[purephase]

You'll need to source that. Despite some evidence in his later actions, Strom never vocally repudiated his earlier racism. I couldn't find any sources on it.

His filibuster against the Civil Rights Act put him in this position. Had he succeeded, his impact would have been far more detrimental to the rights of those protected under the act today then anything Byrd had/has done.

Both are disagreeable sorts, but Strom's lasting impact would have been much, much worse.

[Turing_Machine]

"You'll need to source that."

See the actual text that paulv selectively quoted out of context below.

http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/1998/07/13/met_233245.s...

Second sentence: "U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., no longer supports racial segregation."

Actual quote from Thurmond below:

"I may have said some things that I could have left off because I favor everybody receiving equal treatment," Mr. Thurmond said. "Race should not enter into it. It's merit that counts."

And in a (probably futile) attempt to stave off another misstatement of my position: I don't believe Strom Thurmond stopped being a racist. I don't believe that Robert Byrd stopped being one either.

[Turing_Machine]

"His filibuster against the Civil Rights Act put him in this position."

"His"? Singular?

Both Byrd and Thurmond attempted to filibuster the Civil Rights Act, so I don't know where you're getting "anything Byrd had done" from.

[purephase]

I should have been more specific. The 24 hour marathon filibuster, the longest in history, put him in this position. There were others who filibustered the Civil Rights Act bills, but none of them made such a dramatic show of it.

[Turing_Machine]

Byrd filibustered for 14 hours. Sorry, that might demonstrate that Thurmond had better bladder control, but that's about it.