Jesse Helms vs. Sam Ervin

Sam Spagnola points out, correctly, how some journalists are making the obligatory prefatorial comments when discussing Jesse Helms' death.

But one national journalist of considerable stature-- John Fund of the Wall Street Journal-- has some nice things to say about Helms. And he makes a comparison between the media's treatment of Jesse Helms and its treatment of another former North Carolina Senator, Sam Ervin.  He points out there was considerable affection for Ervin because of his role in the Watergate hearings (and presumably also because of his party affiliation):

"The mainstream media rarely put Helms's career in context the way they did, for example, with Sam Ervin, a Democrat who served with Helms in the Senate from North Carolina before retiring in 1975. Ervin was the leading legal strategist against Civil Rights legislation, and he largely crafted the Southern Manifesto against Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court case that ruled school segregation unconstitutional. But Ervin was the man who chaired the Watergate hearings that helped bring down Richard Nixon, and his views on civil rights were almost never mentioned. Both Helms and Ervin were courtly, principled conservatives. Only one became a cartoon media villain."

I have been living in North Carolina for 14 years.  In addition, I have been following national politics since the early 1970's.  But I can scarcely recall anyone in the media, here in NC or nationally, emphasizing this part of Ervin's legacy.

(Incidentally, on a seemingly unrelated matter, Ervin's grandson is on track to win a state judgeship in this year's election). 

Comments

[John]

Joe,

Sen. Sam Ervin's views on race relations have nothing to do with how the late Jesse Helms behaved towards African-Americans throughout his career as a journalist, commentator, political operative and U.S. Senator. Whatever Sen. Ervin did or did not do does not absolve Jesse Helms. Helms was, to the day he died, an unrepentant, unapologetic bigot and segreationist. No amount of revisionist history or resume cleansing will change that. This does not mean I am glad Sen. Helms is dead. My thoughts and prayers are with his wife and family. But let's tell the truth here. Helms was no friend to the Black citizens of North Carolina. I'll tell you something else I pray for. I pray that the type of racism that Sen. Helms practiced in his life will die with him.

Senator Helms's hero, Gen. Robert E. Lee once said, "All ground is level at the foot of the cross." Jesse will have a lot to answer for when he stands before his Maker.

[bubba]

"Helms was, to the day he died, an unrepentant, unapologetic bigot and segreationist."

Wow!

You must have had personal access to the senator all those years to be able to make those statements. I'm impressed!

How did you manage to do that?

[Joe Guarino]

John, I think the author was primarily comparing the mainstream media's handling of the two men.

But surely, someone who led the opposition to Brown vs. the Board of Education-- like Ervin-- must be at least as culpable as Helms is made out to be on matters related to race. Remember-- Brown was huge.

There is disagreement among commentators as to whether Helms was racist, but he did make some impolitic statements over the years. And yes, the late Senator will be subject to the final judgment with all his imperfections, as we all will sooner or later, with ours.

[Joe Guarino]

Good point, Bubba.

[John]

It's not difficult, Bubba. Just read Helms' 2005 memoir. He never apologized for denying African-Americans equal status under the law. Voters rights, quality schools, employment opportunities, or even the right to sit down and have a lousy cup of coffee at Wolworths. He fillibustered the bill to extend the Voting Rights Act.

But he wasn't a bigot. Got it.

[Joe Guarino]

John, perhaps there are alternative explanations other than bigotry to some of the things you mentioned-- things like the constitutional order, federalism and ideological principle.

I don't recall all the details of every single one of these issues and Helms' role, but I think we need to be careful about equating a political stance or position or philosophy with bigotry. It is entirely possible to be in favor of all the things you mention, and still be a bigot. And vice versa.

[bubba]

"John, perhaps there are alternative explanations other than bigotry to some of the things you mentioned-- things like the constitutional order, federalism and ideological principl."

Joe, there are NEVER any alternative explanations allowed among those with certain agenda driven mindsets.

The poster in question "gets it" alright.

He gets the foot in the mouth when he makes a smart ass remark backed up by nothing more than the standard discredited talking points.

No big surprise there.

[Fred Gregory]

Excerpt from a book review which appeared in the UNC Alumni Review January 2008:

Senator Sam and Race: A Deeper Look

As have many biographers, Karl Campbell went through several phases as he worked on his study of Sam Ervin '17. He started out as an admirer of the former senator from North Carolina. Then came painful reassessments, as Campbell examined Ervin's civil rights record. Ultimately, though, he reached another understanding of Ervin: "I really like him, and I admire his integrity, and I admire his struggle to be as good a person and as good a statesman as he could be, given the times."

Senator Sam Ervin: Last of the Founding Fathers, recently published by UNC Press, is the culmination of more than two decades' work on Ervin, the Morganton native who gained national prominence when he chaired the Senate committee investigating the Watergate scandal. Campbell, who holds master's ('87) and doctoral ('96) degrees in history from Carolina, began his study of Ervin in the mid-'80s.

The book is an evenhanded look at "a man full of paradoxes," as Campbell writes. Ervin's tenure as Watergate committee chair is covered in detail, of course, and Campbell praises the senator for his confrontation of Sen. Joseph McCarthy and his commitment to civil liberties. But the essence of the book is its study of Ervin's North Carolina roots, particularly his racial views, and on that score Campbell is decidedly critical.

"I think this book is a demonstration of the soft Southern Strategy," said Campbell, an associate professor of history at Appalachian State since 1997. "By that, I mean Ervin followed a new approach to defeating civil rights bills. He turned away from the angry racist predecessors and turned instead to a more legalistic constitutional approach to defeating civil rights. I found many examples of civil rights activists saying that Ervin's strategy was far more dangerous.

"At the same time, Ervin, like most Southerners, was very complex. His views on race were very complex and very paternalistic. A lot of people say he can be excused, that he was a man of the times. I don't think we can do that. His times were ones of great debate. There were many people around him arguing for racial justice and equality for women. He made his choices, and he had the opportunity to change."

[Joe Guarino]

Interesting excerpt, Fred. Thanks for providing it.

[bubba]

Cross-posted at Sam's:

I think this puts it all into perfect context:

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/07/05/jesse-helms-conservative-warrior/

“We’re going to hear a lot of selective outrage about Jesse Helms and his racist past and whatever, but remember this, he was hated because he was a successful conservative warrior who stood up for what he believed in and got things done. He was the bane of liberals from the seventies on and he has not been forgiven for that sin. And even worse: He couldn’t have cared less what the national media thought of him.”

Indeed.