General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: FDR Democrats, check in here! [View all]Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)It's too much of a stretch to give Roosevelt credit for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I don't give much weight to a forceful speech without significant policy followup. Roosevelt didn't even integrate the armed forces -- that was done under Truman.
FDR's most notable action on matters of race was the internment of Japanese-Americans. (Don't tell me that it was a racially neutral measure against people who might be loyal to an enemy country. There was nothing comparable done with regard to German-Americans and Italian-Americans, with their distinctly white complexions.)
Admittedly, any politician is constrained by the times in which he or she must act. Roosevelt could not have single-handedly brought about the civil rights revolution. Given his immense popularity, however, he could and should have done a lot more than he did. Blacks were better off because of his administration, but that was almost entirely because of measures that benefited everyone and didn't specifically address America's race problem.
The heart of the matter is that Roosevelt went along with the long-standing implicit bargain between the Democratic Party and white racists in the South. The Democrats, under the rubric of states' rights, agreed not to make any serious effort to disrupt the racial status quo in the South; they turned a blind eye to the Jim Crow laws, the disenfranchisement, and even the occasional lynching. In return, the South voted Democratic. (The eleven states that had joined the Confederacy gave FDR every one of their electoral votes in every one of his four elections.)
One could argue that Roosevelt had too much else on his plate and just couldn't undertake any fundamental attack on racial inequality. I don't agree, but even someone taking that position would have to concede that his overall record on racial matters should be counted as one of his failings.