Talk:Harry F. Byrd

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Harry F. Byrd article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

U.S. Congress Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events".

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Virginia Top‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Presidential elections / Governors / West Virginia Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. governors (assessed as Low-importance).
	West Virginia portal This article is supported by WikiProject West Virginia (assessed as Low-importance).

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled[edit]

The segregation statement seems unusual when juxtaposed with the following paragraph from Civil Rights Act of 1957:

However, by 1957, many Southern senators were willing to see a voting rights bill passed in a weaker form. This was largely in an effort to quell the desires of minorities and integrationists, and to preserve the Democratic majority in the Senate at that time (through capturing of the integrationist vote while still maintaining a stranglehold on Southern voting policies). Along with the majority of Southern senators who allowed the bill for that reason, there were some (such as Harry Byrd) who were of the opinion that voting for minorities should be federally protected, while others wished to propel Senate leader Lyndon Johnson to greater power, and for these reasons were supporters of a bill protecting (albeit weak) voting rights in the late 1950s.

Perhaps someone with more knowledge of Byrd can comment?

It seems to me there isn't much of a contradiction, as the act he supported did not deal with the issue of segregation, but rather voting rights. While one could certainly say they are connected, they are not the same. I would suppose that that Byrd was not against blacks voting, as long as he didn't have to sit at the same lunch counter with them. The article seems to say that he only supported the act to reinforce the Democrats in the south, and to prevent a more substantial civil rights bill from being proposed. That's my take on it. -R. fiend 13:44, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1956 Election[edit]

Could you flesh out more the 1956 election and why Byrd won over 100,000 popular votes, even though he didn't run? Also, I think he won some electoral votes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwoodw1 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

During the 1950s and 60s, an movement in the South to include "unpledged electors" on the ballot arose. Essentially, these were electors who had not pledged to support a candidate, and were thus free to cast their vote to any person at the meeting of the electoral college (unlike most electors, who are selected for each party's slate with the understanding that they will vote for the party nominee if they win). The votes "won" by Byrd were actually cast for these unpledged electors. In 1960, Alabama and Missisippi both were carried by such unpledged slates, and those electors cast their votes for Byrd.Nathaniel Greene (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody tell me where the figure for the 1956 election comes from? Like the OP I think it is worthy of expansion. Pinging R. fiend who gave a figure of 134,157 when he created the article in 2004 (it was changed to 116,248 by an IP in 2008 without an edit summary). Googling gives me:

Encyclopedia of U.S. Campaigns, Elections, and Electoral Behavior: "Senator Harry F Byrd, who received 134,000 votes in the 1956 presidential election". He doesn't elaborate, and it's a 2008 book so we can't rule out the possibility he got the figure from Wikipedia.
Politics on a Human Scale: The American Tradition of Decentralism at p. 223: States' Rights party in Kentucky got 2,600 votes; independent electors in South Carolina got nearly 90,000 votes (and an endorsement from James F. Byrnes); state-specific independent electors got 43,000 in Mississippi, 44,000 in Louisiana and 20,000 in Alabama for Byrd "and perhaps others".
US Election Atlas has 1, a figure of 2,657 for Byrd and William Jenner in Kentucky; 2, a figure of 88,509 for unpledged electors (No. Petition) in South Carolina; and 3, figures of 42,966, 44,520 and 20,323 for MS, LA and AL, for a total of 196,318. These agree with the previous but, like it, they aren't broken down into Byrd and possible others.
Paths out of Dixie: discusses the independent electors support for Byrd, but no figures; talks of endorsement for Byrd from Strom Thurmond as well as Byrnes.
Guide to the Presidency: refers to "States' Rights Party of Kentucky" and "South Carolinians for Independent Electors", and their support of Byrd. Again there are no figures.

All of which has me thoroughly confused as to how many votes Byrd (or electors pledged to Byrd) actually got. Besides expanding this article, there might even be enough info out there to create a United States presidential election in South Carolina, 1956 article, if I could get it all straight. Scolaire (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed, it so happens that 2,657 + 88,509 + 42,966 = 134,162, which is within five of R. fiend's figure. Could somebody have added the figures for KY, SC and MS together? If so, who did, where and why? Scolaire (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No response, so I'm going to change it to say that he got 2,657 votes in Kentucky and 88,509 in SC. Scolaire (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harry F. Byrd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051216153610/http://www.lva.lib.va.us/whoweare/exhibits/political/harry_byrd.htm to http://www.lva.lib.va.us/whoweare/exhibits/political/harry_byrd.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Harry F. Byrd Jr. which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]