If No One Today Owned Slaves...

[surada]

Then there should have been a mass change in party affiliation. When was that?

Between 1964 and 1972?

 

[hadit]

Between 1964 and 1972?

It sounds like you're guessing. Where is the long list of politicians who switched parties that is way outside the statistical norm for switching?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Between 1964 and 1972?

Which southern Dixiecrat states stated flipping to Republican control by 1972?

 

[Nostra]

Everyone I know.

So you have nothing.

Got it.

 

[Nostra]

Then why do Republicans keep trying to talk about today's Democrats and slavery?

There is a lot modern republicans choose not to tell young blacks as they try luring blacks into supporting a move back into Jim Crow. First, not all Republicans were for racial equality. The Party had several factions in the beginning. One was the Radical Republicans. The Radical Republicans were for the eradication of slavery. They were not conservatives. Frederick Douglass was a Radical Republican. Lincoln was moderate politically. He opposed the expansion of slavery but did not believe in racial equality.

As the country began splitting up, a great panic started consuming the outgoing Buchanan administration and members of congress. They wanted to keep the union together. They did not want the south to leave. They did not want war. President Buchanan declared secession was a constitutional crisis and then asked Congress to develop a plan to keep the south in the union.4 He wanted Congress to assure the southern states that slavery would be protected once Lincoln took office. Congress offered over fifty different proposals trying to keep the union together. In the end, congress settled for a proposal by Republican Thomas Corwin. It is called the Corwin Amendment, or more accurately, the slavery amendment.

The Corwin Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that has never been adopted, but owing to the absence of a ratification deadline, could still be adopted by the state legislatures. It would shield slavery within the states from the federal constitutional amendment process and from abolition or interference by Congress. Although the Corwin Amendment does not explicitly use the word slavery, it was designed specifically to protect slavery from federal power. The out-going 36th United States Congress proposed the Corwin Amendment on March 2, 1861, shortly before the outbreak of the American Civil War, with the intent of preventing that war and preserving the Union. It passed Congress but was not ratified by the requisite number of state legislatures.

Several Southern states attempted to secede after the 1860 presidential election, eventually forming the Confederate States of America. Several federal legislative measures, including the Corwin Amendment, were proposed during this period in the hope of either reconciling the sections of the United States or avoiding the secession of the border states. Senator William H. Seward and Representative Thomas Corwin, Republicans and allies of President-elect Abraham Lincoln, introduced the Corwin Amendment, which was endorsed by the outgoing president, James Buchanan. Because it was only ratified in a handful of Northern states and Kentucky, the amendment failed to achieve its goal of preventing civil war and preserving the Union. Ultimately, it fell out of favor during the Civil War.

Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This was proposed by 2 republicans, it's documented fact and it's time republicans stopped posting disingenuous junk. Blacks know the history and the more you think we are stupid enough to fall for your tale and keep trying to tell it, the more we will refuse to become Republicans.

Hey, you racist POS IM2 watch this and try to bring a coherent response.

 

[gtopa1]

You fund slavery today with your own money.

Ever hear of the "weegars"...chinese slaves that built your APPLE Iphone and Ipad.

The Weegars who commit suicide every day locked in the FOXCON plant?

Are you going to throw away your Iphone and support the slaves?

I didn't thunk so!

You're only concerned with slavery when there might be FREE MONEY in it for you!

That's why you never protest when there is a black on black murder.

Because black lives don't matter! They only matter when there may be FREE MONEY to be gotten!

As a Slav I want reparations FROM BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE for centuries of slavery!!!

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Have you ever heard about the Apartheid practiced by whites in Aericac after slavery and the continuing white racism practiced in America today by whites who like to deflect and talk about.
slavery elsewhere?

I have held all night vigils in what has been claimed by dumb white racists as high crime areas and never came close to deat. So concern yourself with white on white murder junior because this thread is not about black on black anything.

Because I don't own an Iphone nor have I ever wanted to oewn one for the very reason you mention. So stop pointing fingers at other countries and talk about what white racists have done here.

And don't be white talking about free money.

BY DEMOKKKRATS!!! You inherit a white hood??

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Then why do Republicans keep trying to talk about today's Democrats and slavery?

There is a lot modern republicans choose not to tell young blacks as they try luring blacks into supporting a move back into Jim Crow. First, not all Republicans were for racial equality. The Party had several factions in the beginning. One was the Radical Republicans. The Radical Republicans were for the eradication of slavery. They were not conservatives. Frederick Douglass was a Radical Republican. Lincoln was moderate politically. He opposed the expansion of slavery but did not believe in racial equality.

As the country began splitting up, a great panic started consuming the outgoing Buchanan administration and members of congress. They wanted to keep the union together. They did not want the south to leave. They did not want war. President Buchanan declared secession was a constitutional crisis and then asked Congress to develop a plan to keep the south in the union.4 He wanted Congress to assure the southern states that slavery would be protected once Lincoln took office. Congress offered over fifty different proposals trying to keep the union together. In the end, congress settled for a proposal by Republican Thomas Corwin. It is called the Corwin Amendment, or more accurately, the slavery amendment.

The Corwin Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that has never been adopted, but owing to the absence of a ratification deadline, could still be adopted by the state legislatures. It would shield slavery within the states from the federal constitutional amendment process and from abolition or interference by Congress. Although the Corwin Amendment does not explicitly use the word slavery, it was designed specifically to protect slavery from federal power. The out-going 36th United States Congress proposed the Corwin Amendment on March 2, 1861, shortly before the outbreak of the American Civil War, with the intent of preventing that war and preserving the Union. It passed Congress but was not ratified by the requisite number of state legislatures.

Several Southern states attempted to secede after the 1860 presidential election, eventually forming the Confederate States of America. Several federal legislative measures, including the Corwin Amendment, were proposed during this period in the hope of either reconciling the sections of the United States or avoiding the secession of the border states. Senator William H. Seward and Representative Thomas Corwin, Republicans and allies of President-elect Abraham Lincoln, introduced the Corwin Amendment, which was endorsed by the outgoing president, James Buchanan. Because it was only ratified in a handful of Northern states and Kentucky, the amendment failed to achieve its goal of preventing civil war and preserving the Union. Ultimately, it fell out of favor during the Civil War.

Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This was proposed by 2 republicans, it's documented fact and it's time republicans stopped posting disingenuous junk. Blacks know the history and the more you think we are stupid enough to fall for your tale and keep trying to tell it, the more we will refuse to become Republicans.

The Dixiecrat Myth​

©Black & Right

March 19, 2010
7478
The left is quite annoyed that myself and others dare link the racist, segregationist past in this country to Democrats, at that flies in the face of everything they claim to champion, when it comes to civil rights, racial tolerance, etc.

The Democrats’ own website, to this day, attempts to take fraudulently credit for the civil rights movement and legislation, and when called on it, the recitation is the same: “we’ve grown” and “don’t forget about the Dixiecrats”.

Defensive liberals claim the Dixiecrats, as a whole, defected from the Democrat Party when President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (no thanks to Democrats), and became Republicans which they claimed were more accepting of segregationist policies.

Well, I decided to get some opinions on the matter from some historians.

I contacted Professor Larry Schweikart of the University of Dayton for advice. Larry and I worked on a documentary based on a chapter on Ronald Reagan from his best-selling book, A Patriot’s History of the United States.

The idea that “the Dixiecrats joined the Republicans” is not quite true, as you note. But because of Strom Thurmond it is accepted as a fact. What happened is that the next generation (post 1965) of white southern politicians — Newt, Trent Lott, Ashcroft, Cochran, Alexander, etc — joined the GOP.

So it was really a passing of the torch as the old segregationists retired and were replaced by new young GOP guys. One particularly galling aspect to generalizations about “segregationists became GOP” is that the new GOP South was INTEGRATED for crying out loud, they accepted the Civil Rights revolution. Meanwhile, Jimmy Carter led a group of what would become “New” Democrats like Clinton and Al Gore.

Larry also suggested I contact Mike Allen, Professor of History at the University of Washington, Tacoma (who also appeared in the Reagan documentary) for input.

There weren’t many Republicans in the South prior to 1964, but that doesn’t mean the birth of the southern GOP was tied to “white racism.” That said, I am sure there were and are white racist southern GOP. No one would deny that. But it was the southern Democrats who were the party of slavery and, later, segregation. It was George Wallace, not John Tower, who stood in the southern schoolhouse door to block desegregation! The vast majority of Congressional GOP voted FOR the Civil Rights of 1964-65. The vast majority of those opposed to those acts were southern Democrats. Southern Democrats led to infamous filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The confusion arises from GOP Barry Goldwater’s vote against the ’64 act. He had voted in favor or all earlier bills and had led the integration of the Arizona Air National Guard, but he didn’t like the “private property” aspects of the ’64 law. In other words, Goldwater believed people’s private businesses and private clubs were subject only to market forces, not government mandates (“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”) His vote against the Civil Rights Act was because of that one provision was, to my mind, a principled mistake.

This stance is what won Goldwater the South in 1964, and no doubt many racists voted for Goldwater in the mistaken belief that he opposed Negro Civil Rights. But Goldwater was not a racist; he was a libertarian who favored both civil rights and property rights.

Switch to 1968.

Richard Nixon was also a proponent of Civil Rights; it was a CA colleague who urged Ike to appoint Warren to the Supreme Court; he was a supporter of Brown v. Board, and favored sending troops to integrate Little Rock High). Nixon saw he could develop a “Southern strategy” based on Goldwater’s inroads. He did, but Independent Democrat George Wallace carried most of the deep south in 68. By 1972, however, Wallace was shot and paralyzed, and Nixon began to tilt the south to the GOP. The old guard Democrats began to fade away while a new generation of Southern politicians became Republicans. True, Strom Thurmond switched to GOP, but most of the old timers (Fulbright, Gore, Wallace, Byrd etc etc) retired as Dems.

Why did a new generation white Southerners join the GOP? Not because they thought Republicans were racists who would return the South to segregation, but because the GOP was a “local government, small government” party in the old Jeffersonian tradition. Southerners wanted less government and the GOP was their natural home.

Jimmy Carter, a Civil Rights Democrat, briefly returned some states to the Democrat fold, but in 1980, Goldwater’s heir, Ronald Reagan, sealed this deal for the GOP. The new “Solid South” was solid GOP.

BUT, and we must stress this: the new southern Republicans were integrationist Republicans who accepted the Civil Rights revolution and full integration while retaining their love of Jeffersonian limited government principles.

And what did Malcolm X say about the “Dixiecrats”…?

I’m sure the more learned Democrats will have issues with these explanations."

You're a liar....again!!!

The Dixiecrat Myth - Black & Blonde Media

The left is quite annoyed that myself and others dare link the racist, segregationist past in this country to Democrats, at that flies in the face of everything they claim to champion, when it comes to civil rights, racial tolerance, etc. The Democrats’ own website, to this day, attempts to take...

www.blackandblondemedia.com

Greg

 

[The Duke]