Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…

[Syriusly]

There's a reason the lying wench PC cuts off David Duke's electoral history at 1988.

I never lie.

You ALWAYS lie.

 

[Faun]

Has anything changed since then? Oh, yes, they stopped wearing those white sheets.

That's not all that's changed.

In 1924, the Klan endorsed the Democrat nominee.

In 2016, the Klan endorsed the Republican nominee.

 

[Faun]

The 'parties switched' is only advanced by the most feeble minded of the drones.

Agreed, "party switch" is an inaccurate term. It implies an instant stroke, like a politician changing his party registration, which takes about a minute.

More correctly these are "party shifts", evolving over time. Significantly at the turn of the (19th>20th) century, which was the big one. In the mid-19th century the Democratic Party had been the carrier of "states rights", decentralized government, and had reach nationwide before the Republicans were founded. It also danced around the issue of slavery, as did several other parties who ceased to exist including the Whigs, trying to have it both ways.

The Republican Party upon its founding in 1854 to its credit took a decisive stand to push Abolition when Democrats, Whigs, Know Nothings, Constitutional Unionists and other dying parties were basically either trying to placate individual states or ignore altogether an issue that was not going to be ignored and which was already being addressed in Europe and its remaining colonies.

Like any political party, once that ideal was realized the next goal of the party became self-perpetuation. By the end of the 1800s the Republicans were taking on the interests of the wealthy and the corporations, while the Democrats were absorbing the Populist Party and movement, which put working-class and eventually minorities and immigrants into its camp, producing the party class divisions that still resonate now. These were represented respectively by the two Williams, McKinley and Bryan.

World war brought rapid industrialization, a lot of immigrants, and a lot of black migration to the North and Midwest. This of course fed the bigotry of the time --- it's no accident that the Klan was re-formed exactly in this period to capitalize on that paranoia --- and the Klan as already documented tried for a time to influence politics in both parties.

Once the Great Depression hit and FDR launched the New Deal the black vote went to Democrats, joining the Catholic, Jewish, immigrant and labor union constituencies, in the 1930s and has remained there ever since.

Meanwhile the same Democratic Party was playing a bipolar game with these minorities on one hand coexisting in the same party with staunch white conservatism in the South that opposed those same constituencies (as did the Klan itself), railing against "Northern Liberals" and "civil rights" and leading to several schisms (Thurmond 1948; Wallace 1964/68/72).

The Democrats were, again, spinelessly trying to have it both ways, Liberal here, Conservative there, knowing the white South in its hyperconservatism considered association with the Republican Party unthinkable. As long as those hyperconservatives were in the same party they were in a position to block progress, which they did. FDR chipped away at it in 1936 when at the height of his power he got the party convention nomination rules changed to a simple majority (it had been 2/3) so that the Southern bloc could not block Liberals it didn't like (as it had in 1924). The 1948 convention chipped away at it again when the South heard too much talk about "civil rights" from Truman and the young mayor of Minneapolis Hubert Humphrey, and walked out to run their own candidates. Even got Truman's name wiped off the ballot in Alabama.

Thurmond then endorsed Eisenhower in the next election, and in retaliation was kicked off the Democratic ballot and ran as a write-in (which he won). Twelve years later George Wallace tendered an offer to Barry Goldwater to switch parties and run with Goldwater as his running mate. Goldwater declined and Wallace didn't make the switch but clearly the idea of "Republican" was becoming thinkable.

Clearly there were opposing dynamics and something had to give. Enter the Civil Rights Act of 1964, drafted by Kennedy five months before his death, pushed by LBJ, shepherded through Congress by Democrats Humphrey and majority leader Mike Mansfield and opposed by Democrats Thurmond, Byrd, Eastland (MS), Russell (GA) and the South in general. When that Southern contingent lost that battle, Thurmond finally acknowledged that it was after all "thinkable" to join the party that more represented his conservatism and switched to Republican, becoming the first prominent white Southern politician to do that, ninety-nine years after the Civil War ended. The divorce was, finally, final. He would be followed by other traditional Democrats including the Senator who lauded him at his 100th birthday, Trent Lott.

That's what the "party shifts" were. The former (around 1900) was a shift in the two parties' constituency; the latter (1964- ) was a shift OF a constituency to the other party. Bottom line--- both voters, and politicians, join (or switch) political parties for many more reasons than that they agree with its presumed ideology, two of which are practicality and simple tradition.

Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.


The simplest proof is that the first or second most popular Democrat elected official, Bill Clinton.....personification of the Democrat Party.....has always ......always....

...been a life-long racist.


Fits that party perfectly.

You genuinely have no clue what a Composition Fallacy is, do you?

That's soooo cute. Perhaps that spandex is inhibiting cranial circulation.

Lemme give you a hint.

​

From this, of course, we may conclude that all Republicans are named "David".
Just as all Democrats are named "Bill".

Of course this also means that anyone named "Bill" is a Democrat

--- and anyone name "David" is a Republican.

​

--- see how that works?

Nah, you probably don't.

You are currently a lying low-life, and, no need to re-monogram those towels...you'll always be a lying low-life.a

I love watching PC just melt down like this on USMB

It happens regularly.

 

[Syriusly]

. If you owned the slave, first you couldn't be Republican, and second, you would't relate or vote for someone who wants to abolish slavery..

What rule prevented a slave owner from being a Republican?

 

[Syriusly]

Once that election was decided, Democrat Douglas (who came in fourth having carried one state, Missouri) toured on President-Elect Lincoln's behalf making the case for compromise and keeping the Union intact. And when that failed advised Lincoln on how to attack the South. So I'm afraid this isn't the simplistic black-and-white dichotomy you seem to want to pretend..

Yep.

Once again the facts ruin the 'hate the Democrats' propaganda.

 

[Syriusly]

...

Another Conservative liar who loves photoshop....

 

[Faun]

The 'parties switched' is only advanced by the most feeble minded of the drones.

Agreed, "party switch" is an inaccurate term. It implies an instant stroke, like a politician changing his party registration, which takes about a minute.

More correctly these are "party shifts", evolving over time. Significantly at the turn of the (19th>20th) century, which was the big one. In the mid-19th century the Democratic Party had been the carrier of "states rights", decentralized government, and had reach nationwide before the Republicans were founded. It also danced around the issue of slavery, as did several other parties who ceased to exist including the Whigs, trying to have it both ways.

The Republican Party upon its founding in 1854 to its credit took a decisive stand to push Abolition when Democrats, Whigs, Know Nothings, Constitutional Unionists and other dying parties were basically either trying to placate individual states or ignore altogether an issue that was not going to be ignored and which was already being addressed in Europe and its remaining colonies.

Like any political party, once that ideal was realized the next goal of the party became self-perpetuation. By the end of the 1800s the Republicans were taking on the interests of the wealthy and the corporations, while the Democrats were absorbing the Populist Party and movement, which put working-class and eventually minorities and immigrants into its camp, producing the party class divisions that still resonate now. These were represented respectively by the two Williams, McKinley and Bryan.

World war brought rapid industrialization, a lot of immigrants, and a lot of black migration to the North and Midwest. This of course fed the bigotry of the time --- it's no accident that the Klan was re-formed exactly in this period to capitalize on that paranoia --- and the Klan as already documented tried for a time to influence politics in both parties.

Once the Great Depression hit and FDR launched the New Deal the black vote went to Democrats, joining the Catholic, Jewish, immigrant and labor union constituencies, in the 1930s and has remained there ever since.

Meanwhile the same Democratic Party was playing a bipolar game with these minorities on one hand coexisting in the same party with staunch white conservatism in the South that opposed those same constituencies (as did the Klan itself), railing against "Northern Liberals" and "civil rights" and leading to several schisms (Thurmond 1948; Wallace 1964/68/72).

The Democrats were, again, spinelessly trying to have it both ways, Liberal here, Conservative there, knowing the white South in its hyperconservatism considered association with the Republican Party unthinkable. As long as those hyperconservatives were in the same party they were in a position to block progress, which they did. FDR chipped away at it in 1936 when at the height of his power he got the party convention nomination rules changed to a simple majority (it had been 2/3) so that the Southern bloc could not block Liberals it didn't like (as it had in 1924). The 1948 convention chipped away at it again when the South heard too much talk about "civil rights" from Truman and the young mayor of Minneapolis Hubert Humphrey, and walked out to run their own candidates. Even got Truman's name wiped off the ballot in Alabama.

Thurmond then endorsed Eisenhower in the next election, and in retaliation was kicked off the Democratic ballot and ran as a write-in (which he won). Twelve years later George Wallace tendered an offer to Barry Goldwater to switch parties and run with Goldwater as his running mate. Goldwater declined and Wallace didn't make the switch but clearly the idea of "Republican" was becoming thinkable.

Clearly there were opposing dynamics and something had to give. Enter the Civil Rights Act of 1964, drafted by Kennedy five months before his death, pushed by LBJ, shepherded through Congress by Democrats Humphrey and majority leader Mike Mansfield and opposed by Democrats Thurmond, Byrd, Eastland (MS), Russell (GA) and the South in general. When that Southern contingent lost that battle, Thurmond finally acknowledged that it was after all "thinkable" to join the party that more represented his conservatism and switched to Republican, becoming the first prominent white Southern politician to do that, ninety-nine years after the Civil War ended. The divorce was, finally, final. He would be followed by other traditional Democrats including the Senator who lauded him at his 100th birthday, Trent Lott.

That's what the "party shifts" were. The former (around 1900) was a shift in the two parties' constituency; the latter (1964- ) was a shift OF a constituency to the other party. Bottom line--- both voters, and politicians, join (or switch) political parties for many more reasons than that they agree with its presumed ideology, two of which are practicality and simple tradition.

Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.


The simplest proof is that the first or second most popular Democrat elected official, Bill Clinton.....personification of the Democrat Party.....has always ......always....

...been a life-long racist.


Fits that party perfectly.

You genuinely have no clue what a Composition Fallacy is, do you?

That's soooo cute. Perhaps that spandex is inhibiting cranial circulation.

Lemme give you a hint.

​

From this, of course, we may conclude that all Republicans are named "David".
Just as all Democrats are named "Bill".

Of course this also means that anyone named "Bill" is a Democrat

--- and anyone name "David" is a Republican.

​

--- see how that works?

Nah, you probably don't.

You are currently a lying low-life, and, no need to re-monogram those towels...you'll always be a lying low-life.



David Duke....the Democrat.

State Senator, 1975 (Baton Rouge Area)[edit]
Threshold > 50%

First Ballot, November 1, 1975

Louisiana State Senate, 1975
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Kenneth Osterberger 22,287 66
Democratic David Duke 11,079 33
N/A Others 1
Total 100
State Senator, 10th District, 1979 (Suburban New Orleans)[edit]
Threshold > 50% First Ballot, October 27, 1979

Louisiana State Senate, 10th District, 1979
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Joseph Tiemann 21,329 57
Democratic David Duke 9,897 26
N/A Others 6,459 17
Total 37,685 100
Democratic Nomination for United States Presidential Candidate, 1988 (Louisiana results)[edit]
Threshold = Plurality

1988 Democratic Presidential primary in Louisiana
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Jesse Jackson 221,522 35
Democratic Al Gore 174,971 28
Democratic Michael Dukakis 95,661 15
Democratic Dick Gephardt 67,029 11
Democratic Gary Hart 26,437 4
Democratic David Duke 23,391 4
Democratic Others 16,008 3
Total 625,019 100
Electoral history of David Duke - Wikipedia

What PoliticalHack won't tell you is that while Duke did run as a Democrat - he couldn't win an election because Democrats rejected him and his platform. David Duke couldn't win as a Democrat so he switched parties. He finally won one because racist Republicans embraced him.

 

[Faun]

What would you do without photoshop?

 

[Pogo]

Has anything changed since then? Oh, yes, they stopped wearing those white sheets.

That's not all that's changed.

In 1924, the Klan endorsed the Democrat nominee.

Actually no. In 1924 the Klan supported Coolidge. The Democratic nominee, when he was finally nominated after over 100 ballots that the Klan sycophants kept holding up because Underwood and Al Smith were insisting on a plank denouncing the Klan, was settled on dark horse Davis, the Governor of West Virginia --- who accepted and promptly denounced the Klan.

Four years later the Klan Imperial Jizzhat took credit for getting Hoover elected as the Republican won some Southern states.

 

[Pogo]

Despite its 100 years of civil rights history prior to Goldwater and Goldwater’s own support for civil rights, you lefties calling him a racist or racially insensitive because a man stood on principle.

Do you have any idea why Goldwater voted against the CRA of 1964?

Not me- Martin Luther King Jr. said these words

Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.


....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy

Again, you're not answering the question.

I think Martin Luther King Jr. answers the question quite well on my behalf

Not me- Martin Luther King Jr. said these words

Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.


....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy

You think you're funny with repeating that quote, but you're actually stuck on stupid.

First of all, you can say there was a "party switch" without admitting that Democrats were racist to begin with.

Well I have no problem with admitting that Democrats were racists.

And so were Republicans.

Abraham Lincoln- a President I greatly admire- was a racist. Read his comments on 'negroes' and it is clear he didn't consider them the equal to the white man. That doesn't change what great things Abraham Lincoln did for African Americans- nor of his good will in general towards African Americans.

In 1865 virtually everyone was a racist. Hell even African Americans tended to think of themselves as inferior to white Americans- such was the prevelant propaganda at the time.

But the South was the base of the particular institution of slavery, and was arguably more racist than any other part of the country(arguably because it could be regional- California and the West Coast was horribly racist towards Chinese, and very little towards African Americans). The South was also staunchly Protestant and Conservative.

For the next 100 years- the white conservative Christians of the South institutionalized their racism- and voted Democrat- because the GOP was the party of Lincoln. African Americans- when they could vote, voted Republican.

You of course know all of this, but prefer to lie rather than admit this.

Starting in the '30's with the New Deal, African Americans started to vote more Democrat, and even more so during the War because of FDR's programs to integrate African Americans into the war industry- and of course Eleanor's championing of minority rights.

Most people in the United States, by my standards, would still be considered racists- but this was heightened in the South.

LBJ by our standards would easily be called a racist. Just like Lincoln. LBJ was certainly a political opportunist- but he was also a man with a very deep compassion for poor people- including poor people of color. As a politician in the South, he could not succeed by promoting civil rights for minorities(African Americans but also Mexican Americans)- until the time was ripe when he could do so.

LBJ did nothing for Civil Rights for minorities- until he was actually able to do something. And then he did.

Now lets go to 1965.

Were the Southern white Conservative Christians racists?

Yep.

Were they mostly Democrats? Yep.

Were there Republicans too? Yep- a few- and they voted just like the Democrats.

Meanwhile, the Northern Democrats- were by the standards of the day- not racists. They voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act- along with the Northern Republican.

What you want to try to argue though is somehow- starting in 1965- the Southern Conservative Christians racists- started to become less racist- and that is why they started voting Republican.

While Southern Christian African Americans- who transitioned to voting to Democrats- became racists.

How did those Southern Conservative racist Christian- whose families had often voted for generations Democrats- suddenly become 'not racists'?

Message board wags love to massage these numbers to make CRA '64 look like a "Republican über Democrat" thing. As if the terms "Republican" and "Democrat" mean the same thing to anyone who wears either one (which of course completely fails to explain those who switch parties.....)

But the reality is the world doesn't work that way and never has. They pull this list:

​

--- and giggle and point to the numbers. Here's the context they painstakingly leave out:

>> 80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill. Less than 70% of Democrats did. Indeed, Minority Leader Republican Everett Dirksen led the fight to end the filibuster. Meanwhile, Democrats such as Richard Russell of Georgia and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina tried as hard as they could to sustain a filibuster.

Of course, it was also Democrats who helped usher the bill through the House, Senate, and ultimately a Democratic president who signed it into law. The bill wouldn't have passed without the support of Majority Leader Mike Mansfield of Montana, a Democrat. Majority Whip Hubert Humphrey, who basically split the Democratic party in two with his 1948 Democratic National Convention speech calling for equal rights for all, kept tabs on individual members to ensure the bill had the numbers to overcome the filibuster.

Put another way, party affiliation seems to be somewhat predictive, but something seems to be missing. So, what factor did best predicting voting?

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.

​

You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the South. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.

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 this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both houses is statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act.

Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did.

The same pattern holds true when looking at ideology instead of party affiliation. The folks over at Voteview.com, who created DW-nominate scores to measure the ideology of congressmen and senators, found that the more liberal a congressman or senator was the more likely he would vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once one controlled for a factor closely linked to geography.

That's why Strom Thurmond left the Democratic party soon after the Civil Right Act passed. He recognized that of the two parties, it was the Republican party that was more hospitable to his message.

.... Thus, it seems to me that minorities have a pretty good idea of what they are doing when joining the Democratic party. They recognize that the Democratic party of today looks and sounds a lot more like the Democratic party of the North that with near unity passed the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 than the southern Democrats of the era who blocked it, and today would, like Strom Thurmond, likely be Republicans. << --- The Guardian
​

The contrast has always been about cultural geography, not what name of a political party follows a legislator's name.

 

[Pogo]

Has anything changed since then? Oh, yes, they stopped wearing those white sheets.

That's not all that's changed.

In 1924, the Klan endorsed the Democrat nominee.

Actually no. In 1924 the Klan supported Coolidge. The Democratic nominee, when he was finally nominated after over 100 ballots that the Klan sycophants kept holding up because Underwood and Al Smith were insisting on a plank denouncing the Klan, was settled on dark horse Davis, the Governor of West Virginia --- who accepted and promptly denounced the Klan.

Four years later the Klan Imperial Jizzhat took credit for getting Hoover elected as the Republican won some Southern states.

Haiku-boi gives me a "funny" for this post. Let's see how "funny" it is.

>> In 1924, the group convinced Republican Party leaders to avoid criticizing them, prompting Time to put [Klan Imperial Wizard] Evans on its cover.[94] That year, the Klan supported Calvin Coolidge in his successful candidacy for president of the U.S.[95] Although Coolidge opposed many key Klan platforms, with the exception of immigration restrictions and prohibition, he was the only major-party candidate who did not condemn them.[96] Nonetheless, Evans declared Coolidge's victory a great success for the Klan.[96]

.... In 1928, Evans opposed the candidacy of the New York Democratic governor Al Smith for president, emphasizing the threat of Smith's Catholic faith. After the Republican Herbert Hoover won the election, Evans boldly claimed responsibility for Smith's loss; but most of the solidly Democratic South had rejected Hoover and voted for Smith against the Klan's advice.[104] << --- Wiki
​

Of course I went into more detail on the Klan's anti-Smith campaign complete with its terroristic threats in 1928, earlier in the thread.

Hm. I'm not finding the "funny".

But I do notice that Hiram Evans, the head of the Klan, got put on the cover of Time Magazine, and didn't need to fake a cover.

 

[American_Jihad]

Wonder why?

-Geaux
--------

The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.

It was also known as “Klanbake.”

In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.



Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…

Wow, look at all those white conservatives. Glad they became Republicans.

Wow, look at all those white dumbocrats. Glad they stayed dumbocrats...
Here let the negroid put a spell on you

lol, stupid libtart...

 

[Syriusly]

Not me- Martin Luther King Jr. said these words

Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.


....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy

Again, you're not answering the question.

I think Martin Luther King Jr. answers the question quite well on my behalf

Not me- Martin Luther King Jr. said these words

Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.


....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy

You think you're funny with repeating that quote, but you're actually stuck on stupid.

First of all, you can say there was a "party switch" without admitting that Democrats were racist to begin with.

Well I have no problem with admitting that Democrats were racists.

And so were Republicans.

Abraham Lincoln- a President I greatly admire- was a racist. Read his comments on 'negroes' and it is clear he didn't consider them the equal to the white man. That doesn't change what great things Abraham Lincoln did for African Americans- nor of his good will in general towards African Americans.

In 1865 virtually everyone was a racist. Hell even African Americans tended to think of themselves as inferior to white Americans- such was the prevelant propaganda at the time.

But the South was the base of the particular institution of slavery, and was arguably more racist than any other part of the country(arguably because it could be regional- California and the West Coast was horribly racist towards Chinese, and very little towards African Americans). The South was also staunchly Protestant and Conservative.

For the next 100 years- the white conservative Christians of the South institutionalized their racism- and voted Democrat- because the GOP was the party of Lincoln. African Americans- when they could vote, voted Republican.

You of course know all of this, but prefer to lie rather than admit this.

Starting in the '30's with the New Deal, African Americans started to vote more Democrat, and even more so during the War because of FDR's programs to integrate African Americans into the war industry- and of course Eleanor's championing of minority rights.

Most people in the United States, by my standards, would still be considered racists- but this was heightened in the South.

LBJ by our standards would easily be called a racist. Just like Lincoln. LBJ was certainly a political opportunist- but he was also a man with a very deep compassion for poor people- including poor people of color. As a politician in the South, he could not succeed by promoting civil rights for minorities(African Americans but also Mexican Americans)- until the time was ripe when he could do so.

LBJ did nothing for Civil Rights for minorities- until he was actually able to do something. And then he did.

Now lets go to 1965.

Were the Southern white Conservative Christians racists?

Yep.

Were they mostly Democrats? Yep.

Were there Republicans too? Yep- a few- and they voted just like the Democrats.

Meanwhile, the Northern Democrats- were by the standards of the day- not racists. They voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act- along with the Northern Republican.

What you want to try to argue though is somehow- starting in 1965- the Southern Conservative Christians racists- started to become less racist- and that is why they started voting Republican.

While Southern Christian African Americans- who transitioned to voting to Democrats- became racists.

How did those Southern Conservative racist Christian- whose families had often voted for generations Democrats- suddenly become 'not racists'?

Message board wags love to massage these numbers to make CRA '64 look like a "Republican über Democrat" thing. As if the terms "Republican" and "Democrat" mean the same thing to anyone who wears either one (which of course completely fails to explain those who switch parties.....)

But the reality is the world doesn't work that way and never has. They pull this list:

​

--- and giggle and point to the numbers. Here's the context they painstakingly leave out:

>> 80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill. Less than 70% of Democrats did. Indeed, Minority Leader Republican Everett Dirksen led the fight to end the filibuster. Meanwhile, Democrats such as Richard Russell of Georgia and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina tried as hard as they could to sustain a filibuster.

Of course, it was also Democrats who helped usher the bill through the House, Senate, and ultimately a Democratic president who signed it into law. The bill wouldn't have passed without the support of Majority Leader Mike Mansfield of Montana, a Democrat. Majority Whip Hubert Humphrey, who basically split the Democratic party in two with his 1948 Democratic National Convention speech calling for equal rights for all, kept tabs on individual members to ensure the bill had the numbers to overcome the filibuster.

Put another way, party affiliation seems to be somewhat predictive, but something seems to be missing. So, what factor did best predicting voting?

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.

​

You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that they weren't from the South. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.

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 this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both houses is statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act.

Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did.

The same pattern holds true when looking at ideology instead of party affiliation. The folks over at Voteview.com, who created DW-nominate scores to measure the ideology of congressmen and senators, found that the more liberal a congressman or senator was the more likely he would vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once one controlled for a factor closely linked to geography.

That's why Strom Thurmond left the Democratic party soon after the Civil Right Act passed. He recognized that of the two parties, it was the Republican party that was more hospitable to his message.

.... Thus, it seems to me that minorities have a pretty good idea of what they are doing when joining the Democratic party. They recognize that the Democratic party of today looks and sounds a lot more like the Democratic party of the North that with near unity passed the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 than the southern Democrats of the era who blocked it, and today would, like Strom Thurmond, likely be Republicans. << --- The Guardian
​

The contrast has always been about cultural geography, not what name of a political party follows a legislator's name.

Thank you- great post- and I love this quote which i had not seen before

. Thus, it seems to me that minorities have a pretty good idea of what they are doing when joining the Democratic party. They recognize that the Democratic party of today looks and sounds a lot more like the Democratic party of the North that with near unity passed the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 than the southern Democrats of the era who blocked it, and today would, like Strom Thurmond, likely be Republicans. << --- The Guardian

Which rather reflects Martin Luther King Jr.'s observation from 1964

 

[Syriusly]

Wonder why?

-Geaux
--------

The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.

It was also known as “Klanbake.”

In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.



Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…

Wow, look at all those white conservatives. Glad they became Republicans.

Here let the negroid put a spell on you.

Wow- is that you at the head of the march? With your use of the word 'negroid'- you probably fit right in with your local chapter.

Now- do you vote Democrat or Republican? That is a rhetorical question....

 

[American_Jihad]

Wonder why?

-Geaux
--------

The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.

It was also known as “Klanbake.”

In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.



Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…

Wow, look at all those white conservatives. Glad they became Republicans.

Here let the negroid put a spell on you.

Wow- is that you at the head of the march? With your use of the word 'negroid'- you probably fit right in with your local chapter.

Now- do you vote Democrat or Republican? That is a rhetorical question....

Imbecile, negroid is the politically correct word for the "N" word or ******, just trying to accommodate you libtarts with PC ...
P.S. see what I mean they ****** the N/word they don't with negroid yet, now stfu...lol

 

[Syriusly]

Wonder why?

-Geaux
--------

The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.

It was also known as “Klanbake.”

In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.



Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…

Wow, look at all those white conservatives. Glad they became Republicans.

Here let the negroid put a spell on you.

Wow- is that you at the head of the march? With your use of the word 'negroid'- you probably fit right in with your local chapter.

Now- do you vote Democrat or Republican? That is a rhetorical question....

Imbecile, negroid is the politically correct word for the "N" word

And by 'politically' correct you mean USMB won't allow you to use N*gger spelled out.

I will put you down as a Trump voter.

 

[bripat9643]

Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists? Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!

Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…

 

[eightyeight]

Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists? Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!

Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…

The KKK believes is racial purity, faith, and family. No liberal believes in such things. And the KKK used to made of up of Democrats until the Yankees did them wrong and they wised up and joined the GOP instead. Now we have Trump and we are once again blessed by God.

And neither of those rallies was at a Democratic convention. That's an old internet lie you are too stupid to catch on to.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The KKK believes is racial purity, faith, and family. No liberal believes in such things. And the KKK used to made of up of Democrats until the Yankees did them wrong and they wised up and joined the GOP instead. Now we have Trump and we are once again blessed by God.

You MUST be a troll.

 

[depotoo]

You are a really lousy left wing puppet.

Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists? Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!

Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…

The KKK believes is racial purity, faith, and family. No liberal believes in such things. And the KKK used to made of up of Democrats until the Yankees did them wrong and they wised up and joined the GOP instead. Now we have Trump and we are once again blessed by God.