Which Party Put The First KKK Member On The Supreme Court?

[DarkFury]

YouTube again.. sigh... not interested.

Once again, William Simmons was a salesman, not a politician. I'm not aware that we even have a political affiliation for either Simmons or the soldiers of 1865, or if they were even registered to vote.

Actually Simmons' version worked on organizing and spreading the KKK and actually got a few of its people elected as Senators and Governors in Indiana, Colorado, the city of Anaheim, and the Pacific Northwest -- and they were all Republicans. Does that mean the RP is the party of the Klan? By your logic it should -- but it doesn't. It means this social-justice vigilante group was going to use any available channel to access power. Whereas in the South it meant the DP, in the midwest and west it meant the RP. Whatever worked.

As for the South, everybody in the South was a Democrat; that means nothing. And that was the case for exactly 99 years after the Civil War.

My grandfather used to tell this story about counting votes in southern Mississippi in the election of 1940:

"Roosevelt..."
"Roosevelt"...
"Roosevelt"...
"Wilkie"...
"Roosevelt"...
"Wilkie?? Aw shoot, we gotta throw the ballot out. Some damn fool voted twice!"

That's the way it was. Until Strom Thurmond (my relative) bolted in 1964 after the CRA, being associated with the party of the President who defeated the South was unthinkable.

So welcome to the site, but if YouTube is the best you can do to make your case, you're gonna get beat up. Might wanna step up your game, this ain't the YouTube comment section.

Oh and ditch the bold font. It's obnoxious.

Well at least YOU admit you are not interested in the truth but others are. You go right ahead and stay on the plantation if it makes you happy.

OTHERS prefer education over ignorance and thought and study over arrogance.

And big bold fonts that make your words louder? Poster please.

What I said was that I'm not interested in YouTube. Anybody in the world can link to freaking videos spewing bullshit. Doesn't make them history books. You said and I quote, "I will provide proof". Still waiting on that.

I've been all the way down this road and back, kid. You don't have a prayer.

I know you hate true history because it destroys you BUT facts are FACTS. Got a Tea Party member here AND oh gosh, he's BLACK and disagrees with you.

Let me guess. He is NOT the APPROVED democrat party idea of a black man BUT Al Sharpton is?

That is one Black man as opposed to all of the Blacks who support the Democrats. Try again?

One? That's funny but okay.

Granted it ten minutes but he HATES Obama more then just about anybody.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Democrat history is truly something one should learn because from their history you can see where their leadership takes you. Democrats tied to the KKK are long and strong.

It was the FIRST domestic terrorist group founded in America and founded by democrats. The rise of the KKK to even the Supreme Court IS tied to actions by the democrats as in THIS case FDR.

So how about a wee peek into THEIR history in TRUTH not the lies they feed people?

While this is true, it's worth mentioning (as I"m sure you already know OP) that over time, both parties' positions reversed themselves. The Dems positions became that of the Republicans, the Repubs became the Democrats.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Mr. Byrd’s perspective on the world changed over the years. A former member of the Ku Klux Klan, he filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act only to come to back civil rights measures and Mr. Obama. A supporter of the Vietnam War, he became a fierce critic, decades later, of the war in Iraq. In 1964, the Americans for Democratic Action, the liberal lobbying group, found that his views and the group’s aligned only 16 percent of the time. In 2005, he got an A.D.A. rating of 95." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/politics/29byrd.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Darkfury and StolenValorVigilante don't tell the fully story.

 

[Asclepias]

Are these people really that illiterate that they dont understand that the Dems of yesteryear are todays conservatives?

Well YOU say there was some awful plot by the GOP to switch sides. Lets go up to the 60's, surely democrats changed their ways by then right?

No party switch yet, YOU got a year handy?

I know you have a hard time thinking for yourself so I will help you out. Nothing really ever occurs in a certain year. Its a gradual movement to sway opinion. The SS was put in place by the Repubs to swing voters over to their side. Here are some links. You may have to have someone read them to you so you can understand the import of what they are saying.

USATODAY.com - GOP We were wrong to play racial politics

RNC Chair Michael Steele Confesses to Race-Based Southern Strategy Mediaite

 

[Asclepias]

YouTube again.. sigh... not interested.

Once again, William Simmons was a salesman, not a politician. I'm not aware that we even have a political affiliation for either Simmons or the soldiers of 1865, or if they were even registered to vote.

Actually Simmons' version worked on organizing and spreading the KKK and actually got a few of its people elected as Senators and Governors in Indiana, Colorado, the city of Anaheim, and the Pacific Northwest -- and they were all Republicans. Does that mean the RP is the party of the Klan? By your logic it should -- but it doesn't. It means this social-justice vigilante group was going to use any available channel to access power. Whereas in the South it meant the DP, in the midwest and west it meant the RP. Whatever worked.

As for the South, everybody in the South was a Democrat; that means nothing. And that was the case for exactly 99 years after the Civil War.

My grandfather used to tell this story about counting votes in southern Mississippi in the election of 1940:

"Roosevelt..."
"Roosevelt"...
"Roosevelt"...
"Wilkie"...
"Roosevelt"...
"Wilkie?? Aw shoot, we gotta throw the ballot out. Some damn fool voted twice!"

That's the way it was. Until Strom Thurmond (my relative) bolted in 1964 after the CRA, being associated with the party of the President who defeated the South was unthinkable.

So welcome to the site, but if YouTube is the best you can do to make your case, you're gonna get beat up. Might wanna step up your game, this ain't the YouTube comment section.

Oh and ditch the bold font. It's obnoxious.

Well at least YOU admit you are not interested in the truth but others are. You go right ahead and stay on the plantation if it makes you happy.

OTHERS prefer education over ignorance and thought and study over arrogance.

And big bold fonts that make your words louder? Poster please.

What I said was that I'm not interested in YouTube. Anybody in the world can link to freaking videos spewing bullshit. Doesn't make them history books. You said and I quote, "I will provide proof". Still waiting on that.

I've been all the way down this road and back, kid. You don't have a prayer.

I know you hate true history because it destroys you BUT facts are FACTS. Got a Tea Party member here AND oh gosh, he's BLACK and disagrees with you.

Let me guess. He is NOT the APPROVED democrat party idea of a black man BUT Al Sharpton is?

That is one Black man as opposed to all of the Blacks who support the Democrats. Try again?

One? That's funny but okay.

Granted it ten minutes but he HATES Obama more then just about anybody.

Theres more than one. The point is that there are not many.

 

[Pogo]

FLEETING????

Yeah, fleeting. Like 4 plus decades. He was a
"Grand cyclops" Fleeting? Yeah right.

'Fraid not. He quit the Klan before he even ran for office. That was IN the 1940s -- four decades INTO the 20th century -- not four decades' duration.
This is where getting your history from YouTube and Photoshop instead of the historical record leads.

The KKK was by its own description a "fraternal" organisation. It purported to be a social/morals cop. It took on a lot of members in the first half of the 20th century once Simmons restarted it, and those included Democrats, Republicans, and those with no political affiliation at all. Mostly it included WASPs. In Indiana at its peak Klan membership included one-third of all white males in the state.1

Take David Stevenson. He actually was involved in politics. Who's David Stevenson? He's the guy who maneuvered himself into a Grand Dragon (state leader) and subsequently split from Simmons' Klan to start his own rival Klan. He's also the guy who kidnapped a schoolteacher and brutally raped and tortured her on a railroad car, which put a big dent in the Klan's image and curtailed its rising membership.

And he started out as a political operative, which training helped him rise to power in the organisation. And unlike Willliam Simmons and unlike the six Confederate soldiers, we actually do know David Stevenson's political affiliations.

He was with the Socialist Party.
Then he joined the Democratic Party.
Then he joined the Republican Party2 -- this would be 1923, when he backed and helped get elected one Edward Jackson to the Governorship. A Republican. And another KKK.

Now where the fuck do you put D.C. Stevenson in your childish little football game? Where do you put Edward Jackson? Here's a guy who wasn't Klan before running for office; he was KKK while IN office.

You see son, political parties are tools used for the occasion. Their purpose is to organize energy to the goal of acquiring power. It is not to represent an ideology and it certainly doesn't bestow personal characteristics on its members. Only an idiot sycophant on his knees slobbing the knob of such an organisation would go to these dishonest lengths to rhetorically fellate it, which I guess tells us all we need to know about your principles.

Signing on to a message board and trying to poison the well with football-score demagoguery is not only transparent, it's been run out on the field before. And got stopped in its tracks then too.

FOOTNOTE
1 - "Structural incentives for conservative mobilization: Power devaluation and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan, 1915–1925" Social Forces (1999) 77#4 pp: 1461-1496.
2- The Ku Klux Klan: Beneath the Superficial -- Oakwood University

 

[mudwhistle]

Democrat history is truly something one should learn because from their history you can see where their leadership takes you. Democrats tied to the KKK are long and strong.

It was the FIRST domestic terrorist group founded in America and founded by democrats. The rise of the KKK to even the Supreme Court IS tied to actions by the democrats as in THIS case FDR.

So how about a wee peek into THEIR history in TRUTH not the lies they feed people?

The KKK was neither the "first" domestic terrorist group, nor was it founded by a political party. It was founded by six Confederate veteran soldiers, around a campfire on Christmas Day 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee. It was one of several vigilante groups founded after the war by veteran soldiers. None of them were founded by political parties.

The Klan was actually extinct by about 1880. The reason we know it in more recent times and forget the Knights of the White Camellia and the other paramilitary jagoff groups like it is that the KKK was revived in 1915 by a Georgia salesman named William Simmons. He's the assclown who came up with the white sheets and burning crosses after watching "Birth of a Nation".

But he wasn't a political party either.

Sorry to bust your bubble but I take history from history books rather than from YouTube.

So why do you liberals talk about the klan like they still exist?

If you can't rivet the klan to the GOP.....The klan ended in 1880 all of the sudden

 

[Asclepias]

Democrat history is truly something one should learn because from their history you can see where their leadership takes you. Democrats tied to the KKK are long and strong.

It was the FIRST domestic terrorist group founded in America and founded by democrats. The rise of the KKK to even the Supreme Court IS tied to actions by the democrats as in THIS case FDR.

So how about a wee peek into THEIR history in TRUTH not the lies they feed people?

The KKK was neither the "first" domestic terrorist group, nor was it founded by a political party. It was founded by six Confederate veteran soldiers, around a campfire on Christmas Day 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee. It was one of several vigilante groups founded after the war by veteran soldiers. None of them were founded by political parties.

The Klan was actually extinct by about 1880. The reason we know it in more recent times and forget the Knights of the White Camellia and the other paramilitary jagoff groups like it is that the KKK was revived in 1915 by a Georgia salesman named William Simmons. He's the assclown who came up with the white sheets and burning crosses after watching "Birth of a Nation".

But he wasn't a political party either.

Sorry to bust your bubble but I take history from history books rather than from YouTube.

So why do you liberals talk about the klan like they still exist?

If you can't rivet the klan to the GOP.....The klan ended in 1880 all of the sudden

Because they still do exist.

Ku Klux Klan hands out candy in South Carolina during recruitment drive Fox News

 

[Pogo]

Democrat history is truly something one should learn because from their history you can see where their leadership takes you. Democrats tied to the KKK are long and strong.

It was the FIRST domestic terrorist group founded in America and founded by democrats. The rise of the KKK to even the Supreme Court IS tied to actions by the democrats as in THIS case FDR.

So how about a wee peek into THEIR history in TRUTH not the lies they feed people?

The KKK was neither the "first" domestic terrorist group, nor was it founded by a political party. It was founded by six Confederate veteran soldiers, around a campfire on Christmas Day 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee. It was one of several vigilante groups founded after the war by veteran soldiers. None of them were founded by political parties.

The Klan was actually extinct by about 1880. The reason we know it in more recent times and forget the Knights of the White Camellia and the other paramilitary jagoff groups like it is that the KKK was revived in 1915 by a Georgia salesman named William Simmons. He's the assclown who came up with the white sheets and burning crosses after watching "Birth of a Nation".

But he wasn't a political party either.

Sorry to bust your bubble but I take history from history books rather than from YouTube.

"Birth of a nation" now there is some interesting facts behind that as well. It was the FIRST movie ever shown in the White House by a democrat president AND it turned 100 years old this month.

Hey, you finally got one right. And you left out that Woodrow Wilson, who was a meglomaniac racist asshole, liked the film and considered it realistic.

But again that's because he was a racist asshole, not because of his political party. And again, in that time the entire South was Democratic-affiliated, just as today it's Republican. And Wilson was from the South. Therein lies your reality: "Democrat" here, "Republican" there -- meaningless. But "Northerner" here, "Southerner" there -- now you're on to something. Take that bullshit about the 1964 CRA vote: perfect example. Political parties are interchangeable and indistinguishable in their opportunism; culture is where the action is.

And yes, "Birth of a Nation" was born 100 years ago as one of our racist asshole posters, Steve McRacist, noted in a thread he created on that day. William Simmons' rebirth of the Klan followed soon after in the same year, without which the KKK would have been an obscure historical sidebar confined to fifteen years in the 19th century.

You remember Simmons -- the guy you were going to bring "proof" about last night but never did? Anyway it's always good to mark these occasions, as those who forget their own history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[Pogo]

Are these people really that illiterate that they dont understand that the Dems of yesteryear are todays conservatives?

Well YOU say there was some awful plot by the GOP to switch sides. Lets go up to the 60's, surely democrats changed their ways by then right?

No party switch yet, YOU got a year handy?

STILL leaing on YouTube as research tool??

I told you last night, and you agreed, Confederate veterans of the Civil War started the KKK -- not a political party. We just did this not two hours before you posted this bullshit.

They say the memory is the second thing to go...

 

[Pogo]

YouTube again.. sigh... not interested.

Once again, William Simmons was a salesman, not a politician. I'm not aware that we even have a political affiliation for either Simmons or the soldiers of 1865, or if they were even registered to vote.

Actually Simmons' version worked on organizing and spreading the KKK and actually got a few of its people elected as Senators and Governors in Indiana, Colorado, the city of Anaheim, and the Pacific Northwest -- and they were all Republicans. Does that mean the RP is the party of the Klan? By your logic it should -- but it doesn't. It means this social-justice vigilante group was going to use any available channel to access power. Whereas in the South it meant the DP, in the midwest and west it meant the RP. Whatever worked.

As for the South, everybody in the South was a Democrat; that means nothing. And that was the case for exactly 99 years after the Civil War.

My grandfather used to tell this story about counting votes in southern Mississippi in the election of 1940:

"Roosevelt..."
"Roosevelt"...
"Roosevelt"...
"Wilkie"...
"Roosevelt"...
"Wilkie?? Aw shoot, we gotta throw the ballot out. Some damn fool voted twice!"

That's the way it was. Until Strom Thurmond (my relative) bolted in 1964 after the CRA, being associated with the party of the President who defeated the South was unthinkable.

So welcome to the site, but if YouTube is the best you can do to make your case, you're gonna get beat up. Might wanna step up your game, this ain't the YouTube comment section.

Oh and ditch the bold font. It's obnoxious.

Well at least YOU admit you are not interested in the truth but others are. You go right ahead and stay on the plantation if it makes you happy.

OTHERS prefer education over ignorance and thought and study over arrogance.

And big bold fonts that make your words louder? Poster please.

What I said was that I'm not interested in YouTube. Anybody in the world can link to freaking videos spewing bullshit. Doesn't make them history books. You said and I quote, "I will provide proof". Still waiting on that.

I've been all the way down this road and back, kid. You don't have a prayer.

I know you hate true history because it destroys you BUT facts are FACTS. Got a Tea Party member here AND oh gosh, he's BLACK and disagrees with you.

Let me guess. He is NOT the APPROVED democrat party idea of a black man BUT Al Sharpton is?

Do you simply not understand that anyone with video software -- which can be had for free -- can make a freaking YouTube video? That YouTube has no "vet" procedure? That the mere presence on the internets of a video, or anything else, does not make it factual?

It seems you do not.

Eat a lot of lead paint as a child then?

 

[Pogo]

Democrat history is truly something one should learn because from their history you can see where their leadership takes you. Democrats tied to the KKK are long and strong.

It was the FIRST domestic terrorist group founded in America and founded by democrats. The rise of the KKK to even the Supreme Court IS tied to actions by the democrats as in THIS case FDR.

So how about a wee peek into THEIR history in TRUTH not the lies they feed people?

The KKK was neither the "first" domestic terrorist group, nor was it founded by a political party. It was founded by six Confederate veteran soldiers, around a campfire on Christmas Day 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee. It was one of several vigilante groups founded after the war by veteran soldiers. None of them were founded by political parties.

The Klan was actually extinct by about 1880. The reason we know it in more recent times and forget the Knights of the White Camellia and the other paramilitary jagoff groups like it is that the KKK was revived in 1915 by a Georgia salesman named William Simmons. He's the assclown who came up with the white sheets and burning crosses after watching "Birth of a Nation".

But he wasn't a political party either.

Sorry to bust your bubble but I take history from history books rather than from YouTube.

So why do you liberals talk about the klan like they still exist?

If you can't rivet the klan to the GOP.....The klan ended in 1880 all of the sudden

The first iteration of the Klan was defunct by 1880. It could have stayed that way but for Simmons restarting his own version in 1915 after seeing the film. 1915 and the few decades on either side of it were the most racist, most prejudiced, most riotous times this nation has ever had. That's exactly what my thread on lynching is all about-- have a look at the peak dates.

Simmons' Klan fell into decline with the onset of World War II, being a time of all hands on deck for the cause including black ones and we hadn't yet developed Doublethink to the point where we could entertain both moral disequivalents simultaneously. Some historians count a "third" Klan as the one that developed after the war was over, but to me there's a difference; both the original Confederate soldier KKK and the Simmons version, especially the latter, were well organized, with hierarchies and officers. The postwar Klan is more decentralized (and autonomous) local groups recalling the practices of the former days, but not a national organisation per se. So I only count two "official" Klans; what still exists today is based on tradition rather than organization.

None of these Klans, including the present upstarts playing dress-up, were ever linked to political parties. Where they dabbled in politics at all, which was fortunately not that much, they did so as Democrats in the South and Republicans elsewhere, simply based on what would work in that particular time and place.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The white racists in the South were conservatives. White racists are almost always conservatives. They may be Dems at times, or Pubs at times, but they will always be conservatives.

 

[Political Junky]

Are these people really that illiterate that they dont understand that the Dems of yesteryear are todays conservatives?

Yes, many are, and the rest lie about it.

 

[mudwhistle]

Democrat history is truly something one should learn because from their history you can see where their leadership takes you. Democrats tied to the KKK are long and strong.

It was the FIRST domestic terrorist group founded in America and founded by democrats. The rise of the KKK to even the Supreme Court IS tied to actions by the democrats as in THIS case FDR.

So how about a wee peek into THEIR history in TRUTH not the lies they feed people?

The KKK was neither the "first" domestic terrorist group, nor was it founded by a political party. It was founded by six Confederate veteran soldiers, around a campfire on Christmas Day 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee. It was one of several vigilante groups founded after the war by veteran soldiers. None of them were founded by political parties.

The Klan was actually extinct by about 1880. The reason we know it in more recent times and forget the Knights of the White Camellia and the other paramilitary jagoff groups like it is that the KKK was revived in 1915 by a Georgia salesman named William Simmons. He's the assclown who came up with the white sheets and burning crosses after watching "Birth of a Nation".

But he wasn't a political party either.

Sorry to bust your bubble but I take history from history books rather than from YouTube.

So why do you liberals talk about the klan like they still exist?

If you can't rivet the klan to the GOP.....The klan ended in 1880 all of the sudden

The first iteration of the Klan was defunct by 1880. It could have stayed that way but for Simmons restarting his own version in 1915 after seeing the film. 1915 and the few decades on either side of it were the most racist, most prejudiced, most riotous times this nation has ever had. That's exactly what my thread on lynching is all about-- have a look at the peak dates.

Simmons' Klan fell into decline with the onset of World War II, being a time of all hands on deck for the cause including black ones and we hadn't yet developed Doublethink to the point where we could entertain both moral disequivalents simultaneously. Some historians count a "third" Klan as the one that developed after the war was over, but to me there's a difference; both the original Confederate soldier KKK and the Simmons version, especially the latter, were well organized, with hierarchies and officers. The postwar Klan is more decentralized (and autonomous) local groups recalling the practices of the former days, but not a national organisation per se. So I only count two "official" Klans; what still exists today is based on tradition rather than organization.

None of these Klans, including the present upstarts playing dress-up, were ever linked to political parties. Where they dabbled in politics at all, which was fortunately not that much, they did so as Democrats in the South and Republicans elsewhere, simply based on what would work in that particular time and place.

You keep blowing up other liberal's favorite argument brother.

Thanks

 

[regent]

It had to hurt but it probably had to be done, so the Democratic party began easing the conservative southern Democrats out of the party. The breakup of the "solid south" was probably started with the FDR regime. slowly at first, then Truman with the integration of the armed forces and the change was on.
The southern conservatives started their own party and it didn't work so they joined the Republican party and that's where they are today. Could the Republicans have survived without the former southern Democrats, who knows. But with the change the conservatives in the Republican party they were now stronger, and the parties more pure.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Are these people really that illiterate that they dont understand that the Dems of yesteryear are todays conservatives?

dear, todays conservatives support freedom from govt as Aristotle Cicero Locke Jefferson and Friedman did.

Surprise, dear, the world did not start in America. Do you understand?

 

[Asclepias]

Are these people really that illiterate that they dont understand that the Dems of yesteryear are todays conservatives?

dear, todays conservatives support freedom from govt as Aristotle Cicero Locke Jefferson and Friedman did.

Surprise, dear, the world did not start in America. Do you understand?

Must be off your meds again. What does that have to do with who started the KKK?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Are these people really that illiterate that they dont understand that the Dems of yesteryear are todays conservatives?

dear, todays conservatives support freedom from govt as Aristotle Cicero Locke Jefferson and Friedman did.

Surprise, dear, the world did not start in America. Do you understand?

Must be off your meds again. What does that have to do with who started the KKK?

dear, you said "yesteryear". Do you understand?

 

[Asclepias]

Are these people really that illiterate that they dont understand that the Dems of yesteryear are todays conservatives?

dear, todays conservatives support freedom from govt as Aristotle Cicero Locke Jefferson and Friedman did.

Surprise, dear, the world did not start in America. Do you understand?

Must be off your meds again. What does that have to do with who started the KKK?

dear, you said "yesteryear". Do you understand?

I know I said yesteryear. I asked you what does Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Jefferson, and Freidman have to do with the KKK? You do know what yesteryear means dont you dear?