The GOP's New Fake Racial History

Threads like this die because Progressives cannot tolerate to hear the words of their heroes echoed back at them, so they just ignore it

“I’ll have those ******* voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” - Lyndon B. Johnson

Funny that no one really came close to refuting the OP, that Barbour tried to revise history. Much easier to resort to the Bevis/Butthead method of argument, "but he said '******'...heh heh".

History needs to be revised because Progressives have been lying about it the whole time
 
some interesting tidbits......lengthy but worthwhile I think to ponder;

In a stroke, 52 years of Democratic history vanishes. Disappeared faster than the truth in the Clinton administration. Why would this be? Allow me to sketch in a few facts from those missing 52 years. For that matter, lets add in the facts from the party history before and after those 52 years, since they aren't mentioned by the Democrats' National Committee either.

* * *

So what's missing?

* There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms supporting slavery. There were six from 1840 through 1860.
* There is no reference to the number of Democratic presidents who owned slaves. There were seven from 1800 through 1861
* There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms that either supported segregation outright or were silent on the subject. There were 20, from 1868 through 1948.
* There is no reference to "Jim Crow" as in "Jim Crow laws," nor is there reference to the role Democrats played in creating them. These were the post-Civil War laws passed enthusiastically by Democrats in that pesky 52-year part of the DNC's missing years. These laws segregated public schools, public transportation, restaurants, rest rooms and public places in general (everything from water coolers to beaches). The reason Rosa Parks became famous is that she sat in the "whites only" front section of a bus, the "whites only" designation the direct result of Democrats.
* There is no reference to the formation of the Ku Klux Klan, which, according to Columbia University historian Eric Foner, became "a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party." Nor is there reference to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease's description of the Klan as the "terrorist arm of the Democratic Party."
* There is no reference to the fact Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The 13th banned slavery. The 14th effectively overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision (made by Democratic pro-slavery Supreme Court justices) by guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves. The 15th gave black Americans the right to vote.
* There is no reference to the fact that Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was passed by the Republican Congress over the veto of President Andrew Johnson, who had been a Democrat before joining Lincoln's ticket in 1864. The law was designed to provide blacks with the right to own private property, sign contracts, sue and serve as witnesses in a legal proceeding.
* There is no reference to the Democrats' opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1875. It was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses Grant. The law prohibited racial discrimination in public places and public accommodations.
* There is no reference to the Democrats' 1904 platform, which devotes a section to "Sectional and Racial Agitation," claiming the GOP's protests against segregation and the denial of voting rights to blacks sought to "revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country," which in turn "means confusion, distraction of business, and the reopening of wounds now happily healed."
* There is no reference to four Democratic platforms, 1908-20, that are silent on blacks, segregation, lynching and voting rights as racial problems in the country mount. By contrast the GOP platforms of those years specifically address "Rights of the Negro" (1908), oppose lynching (in 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928) and, as the New Deal kicks in, speak out about the dangers of making blacks "wards of the state."
* There is no reference to the Democratic Convention of 1924, known to history as the "Klanbake." The 103-ballot convention was held in Madison Square Garden. Hundreds of delegates were members of the Ku Klux Klan, the Klan so powerful that a plank condemning Klan violence was defeated outright. To celebrate, the Klan staged a rally with 10,000 hooded Klansmen in a field in New Jersey directly across the Hudson from the site of the convention. Attended by hundreds of cheering convention delegates, the rally featured burning crosses and calls for violence against African-Americans and Catholics.
* There is no reference to the fact that it was Democrats who segregated the federal government, at the direction of President Woodrow Wilson upon taking office in 1913. There \is a reference to the fact that President Harry Truman integrated the military after World War II.
* There is reference to the fact that Democrats created the Federal Reserve Board, passed labor and child welfare laws, and created Social Security with Wilson's New Freedom and FDR's New Deal. There is no mention that these programs were created as the result of an agreement to ignore segregation and the lynching of blacks. Neither is there a reference to the thousands of local officials, state legislators, state governors, U.S. congressmen and U.S. senators who were elected as supporters of slavery and then segregation between 1800 and 1965. Nor is there reference to the deal with the devil that left segregation and lynching as a way of life in return for election support for three post-Civil War Democratic presidents, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.
* There is no reference that three-fourths of the opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill in the U.S. House came from Democrats, or that 80% of the "nay" vote in the Senate came from Democrats. Certainly there is no reference to the fact that the opposition included future Democratic Senate leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia (a former Klan member) and Tennessee Senator Albert Gore Sr., father of Vice President Al Gore.
* Last but certainly not least, there is no reference to the fact that Birmingham, Ala., Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor, who infamously unleashed dogs and fire hoses on civil rights protestors, was in fact--yes indeed--a member of both the Democratic National Committee and the Ku Klux Klan.

Reading the DNC's official "Party History" of the Democrats and the race issue and civil rights is not unlike reading "In Through the Looking Glass": " 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.' "


The Democrats' Missing History - WSJ.com
 
some interesting tidbits......lengthy but worthwhile I think to ponder;

In a stroke, 52 years of Democratic history vanishes. Disappeared faster than the truth in the Clinton administration. Why would this be? Allow me to sketch in a few facts from those missing 52 years. For that matter, lets add in the facts from the party history before and after those 52 years, since they aren't mentioned by the Democrats' National Committee either.

* * *

So what's missing?

* There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms supporting slavery. There were six from 1840 through 1860.
* There is no reference to the number of Democratic presidents who owned slaves. There were seven from 1800 through 1861
* There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms that either supported segregation outright or were silent on the subject. There were 20, from 1868 through 1948.
* There is no reference to "Jim Crow" as in "Jim Crow laws," nor is there reference to the role Democrats played in creating them. These were the post-Civil War laws passed enthusiastically by Democrats in that pesky 52-year part of the DNC's missing years. These laws segregated public schools, public transportation, restaurants, rest rooms and public places in general (everything from water coolers to beaches). The reason Rosa Parks became famous is that she sat in the "whites only" front section of a bus, the "whites only" designation the direct result of Democrats.
* There is no reference to the formation of the Ku Klux Klan, which, according to Columbia University historian Eric Foner, became "a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party." Nor is there reference to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease's description of the Klan as the "terrorist arm of the Democratic Party."
* There is no reference to the fact Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The 13th banned slavery. The 14th effectively overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision (made by Democratic pro-slavery Supreme Court justices) by guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves. The 15th gave black Americans the right to vote.
* There is no reference to the fact that Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was passed by the Republican Congress over the veto of President Andrew Johnson, who had been a Democrat before joining Lincoln's ticket in 1864. The law was designed to provide blacks with the right to own private property, sign contracts, sue and serve as witnesses in a legal proceeding.
* There is no reference to the Democrats' opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1875. It was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses Grant. The law prohibited racial discrimination in public places and public accommodations.
* There is no reference to the Democrats' 1904 platform, which devotes a section to "Sectional and Racial Agitation," claiming the GOP's protests against segregation and the denial of voting rights to blacks sought to "revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country," which in turn "means confusion, distraction of business, and the reopening of wounds now happily healed."
* There is no reference to four Democratic platforms, 1908-20, that are silent on blacks, segregation, lynching and voting rights as racial problems in the country mount. By contrast the GOP platforms of those years specifically address "Rights of the Negro" (1908), oppose lynching (in 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928) and, as the New Deal kicks in, speak out about the dangers of making blacks "wards of the state."
* There is no reference to the Democratic Convention of 1924, known to history as the "Klanbake." The 103-ballot convention was held in Madison Square Garden. Hundreds of delegates were members of the Ku Klux Klan, the Klan so powerful that a plank condemning Klan violence was defeated outright. To celebrate, the Klan staged a rally with 10,000 hooded Klansmen in a field in New Jersey directly across the Hudson from the site of the convention. Attended by hundreds of cheering convention delegates, the rally featured burning crosses and calls for violence against African-Americans and Catholics.
* There is no reference to the fact that it was Democrats who segregated the federal government, at the direction of President Woodrow Wilson upon taking office in 1913. There \is a reference to the fact that President Harry Truman integrated the military after World War II.
* There is reference to the fact that Democrats created the Federal Reserve Board, passed labor and child welfare laws, and created Social Security with Wilson's New Freedom and FDR's New Deal. There is no mention that these programs were created as the result of an agreement to ignore segregation and the lynching of blacks. Neither is there a reference to the thousands of local officials, state legislators, state governors, U.S. congressmen and U.S. senators who were elected as supporters of slavery and then segregation between 1800 and 1965. Nor is there reference to the deal with the devil that left segregation and lynching as a way of life in return for election support for three post-Civil War Democratic presidents, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.
* There is no reference that three-fourths of the opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill in the U.S. House came from Democrats, or that 80% of the "nay" vote in the Senate came from Democrats. Certainly there is no reference to the fact that the opposition included future Democratic Senate leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia (a former Klan member) and Tennessee Senator Albert Gore Sr., father of Vice President Al Gore.
* Last but certainly not least, there is no reference to the fact that Birmingham, Ala., Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor, who infamously unleashed dogs and fire hoses on civil rights protestors, was in fact--yes indeed--a member of both the Democratic National Committee and the Ku Klux Klan.

Reading the DNC's official "Party History" of the Democrats and the race issue and civil rights is not unlike reading "In Through the Looking Glass": " 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.' "


The Democrats' Missing History - WSJ.com
The lefties are going on Red Alert!

truthshieldscopy0sf.jpg
 
Threads like this die because Progressives cannot tolerate to hear the words of their heroes echoed back at them, so they just ignore it

“I’ll have those ******* voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” - Lyndon B. Johnson

Funny that no one really came close to refuting the OP, that Barbour tried to revise history. Much easier to resort to the Bevis/Butthead method of argument, "but he said '******'...heh heh".

Guess you missed the posts where I linked the party's platforms since their beginnings. You know, history-type stuff.

Good ol' Dick "If I ignore the unpleasant things, they don't exist!" Tuck. :lol:

How could I have missed it, since I answered it directly, and agreed. I guess you missed my response. Good ol' Dave "If people don't jump up and down and concede an argument they must have ignored me" man.
 
Threads like this die because Progressives cannot tolerate to hear the words of their heroes echoed back at them, so they just ignore it

“I’ll have those ******* voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” - Lyndon B. Johnson

Funny that no one really came close to refuting the OP, that Barbour tried to revise history. Much easier to resort to the Bevis/Butthead method of argument, "but he said '******'...heh heh".

History needs to be revised because Progressives have been lying about it the whole time

Oh yeah, we're lying about the Dixiecrats joining the GOP after Johnson pushed the Civil Rights Act through.
 
Funny that no one really came close to refuting the OP, that Barbour tried to revise history. Much easier to resort to the Bevis/Butthead method of argument, "but he said '******'...heh heh".

Guess you missed the posts where I linked the party's platforms since their beginnings. You know, history-type stuff.

Good ol' Dick "If I ignore the unpleasant things, they don't exist!" Tuck. :lol:

How could I have missed it, since I answered it directly, and agreed. I guess you missed my response. Good ol' Dave "If people don't jump up and down and concede an argument they must have ignored me" man.
:lol: My bad. I guess you're just too forgettable, Dick.
 
The lefties are going on Red Alert!

truthshieldscopy0sf.jpg

Not hardly, since the stupid WSJ points are past conservative positions taken by Democratic Party while the liberal positions were being taken by Republicans. That changed after 1964, when Lyndon Johnson pushed through the most sweeping civil rights bill since Lincoln. After that, the Southern racists joined the Republican party, and for the past 35 years have been purging it of it's liberal wing. That's also why African-Americans are about 90% affiliated with Democrats.
 
Last edited:
Guess you missed the posts where I linked the party's platforms since their beginnings. You know, history-type stuff.

Good ol' Dick "If I ignore the unpleasant things, they don't exist!" Tuck. :lol:

How could I have missed it, since I answered it directly, and agreed. I guess you missed my response. Good ol' Dave "If people don't jump up and down and concede an argument they must have ignored me" man.
:lol: My bad. I guess you're just too forgettable, Dick.

That certainly adds to the level of discourse. I keep on giving you the benefit of the doubt that you changed. and perhaps had some points to make. You're still a troll who couldn't debate their way out of a paper bag. I hope for your sake, before you leave this earth, that just once you'd make sense.
 
Not hardly, since the stupid WSJ points are past conservative positions taken by Democratic Party while the liberal positions were being taken by Republicans. That changed after 1964, when Lyndon Johnson pushed through the most sweeping civil rights bill since Lincoln. After that, the Southern racists joined the Republican party, and for the past 35 years have been purging it of it's liberal wing.
"But...but...but Southern Strategy! YOU'RE the racists!!"​

Yep. I called it. :lol:
 
How could I have missed it, since I answered it directly, and agreed. I guess you missed my response. Good ol' Dave "If people don't jump up and down and concede an argument they must have ignored me" man.
:lol: My bad. I guess you're just too forgettable, Dick.

That certainly adds to the level of discourse. I keep on giving you the benefit of the doubt that you changed. and perhaps had some points to make. You're still a troll who couldn't debate their way out of a paper bag. I hope for your sake, before you leave this earth, that just once you'd make sense.
Oh, Dick -- I didn't know you cared. :redface:


Note to everybody: If I ever make sense to Dick, somebody shoot me.
 
Not hardly, since the stupid WSJ points are past conservative positions taken by Democratic Party while the liberal positions were being taken by Republicans. That changed after 1964, when Lyndon Johnson pushed through the most sweeping civil rights bill since Lincoln. After that, the Southern racists joined the Republican party, and for the past 35 years have been purging it of it's liberal wing.
"But...but...but Southern Strategy! YOU'RE the racists!!"​

Yep. I called it. :lol:

Are you denying that the 1964 Civil Rights act caused Southern Racists to realign with Republicans, and Southern African Americans to realign with Democrats? Nope, you haven't denied that simple fact of history. So you're trying to dumb down the argument instead. Go for it.
 
:lol: My bad. I guess you're just too forgettable, Dick.

That certainly adds to the level of discourse. I keep on giving you the benefit of the doubt that you changed. and perhaps had some points to make. You're still a troll who couldn't debate their way out of a paper bag. I hope for your sake, before you leave this earth, that just once you'd make sense.
Oh, Dick -- I didn't know you cared. :redface:


Note to everybody: If I ever make sense to Dick, somebody shoot me.

Daveman, you have no fear of being shot, since you've yet to ever make sense to anyone.
 
Not hardly, since the stupid WSJ points are past conservative positions taken by Democratic Party while the liberal positions were being taken by Republicans. That changed after 1964, when Lyndon Johnson pushed through the most sweeping civil rights bill since Lincoln. After that, the Southern racists joined the Republican party, and for the past 35 years have been purging it of it's liberal wing.
"But...but...but Southern Strategy! YOU'RE the racists!!"​

Yep. I called it. :lol:

Are you denying that the 1964 Civil Rights act caused Southern Racists to realign with Republicans, and Southern African Americans to realign with Democrats? Nope, you haven't denied that simple fact of history. So you're trying to dumb down the argument instead. Go for it.
There is more to history than what you want to believe, Dick. :lol:
 
That certainly adds to the level of discourse. I keep on giving you the benefit of the doubt that you changed. and perhaps had some points to make. You're still a troll who couldn't debate their way out of a paper bag. I hope for your sake, before you leave this earth, that just once you'd make sense.
Oh, Dick -- I didn't know you cared. :redface:


Note to everybody: If I ever make sense to Dick, somebody shoot me.

Daveman, you have no fear of being shot, since you've yet to ever make sense to anyone.
I'd say my rep count disagrees. :lol:
 
"But...but...but Southern Strategy! YOU'RE the racists!!"​

Yep. I called it. :lol:

Are you denying that the 1964 Civil Rights act caused Southern Racists to realign with Republicans, and Southern African Americans to realign with Democrats? Nope, you haven't denied that simple fact of history. So you're trying to dumb down the argument instead. Go for it.
There is more to history than what you want to believe, Dick. :lol:

How would you know, since you've gotten so senile you can't recall a discussion less than 24 hours old?
 
Are you denying that the 1964 Civil Rights act caused Southern Racists to realign with Republicans, and Southern African Americans to realign with Democrats? Nope, you haven't denied that simple fact of history. So you're trying to dumb down the argument instead. Go for it.
There is more to history than what you want to believe, Dick. :lol:

How would you know, since you've gotten so senile you can't recall a discussion less than 24 hours old?
Not the discussion...just the poster. :lol:
 
Daveman, you have no fear of being shot, since you've yet to ever make sense to anyone.
I'd say my rep count disagrees. :lol:

Prove that you didn't get them playing in the rep whore threads, playing reach around.
Ladies and gentlemen, let me give you a little history about Dick. On another board, he had me on Ignore, because I called him on his lies about conservatives (he hates that, you see). This board had a call-out forum, where one poster could call out another and the thread would be limited to just the two.

He called me out. But he still had me on ignore.

What a coward! :rofl:
 
The lefties are going on Red Alert!

truthshieldscopy0sf.jpg

Not hardly, since the stupid WSJ points are past conservative positions taken by Democratic Party while the liberal positions were being taken by Republicans. That changed after 1964, when Lyndon Johnson pushed through the most sweeping civil rights bill since Lincoln. After that, the Southern racists joined the Republican party, and for the past 35 years have been purging it of it's liberal wing. That's also why African-Americans are about 90% affiliated with Democrats.


and of course there was no vibrant anti segregationist open armed republican party either:rolleyes:


maybe the "bigots" took off in shame when they saw what Johnson had planned, :lol: lets see what a godsend he was eh? But it is interesting though to see a lefty actually step up and take credit for the war on poverty, welfare/ AFDC and the rest.

What a wonder drug its been to the poor and most especially African Americans….heres a short list of the gateway drug type entitlements/prgms that have put them on the inner city Dem/Lib inner city plantation… ( a big nod goes to the Warren Court too)-


-1961 states permitted to give afdc to homes with unemployed husband
-1966 HEW issues guidelines, no at home eligibility checks, BUT that is struck down in 68.
-1967 enactment of 30 and a third rule ( primarily good, Nixon leg.)
-1968 man in house rule struck down
-1969 residency requirements struck down
-Tinker v. Des Moines School District


thats why they are affiliated with the dems, further FDR started it off, buying votes via the 30's version of stimulus money.

Do you know black labor participation actually went down 19% from 1954 to 1970, after all the bigots had fled to the reps. and all of the money spent-…you guys did a bang up job…wanna throw in out of wedlock child birth rates etc etc ..:oops:

as I said in another thread, redemption is a racket, people who become dem/libs get it, others don't.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top