{"id":{"repo_id":"uiuc","oai_identifier":"oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/105639"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uiuc/oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/105639","repository":{"repo_id":"uiuc","name":"University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign","base_url":"https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh"},"display":{"title":"Keeping America a white man’s country: Southern opposition to civil rights in the united states senate","abstract":"This dissertation explores how southern senators, led by Georgia’s Richard Russell, forestalled civil rights legislation using the mechanisms of the Senate. The southern caucus beat back civil rights senators through a series of arguments that appealed both to the conservative nature of the Senate and their more conservative colleagues. While earlier arguments generally emphasized constitutional interpretations from southerners like John Calhoun, over time, southerners adapted their arguments to appeal to more conservative colleagues that were either skeptical of invoking cloture, or worried about the invasive nature of civil rights legislation. Over the course of my dissertation, I explore the 1938 Wagner-Van Nuys anti-lynching bill filibuster, the 1946 Fair Employment Practices Commission filibuster, the 1960 Civil Rights Act of 1960 filibuster, and the failed effort to filibuster the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This dissertation examines how four types of southern arguments operated over time and in different contexts. First, southerners used claims based in decorum, procedural objections to civil rights forces. Second, southerners used locus of the irreparable claims, drawing from a long tradition of states’ rights scholarship. Third, southerners scapegoated civil rights groups. Fourth, southerners used reciprocity, tied to home rule and public memory of Reconstruction. While initially these arguments worked, over time, civil rights senators began to grow weary of southern claims of oppression. Eventually, once civil rights forces marshalled efforts to develop elaborate, powerfully constructed cases in favor of civil rights legislation, opposition from the southern caucus collapsed. Decorum arguments, the last vestige of delay strategies, failed, as civil rights senators gave southerners ample time to discuss the bill, with little change in argumentative tactics. The result was total defeat in 1964.","abstract_html":"This dissertation explores how southern senators, led by Georgia’s Richard Russell, forestalled civil rights legislation using the mechanisms of the Senate. The southern caucus beat back civil rights senators through a series of arguments that appealed both to the conservative nature of the Senate and their more conservative colleagues. While earlier arguments generally emphasized constitutional interpretations from southerners like John Calhoun, over time, southerners adapted their arguments to appeal to more conservative colleagues that were either skeptical of invoking cloture, or worried about the invasive nature of civil rights legislation. Over the course of my dissertation, I explore the 1938 Wagner-Van Nuys anti-lynching bill filibuster, the 1946 Fair Employment Practices Commission filibuster, the 1960 Civil Rights Act of 1960 filibuster, and the failed effort to filibuster the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This dissertation examines how four types of southern arguments operated over time and in different contexts. First, southerners used claims based in decorum, procedural objections to civil rights forces. Second, southerners used locus of the irreparable claims, drawing from a long tradition of states’ rights scholarship. Third, southerners scapegoated civil rights groups. Fourth, southerners used reciprocity, tied to home rule and public memory of Reconstruction. While initially these arguments worked, over time, civil rights senators began to grow weary of southern claims of oppression. Eventually, once civil rights forces marshalled efforts to develop elaborate, powerfully constructed cases in favor of civil rights legislation, opposition from the southern caucus collapsed. Decorum arguments, the last vestige of delay strategies, failed, as civil rights senators gave southerners ample time to discuss the bill, with little change in argumentative tactics. The result was total defeat in 1964.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Tokarz, David Michael"],"institution":"University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign","degree_name":"Ph.D.","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Communication","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Gill, Pat","Murphy, John M","Finnegan, Cara","Cisneros, David"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2019,"date_issued":"2019-11-26T20:33:48Z","date_published":"2019-11-26T20:33:48Z","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:24:44Z","subjects":["rhetoric, segregation, Senate filibuster, public address, Civil Rights history"],"languages":["en"],"rights":["Copyright 2016 David M. Tokarz"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/2142/105639","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Gill, Pat","Murphy, John M","Finnegan, Cara","Cisneros, David"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Tokarz, David Michael"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2019-11-26T20:33:48Z","2019-07-03","2019-08"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Communication"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph.D."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["rhetoric, segregation, Senate filibuster, public address, Civil Rights history"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Copyright 2016 David M. Tokarz"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/105639"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["This dissertation explores how southern senators, led by Georgia’s Richard Russell, forestalled civil rights legislation using the mechanisms of the Senate. The southern caucus beat back civil rights senators through a series of arguments that appealed both to the conservative nature of the Senate and their more conservative colleagues. While earlier arguments generally emphasized constitutional interpretations from southerners like John Calhoun, over time, southerners adapted their arguments to appeal to more conservative colleagues that were either skeptical of invoking cloture, or worried about the invasive nature of civil rights legislation. Over the course of my dissertation, I explore the 1938 Wagner-Van Nuys anti-lynching bill filibuster, the 1946 Fair Employment Practices Commission filibuster, the 1960 Civil Rights Act of 1960 filibuster, and the failed effort to filibuster the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This dissertation examines how four types of southern arguments operated over time and in different contexts. First, southerners used claims based in decorum, procedural objections to civil rights forces. Second, southerners used locus of the irreparable claims, drawing from a long tradition of states’ rights scholarship. Third, southerners scapegoated civil rights groups. Fourth, southerners used reciprocity, tied to home rule and public memory of Reconstruction. While initially these arguments worked, over time, civil rights senators began to grow weary of southern claims of oppression. Eventually, once civil rights forces marshalled efforts to develop elaborate, powerfully constructed cases in favor of civil rights legislation, opposition from the southern caucus collapsed. Decorum arguments, the last vestige of delay strategies, failed, as civil rights senators gave southerners ample time to discuss the bill, with little change in argumentative tactics. The result was total defeat in 1964.","Submission original under an indefinite embargo labeled 'Open Access'. The submission was exported from vireo on 2019-11-26 without embargo terms","The student, David Tokarz, accepted the attached license on 2019-07-02 at 17:27.","The student, David Tokarz, submitted this Dissertation for approval on 2019-07-02 at 17:31.","This Dissertation was approved for publication on 2019-07-03 at 13:19.","DSpace SAF Submission Ingestion Package generated from Vireo submission #14138 on 2019-11-26 at 12:50:30","Made available in DSpace on 2019-11-26T20:33:48Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 4 TOKARZ-DISSERTATION-2019.pdf: 768436 bytes, checksum: 46eba42ab7d90bffe07779317b44ba97 (MD5) Tokarz Full Dissertation (For Deposit)-mjs.docx: 240603 bytes, checksum: 12f3b32c4dde2f718fb2675e9ca0578a (MD5) LICENSE.txt: 4209 bytes, checksum: 8e9ee5fe865249abaf9077d0a9fdd99b (MD5) PROQUEST_LICENSE.txt: 4555 bytes, checksum: 5fa34e941666679cbccdcac5639c46df (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019-07-03"]},{"key":"dc:format","label":"Dc Format","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Keeping America a white man’s country: Southern opposition to civil rights in the united states senate"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Gill, Pat","Murphy, John M","Finnegan, Cara","Cisneros, David"],"dc:creator":["Tokarz, David Michael"],"dc:date":["2019-11-26T20:33:48Z","2019-07-03","2019-08"],"dc:description":["This dissertation explores how southern senators, led by Georgia’s Richard Russell, forestalled civil rights legislation using the mechanisms of the Senate. The southern caucus beat back civil rights senators through a series of arguments that appealed both to the conservative nature of the Senate and their more conservative colleagues. While earlier arguments generally emphasized constitutional interpretations from southerners like John Calhoun, over time, southerners adapted their arguments to appeal to more conservative colleagues that were either skeptical of invoking cloture, or worried about the invasive nature of civil rights legislation. Over the course of my dissertation, I explore the 1938 Wagner-Van Nuys anti-lynching bill filibuster, the 1946 Fair Employment Practices Commission filibuster, the 1960 Civil Rights Act of 1960 filibuster, and the failed effort to filibuster the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This dissertation examines how four types of southern arguments operated over time and in different contexts. First, southerners used claims based in decorum, procedural objections to civil rights forces. Second, southerners used locus of the irreparable claims, drawing from a long tradition of states’ rights scholarship. Third, southerners scapegoated civil rights groups. Fourth, southerners used reciprocity, tied to home rule and public memory of Reconstruction. While initially these arguments worked, over time, civil rights senators began to grow weary of southern claims of oppression. Eventually, once civil rights forces marshalled efforts to develop elaborate, powerfully constructed cases in favor of civil rights legislation, opposition from the southern caucus collapsed. Decorum arguments, the last vestige of delay strategies, failed, as civil rights senators gave southerners ample time to discuss the bill, with little change in argumentative tactics. The result was total defeat in 1964.","Submission original under an indefinite embargo labeled 'Open Access'. The submission was exported from vireo on 2019-11-26 without embargo terms","The student, David Tokarz, accepted the attached license on 2019-07-02 at 17:27.","The student, David Tokarz, submitted this Dissertation for approval on 2019-07-02 at 17:31.","This Dissertation was approved for publication on 2019-07-03 at 13:19.","DSpace SAF Submission Ingestion Package generated from Vireo submission #14138 on 2019-11-26 at 12:50:30","Made available in DSpace on 2019-11-26T20:33:48Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 4 TOKARZ-DISSERTATION-2019.pdf: 768436 bytes, checksum: 46eba42ab7d90bffe07779317b44ba97 (MD5) Tokarz Full Dissertation (For Deposit)-mjs.docx: 240603 bytes, checksum: 12f3b32c4dde2f718fb2675e9ca0578a (MD5) LICENSE.txt: 4209 bytes, checksum: 8e9ee5fe865249abaf9077d0a9fdd99b (MD5) PROQUEST_LICENSE.txt: 4555 bytes, checksum: 5fa34e941666679cbccdcac5639c46df (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019-07-03"],"dc:format":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/105639"],"dc:language":["en"],"dc:rights":["Copyright 2016 David M. Tokarz"],"dc:subject":["rhetoric, segregation, Senate filibuster, public address, Civil Rights history"],"dc:title":["Keeping America a white man’s country: Southern opposition to civil rights in the united states senate"],"dc:type":["text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Communication"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph.D."],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:24:44Z"}