Democrats Are No Longer the Racist Party – If They Ever Really Were

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War. The intent seems to be to draw attention away from the party that harbors the racists of today by shaming the Democrats for the sins of our forefathers.

It’s a sleazy tactic that doesn’t work, and It is time to set the record straight. First of all, Democrats- for the most part- do not deny or try to hide the parties past. Second, I will show how, when and why the racists fled from the Democratic Party and found a new home and lastly, I will present evidence that shows how, during the civil rights era, support for civil right legislation was split, not by party affiliation but by regional loyalty-specifically the old Confederacy and the Union. Let’s begin by talking about the civil war era

https://classroom.synonym.com/civil-warera-political-parties-north-vs-south-8901.html

Democratic Party

The Democratic Party was formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792 and held considerable power in the years leading up to the Civil War. The Democratic Party became divided in the 1850s over the issue of slavery, with some factions in the north supporting abolitionist causes, some northern factions supporting accommodation of the South and Southern Democrats supporting the continuation and expansion of slavery. During the elections of 1860, Southern and Northern Democrats nominated separate candidates for president. After the Civil War broke out, former Southern Democrats held considerable clout in the Confederate Congress. Northern Democrats lost much of their political power in the North during the Civil War.

Republican Party

The Republican Party was founded in the 1850s by northerners who wanted to abolish slavery. The demise of the Whig Party and the split in the Democratic Party in the years leading up to the 1860 elections gave the Republicans an opportunity to advance. Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln won the U.S. Presidential election in 1860 and Republicans gained control of Congress, leading to the secession of eleven Southern states. The Republican Party had very little support in the South before the war and virtually none after war broke out. In 1864, the Republican Party joined with Democrats who favored the war effort to form the National Union Party. Other Republicans, who were in favor of pressing the war more forcefully, left the Republican Party to form the Radical Democracy Party. The National Union Party won the 1864 presidential election.

The truth about Republicans and civil rights even then was not as clear cut as some would like us to believe:

https://medium.com/everyvote/how-the-republicans-and-democrats-switched-on-civil-rights-in-5-racist-steps-92c1b41480b


Republicans and Democrats after the Civil War

It’s true that many of the first Ku Klux Klan members were Democrats. It’s also true that the early Democratic Party opposed civil rights. But there’s more to it.

In the Civil War-era GOP wasn’t that into civil rights. They were more interested in punishing the South for seceding and monopolizing the new black vote.
In any event, by the 1890s, Republicans had begun to distance themselves from civil rights.

As for the democrats

Democrats v Republicans on Jim Crow
Segregation and Jim Crow lasted for 100 years after the end of the Civil War.

During this time, African Americans were largely disenfranchised. There was no African-American voting bloc. Neither party pursued civil rights policies — it wasn’t worth their while.

Democrats dominated Southern politics throughout the Jim Crow Era. It’s fair to say that Democratic governors and legislatures are responsible for creating and upholding white supremacist policies.

Southern Democrats were truly awful.

Then things began to change

President Truman Integrates the Troops: 1948

Fast forward about sixty shitty years. Black people are still living in segregation under Jim Crow. Nonetheless, African Americans agree to serve in World War II. At war’s end, President Harry Truman, a Democrat, used an Executive Order to integrate the troops. (That order was not executed until 1963, however because: racism.)

The Party of Kennedy v the Party of Nixon in the Civil Rights Era

Two things started happening at the same time:

· Racist Democrats were getting antsy

· Neither party could afford to ignore civil rights anymore

In 1960 Kennedy defeated Nixon. At the time of his election, the both parties unevenly supported civil rights. But President Kennedy decided to move forward.

After Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, Johnson continued Kennedy’s civil rights focus.

As you can imagine, that did not sit particularly well with most Southern Democrats. This is when Strom Thurmond flew the coop for good.

In fact, a greater percentage of Congressional Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats. Support for the Act followed geographic, not party, lines. ( More on that later)

Get that? Support for civil rights was along geographic, not party lines. Now we get to the meat of the matter:

Soon after, the Republicans came up with their Southern Strategy — a plan to woo white Southern voters to the party for the 1968 election.

The Kennedy and Johnson administrations had advanced civil rights, largely through national legislation and direct executive actions. So, the Southern Strategy was the opposite — states’ rights and no integration.

As in the Civil War, the concepts of “states’ rights” and “tradition,” were codes for “maintaining white supremacy.”

The divide between the north and the south vs the Democrats and the Republicans can be easily illustrated:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights

As we saw earlier more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act, but that is not the whole story

You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.

But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".

In conclusion, maligning the entire Democratic Party as the historical racist party without regard to regional loyalties or the fact that the racists fled from the Democrats ranks in the 60’s is just dumbed down revisionist history, and patently dishonest. I have to wonder, which party will be remembered as the party of racists in another 150 years or so. Any guesses?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Travel the USA, you will see in a heart beat the blue state's are way more racist and segregated then the red state's in the year 2018

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Travel the USA, you will see in a heart beat the blue state's are way more racist and segregated then the red state's in the year 2018

Care to elaborate on that.?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Wyatt earp]

Travel the USA, you will see in a heart beat the blue state's are way more racist and segregated then the red state's in the year 2018

Care to elaborate on that.?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lived in Illinois 38 years, south Carolina 14 years.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Travel the USA, you will see in a heart beat the blue state's are way more racist and segregated then the red state's in the year 2018

Care to elaborate on that.?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lived in Illinois 38 years, south Carolina 14 years.

That’s all that you can offer to back up your claim?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Correll]

Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War. The intent seems to be to draw attention away from the party that harbors the racists of today by shaming the Democrats for the sins of our forefathers.

It’s a sleazy tactic that doesn’t work, and It is time to set the record straight....?

This is about as far as I got is that wall of bs.


Your premise, includes the very self serving assumption that the GOP is the "party that harbors the racist of today".


In doing that, you are, ironically making a far worse smear against modern republicans than the smear you are complaining about, where they smear your distance, ideological ancestors.


Not to mention, that what they say is actually true, while you are spewing vile lies, and you know it.

 

[Manonthestreet]

The one Obama policy I would have used like a son of a bitch is his changes to HUD policies regarding low income housing. I would be shipping them into every lib wealth enclave by the planeload, Hamptons, Big buck LA neighborhoods ....Hillys neighborhood,,,,,and when they complained I'd be right their to throw their racist spiel right back at em..........HATERS....you must be HATERS.......
obama HUD policy change low income housing - Bing

 

[JakeStarkey]

The social conservatives in America since the beginning have been overwhelmingly the racists.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The one Obama policy I would have used like a son of a bitch is his changes to HUD policies regarding low income housing. I would be shipping them into every lib wealth enclave by the planeload, Hamptons, Big buck LA neighborhoods ....Hillys neighborhood,,,,,and when they complained I'd be right their to throw their racist spiel right back at em..........HATERS....you must be HATERS.......
obama HUD policy change low income housing - Bing

That’s kind of incoherent. Sober up and call me on the morning


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Deep Blue NYC is struggling to desegregate their schools, and this is 2018

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

It is the Democrats who make politics about race, because they are the racist.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Deep Blue NYC is struggling to desegregate their schools, and this is 2018

Two questions:

How is that the fault of Democrats

How does that refute my assessment of the history of both parties from the civil war thru the 60s

 

[Manonthestreet]

The one Obama policy I would have used like a son of a bitch is his changes to HUD policies regarding low income housing. I would be shipping them into every lib wealth enclave by the planeload, Hamptons, Big buck LA neighborhoods ....Hillys neighborhood,,,,,and when they complained I'd be right their to throw their racist spiel right back at em..........HATERS....you must be HATERS.......
obama HUD policy change low income housing - Bing

That’s kind of incoherent. Sober up and call me on the morning


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You dont know your own guys policies.......typical lib

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It is the Democrats who make politics about race, because they are the racist.

Maybe you would like to explain just what the fuck you're talking about smiley. You cant just say shit like that without presenting examples and documenting it. That is just an appeal to ignorance logical fallacy that makes you look stupid.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The one Obama policy I would have used like a son of a bitch is his changes to HUD policies regarding low income housing. I would be shipping them into every lib wealth enclave by the planeload, Hamptons, Big buck LA neighborhoods ....Hillys neighborhood,,,,,and when they complained I'd be right their to throw their racist spiel right back at em..........HATERS....you must be HATERS.......
obama HUD policy change low income housing - Bing

That’s kind of incoherent. Sober up and call me on the morning


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You dont know your own guys policies.......typical lib

Sober up and call me in the morning.

 

[Manonthestreet]

The one Obama policy I would have used like a son of a bitch is his changes to HUD policies regarding low income housing. I would be shipping them into every lib wealth enclave by the planeload, Hamptons, Big buck LA neighborhoods ....Hillys neighborhood,,,,,and when they complained I'd be right their to throw their racist spiel right back at em..........HATERS....you must be HATERS.......
obama HUD policy change low income housing - Bing

That’s kind of incoherent. Sober up and call me on the morning


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You dont know your own guys policies.......typical lib

Sober up and call me in the morning.

You'll be just as ignorant then as now

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You dont [sic] know your own guys [sic] policies.......typical lib

Or at least as likely, he knows but is willfully lying.

 

[deanrd]

Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War. The intent seems to be to draw attention away from the party that harbors the racists of today by shaming the Democrats for the sins of our forefathers.

It’s a sleazy tactic that doesn’t work, and It is time to set the record straight. First of all, Democrats- for the most part- do not deny or try to hide the parties past. Second, I will show how, when and why the racists fled from the Democratic Party and found a new home and lastly, I will present evidence that shows how, during the civil rights era, support for civil right legislation was split, not by party affiliation but by regional loyalty-specifically the old Confederacy and the Union. Let’s begin by talking about the civil war era

https://classroom.synonym.com/civil-warera-political-parties-north-vs-south-8901.html

Democratic Party

The Democratic Party was formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792 and held considerable power in the years leading up to the Civil War. The Democratic Party became divided in the 1850s over the issue of slavery, with some factions in the north supporting abolitionist causes, some northern factions supporting accommodation of the South and Southern Democrats supporting the continuation and expansion of slavery. During the elections of 1860, Southern and Northern Democrats nominated separate candidates for president. After the Civil War broke out, former Southern Democrats held considerable clout in the Confederate Congress. Northern Democrats lost much of their political power in the North during the Civil War.

Republican Party

The Republican Party was founded in the 1850s by northerners who wanted to abolish slavery. The demise of the Whig Party and the split in the Democratic Party in the years leading up to the 1860 elections gave the Republicans an opportunity to advance. Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln won the U.S. Presidential election in 1860 and Republicans gained control of Congress, leading to the secession of eleven Southern states. The Republican Party had very little support in the South before the war and virtually none after war broke out. In 1864, the Republican Party joined with Democrats who favored the war effort to form the National Union Party. Other Republicans, who were in favor of pressing the war more forcefully, left the Republican Party to form the Radical Democracy Party. The National Union Party won the 1864 presidential election.

The truth about Republicans and civil rights even then was not as clear cut as some would like us to believe:

https://medium.com/everyvote/how-the-republicans-and-democrats-switched-on-civil-rights-in-5-racist-steps-92c1b41480b


Republicans and Democrats after the Civil War

It’s true that many of the first Ku Klux Klan members were Democrats. It’s also true that the early Democratic Party opposed civil rights. But there’s more to it.

In the Civil War-era GOP wasn’t that into civil rights. They were more interested in punishing the South for seceding and monopolizing the new black vote.
In any event, by the 1890s, Republicans had begun to distance themselves from civil rights.

As for the democrats

Democrats v Republicans on Jim Crow
Segregation and Jim Crow lasted for 100 years after the end of the Civil War.

During this time, African Americans were largely disenfranchised. There was no African-American voting bloc. Neither party pursued civil rights policies — it wasn’t worth their while.

Democrats dominated Southern politics throughout the Jim Crow Era. It’s fair to say that Democratic governors and legislatures are responsible for creating and upholding white supremacist policies.

Southern Democrats were truly awful.

Then things began to change

President Truman Integrates the Troops: 1948

Fast forward about sixty shitty years. Black people are still living in segregation under Jim Crow. Nonetheless, African Americans agree to serve in World War II. At war’s end, President Harry Truman, a Democrat, used an Executive Order to integrate the troops. (That order was not executed until 1963, however because: racism.)

The Party of Kennedy v the Party of Nixon in the Civil Rights Era

Two things started happening at the same time:

· Racist Democrats were getting antsy

· Neither party could afford to ignore civil rights anymore

In 1960 Kennedy defeated Nixon. At the time of his election, the both parties unevenly supported civil rights. But President Kennedy decided to move forward.

After Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, Johnson continued Kennedy’s civil rights focus.

As you can imagine, that did not sit particularly well with most Southern Democrats. This is when Strom Thurmond flew the coop for good.

In fact, a greater percentage of Congressional Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats. Support for the Act followed geographic, not party, lines. ( More on that later)

Get that? Support for civil rights was along geographic, not party lines. Now we get to the meat of the matter:

Soon after, the Republicans came up with their Southern Strategy — a plan to woo white Southern voters to the party for the 1968 election.

The Kennedy and Johnson administrations had advanced civil rights, largely through national legislation and direct executive actions. So, the Southern Strategy was the opposite — states’ rights and no integration.

As in the Civil War, the concepts of “states’ rights” and “tradition,” were codes for “maintaining white supremacy.”

The divide between the north and the south vs the Democrats and the Republicans can be easily illustrated:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights

As we saw earlier more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act, but that is not the whole story
View attachment 193443
You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
View attachment 193444
But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".

View attachment 193445

In conclusion, maligning the entire Democratic Party as the historical racist party without regard to regional loyalties or the fact that the racists fled from the Democrats ranks in the 60’s is just dumbed down revisionist history, and patently dishonest. I have to wonder, which party will be remembered as the party of racists in another 150 years or so. Any guesses?

It's hilarious that Republicans now fly the Confederate Flag and then insist it's Democrats who are racist.

 

[katsteve2012]

Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War. The intent seems to be to draw attention away from the party that harbors the racists of today by shaming the Democrats for the sins of our forefathers.

It’s a sleazy tactic that doesn’t work, and It is time to set the record straight....?

This is about as far as I got is that wall of bs.


Your premise, includes the very self serving assumption that the GOP is the "party that harbors the racist of today".


In doing that, you are, ironically making a far worse smear against modern republicans than the smear you are complaining about, where they smear your distance, ideological ancestors.


Not to mention, that what they say is actually true, while you are spewing vile lies, and you know it.

It is doubtful that you can prove the OP is lying.

Sometimes the ugly truth feels like a "vile smear".

So far no one has posted a single link to a credible source to counter his facts.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It is doubtful that you can prove the OP is lying.

Sometimes the ugly truth feels like a "vile smear".

So far no one has posted a single link to a credible source to counter his facts.

Aside from his bizarre and disturbing sexual proclivities, the OP is mostly known for writing long, convoluted essays, such as the one at the start of this thread, which attempt to deny simple truths that are obvious to most sane people.