or download them from itunes. the author on the koch brothers and battle over their father's entire. >> it is this lawsuit that played out between the four brothers. charles and david on one side, bill and frederick and other shareholders on the other. this culminates in a boardroom showdown that charles ends up forging. they were trying to expand the size of the board or this would have ended up opposing charles as chairman. they would have taken a greater role in the direction of the company. the end result is bill is tossed out of the company a few years later by his brothers. there is a dramatic moment in where the board has to

sit down and decide bill's fate. eastern --ight at sunday night at 8:00 eastern. >> on june 10, 96 to four, the senate invoked closure on the civil rights bill for the first time in its history preventing a filibuster and leading to the passage of the 1964 civil rights act. next, betty koed recounts the debate onhe senate's the landmark bill. this program is about 45 minutes. >> mr. anderson? aye. and so it began. the roll call vote on perhaps the most consequential cloture motion ever introduced in the senate. would it succeed? would cloture be invoked?

with the civil rights bill finally become law? as the roll call began on june 10, 1964, no one knew for sure. they just hoped. this moment was a long time coming. after me. i am betty koed. i am the senate associate historian. welcome to the third of our lunch hour talks to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the senate passing the civil rights act grea. our first covered the long, mostly unsuccessful history was civil rights legislation from the civil war to early 1964. despite promising beginnings in the 1860's and 1870's, the senate became a major stumbling block to civil rights legislation for nearly a century. in our second talk, explored how the senate's civil rights

proponents of the 1960's carefully built a bipartisan strategy to get the bill to the floor to get organized to overcome a filibuster and get the minority leader on board to gain the necessary minority votes to bring -- gain cloture. if you missed either of those talks, you can explore those topics on your own by visiting senate.gov. click on civil rights act. our storyago, we left on may 26, 1964, just as minority leader everett dirksen introduced his compromise bill in the form of a substitute. it was a moment of triumph. the civil rights proponents had successfully steer their way through the legislative thicket to gain a workable and they

hoped possible civil rights bill. one daunting hurdle remained. cloture. a cloture motion is the only available means to end a scene like this by placing a time limit on further consideration. today, cloture motions are common, even routine. they still are used to end filibusters. but often they are used for other procedural reasons, to bring order to the legislative process or manage a legislative calendar. this was not always the case. the senate reluctantly adopted cloture in 1917. at the time, many senators favored ending dilatory filibusters, but they were reluctant to give up their right to speak at length. the senate is the only place in

our system where despite the organized power behind any measure to rush consideration and compel adoption, we still have a chance to be heard. like so much senate action, cloture was the product of compromise. stirred on by president woodrow wilson and the crisis of world 1917, themarch 8, senate adopted the cloture rule, now rule 20 rule. unlimited debate. required a 2/3 majority to invoke cloture. that meant 67 votes. as one noted, free speech in the senate should still be the rule and cloture the exception. it remains the exception for decades to come. from 1917 to 1964, the senate

introduced 22 cloture motions, fewer than one a year. over that same time, the senate invoked cloture just five times. five times in 47 years, and never did it invoke cloture on the civil rights bill. although it tried 11 times. illustrate,tistics opposition to cloture or any procedure that might interfere with the senate's deliberative nature remained strong. and not just among segregationists who opposed civil rights. some senators, particularly those from small or sparsely populated states, opposed all cloture motions on principle viewing it as a gag rule to is dirksenate, explained senate version to cloture is traditional. never supported cloture

even when they supported the passage of the bill. debate continued through the spring of 1964. supporters understood the tremendous odds they faced. we have now reached the point where there must be action, dirksen told his colleagues on may 26 a scene introduced the compromise bill -- as he introduced the compromise bill. it faced opposition in the house, particularly from william mccullough. tempered praise from the justice department and civil rights activists. but in the senate, the filibuster continued. , they worse -- determined to keep the show going. to stop that, the leaders needed 67 votes. caucusld's democratic had 67 members in 1964, but

fewer than 40 supported cloture. in addition to the 22 southern senators leading the filibuster, several democratic senators opposed cloture on principle. and best, mansfield humphrey hoped to get 42 democrats. this meant derksen had to deliver at least 25 of his 33 republican votes to end to filibuster. theoth sides counted heads, majority leader announced cloture would be attempted in early june. you have to hit bedrock some time, he warned, you have to have a showdown. was eager to move forward but also recognize the political reality of the moment. let me pause to provide a little political context because no senate action ever takes place

in a vacuum. as mansfield announced his plans for a cloture vote, memorial day weekend was quickly approaching. members reader for a break. in the days before a mandated recess, the senate had been in session continuously since generally seven with no break longer than a weekend. even more important, this was a presidential election year, the crucial california primary was days away, june 2. the incumbent lyndon johnson was assured of nomination. the republicans battled over which candidate would face him in the november election. in hindsight, we know that candidate was barry goldwater, the senator from arizona. but as republicans headed to the california primary, no one knew the outcome. henry cabot lodge junior had grown strong in the early primaries winning the first five. by april, nelson rockefeller had emerged as a strong contender.

not until mid-may did the tide finally turning goldwater's favor. the california primary made his nomination all but certain. the primary season highlighted deep divisions in the republican party and in dirksen's senate caucus. it also proved to be a major headache for civil rights proponents with senators dispersed around the country and republicans preoccupied with presidential politics, it was difficult to maintain an accurate vote count. even more troublesome was the fact that barry goldwater was among those who opposed cloture in all situations. in the wake of his primary win in california, five gop senators defected to support his stand on the gag rule. dirksent turks and -- short of his necessary 25 votes. there was one other contextual item i will mention only in passing. this could be a whole talk in

itself. at the same time the senate was locked and contentious argument aer the bobby baker affair, high-profile investigation of a former democratic party secretary charged with fraud and bribery, civil rights proponents worried this partisan battle might want some republicans to retaliate and vote against cloture. in this highly politicized environment, the number of senators supporting cloture fluctuated every day. but the bipartisan team promoting the bill never stopped working, never stopped lobbying, and never stop hoping. mike mansfield, determined to move ahead, scheduled a cloture vote for june 9. no sooner had he made that announcement, however, when a new problem arose. the iowa senator, a staunch conservative who chaired the republican policy committee, was wavering in his important support.

he resented derksen's closed-door process of negotiation and insisted other republicans be given the chance amendments. he was well placed to influence his republican colleagues. to make matters worse, dirksen fell ill with a serious chest cold and a flareup of stomach ulcers. for weeks he doggedly pursued a optimize bill working long hours. by june, the pace and pressure had taken its toll. they forget i am nosing chicken anymore, he explained to reporters. , get out of this place at 9:00 have dinner, and get up again at dawn. with dirksen recuperating at hickenlooper june, had free sway to persuade republicans. he returned to find his carefully built republican coalition crumbling. in form puberty humphrey the

prospects for cloture -- he informed hubert humphrey the prospects for cloture were not good and postponed the vote to june 10. hickenlooper suggested a package of amendments to be considered before the cloture vote. the first provided all defendants in contempt cases would be entitled to trial by jury. sought to exempt small businesses from employment discrimination regulation. the third from hickenlooper himself would limit funding to aid school disaggregation. this created another dilemma for the proponents. if they denied hickenlooper the chance to introduce the amendment, you might retaliate and take away needed those. demands,greed to his they would open the door for other opposition amendments, particularly from richard russell, the head of the southern caucus. i fear if we accept the proposal, commented paul

douglas, we shall open up pandora's box. undeterred, the always optimistic hubert humphrey pursued a compromise agreement. in exchange for a vote on those three amendments, humphrey gained three republican votes. south dakota, nebraska, and new hampshire. 6, yes, we hadne saturday sessions in 1964, hickenlooper asked for unanimous consent to debate the three amendments. no objection was heard. an angry richard russell complained, you gave into hickenlooper's demands but ignored mine, he told hubert humphrey. humphrey replied you have not any votes to give us some cloture and these fellows do. the filibuster continued. russell, leader of the southern caucus, pushed for more revisions in another attempt to stall the process.

if we go on the basis the senator from georgia has outlined, we shall be here until 1984 and still be voting on amendments. 8,monday morning, june mansfield filed the cloture motion. it was signed by 27 democrats and 11 republicans they vote scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on wednesday, june 10. proponents had just 48 hours to lock up the votes. the final showdown began. tuesday, june 9, 1964. the clock ticked away on the cloture motion as the senate addressed hickenlooper's package of amendments. the morten amendment on jury trials past 51-48. they can look for a minute to withhold financial aid failed 40-56. the cotton amendment to exempt small businesses failed 34-63. with those those completed, another obstacle to cloture was

gone. all that was left was the filibuster. p.m., senator robert byrd took the floor. and 800-page hand speech laying out all the reasons why the senate should not invoke cloture on the civil rights act. judgment, he explained, the civil rights bill would impair the civil rights of all americans. cannot be justified on any basis, legal, economic, moral, or religious. for 14 hours and 13 minutes, senator byrd dissected the bill title by title laying out his arguments against passage. reporters called at the last gasp of the filibuster. as the evening wore on, senator yield forsked byrd to a question. he agreed. is the senator from west virginia able to give us any

idea as to the hour at which you might conclude his address, humphrey asked. >> i have enough material to carry me if i read it carefully and painstakingly another 12 or 15 hours, byrd responded, but i assure the able senator from minnesota that i shall indeed complete my recitation no later :59, in time to recess in accordance with the previous order. senator byrd was always a stickler for rules and procedure. since this was the u.s. senate and it was senator byrd speaking, the west virginia recited some poetry. neighbor'sed upon my winvine are owned by him, but ao mine. humphrey promised to bring byr

d red roses in the morning, and he did anyone -- and he did, pinning a red rose to his lapel in the chamber. then he left for the long filibuster to be heard. 9:51 in the morning, senator byrd concluded his speech on time. the debate on the civil rights bill occupied the senate continuously pursued the working days, including seven saturdays. yield the floor, the chamber filled beyond capacity. senators sat at their desks. intother guests squeezed the limited standing space in the back of the chamber. visitors packed the galleries. outside the capital, among the news cameras and microphones, hundreds more gathered open for a glimpse of the dramatic proceedings inside the senate chamber. there was no c-span in 1964.

it was a scene reminiscent of the senate's golden age of the 19th century. the 1964 civil rights act would protect -- provide protection of voting rights, ban discrimination, and establish equal opportunity as the law of the land. an earlier version had been proposed by charles sumner in 1870. century later, it was on the verge of passing its most difficult hurdle along the road to enactment. , along withagers their leaders, believed they had secured the 67 votes required to invoke cloture and finally force a vote on the historic bill. only the roll call could confirm that hope. mike mansfield began, the senate stands at the crossroads of history, and the time for decision is at hand. as the restless crowd settled

into every available space, senator richard russell voiced his final opposition. within the hour, russell declared as much to the galleries as his colleagues, in the senate will decide whether we will abandon our proud position by imposing cloture or gag rule on its members. russell rechecked the major points of opposition. i appeal to senators to rise above the pressure to which they have been subjected and reject this legislation that will result in vast changes. not only in our social order but in our very form of government. hubert humphrey countered. in the senate, the constitution of the united states is on trial. the question is whether this nation will be divided or, as we are taught in our pledge of allegiance, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. it was an emotional. -- it was an emotional appeal

from a crusader for equality. i say to my colleagues of the senate that perhaps in your lives you will be able to tell your children's children you were here for america to make the year 1964 our freedom near. finally, everett dirksen took the floor reflate summarizing the compromise package, including the final amendments, you spoke in support of the bill with his customary eloquence. jokester onhe wry display that day, but the serious legislator who had worked hard to find a workable compromise. america grows, he says. america changes. and on the civil rights issue, we must rise with the occasion. that calls for cloture and the enactment of the civil rights bill. noting the day marked the 100th anniversary of abraham lincoln's second presidential nomination, dirksen proclaimed in words that

acted -- go to victor hugo. stronger than all armies is an idea whose time has come. it will not be denied. it is here. in the presiding officer's chair, senator metcalf stated the order at hand. is it the sense of the senate that the debate shall be brought to a close? the secretary will call the roll. on this historic occasion, the secretary of the senate called the role. the names as the names came, members and visitors alike to send with bated breath. mr. church, aye. mr. clark, aye. mr. eastland, no. wascalifornia senator present in the chamber but a brain tumor had robbed the democrat of his ability to speak. dying centerfrail

in attendance despite doctors raised his hand pointing to his eye to signal an room at it though. few who witness a poignant scene ever forgot it. mr. russell, no. with each name, the secretary marked off the tally sheet. senatorsd the chamber, and spectators kept their own tally sheet silently checking names and adding numbers waiting for the magic 67. mr. thurman, no. mr. walters, no. mr. williams, aye. that is it, it explained -- exclaimed mike mansfield. it was delaware's john williams, the 96 name to be called the

provided the decisive 67th vote. hubert humphrey raised his arms to the heaven and winked visitors in the gallery. ever dirksen just smiled. as the roll call ended, there was one more moment of drama. waiting in the cloak room was arizona senator carl hayden, the senate's longest serving member known as the dean of the senate. hayden did not answer his name when it was called. he supported the civil rights bill. but throughout his long senate career, he had opposed cloture. he had opposed all efforts to invoke cloture. it was a matter of principle. he fully embraced the senate's tradition of unlimited debate. despite his lifelong opposition to cloture, hayden had agreed he would vote yes if and only if his vote was the deciding factor. it is all right, mike mansfield

said quietly as hayden entered the chamber, we have the vote. hayden proceeded to vote no. with six wavering senators providing a four vote margin of victory, the final tally stood at 71-29. 27 republicans and 44 democrats joined forces to support cloture, some at great political risk. votesere opposed by nay from six republicans and 21 democrats. the civil rights proponents led ably by senators mansfield and had skin -- dirksen achieved a monumental victory. the cbson the plaza, newsman also ticked off each vote on a large chart. an elaborate relay system allowed him to get news from the press gallery within seconds of each vote. he announced the results to a wiki nation -- waiting nation.

cloture had been invoked. in the wake of the historic vote, there was a flurry of activity. remained of debate before a final vote, one hour for every senator. damage could still be done. immediately, southerners began a post-cloture fight. as days passed, new opposition amendments appeared designed to block or weaken the bill. but the proponents stood guard pushing back all efforts to substantially change the bill. supportersrcharge, offering their own amendments attempted to make the bill even stronger. more than 100 new amendments were proposed after cloture. 11 passed making only minor revisions to the bill. 1964, the june 19, senate convened to vote on the civil rights bill. by comparison to the cloture vote, for final passage of the bill was into collecting --

iclimatic.tic -- ant but it marked a new era in history. debate, onea long of the longest in senate history, mike mansfield explained, but it was learned and thorough and played an essential role in refining the provisions of the bill. once again, dirksen had the last word. equality of opportunity must prevail if we are to complete the covenant we have made with the people. too are the pledge we made when we held up our and carryake the oath out the laws of the constitution. after a pause, dirksen added, i am prepared for the vote. 7:40 p.m., june 19, the clerk passeded h.r. 7152 had

by a vote of 73-27. on july 2, the house approved the senate bill avoiding conference. that evening, president johnson signed the bill into law. ever dirksen was right. its time had come. what have we learned from our study of the senate and the civil rights act? and others who worked so hard to get the civil rights bill passed did not fear a lengthy debate. in fact, they welcomed it. they believed only through a link the, thorough, and diligent debate assess, could this produce a successful and passable bill. opponents welcomed it, too. in the wake of final passage, richard russell who skillfully led the southern caucus praised the bipartisan leadership team for allowing such a full debate.

by allowing the opposition to habits. , russell commented -- to have its full say, russell commented, they ultimately made the bill acceptable and enforceable in the south. in many ways, this was not senate action to regular order. mansfield and his colleagues steer the bill away from the judiciary committee which had been the graveyard for civil rights. this deft maneuver of weighted committee action, but it did nothing to curtail amendments. from march to june, the senate considered hundreds of amendments on the civil rights bill. contrary to popular perception, the senate's day-to-day business did not come to a screeching halt during this long debate. the debate certainly affected the senate schedule. but throughout this time, committees continue to meet and hold hearings on major legislation and nominations.

what about that famous filibuster? there was no reading of the phone book. there was no recitation of family recipes. it was 60 days of germane debate. it might surprise you to know the majority of that debate came not from the opposition but from the bill's supporters. the proponents of the civil rights bill used up more four-time -- floor time than the southern segregationists. the selig -- separated debaters from filibusters was intent not action. some sought to explain a complicated legislative story. the other used debate to delay the vote. a story ofis is remarkable leadership and effective partnerships. the senate and lbj. senators of both parties who led

the debate on each title of the bill, and so many lesser-known , all members of the bipartisan team of senate staff who were just as important to the story as the senators they represented. 50 years later, we concluded the senate's debate and passage of the civil rights act of 1964 remains a fascinating and remarkable achievement. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. i'm going to asked my colleague kate scott to join me at the podium. we share responsibility for the brownbag talks and would be happy to take questions or comments. there is a c-span person with a microphone if you want to raise your hand for that.

letre you leave the room, me remind you we have two more events coming up. two weeks from today, we have the conversations with the historian. that will be a fascinating talk with the senate historian along glass,ger mudd and andy who were there in 1964 covering the story. it will be a great discussion two weeks from today at noon in the russell -- kennedy caucus room down the hall. up days after that, we wrap this commemoration process with a special capital tour for senate staff, exclusively for senate staff, to be led by kate scott and jerry. we will allow emeritus staff to come, too. that will be visiting some of the spaces in the capital closely associated with the debate of and writing of the civil rights act. that, you need to register for.

you can get information about that afterwards if you would like. if there are any questions or comments, we would be happy to take them. don't be shy. cameras won't hurt you. yes. thresholds the vote needed for final passage? for cloture, you said it was 2/3. >> final passage was simple majority. there were notes partial stipulations put into the -- no special stipulations put into the process. when they got passed cloture, they knew they had the votes for passage. when they got cloture, they knew they could get passage of the bill. any others? in the biography of lbj, some historians argue it was more

senators than lbj. he talks about how lbj would pressure republicans to vote for but arguing the party of lincoln needed to vote for that. what are some of the strategies humphrey, mansfield, and the like used to convince republicans to vote for it? >> they used every strategy they could come up with, frankly. lot about lbja because he is president and our focus on this -- is on the senate. is an important figure. his role in the passage of the civil rights act has been largely exaggerated. because he has been the focus of so many biographies, it has brought a lot of attention to him. but it really is and on the whole story of how this bill got passed. he is kind of a peripheral figure to most of it. there are key moments when he would come in at dirksen or mansfield's request, but it was really mansfield stepping

forward and saying this is our job now. let us do it the way we need to do it. they board a lot of lbj's advice. -- they ignored a lot of lbj's advice. to have the president behind you is a major force. there were times dirk sent -- dirksen pulled out the lincoln card. he often said, you're from the land of lincoln, don't let your republican legacy following this bill. that had a lot of influence on dirksen. i will let kate join in on this because she worked on the story. for the rest of them, they used with a could find. they worked behind the scenes. they look for ways to help fulfill other legislative needs. they looked for ways to give cover to people. a lot of the issue with dirksen was how he could provide his vote and still give cover to very conservative members who may have constituencies not for the civil rights bill.

particularly for the federal expansion of federal power that came with the civil rights bill. so they look for ways they could leader, andority well-known conservative figure is supporting the bill. that must mean i can support it, too. a lot it was giving them political cover. they did that anyway they could find. >> one thing i might add is this long debate was significant in that it convinced a lot of members of the merits of the bill. but it was not a vast expansion of federal power that would be unchecked. dirksen had a role in assuring conservative members the bill on its merits ought to be passed. i think that was a significant piece of the story. >> one thing we found so interesting as we studied the story is how much they welcomed the debate. they were not afraid of the filibuster. from the beginning, proponents were saying, bring on the

filibuster because this is going to serve us as well as it will them. it will give us a chance to inform people, to build support, and give the information that will provide cover for those who need it at home. that was russell's comment in the end. thanks to this long debate, i can go back to george and face my constituents. i can say i thought the hard battle but we lost and now it is time to enforce the bill. that is what russell did afterwards. playat role did goldwater in the debate and how did it play out in the presidential campaign? did he and johnson discuss it? >> goldwater did not lay a huge part in the debate. he shows up from time to time. mostly, he is often presidential primary stuff. he is busy elsewhere. the fact he opposed cloture is an issue that comes up on a regular basis. there is discussion around the may and june primaries when people were saying, if dirksen should win, this might not be

good because it the republican party is not favoring the civil rights bill, if it looks like it is not going to support the civil rights bill, that can hurt us in the november election. a lot of the opposition to goldwater came to the fact he had not been a strong supporter of the bill. he had supported civil rights in the past. but there were elements of this bill he did not support. he did not support cloture on principle. there was a lot of discussion about the role he could play. as you go into the conventions in the summer, civil rights becomes a big issue. there is a lot of discussion at both conventions about the passage of the civil rights bill and how it will be implemented, who supported it and who did not. it becomes a bit of an albatross around the neck of goldwater for a while. even though he had been a strong proponent of civil rights in general, he had opposed this bill. it was used against him in the campaign. brian? >> how much of it fueled the

freedom ride summers that began late that summer of 1964? what was the blowback from the states on the violence? 21, three civil rights students disappeared in mississippi. i wanted to find out if there was any coalition as to the fallout on the passage of this bill almost 100 years after sumner introduced it. >> do you want to take that one? activistsil rights laid a large role in the story in the meetings they have had with senate leaders over consideration of the bill. but also, it is an important backdrop to the story in the sense that these activists, for them, this bill probably will not be enough. we will talk about this next year when we go into our consideration of the voting rights act which gets passed in 1960's five.

-- 95 -- 1965. they say some of the provisions are not strong enough to address the concerns that prevent them from voting in the south. plannedthat activity is long before the bill becomes law. it continues even after the passage of the bill. >> yes, kirk. i saw in that picture of the southern caucus, one of the men in the picture was sam ervin, a hero of mine growing up in the 1970's during the watergate hearings. i know he voted against this bill. i wonder what role he might have played during this legislative period and whether he or any of the men who voted against it

later repudiated their opposition to the bill. >> most notably, senator byrd did. he made it clear in later years he regretted his vote on the civil rights bill and said that many times. others did down the line. it took time for some of them. ervin played important role in the debate. they had these interesting colloquies throughout the process. they would get a person on the pro and con side that would go to the chamber. they would essentially take the title of the bill and debate it back and forth. it made for interesting debate. it makes interesting reading in the congressional reading, which is not usually the case. even for a street -- history geek like me. ervin was often chosen to present the constitutional arguments because he was an expert on constitutional law. he made these learned and eloquent arguments.

that becomes his role through that process. he is like the constitutional expert for the southern caucus. he played that role very well. he is a vocal, visible force for the southern caucus during that time. he is not yet famous. he becomes famous in the 1970's with watergate. then he becomes a folksy country wwyer, secretly while he -- ily while being this country boy on the surface. he's acivil rights bill, background actor behind russell and others. but he is an important voice in the opposition. noticed we are listening to this lecture and the richard russell building. was his opposition to the sole rights act -- civil rights activated when they considered naming a building after him? >> not really because they were naming buildings for other reasons.

he died in 1971 and they named the building in 1972. it was a fresh memory. even among those who opposed him, russell was very respected. senator whoator's had been a skilled parliamentarian for many years. he fought many legislative battles, won some and lost others. he proved to be a very worthy opponent to people. people inside the senate have great respect for richard russell. even hubert humphrey, on the opposite spectrum on civil rights issues, have great respect for richard russell. when they named the building in 1972, they did so in honor of a colleague who died recently and had been well respected. it was not on the legislative agenda. we would see it that way now. in 1972, they did not see it that way. right year. >> do you have any opposition to

invoking cloture for 50 years? how did we get to 60 votes rather than 67? >> that is a long story. it is compensated. partly due to the frustration of the inability to get cloture on civil rights bills in the 1960's, there comes a new reform movement in the 1970's. and 1975, they reach a new compromise. they decide they still want to keep unlimited debate. they still need a cloture threshold, but they agree to lower it to 60. in a modern senate, he goes from 67 to 60 votes. that is where we are now. it was a long story to get to that point. it was the effort of another reform compromise. any other questions? senatorsntioned some voted that way at great risk.

were there any particular senators who paid a heavy price? did they lose in the following election? was there a wave of any kind based on the way the vote went? >> there were senators in the midwest and west that faced a lot of constituent anger. i did not come across, maybe kate came across those where that directly led to a loss in the next election. but there were certainly a lot of cases where they lost standing in the polls. there were cases where they got a lot more friction from home. they had to go back and over the next year or two do a good job of explaining how and why they voted. they quickly move into the next debate over the voting rights act. a lot of the civil rights debate on this bill carries forth to that and the arguments continue. as time goes by and public support grows, the political cost begins to decrease. by 92625 and 1966, we are seeing

less than -- less of that. we have about one minute left. >> what was the reaction of northern constituents to the civil rights act? we know in the south there would have been strong opposition. what would have been the reaction in northern states? >> one of the things that surprised me about reading the story that i didn't remember or hadn't read was for instance in the primary process, george wallace did very well in the wisconsin primary. he did very well in the iowa caucus. he did very well in new hampshire. you have a southern segregationist running for president against alternately lyndon johnson on the democratic ticket and he is doing very well. that came as a surprise to me.

i hadn't thought that through. segregation was a national problem come a it was not only a southern problem. slavery had been a national problem. the organized opposition within the senate comes on segregation comes largely from the south. there is also a lot of sympathetic support from other states as well. the northern opposition comes from the northern liberals. there is a celebration in the north when the bill comes. they have a lot of battles ahead. if you read about the efforts at busting in the 1970's, you will find that the hardest addled around, the fiercest battleground comes in boston, not in mississippi or alabama. the is a national issue.