How About This Statue?

[BlueGin]

It's on private property. Does the OP want big government to intervene?

Got a link to that, liar?

I googled it. Heard of google?

Yet still no link ya lying sack of shit.

since when do frikkin leftards care about "private property"

Um...never.

 

[whitehall]

Nobody really cares what Portlandiers think. There is a hypocritical issue with the fact that some Southern cities like Lexington Va. outlaw Confederate flags while they depend on tourist dollars that center around the Civil War. I imagine that some hard core lefties are lobbying as we speak to change the name of the venerable Washington & Lee University aka W&L located in Lexington. There is also an aspect that the venerable state run Virginia Military Institute (VMI) has roots deep in the Civil War. It was the only time in history that a college class was marched into battle (New Market) and helped defeat the Union troops. From what I understand the fallen VMI cadets at New Market are still recited in the VMI roll call.

 

[Freewill]

Lenin liberated the Russian people from a feudal existence. That is worth a statue.

Lenin did much evil also.

Right.....Lenin started the Red Terror in order to gain power which killed up to 1.5 million people.....

Hmmm,first of all that figure is unsubstantiated. Secondly he was fighting a war against a wicked enemy. There was good and bad on both sides.
He was probably no angel but he wasnt a mass murderer either.

++

It is said that Stalin did nothing that Lenin had not already done.

Lenin's Hanging Order - Wikipedia

 

[Pogo]

Name a source, other then yourself, that I can quote that you will accept. What we know for fact is that the KKK after the civil war attacked blacks and white Republicans, do you dispute that fact?

Sigh. As if I haven't been doing that for years here.

I'll give you an entire page of links. As usual it's up to me to do the work even though you're the one who can't prove his point. See post 512 of this thread. That's just nine quoted links -- there are many more.

Here's a close-up of what that plaque put up by the Daughters of the Confederacy a hundred years ago originally said. Note the names.​

The source you quoted merely said its mythology was "unreported" -- which it is, since fiction cannot be "reported", and claims a Congressional document of 1872 cites the founders as "Democrats" --- which that document does not. Again, you're free to find such a quote in there and prove me wrong. But then again that page you linked is only a cheap blog page, not a history source. But there are the names -- you can look them up and find a political party for any of them. In a place that didn't even have political parties.

The Klan once it was infiltrated by vigilante elements that concurrently founded at least two dozed other similar groups as well as "night patrol" or "slave patrol" elements, did attack Reconstructionists, Republicans, voters, "carpetbaggers" and "scalawags". None of that however makes them a political party.

pp. 7-8 of this link will tell you more about those "night patrols". They had been running since at least the 18th century, before there was a country here, let alone political parties. These elements didn't just spring up from nothing.

Your History Channel link is mostly accurate except its date of "1866". That would be the date of its initial sinister activity, but not the date of its founding. 1866 would be after it was commandeered from its founders (described above), who designed it as an innocuous and silly social club with no point (hence the silly K-alliterations).

What we know is that Woodrow Wilson showed the Klan film "A Birth of a Nation" in the actual WH, do you dispute that fact?

Yes.

Wilson didn't "show" the film -- he was shown the film, arranged as such by Thomas Dixon. And according to the last living witness after that showing when the film was done he got up and left the room without saying a word.

Not sure how that's related to "Colonel Joe" Simmons charging up Stone Mountain but there was an even sillier poster here who tried to tell me Wilson actually created that Klan. Which is ludicrous on its face.

And btw Dixon brought that film to the White House in March of 1915. The Klan would not begin to re-exist until eight months later, specifically Thanksgiving Day of the other end of that year.

The names of those who actually started the first KKK are not important, it is what they did. And what they did was all in support of the democrats.

Then you're moving your own goalposts. You showed a picture of (apparently) DNC headquarters and described it as the "home of the Klan". You forgot to explain how then the Klan pushed to get Republican Senators, Governors, mayors, city councils and school boards elected, or why it backed Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. Or why it persecuted blacks, Jews, Catholics, labor unions and immigrants, all of which were Democratic Party constituents. Or why the Governor who revoked its charter, the POTUS whose IRS bankrupted it out of business, and the first POTUS to prosecute the Klan, were all Democrats.

Which, to follow the same model above, doesn't make them Republicans either.

I'm afraid the world isn't entirely made up of binary atoms labeled "Democrat" and "Republican". It just isn't. The fact is both Klans pointedly postured themselves as non-political. In the few years it did dabble in politics it supported or opposed either Democrats or Republicans (or independents), depending on which one served them in that setting. The ones in the South, when involved in running for office, were overwhelmingly Democrats, simply because the South itself was --- the same reason the ones running for office in Maine and Indiana and Colorado and Kansas and Anaheim......... were all Republicans. In the former, Klan was both supported and opposed by Democrats. In the latter the KKK was both supported and opposed by Republicans. Because that's how the political machines of those respective areas was already set up.

There is no account anywhere of violence, terrorism, assault, murder or anything else by Crowe, Jones, Kennedy, Lester, McCord or Reed, either singly or in combinations. They simply were no longer involved; their model and regalia had been co-opted. Exactly by whom, nobody knows, but again there were literally dozens of such vigilante groups operating throughout the South, some more organized than others, there were impromptu posses and lynch mobs, and there were individual actions. All elements of the same picture. Basically insurgents, continuing the War.

As far as who the general body of the element that took over the Klan (of the 1860s) were:

"Lifting the Klan mask [19th Century version] revealed a chaotic multitude of antiblack vigilante groups, disgruntled poor white farmers, wartime guerrilla bands, displaced Democratic politicians, illegal whiskey distillers, coercive moral reformers, bored young men, sadists, rapists, white workmen fearful of black competition, employers trying to enforce labor discipline, common thieves, neighbors with decades-old grudges, and even a few freedmen and white Republicans who allied with Democratic whites or had criminal agendas of their own." --- Elaine Frantz Parsons, Ku Klux: "The Birth of the Klan During Reconstruction" (UNC Press) p. 816

That's the original Klan, which was dead in less than ten years (officially in three). As for the revived Klan of 1915, the far larger national one that counted memberships in the millions --- Simmons (also no record of political activity or affiliation) was simply a crass opportunist seeking to make money off the gullibles he could sucker into buying a membership. Not only is there no record of him having a political affiliation --- there's really not even a record that he was a racist.

Again, another case where binary does not compute.

 

[my2¢]

Curious, is statue on private or public property? If on public lands it should go. If it is on private property then I'd boycott the taco shop unless their tacos are really-really good,

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Name a source, other then yourself, that I can quote that you will accept. What we know for fact is that the KKK after the civil war attacked blacks and white Republicans, do you dispute that fact?

Sigh. As if I haven't been doing that for years here.

I'll give you an entire page of links. As usual it's up to me to do the work even though you're the one who can't prove his point. See post 512 of this thread. That's just nine quoted links -- there are many more.

Here's a close-up of what that plaque put up by the Daughters of the Confederacy a hundred years ago originally said. Note the names.​

The source you quoted merely said its mythology was "unreported" -- which it is, since fiction cannot be "reported", and claims a Congressional document of 1872 cites the founders as "Democrats" --- which that document does not. Again, you're free to find such a quote in there and prove me wrong. But then again that page you linked is only a cheap blog page, not a history source. But there are the names -- you can look them up and find a political party for any of them. In a place that didn't even have political parties.

The Klan once it was infiltrated by vigilante elements that concurrently founded at least two dozed other similar groups as well as "night patrol" or "slave patrol" elements, did attack Reconstructionists, Republicans, voters, "carpetbaggers" and "scalawags". None of that however makes them a political party.

pp. 7-8 of this link will tell you more about those "night patrols". They had been running since at least the 18th century, before there was a country here, let alone political parties. These elements didn't just spring up from nothing.

Your History Channel link is mostly accurate except its date of "1866". That would be the date of its initial sinister activity, but not the date of its founding. 1866 would be after it was commandeered from its founders (described above), who designed it as an innocuous and silly social club with no point (hence the silly K-alliterations).

What we know is that Woodrow Wilson showed the Klan film "A Birth of a Nation" in the actual WH, do you dispute that fact?

Yes.

Wilson didn't "show" the film -- he was shown the film, arranged as such by Thomas Dixon. And according to the last living witness after that showing when the film was done he got up and left the room without saying a word.

Not sure how that's related to "Colonel Joe" Simmons charging up Stone Mountain but there was an even sillier poster here who tried to tell me Wilson actually created that Klan. Which is ludicrous on its face.

And btw Dixon brought that film to the White House in March of 1915. The Klan would not begin to re-exist until eight months later, specifically Thanksgiving Day of the other end of that year.

The names of those who actually started the first KKK are not important, it is what they did. And what they did was all in support of the democrats.

Then you're moving your own goalposts. You showed a picture of (apparently) DNC headquarters and described it as the "home of the Klan". You forgot to explain how then the Klan pushed to get Republican Senators, Governors, mayors, city councils and school boards elected, or why it backed Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. Or why it persecuted blacks, Jews, Catholics, labor unions and immigrants, all of which were Democratic Party constituents. Or why the Governor who revoked its charter, the POTUS whose IRS bankrupted it out of business, and the first POTUS to prosecute the Klan, were all Democrats.

Which, to follow the same model above, doesn't make them Republicans either.

I'm afraid the world isn't entirely made up of binary atoms labeled "Democrat" and "Republican". It just isn't. The fact is both Klans pointedly postured themselves as non-political. In the few years it did dabble in politics it supported or opposed either Democrats or Republicans (or independents), depending on which one served them in that setting. The ones in the South, when involved in running for office, were overwhelmingly Democrats, simply because the South itself was --- the same reason the ones running for office in Maine and Indiana and Colorado and Kansas and Anaheim......... were all Republicans. In the former, Klan was both supported and opposed by Democrats. In the latter the KKK was both supported and opposed by Republicans. Because that's how the political machines of those respective areas was already set up.

There is no account anywhere of violence, terrorism, assault, murder or anything else by Crowe, Jones, Kennedy, Lester, McCord or Reed, either singly or in combinations. They simply were no longer involved; their model and regalia had been co-opted. Exactly by whom, nobody knows, but again there were literally dozens of such vigilante groups operating throughout the South, some more organized than others, there were impromptu posses and lynch mobs, and there were individual actions. All elements of the same picture. Basically insurgents, continuing the War.

As far as who the general body of the element that took over the Klan (of the 1860s) were:

"Lifting the Klan mask [19th Century version] revealed a chaotic multitude of antiblack vigilante groups, disgruntled poor white farmers, wartime guerrilla bands, displaced Democratic politicians, illegal whiskey distillers, coercive moral reformers, bored young men, sadists, rapists, white workmen fearful of black competition, employers trying to enforce labor discipline, common thieves, neighbors with decades-old grudges, and even a few freedmen and white Republicans who allied with Democratic whites or had criminal agendas of their own." --- Elaine Frantz Parsons, Ku Klux: "The Birth of the Klan During Reconstruction" (UNC Press) p. 816

That's the original Klan, which was dead in less than ten years (officially in three). As for the revived Klan of 1915, the far larger national one that counted memberships in the millions --- Simmons (also no record of political activity or affiliation) was simply a crass opportunist seeking to make money off the gullibles he could sucker into buying a membership. Not only is there no record of him having a political affiliation --- there's really not even a record that he was a racist.

Again, another case where binary does not compute.

Thank you for that,interesting stuff.
I suppose the real issue isnt which party the founders belonged to 150 years ago. The issue is who is supporting them now.

 

[Freewill]

Name a source, other then yourself, that I can quote that you will accept. What we know for fact is that the KKK after the civil war attacked blacks and white Republicans, do you dispute that fact?

Sigh. As if I haven't been doing that for years here.

I'll give you an entire page of links. As usual it's up to me to do the work even though you're the one who can't prove his point. See post 512 of this thread. That's just nine quoted links -- there are many more.

Here's a close-up of what that plaque put up by the Daughters of the Confederacy a hundred years ago originally said. Note the names.​

The source you quoted merely said its mythology was "unreported" -- which it is, since fiction cannot be "reported", and claims a Congressional document of 1872 cites the founders as "Democrats" --- which that document does not. Again, you're free to find such a quote in there and prove me wrong. But then again that page you linked is only a cheap blog page, not a history source. But there are the names -- you can look them up and find a political party for any of them. In a place that didn't even have political parties.

The Klan once it was infiltrated by vigilante elements that concurrently founded at least two dozed other similar groups as well as "night patrol" or "slave patrol" elements, did attack Reconstructionists, Republicans, voters, "carpetbaggers" and "scalawags". None of that however makes them a political party.

pp. 7-8 of this link will tell you more about those "night patrols". They had been running since at least the 18th century, before there was a country here, let alone political parties. These elements didn't just spring up from nothing.

Your History Channel link is mostly accurate except its date of "1866". That would be the date of its initial sinister activity, but not the date of its founding. 1866 would be after it was commandeered from its founders (described above), who designed it as an innocuous and silly social club with no point (hence the silly K-alliterations).

What we know is that Woodrow Wilson showed the Klan film "A Birth of a Nation" in the actual WH, do you dispute that fact?

Yes.

Wilson didn't "show" the film -- he was shown the film, arranged as such by Thomas Dixon. And according to the last living witness after that showing when the film was done he got up and left the room without saying a word.

Not sure how that's related to "Colonel Joe" Simmons charging up Stone Mountain but there was an even sillier poster here who tried to tell me Wilson actually created that Klan. Which is ludicrous on its face.

And btw Dixon brought that film to the White House in March of 1915. The Klan would not begin to re-exist until eight months later, specifically Thanksgiving Day of the other end of that year.

The names of those who actually started the first KKK are not important, it is what they did. And what they did was all in support of the democrats.

Then you're moving your own goalposts. You showed a picture of (apparently) DNC headquarters and described it as the "home of the Klan". You forgot to explain how then the Klan pushed to get Republican Senators, Governors, mayors, city councils and school boards elected, or why it backed Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. Or why it persecuted blacks, Jews, Catholics, labor unions and immigrants, all of which were Democratic Party constituents. Or why the Governor who revoked its charter, the POTUS whose IRS bankrupted it out of business, and the first POTUS to prosecute the Klan, were all Democrats.

Which, to follow the same model above, doesn't make them Republicans either.

I'm afraid the world isn't entirely made up of binary atoms labeled "Democrat" and "Republican". It just isn't. The fact is both Klans pointedly postured themselves as non-political. In the few years it did dabble in politics it supported or opposed either Democrats or Republicans (or independents), depending on which one served them in that setting. The ones in the South, when involved in running for office, were overwhelmingly Democrats, simply because the South itself was --- the same reason the ones running for office in Maine and Indiana and Colorado and Kansas and Anaheim......... were all Republicans. In the former, Klan was both supported and opposed by Democrats. In the latter the KKK was both supported and opposed by Republicans. Because that's how the political machines of those respective areas was already set up.

There is no account anywhere of violence, terrorism, assault, murder or anything else by Crowe, Jones, Kennedy, Lester, McCord or Reed, either singly or in combinations. They simply were no longer involved; their model and regalia had been co-opted. Exactly by whom, nobody knows, but again there were literally dozens of such vigilante groups operating throughout the South, some more organized than others, there were impromptu posses and lynch mobs, and there were individual actions. All elements of the same picture. Basically insurgents, continuing the War.

As far as who the general body of the element that took over the Klan (of the 1860s) were:

"Lifting the Klan mask [19th Century version] revealed a chaotic multitude of antiblack vigilante groups, disgruntled poor white farmers, wartime guerrilla bands, displaced Democratic politicians, illegal whiskey distillers, coercive moral reformers, bored young men, sadists, rapists, white workmen fearful of black competition, employers trying to enforce labor discipline, common thieves, neighbors with decades-old grudges, and even a few freedmen and white Republicans who allied with Democratic whites or had criminal agendas of their own." --- Elaine Frantz Parsons, Ku Klux: "The Birth of the Klan During Reconstruction" (UNC Press) p. 816

That's the original Klan, which was dead in less than ten years (officially in three). As for the revived Klan of 1915, the far larger national one that counted memberships in the millions --- Simmons (also no record of political activity or affiliation) was simply a crass opportunist seeking to make money off the gullibles he could sucker into buying a membership. Not only is there no record of him having a political affiliation --- there's really not even a record that he was a racist.

Again, another case where binary does not compute.

So you disagree that WW attended a showing of the film in the WH? Really? You claim, YOU CLAIM, that he made no comment, but this source states otherwise: After seeing the film, an enthusiastic Wilson reportedly remarked: "It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true."

Of course PBS was used because I assume it might be a source you accept.

The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow . Jim Crow Stories . The Birth of a Nation | PBS

The violence that the film induced even the producer later regretted. Who knows how many blacks died because a democrat President gave respect to such a film.


A few state governments fought back. In Tennessee and Arkansas, Republicans organized a police force that arrested Klansmen and carried out executions.

The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow . Jim Crow Stories . The Ku Klux Klan | PBS

Considering that the democrat party opposed every civil rights act up until the 60s. That the democrat party is the party that went to war to maintain black slavery. And it was democrat causes that the KKK fought for, it is simply amazing that the symbol of black suppression is still a party. And by the way, not much has changed for the black man and the democrat party, it is still run by rich white folks.

 

[Freewill]

Name a source, other then yourself, that I can quote that you will accept. What we know for fact is that the KKK after the civil war attacked blacks and white Republicans, do you dispute that fact?

Sigh. As if I haven't been doing that for years here.

I'll give you an entire page of links. As usual it's up to me to do the work even though you're the one who can't prove his point. See post 512 of this thread. That's just nine quoted links -- there are many more.

Here's a close-up of what that plaque put up by the Daughters of the Confederacy a hundred years ago originally said. Note the names.​

The source you quoted merely said its mythology was "unreported" -- which it is, since fiction cannot be "reported", and claims a Congressional document of 1872 cites the founders as "Democrats" --- which that document does not. Again, you're free to find such a quote in there and prove me wrong. But then again that page you linked is only a cheap blog page, not a history source. But there are the names -- you can look them up and find a political party for any of them. In a place that didn't even have political parties.

The Klan once it was infiltrated by vigilante elements that concurrently founded at least two dozed other similar groups as well as "night patrol" or "slave patrol" elements, did attack Reconstructionists, Republicans, voters, "carpetbaggers" and "scalawags". None of that however makes them a political party.

pp. 7-8 of this link will tell you more about those "night patrols". They had been running since at least the 18th century, before there was a country here, let alone political parties. These elements didn't just spring up from nothing.

Your History Channel link is mostly accurate except its date of "1866". That would be the date of its initial sinister activity, but not the date of its founding. 1866 would be after it was commandeered from its founders (described above), who designed it as an innocuous and silly social club with no point (hence the silly K-alliterations).

What we know is that Woodrow Wilson showed the Klan film "A Birth of a Nation" in the actual WH, do you dispute that fact?

Yes.

Wilson didn't "show" the film -- he was shown the film, arranged as such by Thomas Dixon. And according to the last living witness after that showing when the film was done he got up and left the room without saying a word.

Not sure how that's related to "Colonel Joe" Simmons charging up Stone Mountain but there was an even sillier poster here who tried to tell me Wilson actually created that Klan. Which is ludicrous on its face.

And btw Dixon brought that film to the White House in March of 1915. The Klan would not begin to re-exist until eight months later, specifically Thanksgiving Day of the other end of that year.

The names of those who actually started the first KKK are not important, it is what they did. And what they did was all in support of the democrats.

Then you're moving your own goalposts. You showed a picture of (apparently) DNC headquarters and described it as the "home of the Klan". You forgot to explain how then the Klan pushed to get Republican Senators, Governors, mayors, city councils and school boards elected, or why it backed Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. Or why it persecuted blacks, Jews, Catholics, labor unions and immigrants, all of which were Democratic Party constituents. Or why the Governor who revoked its charter, the POTUS whose IRS bankrupted it out of business, and the first POTUS to prosecute the Klan, were all Democrats.

Which, to follow the same model above, doesn't make them Republicans either.

I'm afraid the world isn't entirely made up of binary atoms labeled "Democrat" and "Republican". It just isn't. The fact is both Klans pointedly postured themselves as non-political. In the few years it did dabble in politics it supported or opposed either Democrats or Republicans (or independents), depending on which one served them in that setting. The ones in the South, when involved in running for office, were overwhelmingly Democrats, simply because the South itself was --- the same reason the ones running for office in Maine and Indiana and Colorado and Kansas and Anaheim......... were all Republicans. In the former, Klan was both supported and opposed by Democrats. In the latter the KKK was both supported and opposed by Republicans. Because that's how the political machines of those respective areas was already set up.

There is no account anywhere of violence, terrorism, assault, murder or anything else by Crowe, Jones, Kennedy, Lester, McCord or Reed, either singly or in combinations. They simply were no longer involved; their model and regalia had been co-opted. Exactly by whom, nobody knows, but again there were literally dozens of such vigilante groups operating throughout the South, some more organized than others, there were impromptu posses and lynch mobs, and there were individual actions. All elements of the same picture. Basically insurgents, continuing the War.

As far as who the general body of the element that took over the Klan (of the 1860s) were:

"Lifting the Klan mask [19th Century version] revealed a chaotic multitude of antiblack vigilante groups, disgruntled poor white farmers, wartime guerrilla bands, displaced Democratic politicians, illegal whiskey distillers, coercive moral reformers, bored young men, sadists, rapists, white workmen fearful of black competition, employers trying to enforce labor discipline, common thieves, neighbors with decades-old grudges, and even a few freedmen and white Republicans who allied with Democratic whites or had criminal agendas of their own." --- Elaine Frantz Parsons, Ku Klux: "The Birth of the Klan During Reconstruction" (UNC Press) p. 816

That's the original Klan, which was dead in less than ten years (officially in three). As for the revived Klan of 1915, the far larger national one that counted memberships in the millions --- Simmons (also no record of political activity or affiliation) was simply a crass opportunist seeking to make money off the gullibles he could sucker into buying a membership. Not only is there no record of him having a political affiliation --- there's really not even a record that he was a racist.

Again, another case where binary does not compute.

Thank you for that,interesting stuff.
I suppose the real issue isnt which party the founders belonged to 150 years ago. The issue is who is supporting them now.

I don't support the Nazi party but do you give them the same allowance as you are the democrats? Or is it just to inconvenient to see the true history of the democrat party?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

It's on private property. Does the OP want big government to intervene?

Don't need to....

Just do what others do.......riot and tear it down.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's on private property. Does the OP want big government to intervene?

Don't need to....

Just do what others do.......riot and tear it down.

I don't advocate that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Name a source, other then yourself, that I can quote that you will accept. What we know for fact is that the KKK after the civil war attacked blacks and white Republicans, do you dispute that fact?

Sigh. As if I haven't been doing that for years here.

I'll give you an entire page of links. As usual it's up to me to do the work even though you're the one who can't prove his point. See post 512 of this thread. That's just nine quoted links -- there are many more.

Here's a close-up of what that plaque put up by the Daughters of the Confederacy a hundred years ago originally said. Note the names.​

The source you quoted merely said its mythology was "unreported" -- which it is, since fiction cannot be "reported", and claims a Congressional document of 1872 cites the founders as "Democrats" --- which that document does not. Again, you're free to find such a quote in there and prove me wrong. But then again that page you linked is only a cheap blog page, not a history source. But there are the names -- you can look them up and find a political party for any of them. In a place that didn't even have political parties.

The Klan once it was infiltrated by vigilante elements that concurrently founded at least two dozed other similar groups as well as "night patrol" or "slave patrol" elements, did attack Reconstructionists, Republicans, voters, "carpetbaggers" and "scalawags". None of that however makes them a political party.

pp. 7-8 of this link will tell you more about those "night patrols". They had been running since at least the 18th century, before there was a country here, let alone political parties. These elements didn't just spring up from nothing.

Your History Channel link is mostly accurate except its date of "1866". That would be the date of its initial sinister activity, but not the date of its founding. 1866 would be after it was commandeered from its founders (described above), who designed it as an innocuous and silly social club with no point (hence the silly K-alliterations).

What we know is that Woodrow Wilson showed the Klan film "A Birth of a Nation" in the actual WH, do you dispute that fact?

Yes.

Wilson didn't "show" the film -- he was shown the film, arranged as such by Thomas Dixon. And according to the last living witness after that showing when the film was done he got up and left the room without saying a word.

Not sure how that's related to "Colonel Joe" Simmons charging up Stone Mountain but there was an even sillier poster here who tried to tell me Wilson actually created that Klan. Which is ludicrous on its face.

And btw Dixon brought that film to the White House in March of 1915. The Klan would not begin to re-exist until eight months later, specifically Thanksgiving Day of the other end of that year.

The names of those who actually started the first KKK are not important, it is what they did. And what they did was all in support of the democrats.

Then you're moving your own goalposts. You showed a picture of (apparently) DNC headquarters and described it as the "home of the Klan". You forgot to explain how then the Klan pushed to get Republican Senators, Governors, mayors, city councils and school boards elected, or why it backed Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. Or why it persecuted blacks, Jews, Catholics, labor unions and immigrants, all of which were Democratic Party constituents. Or why the Governor who revoked its charter, the POTUS whose IRS bankrupted it out of business, and the first POTUS to prosecute the Klan, were all Democrats.

Which, to follow the same model above, doesn't make them Republicans either.

I'm afraid the world isn't entirely made up of binary atoms labeled "Democrat" and "Republican". It just isn't. The fact is both Klans pointedly postured themselves as non-political. In the few years it did dabble in politics it supported or opposed either Democrats or Republicans (or independents), depending on which one served them in that setting. The ones in the South, when involved in running for office, were overwhelmingly Democrats, simply because the South itself was --- the same reason the ones running for office in Maine and Indiana and Colorado and Kansas and Anaheim......... were all Republicans. In the former, Klan was both supported and opposed by Democrats. In the latter the KKK was both supported and opposed by Republicans. Because that's how the political machines of those respective areas was already set up.

There is no account anywhere of violence, terrorism, assault, murder or anything else by Crowe, Jones, Kennedy, Lester, McCord or Reed, either singly or in combinations. They simply were no longer involved; their model and regalia had been co-opted. Exactly by whom, nobody knows, but again there were literally dozens of such vigilante groups operating throughout the South, some more organized than others, there were impromptu posses and lynch mobs, and there were individual actions. All elements of the same picture. Basically insurgents, continuing the War.

As far as who the general body of the element that took over the Klan (of the 1860s) were:

"Lifting the Klan mask [19th Century version] revealed a chaotic multitude of antiblack vigilante groups, disgruntled poor white farmers, wartime guerrilla bands, displaced Democratic politicians, illegal whiskey distillers, coercive moral reformers, bored young men, sadists, rapists, white workmen fearful of black competition, employers trying to enforce labor discipline, common thieves, neighbors with decades-old grudges, and even a few freedmen and white Republicans who allied with Democratic whites or had criminal agendas of their own." --- Elaine Frantz Parsons, Ku Klux: "The Birth of the Klan During Reconstruction" (UNC Press) p. 816

That's the original Klan, which was dead in less than ten years (officially in three). As for the revived Klan of 1915, the far larger national one that counted memberships in the millions --- Simmons (also no record of political activity or affiliation) was simply a crass opportunist seeking to make money off the gullibles he could sucker into buying a membership. Not only is there no record of him having a political affiliation --- there's really not even a record that he was a racist.

Again, another case where binary does not compute.

Thank you for that,interesting stuff.
I suppose the real issue isnt which party the founders belonged to 150 years ago. The issue is who is supporting them now.

I don't support the Nazi party but do you give them the same allowance as you are the democrats? Or is it just to inconvenient to see the true history of the democrat party?

The neo-Nazis of today are not history. They are the present.

 

[Pogo]

So you disagree that WW attended a showing of the film in the WH? Really? You claim, YOU CLAIM, that he made no comment, but this source states otherwise: After seeing the film, an enthusiastic Wilson reportedly remarked: "It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true."

Yeah that's been debunked. I posted that debunkation myself just recently and when I have time I'll bring it here and repost it. Gotta go right now. But you can look it up yourself too.

Also you just changed your verb from "Wilson showed the film" to "Wilson attended a showing". Don't think you slipped that by. None of which has anything to do with who re-started the Klan, which hadn't even happened at that point.

 

[LaDexter]

As long as I do not have to pay for it, I do not care whether he is up or down.

I care about NOT PAYING for relics and regional disagreements...

 

[Borillar]

It's on private property. Does the OP want big government to intervene?

Got a link to that, liar?

I googled it. Heard of google?

Yet still no link ya lying sack of shit.

since when do frikkin leftards care about "private property"

Always. Most everyone owns private property.

 

[Tom Horn]

He was probably no angel but he wasnt a mass murderer either.

The hell he wasn't and you closet-commies can't wash the blood off his name.

 

[Pogo]

So you disagree that WW attended a showing of the film in the WH? Really? You claim, YOU CLAIM, that he made no comment, but this source states otherwise: After seeing the film, an enthusiastic Wilson reportedly remarked: "It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true."

Yeah that's been debunked. I posted that debunkation myself just recently and when I have time I'll bring it here and repost it. Gotta go right now. But you can look it up yourself too.

Also you just changed your verb from "Wilson showed the film" to "Wilson attended a showing". Don't think you slipped that by. None of which has anything to do with who re-started the Klan, which hadn't even happened at that point.

Here's some followup --- not the recent post I remember but this site doesn't make search easy. One could go find the links all over again but then the bogus Wilson quote wasn't my claim and there are plenty more myths to squash...

== (old post, repasted) ==

There is evidence of the "writing history with lightning" phrase, but it's referring to the medium of the motion picture ---- in which "Birth of a Nation" was, sadly, technically innovative, completely aside from its plot. It made the splash it did for both of those reasons --- not just the storyline.

The bit about "my only regret is that it's all so terribly true" might have been advertising copy that D.W. Griffith used to sell the film, attributing it to a "very eminent man" but not naming the source*. In effect, Griffith (or Dixon, the novelist) seems to have made it up --- or somebody did at some later time.

From a 1915 advertising poster in Atlanta:
.

“History written with lightning” is the description applied to “The Birth of a Nation,” now in its second week at the Atlanta theater, by a very eminent man for whom a private exhibition was given in Washington some months ago.​

--- so this seems to have been congealed into a fake quote many years later (it doesn't appear in print anywhere until 1937, and even then it's unattributed)


From the biography Wilson: The New Freedom (1956) by Arthur S. Link:

>> Dixon conceived a bold scheme -- to arrange a private showing of the film at the White House and thereby to obtain the President’s implied endorsement. [41]

Dixon bragged afterward that he had hidden "the real purpose of my film," which was to spread southern white racial attitudes in the North: "What I told the President was that I would show him the birth of a new art -- the launching of the mightiest engine for moulding public opinion in the history of the world."23

Wilson fell into Dixon’s trap, as indeed, did also members of the Supreme Court and both houses of Congress. Then, when the N.A.A.C.P. sought to prevent the showing of “The Birth of a Nation” in New York, Boston, and other cities, Dixon’s lawyers countered successfully by declaring that Chief Justice had seen the movie and liked it immensely. [42]

The Chief Justice, a Confederate veteran from Louisiana, put an end to the use of his name by threatening to denounce “The Birth of a Nation” publicly if Dixon did not stop saying that he had endorsed it. [43] Perceiving the political dangers in the situation, Tumulty suggested that Wilson write “some sort of a letter showing that he did not approve of the ‘Birth of a Nation.’” [44] “I would like to do this,” the President replied, “if there were some way in which I could do it without seeming to be trying to meet the agitation . . . stirred up by that unspeakable fellow Tucker [Trotter].” [45] He did, however, let Tumulty say that he had at no time approved the film; and three years later, when the nation was at war, he strongly disapproved the showing of this “unfortunate production.” [46]

... How Wilson reacted is a matter of dispute. Twenty-two years later, a magazine writer alleged that he had said about the film, "It is like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true". It is extremely doubtful that Wilson uttered these words, and Dixon did not quote them in his memoirs. Sixty-two years later, the last person then living who had been at the showing recalled that the president did not seem to pay much attention to the movie and left when it was over without saying a word.

[41] Dixon tells the story in “Southern Horizons: An Autobiography,” unpublished MS. in the possession of Mrs. Thomas Dixon, Raleigh, North Carolina, pp. 423-424.
[42] For accounts of the hearings in New York and Boston, see Mrs. Walter Damrosch to J.P. Tumulty, March 27, 1915, Wilson Papers; Mrs. Harriet Beale to J.P. Tumulty, March 29, 1915, ibid.; Representative Thomas C. Thacher of Massachusetts to J.P. Tumulty, April 17, 1915, ibid. enclosing letters and documents relating to the hearing in Boston; and Thomas Dixon, “Southern Horizons,” pp. 425-441.
[43] E.D. White to J.P. Tumulty, April 5, 1915, Wilson Papers.
[44] J.P. Tumulty to W.W., April 24, 1915, ibid.
[45] W.W. to J.P. Tumulty, c. April 25, 1915, ibid.
[46] J.P. Tumulty to T.C. Thacher, April 28, 1915, ibid.; W.W. to J.P. Tumulty, c. April 22, 1918, ibid.<<

(from page 272 here)
​

So the quote does not even appear until 1937, long after Wilson's death, and appears to be amalgamated from D. W Griffith's advertising propaganda claiming "But 'The Birth of a Nation' received very high praise from high quarters in Washington. ... Yes, I was gratified when a man we all revere, or ought to, said it teaches history by lightning." (that's on page 21 here).

Notice he doesn't attribute a name to this "man we all revere". The 1915 version of "some people say....".

Again, other than cleaning up bogus quotes I'm still unaware what this has to do with the topic or the Klan. First, the quote has no corroborated source and doesn't appear anywhere until 1937. Second, what the quote would mean if it were real is open to debate anyway. "History written with lightning" is Dixon's filmmaker term describing the medium, and in the phrase "it is all so terribly true", what "it" refers to isn't even specified. "It's true what the Klan's motive was"? Or "it's terrible that it's true that all this went down?" It isn't specified.

So what's the point here with this Wilson myth?

Hell I still haven't figured out what this thread has to do with the 1924 Democratic convention, since it's using a picture from Wisconsin, what it's got to do with Forney Johnston, who was already dead by then, why "Liberals are not liking it" since it's got nothing to do with Liberalism, or in what way a widely-distributed photo from 1924 is somehow "newly discovered".

What is however interesting and relative to contemporary events is that The Birth of a Nation" is part and parcel, as was the Dixon novel The Clansman on which it was based, of the same "Lost Cause" movement that had been striving to rewrite the history of the Confederacy, a time of the peak of bigotry, Jim Crow laws, segregation, race riots and rampant lynchings, part of which movement was the erection of hundreds of statues and monuments dedicated to whitewashing that history, primarily by the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC), including most if not all of the statues and monuments currently under attack and in some cases already removed, from public spaces. And they were installed in those public spaces specifically to led their historical revisionism an air of "legitimacy", just as "a man we all revere or ought to" was intended to lend THAT historical revisionism (the film) an air of legitimacy. All part of the same pattern from the same element driven for the same reason -- trying to whitewash the nefarious splotch of white supremacy.

 

[Freewill]

So you disagree that WW attended a showing of the film in the WH? Really? You claim, YOU CLAIM, that he made no comment, but this source states otherwise: After seeing the film, an enthusiastic Wilson reportedly remarked: "It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true."

Yeah that's been debunked. I posted that debunkation myself just recently and when I have time I'll bring it here and repost it. Gotta go right now. But you can look it up yourself too.

Also you just changed your verb from "Wilson showed the film" to "Wilson attended a showing". Don't think you slipped that by. None of which has anything to do with who re-started the Klan, which hadn't even happened at that point.

It really has not been debunked, just not conclusively proved.

You apparently won't even accept PBS as a source. Not sure what you would accept. Certainly by now you have found out that even Snopes doesn't debunk it they just post a lot of comment.

Now look at this bit of evidence:

'Writing history with lightning' | Old News

Hardly a debunking of at least part of the quote.

Now ask yourself honestly, what if Trump showed, or allowed to be shown, a screening of a similar film? What would be your reaction?

More about Wilson and racism from PBS. This narrative fits perfectly with the quote:

The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow. A National Struggle . The President | PBS

 

[Rustic]

Lenin liberated the Russian people from a feudal existence. That is worth a statue.

You can't be that stupid in the head?
Lol

 

[Freewill]

Of course today the democrats try and say that history has reversed itself and the then democrats are today's republicans. OF course they have to say that what else can they say.

But ask yourself a question. Whose history can you be more proud of? The party of slavery, democrats or Republicans the party of the emancipation proclamation?

 

[Pogo]

Of course today the democrats try and say that history has reversed itself and the then democrats are today's republicans. OF course they have to say that what else can they say.

But ask yourself a question. Whose history can you be more proud of? The party of slavery, democrats or Republicans the party of the emancipation proclamation?

Posting anything from Whittle Bill absolutely destroys any credibility you had, just as I and others have already destroyed them.