Talk:Strom Thurmond/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old Posts

Someone might want to replace the photo of Himmler with one of Thurmond. Yeah. [supergiraffe]

This page reeks of bias, and needs a good dose of NPOV. Don't have time to research him myself; perhaps someone else can. For example, his current party, office, and home state shouldn't be too hard to find. Wesley.

With regard to his mental state he still seems to be (reasonably) "with it" when he pulls himself together i have read. -- Paul Melville Austin

I wouldn't refer to the page as reeking of bias, but you have to take into consideration his recanting of the statements he made about segregation. Before you make ludicrous statements like the one above, make sure to research the politics of the man first, and then make your descision.--Longevitymonger

There's only 13 minutes left in June 26, 2003 and I don't see any evidence that he's dead yet. According to [1] he's weak but alert. Where does the info that he's dead come from? Nohat 02:48 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

See, for example [2], [3] --Camembert

Indeed. Please accept my apologies for doubt. I guess Google News is not as up-to-date as I imagined it was. I feel remiss in not mentioning the fact that we're arguing over someone's death, but given who we're talking about, I'll refrain. Nohat 03:02 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Not that it makes a difference in this case, but remember the number of minutes left in any day depends on where you are located.... In South Carolina, it'll be the 26th for another hour. -- Someone else 03:07 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

I noticed the change from the 1948 from nigger to negro... can someone check what was actually said? --Dante Alighieri 03:26 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I noticed too. I get 97 Google hits on negro, 18 on nigger. I wonder if [1] it wasn't clear what he said, or [2] it was clear and it's been "cleaned up" for publication.... -- Someone else 03:32 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

We need a better source than google... anyone got easy access to the Library of Congress or some other political archive? --Dante Alighieri 03:35 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I uploaded a clip of the speech in question to media:Strom_Thurmond_1948_Speech_Clip.mp3, from [4]. That's definately Strom, and he definately says 'nigger'. No revisionist P.C. history here; I'm changing it back. Kwertii 21:28 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Great detective work! I guess I'm not surprised that the majority of print media seemed to have "tidied" it up. -- Someone else 21:48 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

All that's missing from that website is the Munchkins singing "Ding, Dong...."! -- Someone else 21:53 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Actually he seems to be using the pronunciation "nigra", which was rather common at the time. It would have been rendered "negro" in writing, but it was certainly intended to be a slur. (Sounds to me like the word nigger and I've heard it quoted that way. Perhaps a point should be made that the which term he used is under question - Chris)

MP3 files are not permitted on Wikipedia (and can no longer be uploaded), so I've replaced this with an Ogg/Vorbis file. --Gmaxwell 16:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I will presume that Mr. Thurmond died of old age and not of the Supreme Court sodomy ruling. This particular death had been joked about for months before it actually happened, and, had it occurred perhaps a couple of years ago, it would have upset the balance of political power in office. Rickyrab 17:26 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

In 1954 he became the only person ever to be elected to the Senate as a write-in candidate

What is a write-in candidate?

A candidate whose name does not appear on the ballot. Only under rare circumstances do enough people write the candidate's name on the ballot to let the person win. I think I remember something about a local election in which a write-in candidate won because one of the candidates on the ballot murdered the only other candidate, and was found out before election day.... Paullusmagnus 20:09 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The case in question was to the Tennessee State Senate several years ago (1998, I think), and yes, one candidate did murder the other, expecting to then win as the only one left on the ballot. However, an eyewitness placed him at the scene right before his opponent's murder, and as this became public well before the election, the dead man's widow ran as a write-in and won, but that was the Tennessee State Senate, and the article means that Strom Thurmond was the only U.S. Senator elected as write-in. (Also, the Tennessee law was then amended so that the name of a dead person could stay on the ballot in such a circumstances and the seat then be declared vacant and new elections scheduled in order to prevent the repetition of such an event.)

Rlquall 17:57, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

It said in the paper today that he was the father of a black girl in 1925 that he never publicly acknowledged although he paid for her college education .. her mom was a servant at his house. User:Karlwick

---

I removed the following from the "quotes" section:

"Sen. Jim Jeffords made huge news when he switched political parties. Everyone was talking about it. Then it was pointed out that Strom Thurmond once switched parties. Apparently, years ago, Strom switched from the hunters to the gatherers." -- Conan O'Brien

Yes, this gave me a good chuckle, but if anything, this article should only include quotes by Thurmond. -- Minesweeper 03:20, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

There probably should be one of those Preceded-Succeeded by tables for him, like for most major politicians. I would put it in, but I don't really have the time to research everything.

Clarification?

The article says that Thurmond was a US Senator (Class 3). I wasn't sure what that meant so I followed the link, and found a list of South Carolina's senators, divided into Class 2 and Class 3 - and Thurmond is listed as Class 2. Can someone explain? DS 12:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page a list of South Carolina's senators, divided into Class 2 and Class 3 also refered to the SC scession as "purported". I deleted "purported". I don't know what the 'class' reference means. Perhaps it refers to Senior and Junior senators? DJ Silverfish 03:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know I'm talking to people who posted in April, but just for future reference, the Senate is divided into three classes. This has nothing to do with seniority or influence. It just means that the Senators from the same classes run for election/reelection in the same year. I believe class 1 is up again next year.

Thurmond was indeed Class 2 and I'll go ahead and change it.

Meaning of "Class 2" and "Class 3"

When the Senate first assembled in 1789, its members were divided into three classes, as required by Article I, Section 3, Clause 2, of the Constitution, which provides as follows:

"Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year."

Senators serve staggered terms. No more than one-third of the Senators can be replaced at a single election, and this serves to provide continuity to the institution. To get the stagger system started, however, there had to be short terms at the beginning.

In 1789, South Carolina's Senators were placed in Class 2 and Class 3.

The Class 1 Senators served an initial term of two years, and the Class 2 Senators served an initial term of four years, while the Class 3 Senators served a full six-year term. This got the stagger system started, and now, all Senators serve six year terms.

Thurmond was in Class 2.

See http://www.senate.gov

John Paul Parks (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed "aka"s

I removed two "aka's" on his name, which read "aka Stromboli aka Pastrami." If somebody can show me evidence he was ever called that, then it would be fine to mention it further down in the article, but not on his main name.

Longest-serving senator?

The opening paragraph claims Thurman was "the longest-serving senator ever", and the last Trivia item claims "Thurmond will hold the record for the longest serving senator for at least a while." I believe this is false. Carl T. Hayden served over 56 years; Thurmond served only 49. Thurmond was the oldest, but did not serve the longest. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Quadell: Hayden served in Congress for 56 years, but spent only 42 of those years in the Senate. He served in the House of Representatives from 1912-1927. Thurmond did, indeed, serve longer in the Senate than Hayden. Hope that clears things up. ----Heath 66.32.86.79 05:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

If you follow the link in the opening paragraph to longest serving senator, Thurmond does not top any of the lists in the article. This needs to be changed.

Lott controversy

I think this section should be removed from the article, as it has nothing to do with Mr. Thurmond other than the fact that a celebration of his 100th birthday was the venue for the comments. The controversy is properly covered on Trent Lott's page and need not be placed here as well. Indrian 18:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• This comment has now been in place for twenty-four hours without response. I am therefore carrying out the removal of the aforementioned section. Indrian 19:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Indrian--I read the section you deleted and agree it was excessive. (I did not write it.) However, if you do not object, I think the controversy deserves a sentence or two in the Thurmond article, perhaps under trivia. --JChap 00:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Someone should edit the opening paragraph of this article, it is clunky and hard to follow.

Thurmond Quote

I have changed the Thurmond quote to read 'nigra', which is what can be heard on the audio clip in question, instead of 'nigger'. These are in fact two very different words. 'Nigger' is a derogatory term and always has been. The word 'nigra' was used in South Carolina for decades in much the same way that one woud have used the word 'colored', the speaker generally meant no harm by the use of the term, regardless of how it may sound to us today. It is possible that Thurmond did intend to use the word 'nigger', but slured the word thanks to his thick Edgefield accent. However, Thurmonds first daughter, Essie Mae Washington Williams, reports in her book Dear Senator that she confronted Thurmond directly when she heard about his speech. According to Williams, Thurmond was genuinly upset that she would think he would have used the word at all, much less in public. I will not go so far as to remove the quote because it is a very famous example of southern attitudes towards desegregation. However, in the interest of keeping an objective POV, perhaps this quote could be balanced by another from his progressive period as governor. I will do a little research and report back on the issue.ColonelDEH 16:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

sure, he was SO progressive that he kept his black daughter a secret all his life. gimme a break. Snottily 17:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see the connection between Thurmonds choice in handling this personal matter and his politics while he held the governors post. The historical facts are that Thurmond worked to end the abominable practice of lynching, put an end to the Barnwell ring, and spoke out in favor of federal help for blacks. But, of course, the facts are ignored in favor of a more comfortable point of view. This is called historical revisionism, and it is wrong. However, it does make it easier to paint the world in black and white (excuse the pun). If we can immediately write people like Thurmond off as a rascist we don't have to confront the fact that a man can earnestly believe in both segregation and equality. ColonelDEH 02:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Even given white South Carolina's history of the slave trade, the widespread murder of the freedmen during Reconstruction, and hundreds of lynchings during the Jim Crow era, it's still laughable revisionism (more like fiction) to try to paint Thurmond as a racial progressive. And obviously Thurmond did not believe in segregation - he had sex with at least one black teenager - hello!Faveuncle 04:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

Faveuncle, I would thank you to kindly refrain from insulting the honor of an entire state and her sons and daughters. At the very least you could use facts instead of your own additions to history. SC did participate in the slave trade, as did every other state on the east coast. NYC sold far more slaves than Charleston ever did. I have no idea what "widespread murder of the freedmen" you refer to. SC had no major violence during reconstruction. Carolinians were all, black and white, far too concerned with repairing their homes after the invasion and occupation to go about on rampages. I would also like to know where you got the information that there were "hundreds of lynchings". The few lynchings that did occur were always huge news and usually prompted a swift response from neighbors and the authorities. Just who is guilty of historical revisionism? As I have said here before, if we can simply write off an entire state or region as being hateful, bigoted, and violent we don't have to confront the fact that a man can hold views that are not popular and yet still mean well. It also makes it easier to justify the invasion and occupation of Americans by Americans, but that is another subject. ColonelDEH

In 1860, blacks in South Carolina outnumbered whites almost 3 to 2. In fact, did you know that South Carolina was majority black from the late 1600s until the 1930 Census? So maybe Colonel, the invasion you find so problematic was an attempt by a free and decent people to help another people free themselves from the tyranny of a violent minority that held them as chattel? But I digress...

In my comments, Colonel, perhaps I was not clear, but I am only referring to most, not all, white South Carolinians. White South Carolinians were actually a minority in the state, nowhere near the "entire state" population. Since so many black people come from the slave markets and plantations of South Carolina, I certainly have in no way insulted the majority of people who can call South Carolina their ancestral home. I do wonder how black folks feel about the "honor" of white South Carolinians, but once again, I digress.

Finally, I am sorry, Colonel, but I'll not assist you in your whitewashing and twisting of history. I'll leave it to you to find whatever "honor" you can in the many slave rapists, segregationists, lynchmobbers, Kluxers, and the like that called South Carolina home. My lynching number was indeed high - "only" around 156 blacks lynched by white mobs were recorded in SC from 1880 until the 1930s - "only" 3 a year. Perhaps it was only a few hundred (or maybe a few thousand) blacks that were slaughtered with complete impunity by whites between 1865 and the "end" of Reconstruction in 1876, perhaps that is not widespread violence, but to me it seems like a good start... Faveuncle 07:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

• Slate had a good article on this controversy here: [5] The article comes down on the side of "nigra" and I think the edit should remain unless someone finds a source for changing it to "nigger." --JChap 03:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Anonymous editors keep changing "nigra" to "nigger" in the quote without references or edit summaries. If you think, based on sources and not on original research, that the quote should be "nigger," please provide your sources here. --JChap 15:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand if it's people who are hard of hearing or cannot accept what Thurmond said. Listen to the video clip. It's not "nigra" he's saying, it's "nigger," and it's clear as day..and why would anyone take Thrumond's word for it(including his daughter)?

• Slate's article, not his daughter, comes down on the side of "nigra." Just listening to the tape is original research and it is not appropriate to include your independent analysis of it in the article --JChap 03:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Someone should tell wikipedia about your revisionism around the word "nigra" - they have it as a pejorative term - in the context Thurmond was using it, there ain't a dimes worth of difference between "nigra" and "nigger". I listened to the recording - sounds like "nigger" to me, but I'll defer to your hairsplitting. Faveuncle 04:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle
  • This is about the article and about sourcing, not about Thurmond. Look at the rest of my edits on this page. I think you'll agree they're solid. --JChap 05:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • BTW, I agree with you that it's perjorative and have never said otherwise. --JChap 17:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it was the Colonel who thinks "nigra" is a respectful term. 207.101.64.178 18:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

Whatever the word, nigra, nigger, negro. this man was abominable. A convinced racist not above dipping his 'wick' in 'forbidden' genitalia. the same old story, slave owner mentality exercising his 'god given right' to terrorise the hattie carolls of this world. at least zanzinger was coherent, he just despised them & despatched them with a blow from his rebel cane. how a cretin like this can hold a revered position in the US political tradition speaks volumes. I hope he never finds mercy in his bone-filled grave. macmaghnusa

I have always heard it as "nigger", and every time I see it played on TV, they usually have a caption sidebar, which has always, in my experience, said "nigger"198.209.24.140

It's certainly not clear cut enough to have it as "nigra" with no additional explanation. If there's a note that brings up the points that the slate article makes (and the article reviews the countroversy, it doesn't "come down on" a side), that would be preferable than trying to wish away the ambiguity. 129.170.118.83 (talk) 22:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither is it clear cut enough to have it say "nigger"

I just changed the quote to read "nigra". Im from SC. I know this is kind of original research, but 1. a gentleman of that era would have never said nigger in public. He would have used the word nigra. 2. Maybe y'all just cant hear the difference thanks to the accen t but the word in the audio clip is nigra. 98.122.57.22 (talk)

The words are one in the same; nigra=nigger. And anyone who knows Thurmond's social and political views knows he meant "nigra" interchangeably with "nigger". So quit splitting hairs. Whether "we 'uns" heard nigra or nigger, there's no doubt in anyone's mind that it was a slight...............y'all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 (talk) 09:26, 27 May 2014‎ (UTC)

"Hard work" as SC governor

A sentence in the "Early life" section of the article states:

"Running as a Democrat, Thurmond was elected Governor of South Carolina in 1947 and worked hard to preserve the state's existing segregation laws."

Unless someone wants to provide evidence that Thurmond's service as governor was particularly arduous I plan to change the above to "...supported preserving..."

Excellent edit. Wikipedia as a whole could do with a more official tone.

Controversy

The controversy section states that Williams "broke a long agreement" by revealing that she was Thurmonds daughter. There never was any sort of agreement between Thurmond and Williams,or any one else, to conceal the fact. Williams did not come forward out of consideration for her fathers career and standing in the state. Nor did Thurmond say anything about his daughter. If no one can provide evidence that there was an agreement of some sort, I will reword the sentence in question.ColonelDEH 18:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Googling "thurmond williams agreement" will yield stories on numerous reputable news sources (such as USA Today and Fox News) mentioning such an agreement. --JChap 05:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, the articles (those from reputable sources) seem to contradict themselves. For example, the Fox News article states that Williams said she did not come forward out of respect for her father, hoewever her lawyer said that there was indeed an agreement between parties. Williams reports in her autobiography that the situation was never explicitly discussed with her father. Furthermore, no one but Strom knew of Williams existance untill much later in the senators life. Any thoughts JChap? Thanks for the tip, ColonelDEH

Read the transcript of her 60 Minutes interview, linked from her Wikipedia article, where she denies there was any agreement. --JChap 05:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreement

Williams denies there was an agreement. Apparently, in the first press conference after the story broke, her lawyer said there was one. Because I cannot find a reference to Williams ever saying there was an agreement, I think its probable that the lawyer got his facts wrong and that she never told him there was an agreement. I have edited the article accordingly. If someone finds evidence that she told her lawyer that there was an agreement, but later changed her story, please add this to the article.

I also added the fact that Thurmond made secret payments to her.

All of the foregoing are sourced in the article. --JChap 02:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Strom Thurmond's Infamous Quote

I cannot get the 'nigger race' quote to play. It just tries to download it onto my computer? Has any got any ideas how to fix this. I've got this to work before but it doesn't play now.

finnophile

Elect him at 94?

How dumb is SC to elect a 94 year old man to the senate? I'm a republican but too much is too much. Weatherman90 04:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, SC consistently has one of the highest high school dropout rates and one of the lowest SAT scores... Faveuncle 01:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Faveuncle

And most of those dropouts voted for his opponent... Gamecock 03:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

So...the elderly are unfit for public service, not really americans, incompetent? What are you trying to say? At 94 Thurmond, who was very health conscious about his diet and exercise regimen, was in better shape than most 70 year olds. If a man's mental health is fine, why should it matter to you his age or physical condition? Maybe you would see the disabled as too weak to serve as politicians too? By the way, Joh C. Calhoun's last adress was delivered by a surrogate speaker while he looked on from a wheel chair, yet it is one of the most insightful and influential works in our national history. Maybe SC was dumb to elect him? (Please note the sarcasm dripping from these words, as Calhoun was one of the three greatest senators and America's only political scientist with an original thought.)As, to your opinion that SC is "dumb", what other state of that size and population do you know of that has had as much influence on American history? I honestly dont think one can compare.

Oh, calm down. It's a fair point to ask whether it's wise to elect someone who in all probability will not survive his term. However, it's speculative and irrelevant to the article, I think. But as long as we're being childish... it's not so much South Carolina was "dumb" as the U.S. has a system which more heavily favors incumbents the longer they've been in office. So that 94 year old Thurmond got elected proves the system is "dumb," not (necessarily) the people of SC. User:Mycroft7

I recall reading about Thurmond a the time of his death, and one of the points brought out was how well he supported his constituents - Thurmond was apparently one elected Washington official who maintained a large staff to look into requests and needs of SC citizens and attempt to help them. If true, this undoubtedly had a great deal to do with his continual re-election over a long period of time...Engr105th 04:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has nothing to do with the article, and is more of a rant on the part of a user. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Renouncing segregation

Timothy Noah, to my knowledge, didn't follow Thurmond everywhere in the last decades of his life, so unless he quotes Thurmond saying "segregation forever," his assertion that Thurmond never renounced segregation is just his opinion. All he comes up with are some comments in which Thurmond regrets talking race, but doesn't regret taking up a fight in which race was involved. That's what the wording I've put in the first paragraph reflects. Gazpacho 09:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Your argument seems to rely on the fact that it is technically impossible (or at least very difficult) to prove a negative. And, looking at the article, Noah is more careful than I was when I made that edit he said that Thurmond "never publicly repudiated segregation," leaving open the possibility that he made a private comment to Lott (whom you seem to be referencing as a source in your edit summary). I shall change what you refer to as "the wrong version" accordingly. JChap2007 15:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

What Thurmond said is worth more than someone's speculations about what he didn't say (or do). I've noted what he said, and the relevance of segregation. I don't really understand why you're so attached to the previous wording. Gazpacho 21:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "attached" to any wording in particular. You may look at my efforts to stop edits that would have quoted Thurmond as using the term "nigger" rather than "nigra" in his "troops in the army" speech if you're worried that I'm on some anti-Strom jag.

What I do support is the inclusion of information from reliable sources. Are you really denying that Slate is such a source? Thurmond was a public figure whose public remarks were widely reported on. His speeches in the Senate were reprinted in the Congressional Record. There were ample primary sources from which Noah could draw his conclusion, so I don't think describing it as "speculation" is accurate.

On the other hand, and trying to think about this with an open mind, I actually like your wording better in the introduction. I'm now thinking it would be better to discuss this as part of his later career and contrast it to his support for the King holiday and extending the Voting Rights Act. JChap2007 22:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone other than Klan/Southern revisionists can agree the man was a racist hypocritical self-aggrandizing turd, at least until the day he died.Faveuncle 17:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Faveuncle

Dean of the United States Senate

Would it maybe be better to include information about Thurmond being dean further down in the article, under "Later career"? From the Wikipedia article about it,

“ This is not an actual position in the United States Senate and has not been used in everyday language. ”

It just doesn't seem that significant. JChap2007 23:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

strom thurmond's corpse, huh? way to go wikipedia

Third party electoral votes

Moving this comment down from above the talk page contents:

Yeah, Strom Thurmond was most certainly not the first third party candidate to get electoral votes since Theodore Roosevelt, as is stated in the first paragraph of this article. Indeed, Robert LaFollette got 13 electoral votes in 1924. election of 1924 Someone braver than I who knows how to properly work this site should edit the article to reflect that.--Ranger 1 04:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

At the moment it states he was "the only third party presidential candidate to receive electoral votes since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912." Libertarian Theodora Nathalia Nathan would seem to be one exception. Шизомби 16:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

List_of_unsuccessful_United_States_Presidential_candidates_who_received_at_least_one_electoral_vote Шизомби 02:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Nathan's single electoral vote was the result of faithless electors, not electoral votes earned when a candidate carried a state's popular vote. There have been other examples of this kind of abberation in the electoral college system. Robert LaFollette, Thurmond and George Wallace all earned electoral votes by carrying states. Thurmond and Wallace were to a certain extent regional campaigns. Also John B. Anderson in 1980 and Ross Perot (in both runs) earned a larger percentage of the total vote than Thurmond, although their votes were not sufficiently concentrated in a single state to carry any electoral votes.

DJ Silverfish 03:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

We must remember that Strom Thurmond's goal was not to win the presidential election in 1948. That was impossible. His objective was to secure a sufficient number of electoral votes to deprive either Truman or Dewey of a majority, and thereby throw the election into the House of Representatives, where he could attempt to broker a deal and obtain concessions for the Southern point of view on civil rights. He came very close to doing that.

John Paul Parks 31 October 2007 7:32 a.m. (Mountain Standard Time)

Date of death?

Pardon me, but is the date of Thurman's death correct? CNN.com lists it as being in December, unlike the page here, which indicates June 26, 2003. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/26/thurmond.obit/index.html

Link to Rev. Al Shaprton

• Information regarding the possible link between the two needs to be added.

Currently waiting for the facts to come in. --Lincoln F. Stern 20:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal life / biographical information

I'd like to see more biographical information - since his illegitimate daughter is listed, it's especially of interest when he was married to each of his two previous wives, and when he had other children. --zandperl 11:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The black illegitimate daughter did Strom a tremendous favor by keeping quiet during his active political lifetime. In South Carolina at that time, no respectable white woman would have married a white man known to have fathered an illegitimate black child. Further, prior to April 15, 1949, there was no divorce in South Carolina, for any reason, not even adultery, see S.C. Const. art. XVII, s. 3, including its prior versions, and a woman married to him, and discovering his dalliances, would have been in an impossible situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.1.33 (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"Impossible situation"? like what's "impossible"? She'd have sucked it up like a good white southern woman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

"She identified as being African American"? Did she have a choice? He " impregneted" her mother? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.43.192.94 (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Those of mixed race may identify with whichever one(s) they choose.—ADavidB 10:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thurmond was never third in line.

Removed "information": While I am unaware of the controversy surrounding Thurmond's failing mental health at the end of his life, it seems like a plausible idea. However, the idea that some felt that he was not fit to be third in line for the presidency since he was the president pro tempre of the Senate is a false statement. As the pres pro temp he never could have been third in line, the Speaker of the House is third in line. Strom would have at the very least been something like number 20 and it would be very unlikely for his number to have ever come up. I deleted the reference to third in line and left it that his mental health wasn't up to par and that some worried about this. I know I would worry if my senator wasn't functioning upstairs no matter what order he was in for the presidency.Kmaugle 00:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Your edit has been reverted, and I would ask that next time you do a little more research before making such an edit. The vice president is first in line, the speaker is second, and the president pro tempore is third. Then come the cabinet members. Indrian 01:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits

At Robert Byrd, WatchingYouLikeAHawk commented on a Slate article that cited Strom Thurmond never renounced segregation, claiming that Slate was an "op-ed" piece --

"It's a liberal leaning op-ed. (See Slate). If you're going to to claim something to be a reliable source, don't source from an op-ed. Moreover, learn how to spell segregation. It's not "regregation". There is no problem with making factual claims about someone's fillibuster or past membership in an organization. But from either side here, we do not and will never have conclusive evidence about someone's inner motives on race. 10 "sources" will say one thing ... another 10 "sources" wiil say something else. But all 20 of these sources have one thing in common: they're stating opinion, not fact."

It was discovered after a five-minute news article search, that the Slate had a verifiable source: an interview with Strom Thurmond himself, as a main feature, at the Charlotte Observer's newspaper. That's a credible and reliable source that isn't an "op-ed." Furthermore, it is well-cited, with both the Slate and CO newspaper backing up the claim. Nothing was taken out of context. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to delete a portion of text that may be controversial, please discuss it on the talk page first and achieve consensus, especially with a topic that can be controversial. Also, if you do remove text, please do not corrupt the references, as it makes it difficult for other editors to fix the mistakes! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, if you wish to remove the offending text, at least remove the entire comment and reference, so that a catastrophe in the article is avoided. I pointed out earlier that it was being taken up in discussion here, and that you can file a request for comment for additional opinions. But similar edits were engaged at Robert Byrd and were done with little controversy after some clean up, and you have not reverted those similar edits. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The burden on new material is on the editor to acheive consensus. Bear in mind I have not uniformly opposed all your edits to this article, namely changing the heading of the section. I thought that was a neutral move. However, I caution you on barging through with a POV attitude in editing this article. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 04:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing "POV", sans the fact that the article mentioned nothing of the interview, nor the fact that he did not renounce racism. Elsewhere in the article, there are mentions of Thurmond "softening" his stance on several racial topics, and there is an elaborate section on his illegitimate child, but that was the extent. The heading, "Moderation of views on race" is a POV-push to liberalize Thurmond as being soft on racial topics, which was contradicted in the Charlotte Observer interview and in the Slate article -- both reliable citations. You have been dully noted in the past on your talk page for removing information that, in your opinion, was "too liberal" or "POV" with much controversy; perhaps a request for comment would do better. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

First, "dully" is spelled duly. Second, it appears you are threatening a bad-faith abuse of process for the purposes of intimidation. This is frowned upon at Wikipedia and may result in sanctions upon the abuser. You are purposely posting opinion you agree with on Wikipedia. Slate has had a history of doing hit pieces on Republican politicians, including Trent Lott. Opinion pieces may be fine reading material but they are not appropriate sources for a respectable encylopedia. WatchingYouLikeAHawk 04:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for the spelling correction; I'm sure many care (as I previously stated before). As for my "threats," can you cite where I have been "intimidating" users and "abusing the process"? Posting citations and requesting that others aim for WP:RFC and talk pages instead of edit-warring is not a threat. Also requesting that users stop corrupting citation templates by deleting portions of it that make the page unreadable is also well within bounds. Your reiteration on Slate's "hit pieces" against Republican politicians is unfounded and uncited. The interview in the Charlotte Observer is also not an "opinion" piece -- instead, featured as a primary article. Are you sure you verified the source and read it? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

let's please assume good faith please. I get that this is ac otnroversial subject but there's no need to get mad at other editors who are workin just as hard as you are to work on such a difficult and tricky subject as Mr Strom Thurmand, former Senator of Democrat Party. User:Smith Jones 14:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for resolution

This is regarding the addition of two reliable sources that are at dispute that concerns Strom Thurmond's racial issues of the past. The additions began at Robert Byrd where they were disputed because one editor claimed that the Slate was an op-ed piece and shouldn't constitute factual evidence regarding racial issues. I later added this regarding Thurmond, as the Slate article mentioned that he never recounted his racist viewpoints. The Slate citation was disputed and removed, but was reinstated as the Slate had a second verifiable source: an interview with Strom Thurmond himself, as a main feature, at the Charlotte Observer's newspaper. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think "he never fully renounced his earlier viewpoints" should be removed from the article. The article should focus on what he said and did during his life, not on what he did not do. If someone believes he renounced, it is his burden to provide a source. Thurmond did many things in his long life, which should be enumerated. Mpublius 18:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean, mask and discard what he said in an interview in an attempt to cleanse what he said and done in the past? The source has been provided, although the article is in the CO archives and accessible through services such as Access World News. Would you disregard a book if it was a source if no free or snipped version was available online? Or a newspaper with no online homepage? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be used. The only reason not to use it would be to protect the reputation of a racist old fart named Strom. Albion moonlight` —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is looking, here is another secondary source the uses the quote that Strom didn't regret any of his actions (see link [6]). Remember 20:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Ugh, Strom Thurmond. I think "he never fully renounced his earlier viewpoints" is a bit too editorial for an encyclopedia. He's spewed a couple of quotes indicating his lack of regret, cite those in the article and let the reader draw his/her own conclusions. Cap'n Walker 19:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Responding to the RfC. There appear to be some available good sources on the subject's later views. These should be summarised carefully. Points such as him enrolling his daughter in a racially-mixed school should be left out unless they are specifically mentioned by a source, and even then it should be "X cited that fact that Thurmond had...". Otherwise, the article is leading the reader to a particular view rather than letting him/her make up their own mind. Itsmejudith 07:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Strom and Peanuts

I deleted this section:

"* Strom Thurmond was the inspiration for the famous Planters' peanuts mascot, Mr. Peanut, and is quoted in the November 1932 issue of Homespun Magazine as saying, "I love me some Planters! Hot damn!""

Sadly, it seems as if there is no more bad jokes pages on here. So I felt that bizarre section should be remembered somehow. --RobbieFal 20:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of Sue Logue in "Other Relationships"

I'll leave it to the more experienced here to decide if an edit is in order or not, but the section regarding Sue Logue seems to be supported by rather questionable sources -- one being a non-neutral political newsletter, and the other being a Geocities page that appears to reiterate what's contained in the political newsletter, almost verbatim. Perhaps there are more reliable, neutral sources that could support this? Reecesel (talk) 07:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Good catch! I removed it per WP:RS. Left a note in the edit summary. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 07:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Continuity or erroneous date?

The article states

He was a farmer, teacher and athletic coach until 1929, when he became Edgefield County's superintendent of education, serving until 1933. Thurmond read law with his father and was admitted to the South Carolina Bar in 1930. He served as the Edgefield Town and County attorney from 1930 to 1938, and joined the United States Army Reserve in 1924. In 1933 Thurmond was elected to the South Carolina Senate and represented Edgefield until he was elected to the Eleventh Circuit judgeship.

The selection jumps suddenly from events in the late 1920s and the 1930s to his joining the Army Reserve in 1924. Either the date (1924) is wrong, or the paragraph should be rewritten to avoid a disturbing interruption or discontinuity in the narrative, by putting the Army Reserve comment first. Indeed, the paragraph is jumping around, datewise, willy-nilly.

Does someone know if the actual date of his entry into the Army Reserve is indeed 1924? Is there a citeable reference to this? Bill Jefferys (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Error in Citation 3

The link points to slate instead of the Charlotte Observer article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.141.240.136 (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"Assault" on Senator Ralph Yarborough

I went looking for a citation for the "assault" on Senator Ralph Yarborough described in the article:

In a notable incident on July 9, 1964, he assaulted Texas Senator Ralph Yarborough ...

This appears to be a significant mischaracterization of what actually happened. Time magazine called the episode "one of the silliest episodes in the Senate's history". See the following sources:

1. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,875945,00.html
2. New York Times, July 12, 1964, pg. E2
3. "Ol' Strom: An Unauthorized Biography of Strom Thurmond", Univ of South Carolina Press, 2003, Jack Bass, Marilyn W. Thompson.

In brief, Thurmond was trying to convince Senators to stay out of the committee room, to prevent a quorum for a confirmation vote which Yarborough supported. Thurmond and Yarborough had served in the same unit in the army many years before and they had wrestled each other at that time. It appears that the "fight" was a agreed-upon, good-natured contest to see whether Yarborough could get Thurmond into the committee room, or Thurmond could keep Yarborough out of the room.

My first inclination was to correct the article with an accurate description of the incident, but I really don't think it makes sense to retain anything. So what if two 61-year old Senators engaged in some horse-play. I have deleted the sentence from the article.

-- JPMcGrath 06:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

"Slate?"

• Since when is the liberal blog Slate.com ever been considered an objective or even an accurate source on anything at anytime? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.130.144.186 (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

First South Carolinian versus first Southern Senator to hire an African-American staffer?

The article currently says that when Thurmond hired African American Tim Moss, he was the first Southern senator to do so. There are plenty of sources that say this. However, these sources just mention it as a one-liner mentioned in an off-hand way. I also can't find any sources from the time of the hire, early 1970s, that describe it as a first by a Southern senator. Instead, they describe it as the first by a Senator or congressmember from South Carolina, for example an editorial from the Washington Post, reproduced in another paper here: [7].

Also, there were two African-American Senators who were themselves from the South during the Reconstruction period (neither from South Carolina). I can't find a lot of information about their work, but it seems possible that they had at least one black staffer between them.

I think a best match to source material is to describe the hire as either the first in South Carolina or the first by a Southern senator, and change:

"he was the first southern senator to appoint a black aide."

to

"he appointed Thomas Moss to his staff, variously described as the first appointment of a black aide by a South Carolinian congressional member or southern senator."

We could also add the Washington Post reference above. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thurmond wasn't the first to appoint an African-American to a non-menial position. That was done by Mississippi Senator Pat Harrison in 1937 (or at least Harrison was earlier). [8] I will update the article. Brian A Schmidt (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

1957 Photo?

The first photo of Senator Thurmond is dated 1957. However, by simply looking at Senator Thurmond's tie and suit, it's very unlikely that photo was taken in 1957. It's most likely a photo from the 1970s or early 1980s.

Furthermore, look at the photo of Thurmond in 1960. In that photo, he's bald and gray, before he had a hair transplant and stared dying his hair. In 1957, Thurmond was still bald and gray, he did not have a full head of brown hair like in the alleged 1957 photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.106.173 (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I share your suspicions. The description for the photo is "Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina during his record-setting filibuster against the 1957 Civil Rights Act", which is pretty specific. But the date for the photo is listed as "Unknown, presumably 1957", which is hard to reconcile with the specificity of the description. My guess is that the person who uploaded the photo found it here and made the assumption that it shows Thurmond during the 1957 filibuster, which is not stated on that web page. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 06:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Democrat/Republican

Thurmond was credited with the conservative switch to the Republicans (in light of civil rights, etc). Can we have some mention here. Perhaps under "early life and career" Or is suppose under the respective decade it happened (60's? or the Goldwater era came later?)Lihaas (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Post-1970 views regarding race

Mention the newly enfranchised black vote Javaweb (talk) 05:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Javaweb

Post-1970 views regarding race

The Post-1970 significance of the black vote in SC should be mentioned. This would be inserted at the start of the "Post-1970" section. No text would be deleted:

In 1970 South Carolina, blacks were about 30% of the population Once the 1965 voting rights act was passed, black votes counted for the first time ever in his state and black sentiments could no longer be ignored.
Discussion?Javaweb (talk) 05:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Javaweb

Agree it is useful to discuss this vote, but suggest a more factual account: "Following enforcement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the state was forced to end discriminatory measures that had disfranchised black voters. In 1882, the Eight Box Law served as an indirect literacy test. In 1895, the state's new constitution required potential voters to prove to white registrars the ability to read the constitution. By 1896, in a state where blacks comprised a majority of the population, only 5,500 black voters had succeeded in registering to vote. Blacks had voted following the Civil War and up until 1896, despite having to weather the 8-Box rule, and violence and intimidation at the polls from the KKK and later Red Shirts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkwells (talk • contribs) 18:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Write in candidate

According to Write-in candidate and { Washington Post, "Murkowski appears to make history in Alaska", Debbi Wilgoren, 3 November 2010 (accessed 3 November 2010) } , he is actually the second elected to the US Senate through a write-in. The first was in a special election in 1946, where everyone was a write-in because it was a blank ballot. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to Murkowski's apparent win as it has no bearing on Thurmond's life or career. This detail is appropriate in the article about Murkowski. I'm happy to discuss any disagreements. --Yopienso (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why Murkowski has to figure in this article. I won't fuss over a footnote, but believe the inclusion is more appropriate at this page. --Yopienso (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Strom Thurmond speech.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Strom Thurmond speech.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Does Jean Crouch's Find A Grave entry belong in Strom Thurmond's article?

A few days ago, I added the Find A Grave entry for Jean Crouch Thurmond, who was Strom Thurmond's first wife. The edit was either deleted or moved, because it was "in the wrong article." Jean Crouch does not have a Wikipedia article, and I don't know where it is appropriate to post her Find A Grave memorial. If Crouch doesn't have her own article, I don't understand why it's inappropriate to add it to Strom Thurmond's article. After all, she WAS his wife, and I see no harm to adding links to immediate relatives of people who don't have a specific article of their own.

Anthony22 (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The "Find a Grave" entry was added at the bottom of the article. Such usage is generally used for links associated with the subject of the article, not family members. Spouses (and particularly former spouses) don't automatically have sufficient notability for much inclusion. If Crouch's "Find a Grave" entry included information to support a claim made in this article, such as in the "Marriages and children" section, I'd consider its use as a reference citation. I don't think it belonged where it was, however. —ADavidB 22:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Composition of voters in 1964

An editor wanted a reference of "white" to "white conservative voters" deleted, in relation to Thurmond's attracting voters in 1964 to the Republican Party, but this is accurate and needed to show changes in the electorate due to the civil rights movement. Before passage and enforcement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, most of SC's African-American voters were disfranchised, due to provisions of its turn-of-the century constitutions. Due to the disfranchisement achieved by the 1895 constitution, although in 1896 a majority of state residents were African Americans, only 5500 were able to register to vote. By 1964, African Americans constituted about 30% of the SC electorate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkwells (talk • contribs) 18:49, 17 May 2014‎ (UTC)

Disenfranchisement

Str1977, what needs clarifying? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopienso (talk • contribs) 23:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)‎

Perhaps some specific examples? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adavidb (talk • contribs) 13:03, 6 April 2015‎ (UTC)

My sig didn't form when I first postedk and when I click on the section I started, I get taken to one about Lott. ???

I was asking Str1977 what s/he believes needs clarifying here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopienso (talk • contribs) 15:04, 6 April 2015‎ (UTC)

This is YoPienso, and something's haywire here with the formatting.

Str1977 is more than welcome to respond; until then, I was suggesting that some specific examples of disenfranchisement might clarify that part of the article. (I found a missing </ref> tag, fixed it, and signed the entries that weren't signed properly.) —ADavidB 02:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Please feel free to remove redundant sections and comments about the disenfranchisement. YoPienso (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the former redundancy here. —ADavidB 09:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I've also replaced the clarification template in the article with "via literacy requirements, poll taxes, and limited county representation". Discussion about clarification remains welcome. —ADavidB 10:41, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Technical Error

"She was born on October 12, 1925, to Carrie "Tunch" Butler (1909–1948), who had worked for Thurmond's parents and was 16 years old when Thurmond, then 22, impregnated her."

This is a contradiction, since Thurmond was born in 1902. If she was born in 1925, then Thurmond was around 22 years older than she was; not 6 years.

98.229.232.221 (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The sentence references Carrie Butler, Essie Mae Washington-Williams' mother, who was born in 1909. clpo13_(talk) 15:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)