Bullshit. History reveals no such thing.
Lots of people attended lynchings. Some took pictures. Some made postcards. Some even bought and sold body parts as souvenirs.
NONE of them stood on the side checking voter registrations. Dumbass.
Bullshit.
The Ku Klux Klan was founded by six Confederate war vets in Pulaski, Tennessee. Not by a political party. Several other regional terrorist organizations were formed around the same time -- White League; Red Caps; Knights of the White Camellia ... and others. NONE of them were formed by political parties.
Bullshit.
Actually more Ds than Rs voted for it, but that's not significant. Here's what is:.
I got your pattern right here, Pal -- the one you're so desperately trying to smokescreen:
The original House version:
- Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
- Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
- >>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)
The Senate version:
- Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
- Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
- >>> ALL NORTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%)
- Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
- Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
- Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
- Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
- ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)
- ALL NORTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)
Yes, there is a party pattern in that each line shows more support from the D side than the R side. But again, 94 versus 85 on one side is not significant.
But 96 on one side versus 92 on the other side?? You just hit the motherlode. The numbers don't lie; your pattern is clearly there but it's regional, not political. And regional, once again for you slow readers who can't think of a point on your own and crutch on Googly Image Bullshit, means cultural.
You take the numbers from the North -- both Dems and Repubs are for it.
You take the numbers from the South -- both Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
It's truly bipartisan in both directions.
Maybe you should break down and buy a history book, Dumbass.
And again, there is no such thing as a "Democrat Party". There never has been.
Yes...bullshit....the first grand dragon of the ku klux klan was Nathan Bedford Forest, a democrat.
Forrest was a soldier (and a slave trader and plantation owner) -- not a politician. He was recruited by the KKK -- which already existed -- in April of 1867 to be a figurehead that they hoped would give the organization "street cred" in the South. Not a founder. Further, a year and a half later (January 1869) he decided the group's activities were out of hand, disbanded it, and later denied ever having been part of it.
The group ignored the disband order and continued ad hoc for another decade before it was exterminated.
The 1964 Civil Rights act is what you democrat racists always use to hide your racism. The Republicans voted less for this Civil Rights act because many thought it went too far in putting the Federal Government interferring in Private businesses with the Accomodation laws it created...and we see they were right as the government is used to go after Christian businsses who won't serve gay weddings.
What you racist democrats hide, is that the Republicans voted in majorities for all the other civil rights acts, while the democrats fought all of them.
First off I have no political party so "you democrat racists" is nothing more than your own message board wankitude. But my numbers are accurate. I defy you to show where they're not.
[Try to hide the truth by focusing on the 1964 act where the Libertarian Republicans decided it went too far, going beyond protecting the Civil Rights of blacks and giving too much power to the government.
The 1964 legislation is the one the OP referred to. That is, before you tried to shift somewhere else because you can't deal with the present point.
[Don't let the racist democrats preach about how the parties changed sides with the 1964 civil rights act.
Strom Thurmond did. Two months later. Before that such a switch was unthinkable in the South.
The parties didn't change in 1964. That happened at the turn of the previous century.
The 1964 legislation is the one the OP referred to. That is, before you tried to shift somewhere else because you can't deal with the present point.
What you actually mean is before I showed that you focus on the 1964 Civil Rights act because it isn't the truth of the Republican party and the Civil Rights movement. The Republicans supported all the Civil Rights legislation and many decided not to support the 64 legislation because they saw that the accomodation laws and the hiring practice laws would be abused by racists.....as they are being abused today by the democrat racist groups....
EARTH TO STUPID....
HERE is the section, taken directly from the OP, right at the top of it, that I QUOTED TO RESPOND TO:
The 1964 Civil Rights Act Roll Call Vote: In the House, only 64 percent of the Democrats (153 yes, 91 no), but 80 percent of the Republicans (136 yes, 35 no), voted for it. In the Senate, while only 68 percent of the Democrats endorsed the bill (46 yes, 21 no), 82 percent of the Republicans voted to enact it (27 yes, 6 no).
--- Now what does that say? 1957?
DUMBASS.
Nice try ass wipe.......I told you why some Republicans voted against it.....they didn't support giving the federal government power through the accomodation laws and the hiring laws........they voted for all the other Civil Rights acts that the democrats voted against, but the 64 act went too far in creating new racism......
They believed in freedom, not government control asswipe.
Interestingly, that's what was going on in the second half of the 19th century in the South, only with those two parties reversed. The newfangled Republican Party was the home of "big government" (a legacy of the Whigs) while the Democrats were the locally-focused "states rights" party.
I'm sure you knew that. But back up here....
but the 64 act went too far in creating new racism......
Did it now. Because you just got done with a big song and dance trying to tell us more Republicans than Democrats voted for it. Yet here you're also saying it "went too far" and "created new racism"...
-- So you're saying Republicans are racists?
Interesting. I hadn't though of that.