beholden upon you - as the person who added it - to either provide a more explicit source or defend that source's adequacy to a consensus of the editors working the page. Since consensus has the 'escape hatch' of being allowed to change over time, allowing for a new consensus to form, this limits the efficacy of non-explicit sources. This is why I always opt for explicit sources where dissent is likely to occur, or where AGF is tested by an assumption that the editor is augmenting a weaker source with wishful thinking. Explicit sources allow for more collaborative editing; a RS that says Dixiecrats were no-account racist losers (or words to that general effect) doesn't really allow for dissent, right? Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Jack Sebastian Did you not notice the citations I listed above? Surely you are familiar with the political spectrum but maybe not where Dixiecrats political positions land on that spectrum. The source regarding PhD John S Huntington's work is also clear... "Southern Democrats formed their own far-right splinter faction, the States’ Rights Democratic Party, better known as the Dixiecrats, which became a third-party vehicle for opposing President Harry S. Truman, integration and modern liberalism in general."...I feel that should meet the "explicit" standards you are requesting. DN (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC) Here's another source if needed (WAPO), sorry if you get a paywall, but it basically says the same thing. DN (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The Dixiecrats were white supremacists and racial segregationists. This alone puts them in the Far Right of the political spectrum. DN (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I am not saying your sources are not good, DN; I am saying that they do not explicitly say what you are indicating via the article. One voice does not create the truth; several, differing voices stating the same thing is in fact the fundamental requirement of objective truth. Philosophy aside, you have provided one person [via two sources] stating an evaluation. Since you are clearly noticing a certain level of pushback on the statements based on those sources, the clear solution is to find OTHER VOICES that are equally reliable, equally explicit, and yet completely unrelated. This method - and only by this method - is how you create rock-solid, incontrovertible fact. It is important to distinguish cold hard fact from opinion, now more than ever. I am sure you must see this as more than just a political issue but a moral one as well. We must be better than those who would create 'alternative facts' to perpetuate lies.
 * And again, your statement classifying Dixiecrats as white supremacists and racial segregationists - without explicit sourcing - can only be viewed as opinion. We cannot use your opinion, DN - even if it is spot-on. It must be stated by more than one reliable source; if done correctly, it can never be challenged. That is how articles progress from problematic back and forth to GA and, ultimately, FA. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Jack Sebastian "your statement classifying Dixiecrats as white supremacists and racial segregationists - without explicit sourcing - can only be viewed as opinion..."...What? I am starting to wonder if you have actually even read the article itself. Dixiecrats were incontrovertibly white supremacist and pro segregation. Why do you think the KKK is mentioned? Are you at all familiar with Far-right politics? That's where groups with racist political beliefs fall. Politically, that's main vein where Dixiecrats fit the criteria for Far Right. "I am saying that they do not explicitly say what you are indicating via the article" - Are you feeling OK? I just provided you with a citation from a reliable source that EXPLICITLY stated, by a PhD that teaches history, that it was a Far-Right faction. To quote the source one last time, it EXPLICITLY says..."Southern Democrats formed their own far-right splinter faction, the States’ Rights Democratic Party, better known as the Dixiecrats"...It doesn't get much more explicit.... I have also added it to the article under the background section. If you want to prove that this particular academic is actually an outlier among other academics on this particular fact, that's your prerogative, not mine. Academics don't normally go against the grain in the way you are suggesting. You also have provided no evidence that supports he is an outlier in your response. You have also not provided any citations or evidence stating explicitly that Dixiecrats are NOT far right, or that they are far-left, by a majority of academics. So far that makes your claim WP:OR for the time being...I'm pretty sure that will be difficult to prove since that would be incorrect...Sure, I can find more citations that back this up but you may want to seriously consider whether you may be unintentionally Moving the goalposts around at this point. First you say there are no citations, then when I give you one, you say I need more sources...Do you see the pattern? DN (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Another citation (regarding racism and Dixiecrats) from a different academic, Jeff Kolnick, who teaches history at Southwest Minnesota State University..."Led by South Carolina Gov. Strom Thurmond, the Dixiecrats' platform left no doubt about where they stood: "We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race."...DN (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It seems a bit more nuanced than these labels. This source says some of them were Progressives, but it also says ...people would later say that Wallace and the Progressives would make the far Left of American politics while Thurmond and the Dixiecrats marked the far Right, in certain important ways they were closer to each other politically...". Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * While there may have been "some" progressives, overwhelmingly the faction was segregationist and conservative. DN (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

With respect,, the list of random citations that don't have anything to do with the claim here is not needed. Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 02:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate that, but the explicit citations, along with the in-explicit citations, are all in consensus. The cites I'm providing make it clear, Dixiecrats were a FAR RIGHT group of white supremacists and citizens that supported their views on racial supremecy via a form of separatist ethnocentric nationalism...If you want an RfC we should present the Explicit sources that include the SPLC. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Toa, for example they were against "ANTI-LYNCHING LAWS"....That was part of their political belief, they wanted to keep LYNCHINGS legal. "Disgusted with the national Democratic Party for embracing a platform to eliminate the poll tax and pass fair labor practices and anti-lynching laws, Southern state delegates walked out of the party's convention in Philadelphia into the rain on July 17, 1948 and caught the Silver Comet train to Birmingham."One of many cites...DN (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody objects to saying they were racial supremacists. You are arguing against a strawman here. What we object to is “far right”, and synthesizing this from sources that don’t say that doesn’t really add anything of value to that discussion. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i>
 * If you want to claim that Jim Crow laws are not "States Rights", we can have that discussion. "States rights" and "Far Right" seem to tick all of the same

boxes. DN (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would really advise you read our policy on synthesizing multiple sources together to say things they don't actually say. I'm strongly considering hatting this entire section below as irrelevant to the discussion. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 21:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a threat. Each citation EXPLICITLY mentions dixiecrats. Perhaps we should get an admin involved. Pinging Cullen328, apparently Toa thinks I am out of line here. Can we get an admin opinion? Cheers. DN (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a threat to hat the section, yes, if you're going to continue to make massive new sections for each individual citation you can find that doesn't mention the actual claim being discussed here. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 22:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Threatening to shut down the discussion and possibility of consensus does not sound productive in the slightest. I will continue this on your talk page if need be, but I won't entertain it here. DN (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Administrators do not adjudicate content disputes. Plus, I have already commented on the content issue, so I am involved. Cullen328 (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Very well, I understand your apprehension since you have commented, but this does not seem like a content dispute to me, instead the editor in question is talking about shutting down the discussion because I'm including non-explicit citations showing the dixiecrats held far-right views. AFAIK, including cites that don't explicitly say the Dixiecrats were far right (other than the 2 explicit ones I have already given), but show that they held Far Right views and policies, is still on topic. Pinging Valjean to hopefully weigh in and help us determine if this discussion should be hatted or guided in some way...DN (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Rather than tagging specific admins, I would suggest you read WP:SYNTH. It would be a more productive use of your time. And no, I'm not talking about hatting the discussion - I'm talking about hatting your sections of random, unrelated citations below. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 23:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

SPLC
"When the members of the Klan were Democrats, as in the 1920s, as well as in the '40s when they called themselves "Dixiecrats," they were conservative Democrats." www.splcenter...DN (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * SPLC is not a good source for this, and quite possibly in general. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 02:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Since when? Point to the finding on Reliable sources/Noticeboard please. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In history articles we use terms like "far right" in the historical context (1948) not 2022 context. in "far right" the "far" indicates a rejection of the current system or framework. That is is false for the Dixiecrats in terms of 1940s. Segregation and white supremacy was a majority position in the South in the 1940s--Truman wanted to change the status quo and the Dixicrats said "no change". In 2022 the framework has changed and to propose segregation in 2022 is "far" out from the mainstream. Rjensen (talk) 03:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "That is is false for the Dixiecrats in terms of 1940s" - Do you have some explicit citations that says Dixicrats are incontrovertibly NOT "extreme right" or "far right"? That seems to be possible WP:SYNTH or WP:OR (no offense). We have 2 seemingly reliable sources as of now that explicitly say otherwise. DN (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * SPLC is generally a fine source when it comes to issues of racism in the US, but what's the point here? That Dixiecrats were segregationists and white supremacists is not actually controversial, despite a [rather shocking] subthread above. I do agree that we need sources to call it "far-right" rather than apply a definition, though. It's a broad term that relies on varies kinds of historical context, as well as geographical context (e.g. the values/actions/strategies of the mainstream right in the US would be considered far-right if they were part of many other political systems). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 03:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources other than the 2 explicit ones I've listed so far? I mean, the group no longer exists so it's harder for me to find personally, but the digging I have done on current sources and not getting too academic, seem to confirm this so far. DN (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Simply being racist is not enough to be far-right. Sources take a more balanced respect as to which wing of the party they fell under, and a large number of Dixiecrats fell squarely on the left (at the time) on pretty much everything except racism. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 03:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting on that Reliable sources/Noticeboard confirmation. DN (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Classifying the Dixiecrats as is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary sources. Those could be from 1948 or even better, could be from later academic sources. Where are those sources? On the other hand, I see very few high quality sources that describe the Dixiecrats as "far right". There is one recent book by John Huntington, published by the University of Pennsylvania Press, that describes them as part of the "vanguard of the far right". But most reliable sources describe their ideology as segregationist, or anti-integrationsist, or simply racist. We should summarize what all the high quality reliable sources say, not a selected few. Cullen328 (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but while there may not be a lot of EXPLICIT sources other than the 2 I've identified here after just doing a quick search, there are lots of sources that put it in in-explcit terms. Far right politics are clear, and so is the racist ie segregationist history of Dixecrats. The SPLC is respected in this territory and field of identifying such political groups, so it's hardly just the one PhD at this point, they just haven't all been identified yet. Is that the new standard for inclusion? Cheers. DN (talk) 06:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

William H Murray
"After his retirement, Murray became widely known for his radical racist and conspiracy views. He wrote articles and books dealing with constitutional rights. In his books, Murray seemed to indicate his support for fascism. Murray supported Strom Thurmond's insurgent Dixiecrat bid for the presidency against Harry S. Truman and Thomas E. Dewey in 1948."DN (talk) 07:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Citation Ann Mathison McLaurin, THE ROLE OF THE DIXIECRATS IN THE 1948 ELECTION.The University of Oklahoma, Ph.D. dissertation, 1972 History, general...Page 171 (the Dixiecrat conference in Birmingham) - ''"Alfalfa Bill" Murray, former Governor of Oklahoma, at seventy-nine was one of the oldest "delegates" present. Though nearly blind and half deaf, he was a loyal supporter. After his two-day bus trip, during which he lost his baggage, he appeared listless and wrinkled "with a piece of gauze around his neck." Under his arm he carried copies of his book The Place of the Negro proudly boasting that he was "the man who introduced Jim Crow in Oklahoma." Other extremists such as Gerald L. K. Smith, a noted racist who went by the pseudonym of S. Goodyear, were also present but had no active role in the conference itself."''...DN (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Time Magazine
"Seventy years on, in the heat of a Virginia August, heirs to the Dixiecrats’ platform of hate and exclusion — Klansmen, neo-Nazis and white supremacists of sundry affiliations — gathered in Charlottesville, not far from where Thurmond had taken his stand." Time Magazine article written by Jon Meacham. DN (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The New Yorker
"It’s also worth remembering that the Dixiecrats had few illusions that Strom Thurmond, their Presidential nominee, could win the election. But they did believe that by denying either party a majority in the South they could magnify their influence in national affairs and, in a best-case scenario, throw the Presidential election to the House of Representatives. In short, they hoped to leverage their influence as spoilers and obstructionists in national affairs." - From an article in The New Yorker written by Jelani Cobb. DN (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Far Right Politics (United States)
In United States politics, the terms "extreme right", "far-right", and "ultra-right" are labels used to describe "militant forms of insurgent revolutionary right ideology and separatist ethnocentric nationalism". citation...DN (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You cannot then go on to say "...therefore the Dixiecrats were far-right" because that's the definition of original research. We need reliable sources to state that explicitly.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Eve rgr een Fir , not that I disagree, but I've already provided 2 reliable sources, including the SPLC, that do say that explicitly. If you feel we need an RfC I will include those sources as evidence. DN (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Aside from the 2 explicit sources, since the vast majority of Dixiecrat support came from white supremacists and racists like the KKK and other extremists, inclusion of Far Right is arguable, and at the very least, accurate according to the SPLC. Even when Dixiecrats knew they couldn't win, the goal became to disrupt the election in order to prevent African Americans from getting basic civil rights, as that was their Primary goal in the first place. Nothing else really much mattered to them. The Ku Klux Klan is labeled Far Right. My personal (WP:OR) opinion is that part of the reason they didn't win is BECAUSE it was obvious that this was the political party of the KKK. I don't know if there are citations that support that, it's just speculation at this point. "Seemingly bothered by the blatant racism on display at the Dixiecrat Convention, Thurmond stressed that he was a progressive southerner in early interviews. Additionally, Thurmond was eager to point out the tepid advances African Americans had made under his administration (Karabell, 2000, p. 54 and 169). These overtures garnered him faint praise among the more progressive southern publications as a sincere advocate of state’s rights, but Thurmond’s rhetoric did little to distract from the Dixiecrats having the public support of the vast majority of Klan chapters and the regions other extremist groups (McGill, 1948, p. 16)."...Dixiecrats and the Electoral College Kevin Spann, PhD Professor in the Political Science department at Georgia State University.DN (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Equal Justice intiative
Equal Justice Initiative "The so-called Dixiecrats planned to leverage the Southern states’ electoral votes to defend racial segregation and maintain white supremacy." DN (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Dixiecrat Party Flag the Stainless Banner
Main article Modern display of the Confederate battle flag (section: political groups)... "The 1948 Dixiecrat political party extensively used Confederate symbols, including the battle flag, and it contributed to the flag's post-World War II re-popularization. According to historian John Coski, segregationists utilized Confederate symbols since both they and the Confederates had similar goals, that is, opposition to efforts to "change the South's racial status quo". As a result, Coski stated that "There could be no more fitting opposition than the Confederate battle flag."...DN (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

possible Tea Party correlation
- According to PhD Wilmer J Leon..."There is a historical correlation between the Dixiecrats in 1948, Southern Democrats who left the Democratic Party over new civil rights planks that had been proposed for addition to the party platform and the modern day Tea Party." DN (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Smithsonian
"Outraged segregationists moved ahead with the formation of a States' Rights ("Dixiecrat") Party with Gov. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina as its presidential candidate. The States' Rights Party avoided outright race baiting, but everyone understood that it was motivated by more than abstract constitutional principles." written by Alonzo Hamby...DN (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

KKK & Civil Rights
In 2015 Emory University News included a piece by Joseph Crespino...''"The history of white supremacist groups in American politics is deeply rooted." While most are aware of the Ku Klux Klan's role in politics during post-Civil War Reconstruction, fewer might be as familiar with the Klan's revival in the 1920s and its spread beyond the South, says Crespino. According to Crespino, white supremacy remained an explicit part of southern Democratic politics through the 1930s, '40s and '50s. Two notable examples were South Carolina Gov. Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential run on behalf of the States' Rights Democratic Party (aka "Dixiecrats") to protest the Democratic Party's civil rights agenda, and Alabama Gov. George Wallace's 1963 speech promising "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." DN (talk) 01:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Crespino does NOT say kkk supported Thurmond. He has a whole book on Thurmond and I read it: Strom Thurmond's America (2012).  there is one sentence mention of the kkk -- p 36 "[Governor] Thurmond favored a bill to exempt Ku Klux Klan property from taxation." and zero indication of any KKK support for him. Rjensen (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * All due respect, maybe not Thurmond, but other members of the KKK were also politicians and Dixiecrats. He was still anti-civil-rights laws, and wanted to use "states rights" as means to keep Jim Crow laws legal. Jim Crow laws were basically Far Right laws, included disenfranchisement, miscegenation and even murder via lynching. DN (talk) 02:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not true that "other members of the KKK were also politicians and Dixiecrats" --lets have a few names please and cites. Rjensen (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources disagree. If you can't find them I'll be happy to list them. DN (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Robert Byrd was, of course, a Klansman for example. Although he was never a dixiecrat and was a fairly normal, mainstream member of the Democratic Party. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Robert Byrd was never a dixiecrat? I believe there are several sources that disagree with you. DN (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * He was never a member of the Dixiecrat Party, which is what this article is about. Unless you can find a source that says otherwise? <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 20:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's one ...there are more. Actually there are 2 Byrds, Harry and Robert, but we can sort it out later. Cheers. DN (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Once again, you appear to be confusing "Dixiecrat" with "Dixiecrat Party'. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 20:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Economic Policy
I don't necessarily object to classifying the Dixiecrat party as far-right, but feel that there's something missing from the debate. What were their attitudes towards the New Deal and the Fair Deal? Is there any consensus among the historians about the party's positions on economic policy? The platform does not tell much about this aspect except the general statement of protecting the states' rights and opposing to overreach by the federal government. To me, it doesn't seem there was a consensus among the party members. While many southern Democratic politicians were members of the conservative coalition in Congress, some others generally supported President Truman's economic policy. Thurmond supported the New Deal in the 30's as a political activist and a state legislator. Most scholars may argue that the party should be classified as far-right by definition if it supports white supremacy or other forms of the ethnocentric nationalism. For example, Nazis and Fascists are not free-marketeers. But this classification might not be appropriate in the US context, where the modern right-wing movement had emerged from the opposition to the New Deal. YB10 (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2022 (UTC)