Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War. The intent seems to be to draw attention away from the party that harbors the racists of today by shaming the Democrats for the sins of our forefathers.
So being accused of something is the same as being guilty of it? The point of all of this is , to expose the propaganda and hypocrisy of the right and I do believe that I've done that.Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War. The intent seems to be to draw attention away from the party that harbors the racists of today by shaming the Democrats for the sins of our forefathers.
What difference does any of this make if people like IM2 are going to hold all whites throughout history accountable for racism and racial oppression anyway? If that is the case then Democrats today are just as guilty as Democrats then.
So being accused of something is the same as being guilty of it?Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War. The intent seems to be to draw attention away from the party that harbors the racists of today by shaming the Democrats for the sins of our forefathers.
What difference does any of this make if people like IM2 are going to hold all whites throughout history accountable for racism and racial oppression anyway? If that is the case then Democrats today are just as guilty as Democrats then.
The point of all of this is , to expose the propaganda and hypocrisy of the right and I do believe that I've done that.
I have not heard him say that and you don't what I would say if I encountered that sort of thingOf course not. But if you're not confronting people like IM2 when they say that all whites are guilty of racism then you are guilty of your own hypocrisy.
The social conservatives in America since the beginning have been overwhelmingly the racists.
That's debatable. Besides, Democrats of today are just as guilty of their own propaganda and hypocrisy. The propaganda comes in the form of, among other things, championing female empowerment and presenting Trump as a misogynist. The hypocrisy comes in the form of ignoring all the women he has hired or appointed and their success and empowerment and instead paint them as morally deficient. In other words, a woman should be empowered and successful but only as a liberal.
tu quoque (To kwok we )(Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument."
I have not heard him say thatOf course not. But if you're not confronting people like IM2 when they say that all whites are guilty of racism then you are guilty of your own hypocrisy.
and you don't what I would say if I encountered that sort of thing
Forefathers? Democrats today are practicing racists and bigots. There is no need to look to the past.Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War. The intent seems to be to draw attention away from the party that harbors the racists of today by shaming the Democrats for the sins of our forefathers.
It’s a sleazy tactic that doesn’t work, and It is time to set the record straight. First of all, Democrats- for the most part- do not deny or try to hide the parties past. Second, I will show how, when and why the racists fled from the Democratic Party and found a new home and lastly, I will present evidence that shows how, during the civil rights era, support for civil right legislation was split, not by party affiliation but by regional loyalty-specifically the old Confederacy and the Union. Let’s begin by talking about the civil war era
https://classroom.synonym.com/civil-warera-political-parties-north-vs-south-8901.html
Democratic Party
The Democratic Party was formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792 and held considerable power in the years leading up to the Civil War. The Democratic Party became divided in the 1850s over the issue of slavery, with some factions in the north supporting abolitionist causes, some northern factions supporting accommodation of the South and Southern Democrats supporting the continuation and expansion of slavery. During the elections of 1860, Southern and Northern Democrats nominated separate candidates for president. After the Civil War broke out, former Southern Democrats held considerable clout in the Confederate Congress. Northern Democrats lost much of their political power in the North during the Civil War.
Republican Party
The Republican Party was founded in the 1850s by northerners who wanted to abolish slavery. The demise of the Whig Party and the split in the Democratic Party in the years leading up to the 1860 elections gave the Republicans an opportunity to advance. Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln won the U.S. Presidential election in 1860 and Republicans gained control of Congress, leading to the secession of eleven Southern states. The Republican Party had very little support in the South before the war and virtually none after war broke out. In 1864, the Republican Party joined with Democrats who favored the war effort to form the National Union Party. Other Republicans, who were in favor of pressing the war more forcefully, left the Republican Party to form the Radical Democracy Party. The National Union Party won the 1864 presidential election.
The truth about Republicans and civil rights even then was not as clear cut as some would like us to believe:
https://medium.com/everyvote/how-the-republicans-and-democrats-switched-on-civil-rights-in-5-racist-steps-92c1b41480b
Republicans and Democrats after the Civil War
It’s true that many of the first Ku Klux Klan members were Democrats. It’s also true that the early Democratic Party opposed civil rights. But there’s more to it.
In the Civil War-era GOP wasn’t that into civil rights. They were more interested in punishing the South for seceding and monopolizing the new black vote.
In any event, by the 1890s, Republicans had begun to distance themselves from civil rights.
As for the democrats
Democrats v Republicans on Jim Crow
Segregation and Jim Crow lasted for 100 years after the end of the Civil War.
During this time, African Americans were largely disenfranchised. There was no African-American voting bloc. Neither party pursued civil rights policies — it wasn’t worth their while.
Democrats dominated Southern politics throughout the Jim Crow Era. It’s fair to say that Democratic governors and legislatures are responsible for creating and upholding white supremacist policies.
Southern Democrats were truly awful.
Then things began to change
President Truman Integrates the Troops: 1948
Fast forward about sixty shitty years. Black people are still living in segregation under Jim Crow. Nonetheless, African Americans agree to serve in World War II. At war’s end, President Harry Truman, a Democrat, used an Executive Order to integrate the troops. (That order was not executed until 1963, however because: racism.)
The Party of Kennedy v the Party of Nixon in the Civil Rights Era
Two things started happening at the same time:
· Racist Democrats were getting antsy
· Neither party could afford to ignore civil rights anymore
In 1960 Kennedy defeated Nixon. At the time of his election, the both parties unevenly supported civil rights. But President Kennedy decided to move forward.
After Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, Johnson continued Kennedy’s civil rights focus.
As you can imagine, that did not sit particularly well with most Southern Democrats. This is when Strom Thurmond flew the coop for good.
In fact, a greater percentage of Congressional Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats. Support for the Act followed geographic, not party, lines. ( More on that later)
Get that? Support for civil rights was along geographic, not party lines. Now we get to the meat of the matter:
Soon after, the Republicans came up with their Southern Strategy — a plan to woo white Southern voters to the party for the 1968 election.
The Kennedy and Johnson administrations had advanced civil rights, largely through national legislation and direct executive actions. So, the Southern Strategy was the opposite — states’ rights and no integration.
As in the Civil War, the concepts of “states’ rights” and “tradition,” were codes for “maintaining white supremacy.”
The divide between the north and the south vs the Democrats and the Republicans can be easily illustrated:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights
As we saw earlier more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act, but that is not the whole story
View attachment 193443
You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
View attachment 193444
But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".
View attachment 193445
In conclusion, maligning the entire Democratic Party as the historical racist party without regard to regional loyalties or the fact that the racists fled from the Democrats ranks in the 60’s is just dumbed down revisionist history, and patently dishonest. I have to wonder, which party will be remembered as the party of racists in another 150 years or so. Any guesses?
And as I said appeals to hypocrisy do not negate the argument.I have not heard him say thatOf course not. But if you're not confronting people like IM2 when they say that all whites are guilty of racism then you are guilty of your own hypocrisy.
I've interacted with him on multiple threads on the subject of white racism and he definitely is one of those who holds the entire white race accountable for slavery and the oppression that followed. Just ask him. If we're not guilty of blatant racism then we are at least guilty of reaping the benefits of a system that favored whites and for that we must pay.
and you don't what I would say if I encountered that sort of thing
No, I don't. I said if you're not confronting them... I don't know if you are or not but I have noticed that the only ones who do confront them are conservatives like myself.
In any case, as I said, Democrats are guilty of their own hypocrisy. The case of Trump and women I cited before is just one example.
That's debatable. Besides, Democrats of today are just as guilty of their own propaganda and hypocrisy. The propaganda comes in the form of, among other things, championing female empowerment and presenting Trump as a misogynist. The hypocrisy comes in the form of ignoring all the women he has hired or appointed and their success and empowerment and instead paint them as morally deficient. In other words, a woman should be empowered and successful but only as a liberal.
I don't know for a fact that Trump has empowered a whole lot of women but there is ample evidence that he has treated some, including his wife badly. However I am not going to get into it hear and become complicit in derailing my own thread.
However I will say this. Suppose that there is a degree of truth to what you say and that we are guilty of a degree of hypocrisy. That does not negate the argument that Trump is a misogynist . That is actually my favorite form of logical fallacy :
tu quoque (To kwok we )(Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument."
Really.?? Where are you getting that boatload of bovine excrement from? ALL DEMOCRATS? Do you realize how absurd that is?Forefathers? Democrats today are practicing racists and bigots. There is no need to look to the past.Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War. The intent seems to be to draw attention away from the party that harbors the racists of today by shaming the Democrats for the sins of our forefathers.
It’s a sleazy tactic that doesn’t work, and It is time to set the record straight. First of all, Democrats- for the most part- do not deny or try to hide the parties past. Second, I will show how, when and why the racists fled from the Democratic Party and found a new home and lastly, I will present evidence that shows how, during the civil rights era, support for civil right legislation was split, not by party affiliation but by regional loyalty-specifically the old Confederacy and the Union. Let’s begin by talking about the civil war era
https://classroom.synonym.com/civil-warera-political-parties-north-vs-south-8901.html
Democratic Party
The Democratic Party was formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792 and held considerable power in the years leading up to the Civil War. The Democratic Party became divided in the 1850s over the issue of slavery, with some factions in the north supporting abolitionist causes, some northern factions supporting accommodation of the South and Southern Democrats supporting the continuation and expansion of slavery. During the elections of 1860, Southern and Northern Democrats nominated separate candidates for president. After the Civil War broke out, former Southern Democrats held considerable clout in the Confederate Congress. Northern Democrats lost much of their political power in the North during the Civil War.
Republican Party
The Republican Party was founded in the 1850s by northerners who wanted to abolish slavery. The demise of the Whig Party and the split in the Democratic Party in the years leading up to the 1860 elections gave the Republicans an opportunity to advance. Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln won the U.S. Presidential election in 1860 and Republicans gained control of Congress, leading to the secession of eleven Southern states. The Republican Party had very little support in the South before the war and virtually none after war broke out. In 1864, the Republican Party joined with Democrats who favored the war effort to form the National Union Party. Other Republicans, who were in favor of pressing the war more forcefully, left the Republican Party to form the Radical Democracy Party. The National Union Party won the 1864 presidential election.
The truth about Republicans and civil rights even then was not as clear cut as some would like us to believe:
https://medium.com/everyvote/how-the-republicans-and-democrats-switched-on-civil-rights-in-5-racist-steps-92c1b41480b
Republicans and Democrats after the Civil War
It’s true that many of the first Ku Klux Klan members were Democrats. It’s also true that the early Democratic Party opposed civil rights. But there’s more to it.
In the Civil War-era GOP wasn’t that into civil rights. They were more interested in punishing the South for seceding and monopolizing the new black vote.
In any event, by the 1890s, Republicans had begun to distance themselves from civil rights.
As for the democrats
Democrats v Republicans on Jim Crow
Segregation and Jim Crow lasted for 100 years after the end of the Civil War.
During this time, African Americans were largely disenfranchised. There was no African-American voting bloc. Neither party pursued civil rights policies — it wasn’t worth their while.
Democrats dominated Southern politics throughout the Jim Crow Era. It’s fair to say that Democratic governors and legislatures are responsible for creating and upholding white supremacist policies.
Southern Democrats were truly awful.
Then things began to change
President Truman Integrates the Troops: 1948
Fast forward about sixty shitty years. Black people are still living in segregation under Jim Crow. Nonetheless, African Americans agree to serve in World War II. At war’s end, President Harry Truman, a Democrat, used an Executive Order to integrate the troops. (That order was not executed until 1963, however because: racism.)
The Party of Kennedy v the Party of Nixon in the Civil Rights Era
Two things started happening at the same time:
· Racist Democrats were getting antsy
· Neither party could afford to ignore civil rights anymore
In 1960 Kennedy defeated Nixon. At the time of his election, the both parties unevenly supported civil rights. But President Kennedy decided to move forward.
After Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, Johnson continued Kennedy’s civil rights focus.
As you can imagine, that did not sit particularly well with most Southern Democrats. This is when Strom Thurmond flew the coop for good.
In fact, a greater percentage of Congressional Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats. Support for the Act followed geographic, not party, lines. ( More on that later)
Get that? Support for civil rights was along geographic, not party lines. Now we get to the meat of the matter:
Soon after, the Republicans came up with their Southern Strategy — a plan to woo white Southern voters to the party for the 1968 election.
The Kennedy and Johnson administrations had advanced civil rights, largely through national legislation and direct executive actions. So, the Southern Strategy was the opposite — states’ rights and no integration.
As in the Civil War, the concepts of “states’ rights” and “tradition,” were codes for “maintaining white supremacy.”
The divide between the north and the south vs the Democrats and the Republicans can be easily illustrated:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights
As we saw earlier more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act, but that is not the whole story
View attachment 193443
You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
View attachment 193444
But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".
View attachment 193445
In conclusion, maligning the entire Democratic Party as the historical racist party without regard to regional loyalties or the fact that the racists fled from the Democrats ranks in the 60’s is just dumbed down revisionist history, and patently dishonest. I have to wonder, which party will be remembered as the party of racists in another 150 years or so. Any guesses?
Well, you're right in that it isn't ALL Democrats. I wouldn't want to be like a democrat and broad brush an entire ideology like the way the democrats do with anyone who disagrees with them.Really.?? Where are you getting that boatload of bovine excrement from? ALL DEMOCRATS? Do you realize how absurd that is?Forefathers? Democrats today are practicing racists and bigots. There is no need to look to the past.Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War. The intent seems to be to draw attention away from the party that harbors the racists of today by shaming the Democrats for the sins of our forefathers.
It’s a sleazy tactic that doesn’t work, and It is time to set the record straight. First of all, Democrats- for the most part- do not deny or try to hide the parties past. Second, I will show how, when and why the racists fled from the Democratic Party and found a new home and lastly, I will present evidence that shows how, during the civil rights era, support for civil right legislation was split, not by party affiliation but by regional loyalty-specifically the old Confederacy and the Union. Let’s begin by talking about the civil war era
https://classroom.synonym.com/civil-warera-political-parties-north-vs-south-8901.html
Democratic Party
The Democratic Party was formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792 and held considerable power in the years leading up to the Civil War. The Democratic Party became divided in the 1850s over the issue of slavery, with some factions in the north supporting abolitionist causes, some northern factions supporting accommodation of the South and Southern Democrats supporting the continuation and expansion of slavery. During the elections of 1860, Southern and Northern Democrats nominated separate candidates for president. After the Civil War broke out, former Southern Democrats held considerable clout in the Confederate Congress. Northern Democrats lost much of their political power in the North during the Civil War.
Republican Party
The Republican Party was founded in the 1850s by northerners who wanted to abolish slavery. The demise of the Whig Party and the split in the Democratic Party in the years leading up to the 1860 elections gave the Republicans an opportunity to advance. Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln won the U.S. Presidential election in 1860 and Republicans gained control of Congress, leading to the secession of eleven Southern states. The Republican Party had very little support in the South before the war and virtually none after war broke out. In 1864, the Republican Party joined with Democrats who favored the war effort to form the National Union Party. Other Republicans, who were in favor of pressing the war more forcefully, left the Republican Party to form the Radical Democracy Party. The National Union Party won the 1864 presidential election.
The truth about Republicans and civil rights even then was not as clear cut as some would like us to believe:
https://medium.com/everyvote/how-the-republicans-and-democrats-switched-on-civil-rights-in-5-racist-steps-92c1b41480b
Republicans and Democrats after the Civil War
It’s true that many of the first Ku Klux Klan members were Democrats. It’s also true that the early Democratic Party opposed civil rights. But there’s more to it.
In the Civil War-era GOP wasn’t that into civil rights. They were more interested in punishing the South for seceding and monopolizing the new black vote.
In any event, by the 1890s, Republicans had begun to distance themselves from civil rights.
As for the democrats
Democrats v Republicans on Jim Crow
Segregation and Jim Crow lasted for 100 years after the end of the Civil War.
During this time, African Americans were largely disenfranchised. There was no African-American voting bloc. Neither party pursued civil rights policies — it wasn’t worth their while.
Democrats dominated Southern politics throughout the Jim Crow Era. It’s fair to say that Democratic governors and legislatures are responsible for creating and upholding white supremacist policies.
Southern Democrats were truly awful.
Then things began to change
President Truman Integrates the Troops: 1948
Fast forward about sixty shitty years. Black people are still living in segregation under Jim Crow. Nonetheless, African Americans agree to serve in World War II. At war’s end, President Harry Truman, a Democrat, used an Executive Order to integrate the troops. (That order was not executed until 1963, however because: racism.)
The Party of Kennedy v the Party of Nixon in the Civil Rights Era
Two things started happening at the same time:
· Racist Democrats were getting antsy
· Neither party could afford to ignore civil rights anymore
In 1960 Kennedy defeated Nixon. At the time of his election, the both parties unevenly supported civil rights. But President Kennedy decided to move forward.
After Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, Johnson continued Kennedy’s civil rights focus.
As you can imagine, that did not sit particularly well with most Southern Democrats. This is when Strom Thurmond flew the coop for good.
In fact, a greater percentage of Congressional Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats. Support for the Act followed geographic, not party, lines. ( More on that later)
Get that? Support for civil rights was along geographic, not party lines. Now we get to the meat of the matter:
Soon after, the Republicans came up with their Southern Strategy — a plan to woo white Southern voters to the party for the 1968 election.
The Kennedy and Johnson administrations had advanced civil rights, largely through national legislation and direct executive actions. So, the Southern Strategy was the opposite — states’ rights and no integration.
As in the Civil War, the concepts of “states’ rights” and “tradition,” were codes for “maintaining white supremacy.”
The divide between the north and the south vs the Democrats and the Republicans can be easily illustrated:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights
As we saw earlier more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act, but that is not the whole story
View attachment 193443
You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
View attachment 193444
But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".
View attachment 193445
In conclusion, maligning the entire Democratic Party as the historical racist party without regard to regional loyalties or the fact that the racists fled from the Democrats ranks in the 60’s is just dumbed down revisionist history, and patently dishonest. I have to wonder, which party will be remembered as the party of racists in another 150 years or so. Any guesses?
And as I said appeals to hypocrisy do not negate the argument.I have not heard him say thatOf course not. But if you're not confronting people like IM2 when they say that all whites are guilty of racism then you are guilty of your own hypocrisy.
I've interacted with him on multiple threads on the subject of white racism and he definitely is one of those who holds the entire white race accountable for slavery and the oppression that followed. Just ask him. If we're not guilty of blatant racism then we are at least guilty of reaping the benefits of a system that favored whites and for that we must pay.
and you don't what I would say if I encountered that sort of thing
No, I don't. I said if you're not confronting them... I don't know if you are or not but I have noticed that the only ones who do confront them are conservatives like myself.
In any case, as I said, Democrats are guilty of their own hypocrisy. The case of Trump and women I cited before is just one example.
Yes the Torcher Queen. And then there is DeVos Lovely people, just like Trump. How many actual human beings has he "empowered" Never mind. It's off topic againDon't tell me you are not aware of all the women he has hired and appointed. Not to mention the woman who may become the first female Director of C.I.A.
Just a statement of factThat's rich considering that you just said that the Republican party "harbors racists".
That argument can and has been negated on its own merits without resorting to an appeal to hypocrisyAnd as I said appeals to hypocrisy do not negate the argument.I have not heard him say thatOf course not. But if you're not confronting people like IM2 when they say that all whites are guilty of racism then you are guilty of your own hypocrisy.
I've interacted with him on multiple threads on the subject of white racism and he definitely is one of those who holds the entire white race accountable for slavery and the oppression that followed. Just ask him. If we're not guilty of blatant racism then we are at least guilty of reaping the benefits of a system that favored whites and for that we must pay.
and you don't what I would say if I encountered that sort of thing
No, I don't. I said if you're not confronting them... I don't know if you are or not but I have noticed that the only ones who do confront them are conservatives like myself.
In any case, as I said, Democrats are guilty of their own hypocrisy. The case of Trump and women I cited before is just one example.
In that case the appeal to hypocrisy does not negate the argument that the Republican party is not racist.
Well, you're right in that it isn't ALL Democrats. I wouldn't want to be like a democrat and broad brush an entire ideology like the way the democrats do with anyone who disagrees with them.Really.?? Where are you getting that boatload of bovine excrement from? ALL DEMOCRATS? Do you realize how absurd that is?Forefathers? Democrats today are practicing racists and bigots. There is no need to look to the past.Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War. The intent seems to be to draw attention away from the party that harbors the racists of today by shaming the Democrats for the sins of our forefathers.
It’s a sleazy tactic that doesn’t work, and It is time to set the record straight. First of all, Democrats- for the most part- do not deny or try to hide the parties past. Second, I will show how, when and why the racists fled from the Democratic Party and found a new home and lastly, I will present evidence that shows how, during the civil rights era, support for civil right legislation was split, not by party affiliation but by regional loyalty-specifically the old Confederacy and the Union. Let’s begin by talking about the civil war era
https://classroom.synonym.com/civil-warera-political-parties-north-vs-south-8901.html
Democratic Party
The Democratic Party was formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792 and held considerable power in the years leading up to the Civil War. The Democratic Party became divided in the 1850s over the issue of slavery, with some factions in the north supporting abolitionist causes, some northern factions supporting accommodation of the South and Southern Democrats supporting the continuation and expansion of slavery. During the elections of 1860, Southern and Northern Democrats nominated separate candidates for president. After the Civil War broke out, former Southern Democrats held considerable clout in the Confederate Congress. Northern Democrats lost much of their political power in the North during the Civil War.
Republican Party
The Republican Party was founded in the 1850s by northerners who wanted to abolish slavery. The demise of the Whig Party and the split in the Democratic Party in the years leading up to the 1860 elections gave the Republicans an opportunity to advance. Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln won the U.S. Presidential election in 1860 and Republicans gained control of Congress, leading to the secession of eleven Southern states. The Republican Party had very little support in the South before the war and virtually none after war broke out. In 1864, the Republican Party joined with Democrats who favored the war effort to form the National Union Party. Other Republicans, who were in favor of pressing the war more forcefully, left the Republican Party to form the Radical Democracy Party. The National Union Party won the 1864 presidential election.
The truth about Republicans and civil rights even then was not as clear cut as some would like us to believe:
https://medium.com/everyvote/how-the-republicans-and-democrats-switched-on-civil-rights-in-5-racist-steps-92c1b41480b
Republicans and Democrats after the Civil War
It’s true that many of the first Ku Klux Klan members were Democrats. It’s also true that the early Democratic Party opposed civil rights. But there’s more to it.
In the Civil War-era GOP wasn’t that into civil rights. They were more interested in punishing the South for seceding and monopolizing the new black vote.
In any event, by the 1890s, Republicans had begun to distance themselves from civil rights.
As for the democrats
Democrats v Republicans on Jim Crow
Segregation and Jim Crow lasted for 100 years after the end of the Civil War.
During this time, African Americans were largely disenfranchised. There was no African-American voting bloc. Neither party pursued civil rights policies — it wasn’t worth their while.
Democrats dominated Southern politics throughout the Jim Crow Era. It’s fair to say that Democratic governors and legislatures are responsible for creating and upholding white supremacist policies.
Southern Democrats were truly awful.
Then things began to change
President Truman Integrates the Troops: 1948
Fast forward about sixty shitty years. Black people are still living in segregation under Jim Crow. Nonetheless, African Americans agree to serve in World War II. At war’s end, President Harry Truman, a Democrat, used an Executive Order to integrate the troops. (That order was not executed until 1963, however because: racism.)
The Party of Kennedy v the Party of Nixon in the Civil Rights Era
Two things started happening at the same time:
· Racist Democrats were getting antsy
· Neither party could afford to ignore civil rights anymore
In 1960 Kennedy defeated Nixon. At the time of his election, the both parties unevenly supported civil rights. But President Kennedy decided to move forward.
After Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, Johnson continued Kennedy’s civil rights focus.
As you can imagine, that did not sit particularly well with most Southern Democrats. This is when Strom Thurmond flew the coop for good.
In fact, a greater percentage of Congressional Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats. Support for the Act followed geographic, not party, lines. ( More on that later)
Get that? Support for civil rights was along geographic, not party lines. Now we get to the meat of the matter:
Soon after, the Republicans came up with their Southern Strategy — a plan to woo white Southern voters to the party for the 1968 election.
The Kennedy and Johnson administrations had advanced civil rights, largely through national legislation and direct executive actions. So, the Southern Strategy was the opposite — states’ rights and no integration.
As in the Civil War, the concepts of “states’ rights” and “tradition,” were codes for “maintaining white supremacy.”
The divide between the north and the south vs the Democrats and the Republicans can be easily illustrated:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights
As we saw earlier more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act, but that is not the whole story
View attachment 193443
You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
View attachment 193444
But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".
View attachment 193445
In conclusion, maligning the entire Democratic Party as the historical racist party without regard to regional loyalties or the fact that the racists fled from the Democrats ranks in the 60’s is just dumbed down revisionist history, and patently dishonest. I have to wonder, which party will be remembered as the party of racists in another 150 years or so. Any guesses?
Good. You've heard it before so that saves Me the time.View attachment 193538You guy's favorite mem. And oldestWell, you're right in that it isn't ALL Democrats. I wouldn't want to be like a democrat and broad brush an entire ideology like the way the democrats do with anyone who disagrees with them.Really.?? Where are you getting that boatload of bovine excrement from? ALL DEMOCRATS? Do you realize how absurd that is?Forefathers? Democrats today are practicing racists and bigots. There is no need to look to the past.Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War. The intent seems to be to draw attention away from the party that harbors the racists of today by shaming the Democrats for the sins of our forefathers.
It’s a sleazy tactic that doesn’t work, and It is time to set the record straight. First of all, Democrats- for the most part- do not deny or try to hide the parties past. Second, I will show how, when and why the racists fled from the Democratic Party and found a new home and lastly, I will present evidence that shows how, during the civil rights era, support for civil right legislation was split, not by party affiliation but by regional loyalty-specifically the old Confederacy and the Union. Let’s begin by talking about the civil war era
https://classroom.synonym.com/civil-warera-political-parties-north-vs-south-8901.html
Democratic Party
The Democratic Party was formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792 and held considerable power in the years leading up to the Civil War. The Democratic Party became divided in the 1850s over the issue of slavery, with some factions in the north supporting abolitionist causes, some northern factions supporting accommodation of the South and Southern Democrats supporting the continuation and expansion of slavery. During the elections of 1860, Southern and Northern Democrats nominated separate candidates for president. After the Civil War broke out, former Southern Democrats held considerable clout in the Confederate Congress. Northern Democrats lost much of their political power in the North during the Civil War.
Republican Party
The Republican Party was founded in the 1850s by northerners who wanted to abolish slavery. The demise of the Whig Party and the split in the Democratic Party in the years leading up to the 1860 elections gave the Republicans an opportunity to advance. Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln won the U.S. Presidential election in 1860 and Republicans gained control of Congress, leading to the secession of eleven Southern states. The Republican Party had very little support in the South before the war and virtually none after war broke out. In 1864, the Republican Party joined with Democrats who favored the war effort to form the National Union Party. Other Republicans, who were in favor of pressing the war more forcefully, left the Republican Party to form the Radical Democracy Party. The National Union Party won the 1864 presidential election.
The truth about Republicans and civil rights even then was not as clear cut as some would like us to believe:
https://medium.com/everyvote/how-the-republicans-and-democrats-switched-on-civil-rights-in-5-racist-steps-92c1b41480b
Republicans and Democrats after the Civil War
It’s true that many of the first Ku Klux Klan members were Democrats. It’s also true that the early Democratic Party opposed civil rights. But there’s more to it.
In the Civil War-era GOP wasn’t that into civil rights. They were more interested in punishing the South for seceding and monopolizing the new black vote.
In any event, by the 1890s, Republicans had begun to distance themselves from civil rights.
As for the democrats
Democrats v Republicans on Jim Crow
Segregation and Jim Crow lasted for 100 years after the end of the Civil War.
During this time, African Americans were largely disenfranchised. There was no African-American voting bloc. Neither party pursued civil rights policies — it wasn’t worth their while.
Democrats dominated Southern politics throughout the Jim Crow Era. It’s fair to say that Democratic governors and legislatures are responsible for creating and upholding white supremacist policies.
Southern Democrats were truly awful.
Then things began to change
President Truman Integrates the Troops: 1948
Fast forward about sixty shitty years. Black people are still living in segregation under Jim Crow. Nonetheless, African Americans agree to serve in World War II. At war’s end, President Harry Truman, a Democrat, used an Executive Order to integrate the troops. (That order was not executed until 1963, however because: racism.)
The Party of Kennedy v the Party of Nixon in the Civil Rights Era
Two things started happening at the same time:
· Racist Democrats were getting antsy
· Neither party could afford to ignore civil rights anymore
In 1960 Kennedy defeated Nixon. At the time of his election, the both parties unevenly supported civil rights. But President Kennedy decided to move forward.
After Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, Johnson continued Kennedy’s civil rights focus.
As you can imagine, that did not sit particularly well with most Southern Democrats. This is when Strom Thurmond flew the coop for good.
In fact, a greater percentage of Congressional Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats. Support for the Act followed geographic, not party, lines. ( More on that later)
Get that? Support for civil rights was along geographic, not party lines. Now we get to the meat of the matter:
Soon after, the Republicans came up with their Southern Strategy — a plan to woo white Southern voters to the party for the 1968 election.
The Kennedy and Johnson administrations had advanced civil rights, largely through national legislation and direct executive actions. So, the Southern Strategy was the opposite — states’ rights and no integration.
As in the Civil War, the concepts of “states’ rights” and “tradition,” were codes for “maintaining white supremacy.”
The divide between the north and the south vs the Democrats and the Republicans can be easily illustrated:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights
As we saw earlier more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act, but that is not the whole story
View attachment 193443
You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
View attachment 193444
But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".
View attachment 193445
In conclusion, maligning the entire Democratic Party as the historical racist party without regard to regional loyalties or the fact that the racists fled from the Democrats ranks in the 60’s is just dumbed down revisionist history, and patently dishonest. I have to wonder, which party will be remembered as the party of racists in another 150 years or so. Any guesses?
Yes the Torcher Queen. And then there is DeVos Lovely people, just like Trump. How many actual human beings has he "empowered" Never mind. It's off topic againDon't tell me you are not aware of all the women he has hired and appointed. Not to mention the woman who may become the first female Director of C.I.A.
Just a statement of factThat's rich considering that you just said that the Republican party "harbors racists".
