In an unexpected turn of events, President Joe Biden has found himself in the midst of controversy after his recent speech commemorating the 60th anniversary of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. As first reported by RedState, the President used the occasion to not only honor the civil rights group but also to make a rather bold claim about his involvement in historical legislative efforts.
During his speech, Biden asserted, “I was able to literally, not figuratively, talk Strom Thurmond into voting for the Civil Rights Act before he died.” This assertion immediately raised eyebrows given the historical context surrounding Thurmond’s stance on civil rights legislation. Strom Thurmond, a former Democratic senator from South Carolina, is perhaps best known for his staunch opposition to civil rights initiatives during the 20th century.
As RedState pointed out, the timeline of Biden’s claim doesn’t quite align with historical records. Biden wasn’t elected to the Senate until several years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the legislation he presumably referred to in his speech. Furthermore, Thurmond played a prominent role in a “multi-speaker” filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that lasted a staggering 60 days, and he ultimately did not support the bill.
Thurmond’s legacy is marked by his record-setting filibuster in 1957 against the Civil Rights Act of that year, during which he spoke for over 24 hours in an attempt to obstruct the legislation. Given these historical facts, it remains a puzzle how Biden could claim to have influenced Thurmond’s vote on a civil rights bill.
Seeking clarification, inquiries were made to the Biden White House regarding the President’s comments about Thurmond. The response from the administration hinted at the skepticism surrounding Biden’s statements, stating, “If true, and as history has shown us we have to be highly suspicious of what Biden says as it relates to his supposed civil rights activism, it’s still not the Civil Rights Act he claimed to be personally instrumental in getting Thurmond to support.”
Social media, particularly Twitter, buzzed with speculation over what Biden might have been referring to. Some users speculated that he could have been alluding to the 1991 Civil Rights Act. Regardless of the specifics, the overarching sentiment was that Biden appeared to be taking undue credit for influencing Thurmond’s stance on civil rights legislation, which contradicts historical accounts of Thurmond’s positions.
Notably, conservative commentator Armstrong Williams took to Twitter to offer his perspective on the matter. In a lengthy tweet, Williams argued that it was not Joe Biden who had significant influence over Thurmond’s stance on civil rights matters. Williams’s viewpoint further underscores the skepticism surrounding Biden’s claims.
As pundits and the public alike dissected Biden’s assertions, it became clear that his remarks had sparked a debate about his track record on civil rights issues. Detractors highlighted a pattern of inconsistency and embellishment in his statements about his role in historical events. While the Biden administration may attempt to clarify his comments, the prevalent skepticism suggests that his assertion of influencing Thurmond’s stance on a Civil Rights Act remains far from established historical fact.
Anticipation grew for the response of media “fact checkers” to weigh in on the situation, although many remained skeptical of the extent to which such assessments would provide definitive answers. The prevailing sentiment among critics echoed a familiar refrain, suggesting that Biden’s remarks might be chalked up to his characteristic off-the-cuff style and tendency to make controversial statements.
As this narrative continues to unfold, it highlights the challenges of historical accuracy and political rhetoric. While Biden’s assertion may have drawn attention to the legacy of Strom Thurmond and the complex history of civil rights legislation, it also underscores the need for careful consideration of historical facts before making bold claims about personal influence and involvement in significant legislative achievements.
What do you think? Comment below!