your mirror would be much closer than a mile away. You are the phony here hopstick, everyone knows that. Its why the intelligent posters are always making fun of you
uh HUH.
Which one of us just tried to claim the KKK was "all democrats [sic]" and got his ass whupped?
all was an exaggeration for affect. in reality MOST were democrats would have been more accurate. Happy now?
Nape. Still waiting for your link to a basis for that. Mind you when I say "waiting" I do so already knowing you can't do it because no such survey was ever taken. But go ahead, prove me wrong.
The funny thing is, even if you
could do that ---- you've got no way to use it.
you are correct, neither of us can prove our allegations with surveys that were taken on KKK members in the 1800s.
But, the KKK was most active in the democrat controlled south, where Bill Byrd and Lester Maddox and Bull
Conner, and George Wallace came from. Democrats all. It doesn't work for you to claim that the dems of that time were not the dems of today, but thats not what was claimed, the claim was that the KKK was mostly dems, AND IT WAS.
Once AGAIN you have no basis for a count. This is where we started. I don't either, nor does it matter, but I did quote you the outlook comparing KKK activity in the South versus the rest of the nation: "more members in Connecticut than in Mississippi, more in Oregon than in Louisiana, more in New Jersey than in Alabama". That line is written that way to put to rest this mythology about the second Klan, which you're conflating with the first one, which
was confined to the South. We have no evidence that Maddox, Conner or Wallace had Klan involvement, and Byrd not only quit the Klan in the 1940s before he was a politician, but he came from West Virginia anyway, not the South (and just FTR, the original 19th century Klan did not spread to West Virginia).
Again, the KKK of "Birth of a Nation" is not quite the Klan of history. The second Klan swept through the midwest, the west coast, Colorado, Maine and the northeast. It was estimated that one-third of the adult male population of the state of Indiana was Klan. That's not the "South", nor is it "Democrat" country. They were all over local offices in Ohio and New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The great storyteller Jean Shepherd tells of a night walking through the woods he came upon a Klan ceremony, and if you know Jean Shepherd his roots and his stories were all in Indiana.
And the surveys I noted that don't exist were not supposed to be limited to the nineteenth century. I meant ANY time. Again, political parties had no function with the Klan as it was a
social force. Its concerns were "Americanism", whatever that meant, Protestant Christianism, racism, anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism, anti-laborism, anti-immigrantism, anti-alcohol, anti-gambling, anti-philadererism, anti-people who didn't go to church. Those are social issues, not political ones. That's why I call 'em the American Taliban.
To the extent they dabbled in politics they supported, or opposed, Democrats, or Republicans, interchangeably as each occasion warranted. For example a Democratic governor in Oregon and at the same time a Republican mayor in Portland. And in Colorado the exact reverse: Democrat mayor in Denver, Republican Governor and Senator. It didn't matter. They had no political loyalties; they used whatever worked in that area. In Maine, both the prominent Klanners
and the prominent anti-Klanners were Republicans, simply because
everybody was Republican. And in the South it was the reverse.
What you're conflating here is three different things: (a) the fact that the
original Klan was confined to the South; (b) the fact that the South (
after the Klan began) turned solidly Democratic; and (c) the second Klan with the first Klan. (First Klan 1865-1872, officially disbanded 1869; second Klan 1915-1944).
(a) and (b) are not related. That's a Post Hoc Fallacy.