owebo
Gold Member
You make a great klamsman and democrats are proud....
151 years ago today: Democrats founded and staffed the Ku Klux Klan
- Thread starter Little-Acorn
- Start date
Of course the 13 Congressional Volumes prove that the KKK was the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.
Ku Klux Klan - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com
WGBH American Experience . U.S. Grant: Warrior | PBS
That's certainly true, and such is the pitfall of any Broad Brush. But religion, specifically Christianity and specifically Protestant Christianity, was used as a rationale for the Klan just as it was used as a rationale against it. Just as the same religion was used to defend racism itself, as well as to attack it.
This is kind of the pitfall of religion itself --- since no one can prove what it wants --- anyone can claim it's "on their side". That's essentially why humans invent this stuff ---- for a fear factor to work their will, whichever way that will wanders.
But the Klan --- revivied by a Methodist minister -- was absolutely engaging in this rationale. From my previous SPLC link:
>> The message was clear — the new Klan was serious. That meant expanding its list of enemies to include Asians, immigrants, bootleggers, dope, graft, night clubs and road houses, violation of the Sabbath, sex, pre- and extra-marital escapades and scandalous behavior. The Klan, with its new mission of social vigilance, soon had organizers scouring the nation, probing for the fears of the communities they hit and then exploiting them to the hilt.
....
Lynching’s [sic], shootings and whippings were the methods employed by the Klan. Blacks, Jews, Catholics, Mexicans and various immigrants were usually the victims. But not infrequently, the Klan’s targets were whites, Protestants and females who were considered “immoral” or “traitors” to their race or gender. In Alabama, for example, a divorcee with two children was flogged for the “crime” of remarrying and then given a jar of Vaseline for her wounds. In Georgia, a woman was given 60 lashes for a vague charge of “immorality and failure to go to church”; when her 15-year-old son ran to her rescue, he received the same treatment. In both cases, ministers led the Klansmen responsible for the violence.
But such instances were not confined to the South. In Oklahoma, Klansmen applied the lash to girls caught riding in automobiles with young men, and very early in the Klan revival, women were flogged and even tortured in the San Joaquin Valley of California.
In a period when many women were fighting for the vote, for a place in the job market and for personal and cultural freedom, the Klan claimed to stand for “pure womanhood” and frequently attacked women who sought independence. << --- The Invisible Empire
Both the original American racist Chris Coloumbus, and his pointed critic his accompanying priest Bartholomé de las Casas, cited Christianity as foundations for their respective justification of, or opposition to, the idea of enslavement. That abolitionist sentiment was always present throughout the existence of the peculiar institution --- but for the time Slavery was tolerated it was simple old fashioned greed that carried the day and enabled it.
I think the purpose of noting their Christianity is as was articulated here:
Zackly, by predominance one can surmise that most Klan would have been Christians (in fact it was required) but then so were the vast majority of non-Klan and anti-Klan as well, just as Christian. Just as by predominance most Klan would have been Democrats if they were registered with a political party at all, but then so would have been most non-Klan and anti-Klan, just as Democrat.... Etc etc. This is also why we point out that they're ex-soldiers --- by the OP logic we should indict all ex-soldiers --- even more so since we actually know they were.
So this is at base not an indictment of Christianism but an indictment of the Composition Fallacy upon which this entire thread is built, carrying zero evidence to support its premise, created for the sole purpose of polarization, demonization and division in the name of Eliminationism.
Which is all this thread is and ever was.
Last edited:
Oh please. Whittle Bill on YouTube? I'll tear that poser to shreds. See if you can come up with a legitimate source.
Actually see if you can answer the damn question I posted instead of running away from it.
Ku Klux Klan Conspiracy 1871 Congressional Testimony Documents
7,012 pages of Congressional testimony published in 1872 on the Ku Klux Klan activity, archived on two CD-ROMs.
In 1869, a federal grand jury declared the Ku Klux Klan to be a terrorist organization. In January 1871, Pennsylvania Republican senator John Scott convened a committee, which took testimony from witnesses about Klan atrocities. In 1872, the U.S. Congress published the 13 volume "Report of the Joint Select Committee Appointed to Inquire in to the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States." Historians often referred to these volumes as the KKK Testimony.
PBS and History.com confirm his account.
Ku Klux Klan - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com
WGBH American Experience . U.S. Grant: Warrior | PBS
Oh please. Whittle Bill on YouTube? I'll tear that poser to shreds. See if you can come up with a legitimate source.
Actually see if you can answer the damn question I posted instead of running away from it.
7,012 pages of Congressional testimony published in 1872 on the Ku Klux Klan activity, archived on two CD-ROMs confirms his account. Do you have any evidence to support your position?
Ku Klux Klan Conspiracy 1871 Congressional Testimony Documents
7,012 pages of Congressional testimony published in 1872 on the Ku Klux Klan activity, archived on two CD-ROMs.
In 1869, a federal grand jury declared the Ku Klux Klan to be a terrorist organization. In January 1871, Pennsylvania Republican senator John Scott convened a committee, which took testimony from witnesses about Klan atrocities. In 1872, the U.S. Congress published the 13 volume "Report of the Joint Select Committee Appointed to Inquire in to the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States." Historians often referred to these volumes as the KKK Testimony.
Oh please. Whittle Bill on YouTube? I'll tear that poser to shreds. See if you can come up with a legitimate source.
Actually see if you can answer the damn question I posted instead of running away from it.
These black people confirm Bill's account.
Oh please. Whittle Bill on YouTube? I'll tear that poser to shreds. See if you can come up with a legitimate source.
Actually see if you can answer the damn question I posted instead of running away from it.
Here's your missing Democratic history.
Oh please. Whittle Bill on YouTube? I'll tear that poser to shreds. See if you can come up with a legitimate source.
Actually see if you can answer the damn question I posted instead of running away from it.
I can go on for weeks with never having to repost the same thing. I can parade historical accounts, historians, historical documents and public record personal testimony. I can go on and on and on. Let's go.
150 years ago at least in the South, it was chaos. The land and its entire economic infrastructure was devastated. Hundreds of thousands of breadwinners were dead and many more physically crippled by new arms technology. Whole systems of employment and basic finding a meal were upset. And an occupying army had the land under military rule while freed slaves competed for elusive jobs and living space. To this add an influx of non-military opportunists looking to exploit the devastation (known as 'carpetbaggers').
All of these elements were targets of Southern backlash, sometimes as individuals, sometimes as loosely organized parties for a specific occasion, sometimes as ongoing organizations such as infiltrated the Klan --- which was one of at least two dozen such regional vigilante organizations.
So yes it would have been dicey to have darker skin, or to be wearing a blue military uniform, or even to be talking with a Northern accent.
Democrats didn't found the Klan though. Six ex-Confederate soldiers founded it. They did so as a social club, not for any political purpose, and they had no known political affiliations anyway. This is just another OP making up myths.
Last edited:
Oh please. Whittle Bill on YouTube? I'll tear that poser to shreds. See if you can come up with a legitimate source.
Actually see if you can answer the damn question I posted instead of running away from it.
Here's your missing Democratic history.
When you have to resort to YouTubes ----- it shows you can't support a point.
STILL can't answer the question. Because it has no answer. Because it isn't there. Which I already knew.
Edgetho
Diamond Member
- Mar 27, 2012
- 22,804
- 16,007
- 2,405
First off, the KKK was NOT formed to fight, lynch or otherwise harm Blacks.
Blacks were no threat to the South. At all.
The KKK was formed to fight, murder and lynch WHITE Republicans.
You see, the right to vote was being taken away from Southerners WHO FOUGHT UNDER THE REBEL FLAG. So they felt, rightly, that they had no representation.
And they formed the KKK to intimidate and, if necessary, murder REPUBLICANS NOT BLACKS.
In fact (and this is historic FACT) the number of Blacks murdered by the KKK didn't start to equal the number of WHITE REPUBLICANS MURDERED until the 1880s
FACT.
dimocraps are scum, another fact. They have always had a terrorist arm. Always. For 70 years it was the KKK, then it became the Mob-Backed Unions, then it was student groups, then Black Groups.
The latest have been the Occupy (bowel) Movement and their attempt to create their own personal ISIS in the BLM movement.
dimocraps are scum. I'm not just saying that -- They are. Every last one of them.
Every dimocrap scumbag in this Country is defective in one way or another. Every one of them. I won't let one close to me.
I'll be 'friendly' or neighborly or polite in public. But I don't want them around me.
Which is why they're forced to live in a bubble.
Think about it. It's true. Normal people won't have dimocrap scum around them so they have to form all their relationships inside an echo chamber.
Tis true.
But, so is everything I say
Blacks were no threat to the South. At all.
The KKK was formed to fight, murder and lynch WHITE Republicans.
You see, the right to vote was being taken away from Southerners WHO FOUGHT UNDER THE REBEL FLAG. So they felt, rightly, that they had no representation.
And they formed the KKK to intimidate and, if necessary, murder REPUBLICANS NOT BLACKS.
In fact (and this is historic FACT) the number of Blacks murdered by the KKK didn't start to equal the number of WHITE REPUBLICANS MURDERED until the 1880s
FACT.
dimocraps are scum, another fact. They have always had a terrorist arm. Always. For 70 years it was the KKK, then it became the Mob-Backed Unions, then it was student groups, then Black Groups.
The latest have been the Occupy (bowel) Movement and their attempt to create their own personal ISIS in the BLM movement.
dimocraps are scum. I'm not just saying that -- They are. Every last one of them.
Every dimocrap scumbag in this Country is defective in one way or another. Every one of them. I won't let one close to me.
I'll be 'friendly' or neighborly or polite in public. But I don't want them around me.
Which is why they're forced to live in a bubble.
Think about it. It's true. Normal people won't have dimocrap scum around them so they have to form all their relationships inside an echo chamber.
Tis true.
But, so is everything I say
Oh please. Whittle Bill on YouTube? I'll tear that poser to shreds. See if you can come up with a legitimate source.
Actually see if you can answer the damn question I posted instead of running away from it.
Here's your missing Democratic history.
When you have to resort to YouTubes ----- it shows you can't support a point.
STILL can't answer the question. Because it has no answer. Because it isn't there. Which I already knew.
Videos are just another form of communicating information, pogo. You are getting your ass handed to you, not because I am more intelligent than you, although I probably am, but because what I am posting is the truth. Your heritage is that of a terrorists, racist, thugs. Deal with it because the weight of its 150 year history is overwhelming and will crush you. Your call.
Reminds me of
Democratic Party Conventions:
"CLINTON DELEGATES ONLY"
Sanders and BLM supporters sit down and shut up!
(Just like any other cult that operates
by controlling their members by set rituals. )
There's always going to be controlling of members by set rituals in any formal organization. Cogently related to this point is the Democratic Party's bipolar relationship with its racist Southern contingent ---
Up until 80 years ago the DP's party rules required a two-thirds vote to nominate a Presidential candidate. The South didn't have two-thirds but it had enough to prevent a two-thirds if presented with somebody they didn't like --- which meant they had in effect veto power over candies who didn't fit their style.
This came to a head especially in 1924 when two strong anti-Klan candidates (Oscar Underwood and Al Smith) were calling for a platform denouncing the Klan. The South continued to blackball Underwood and Smith and support their own choice, William Gibbs McAdoo. Nobody won that struggle -- the South kept the anti-Klan element down and everybody else kept McAdoo down, resulting in the longest political convention in history, requiring over a hundred ballots. They finally settled on a weak candidate, one John W. Davis of West Virginia --- who then proceeded to denounce the Klan anyway but lost to Calvin Coolidge.
Twelve years later Franklin Roosevelt, at the height of his influence, got the party rule changed from two-thirds to a simple majority at the 1936 convention. This grossly undercut the South's influence. It wasn't going to be a factor that year as FDR had support for the New Deal anyway, and in the next two elections World War Two would be dominating the stage --- but the next postwar convention in 1948 when the South heard too much in the way of "civil rights" talk from Truman and Humphrey, they literally walked out and ran their own candidate in opposition (which was not the first time the South did exactly that --- see 1860);
So FDR broke the back of the South's stranglehold, Truman and Humphrey then exploited the crack, and four years after splitting off to run his own segregationist campaign, Strom Thurmond endorsed Eisenhower. Later in the decade LBJ pushed a civil rights bill as Majority Leader, earning cries of "betrayal" from the South, and seven years after that as President, the CRA of 1964, after which Thurmond bolted, committing what was for exactly 99 years an unthinkable act --- joined the "party of Lincoln".
All because FDR abolished one of those organizational set rituals.
paperview
Life is Good
Oh please. Whittle Bill on YouTube? I'll tear that poser to shreds. See if you can come up with a legitimate source.
Actually see if you can answer the damn question I posted instead of running away from it.
Here's your missing Democratic history.
When you have to resort to YouTubes ----- it shows you can't support a point.
STILL can't answer the question. Because it has no answer. Because it isn't there. Which I already knew.
Videos are just another form of communicating information, pogo. You are getting your ass handed to you, not because I am more intelligent than you, although I probably am, but because what I am posting is the truth. Your heritage is that of a terrorists, racist, thugs. Deal with it because the weight of its 150 year history is overwhelming and will crush you. Your call.
Pogo is killing you -- and you can't even answer his simple question.
You've been exposed, gump.
Oh please. Whittle Bill on YouTube? I'll tear that poser to shreds. See if you can come up with a legitimate source.
Actually see if you can answer the damn question I posted instead of running away from it.
Here's your missing Democratic history.
When you have to resort to YouTubes ----- it shows you can't support a point.
STILL can't answer the question. Because it has no answer. Because it isn't there. Which I already knew.
Videos are just another form of communicating information, pogo. You are getting your ass handed to you, not because I am more intelligent than you, although I probably am, but because what I am posting is the truth. Your heritage is that of a terrorists, racist, thugs. Deal with it because the weight of its 150 year history is overwhelming and will crush you. Your call.
You've had what --- three chances now to cite the citation in what you claim exists in the 1871 document? And yet you can't ----- you traipse over to YouTube where anyone can make any kind of video making any kind of point (or myth) they like without any kind of documentation.
That's because you don't HAVE the documentation. This ploy is as transparent as a new pane of glass.
Oh please. Whittle Bill on YouTube? I'll tear that poser to shreds. See if you can come up with a legitimate source.
Actually see if you can answer the damn question I posted instead of running away from it.
Here's your missing Democratic history.
When you have to resort to YouTubes ----- it shows you can't support a point.
STILL can't answer the question. Because it has no answer. Because it isn't there. Which I already knew.
Videos are just another form of communicating information, pogo. You are getting your ass handed to you, not because I am more intelligent than you, although I probably am, but because what I am posting is the truth. Your heritage is that of a terrorists, racist, thugs. Deal with it because the weight of its 150 year history is overwhelming and will crush you. Your call.
You've had what --- three chances now to cite the citation in what you claim exists in the 1871 document? And yet you can't ----- you traipse over to YouTube where anyone can make any kind of video making any kind of point (or myth) they like without any kind of documentation.
That's because you don't HAVE the documentation. This ploy is as transparent as a new pane of glass.
I'm pretty happy that I've made my case. You on the other hand have no case other than dismissing your defeat and ignoring the incongruities of the cold hard history of historical facts that I have presented to you. I believe you are making a mistake, but it is your mistake to make. I will be more than happy to use your opposition to reality as a platform to share this information with others. Your call.
Oh please. Whittle Bill on YouTube? I'll tear that poser to shreds. See if you can come up with a legitimate source.
Actually see if you can answer the damn question I posted instead of running away from it.
Here's your missing Democratic history.
When you have to resort to YouTubes ----- it shows you can't support a point.
STILL can't answer the question. Because it has no answer. Because it isn't there. Which I already knew.
Videos are just another form of communicating information, pogo. You are getting your ass handed to you, not because I am more intelligent than you, although I probably am, but because what I am posting is the truth. Your heritage is that of a terrorists, racist, thugs. Deal with it because the weight of its 150 year history is overwhelming and will crush you. Your call.
Pogo is killing you -- and you can't even answer his simple question.
You've been exposed, gump.
I can tell from your lack of objectivity and intellectual response that you are a low paid worker bee.
“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”k
Note the scumbag in the upper right-hand corner.
Democrats proposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
A majority of Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
A Democrat signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act into law.
Who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
The 1964 GOP Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater.
President Ronald Reagan
President George Bush
Lyndon Johnson
The Democratic Party's Two-Facedness of Race Relations | Huffington Post
Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson III, By Robert A. Caro, p662
That's LBJ supposedly speaking to Richard Russell, a Southern segregationist, code-switching to get his point across, about the 1957 civil rights bill. He did that a lot -- even to the point of pronouncing the word "negro" differently to different Southerners to match their own dialect. That's the same 1957 bill that I alluded to a few posts up, where LBJ earned charges of "betrayal" from his fellow Southerners yet got the bill passed after cajoling them and came up personally at least smelling like a rose even if it was at their expense.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Radical Dem. Julie Johnson compares the 2 died by ICE to Islamic Republic executing scores- Started by Pastelli
- Replies: 3
-
-
Air Canada hit a firetruck and the pilots died learn a lot more- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 3
