Pro-slavery party
- Thread starter Muhammed
- Start date
Lumpy 1
Diamond Member
- Jun 19, 2009
- 43,814
- 18,750
- 2,330
Last edited:
GWV5903
Gold Member
They were and still are Democrats...
They established Jim Crow and today they enslave fellow Democrats into the arms of welfare...
They still believe Big Brother will take care of them, when in fact all they have done is abuse them...
JQPublic1
Gold Member
- Aug 10, 2012
- 14,220
- 1,544
- 280
SOme one has to do it and it shoudn't only be the poor and lower middle class who often volunteer out of economic necessity.
jasonnfree
Gold Member
- May 23, 2012
- 10,512
- 2,336
- 280
The fine republicans of the old jim crow days wouldn't piss on modern day republicans.
I'm talking about the republican politicians, not the working class suckers that vote republican.
JQPublic1
Gold Member
- Aug 10, 2012
- 14,220
- 1,544
- 280
JQPublic1
Gold Member
- Aug 10, 2012
- 14,220
- 1,544
- 280
GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY YOU UNPATRIOTIC BAHS-TURD! You are talking to the wrong dude. I am retired military.
Faun
Diamond Member
- Nov 14, 2011
- 126,711
- 119,215
- 3,635
The south is where most racism stems from. It's true the south was once mostly Democrat. It's true the south is now mostly Republican.
JQPublic1
Gold Member
- Aug 10, 2012
- 14,220
- 1,544
- 280
There is another side of this story:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/05/conservative-fantasy-history-of-civil-rights.html
PK1
Gold Member
- Jun 26, 2015
- 3,914
- 538
- 140
---The south is where most racism stems from. It's true the south was once mostly Democrat. It's true the south is now mostly Republican.
Perhaps the Republicans will claim the pro-slavery & racist people migrated north.
Lumpy 1
Diamond Member
- Jun 19, 2009
- 43,814
- 18,750
- 2,330
---The south is where most racism stems from. It's true the south was once mostly Democrat. It's true the south is now mostly Republican.
Perhaps the Republicans will claim the pro-slavery & racist people migrated north.
From the link...
Following the epic civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the South began a major demographic shift from Democratic to Republican dominance. Many believe that this shift was motivated by racism. While it is certainly true that many Southern racists abandoned the Democratic Party over its new support for racial equality and integration, the notion that they would flock to the Republican Party -- which was a century ahead of the Democrats on those issues -- makes no sense whatsoever.
Yet virtually every liberal, when pressed on the matter, will inevitably claim that the parties "switched," and most racist Democrats became Republicans! In their minds, this historical ju jitsu maneuver apparently transfers all the past sins of the Democrats (slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.) onto the Republicans and all the past virtues of the Republicans (e.g., ending slavery) onto the Democrats! That's quite a feat!
It is true that Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 probably attracted some racist Democrats to the Republican Party. However, Goldwater was not a racist -- at least not an overt racist like so many Southern Democrats of the time, such as George Wallace and Bull Connor. He publicly professed racial equality, and his opposition to the 1964 Act was based on principled grounds of states rights. In any case, his libertarian views were out of step with the mainstream, and he lost the 1964 Presidential election to LBJ in a landslide.
But Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided liberals an opening to tar the Republican Party as racist, and they have tenaciously repeated that label so often over the years that it is now the conventional wisdom among liberals. But it is really nothing more than an unsubstantiated myth -- a convenient political lie. If the Republican Party was any more racist than the Democratic Party even in 1964, why did a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act? The idea that Goldwater's vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act trumps a century of history of the Republican Party is ridiculous, to say the least.
Every political party has its racists, but the notion that Republicans are more racist than Democrats or any other party is based on nothing more than a constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated innuendo and assertions by Leftists, constantly echoed by the liberal media. It is a classic example of a Big Lie that becomes "true" simply by virtue of being repeated so many times.
A more likely explanation for the long-term shift from Democratic to Republican dominance in the South was the perception, fair or not, that the Democratic Party had rejected traditional Christian religious values and embraced radical secularism. That includes its hardline support for abortion, its rejection of prayer in public schools, its promotion of the gay agenda, and many other issues.
A Short History of Democrats, Republicans, and Racism
Last edited:
PK1
Gold Member
- Jun 26, 2015
- 3,914
- 538
- 140
------The south is where most racism stems from. It's true the south was once mostly Democrat. It's true the south is now mostly Republican.
Perhaps the Republicans will claim the pro-slavery & racist people migrated north.
From the link...
Following the epic civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the South began a major demographic shift from Democratic to Republican dominance. Many believe that this shift was motivated by racism. While it is certainly true that many Southern racists abandoned the Democratic Party over its new support for racial equality and integration, the notion that they would flock to the Republican Party -- which was a century ahead of the Democrats on those issues -- makes no sense whatsoever.
Yet virtually every liberal, when pressed on the matter, will inevitably claim that the parties "switched," and most racist Democrats became Republicans! In their minds, this historical ju jitsu maneuver apparently transfers all the past sins of the Democrats (slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.) onto the Republicans and all the past virtues of the Republicans (e.g., ending slavery) onto the Democrats! That's quite a feat!
It is true that Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 probably attracted some racist Democrats to the Republican Party. However, Goldwater was not a racist -- at least not an overt racist like so many Southern Democrats of the time, such as George Wallace and Bull Connor. He publicly professed racial equality, and his opposition to the 1964 Act was based on principled grounds of states rights. In any case, his libertarian views were out of step with the mainstream, and he lost the 1964 Presidential election to LBJ in a landslide.
But Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided liberals an opening to tar the Republican Party as racist, and they have tenaciously repeated that label so often over the years that it is now the conventional wisdom among liberals. But it is really nothing more than an unsubstantiated myth -- a convenient political lie. If the Republican Party was any more racist than the Democratic Party even in 1964, why did a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act? The idea that Goldwater's vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act trumps a century of history of the Republican Party is ridiculous, to say the least.
Every political party has its racists, but the notion that Republicans are more racist than Democrats or any other party is based on nothing more than a constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated innuendo and assertions by Leftists, constantly echoed by the liberal media. It is a classic example of a Big Lie that becomes "true" simply by virtue of being repeated so many times.
A more likely explanation for the long-term shift from Democratic to Republican dominance in the South was the perception, fair or not, that the Democratic Party had rejected traditional Christian religious values and embraced radical secularism. That includes its hardline support for abortion, its rejection of prayer in public schools, its promotion of the gay agenda, and many other issues.
View attachment 54527
A Short History of Democrats, Republicans, and Racism
The facts don't lie. In your ref:
"why did a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act?"
It's because there were more Republicans in northern states.
In 1964 or 100 years following the Civil War, the SOUTHERN states were still racist. Not a single Republican from a Southern state voted for the Civil Rights Act.
Only 8 out of 118 Southerners in the House & Senate voted for the Civil Rights Act -- ALL 8 were Democrats.
The racist South, which had five states swing Republican in 1964, became a stronghold of the Republican party by the 1990s.
The facts don't lie.
.
Lumpy 1
Diamond Member
- Jun 19, 2009
- 43,814
- 18,750
- 2,330
So, big deal, "there were more Republicans in northern states" how does that change the final Congressional votes and Republican dominated percentages?------The south is where most racism stems from. It's true the south was once mostly Democrat. It's true the south is now mostly Republican.
Perhaps the Republicans will claim the pro-slavery & racist people migrated north.
From the link...
Following the epic civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the South began a major demographic shift from Democratic to Republican dominance. Many believe that this shift was motivated by racism. While it is certainly true that many Southern racists abandoned the Democratic Party over its new support for racial equality and integration, the notion that they would flock to the Republican Party -- which was a century ahead of the Democrats on those issues -- makes no sense whatsoever.
Yet virtually every liberal, when pressed on the matter, will inevitably claim that the parties "switched," and most racist Democrats became Republicans! In their minds, this historical ju jitsu maneuver apparently transfers all the past sins of the Democrats (slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow laws, etc.) onto the Republicans and all the past virtues of the Republicans (e.g., ending slavery) onto the Democrats! That's quite a feat!
It is true that Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 probably attracted some racist Democrats to the Republican Party. However, Goldwater was not a racist -- at least not an overt racist like so many Southern Democrats of the time, such as George Wallace and Bull Connor. He publicly professed racial equality, and his opposition to the 1964 Act was based on principled grounds of states rights. In any case, his libertarian views were out of step with the mainstream, and he lost the 1964 Presidential election to LBJ in a landslide.
But Goldwater's opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act provided liberals an opening to tar the Republican Party as racist, and they have tenaciously repeated that label so often over the years that it is now the conventional wisdom among liberals. But it is really nothing more than an unsubstantiated myth -- a convenient political lie. If the Republican Party was any more racist than the Democratic Party even in 1964, why did a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act? The idea that Goldwater's vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act trumps a century of history of the Republican Party is ridiculous, to say the least.
Every political party has its racists, but the notion that Republicans are more racist than Democrats or any other party is based on nothing more than a constant drumbeat of unsubstantiated innuendo and assertions by Leftists, constantly echoed by the liberal media. It is a classic example of a Big Lie that becomes "true" simply by virtue of being repeated so many times.
A more likely explanation for the long-term shift from Democratic to Republican dominance in the South was the perception, fair or not, that the Democratic Party had rejected traditional Christian religious values and embraced radical secularism. That includes its hardline support for abortion, its rejection of prayer in public schools, its promotion of the gay agenda, and many other issues.
View attachment 54527
A Short History of Democrats, Republicans, and Racism
The facts don't lie. In your ref:
"why did a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act?"
It's because there were more Republicans in northern states.
In 1964 or 100 years following the Civil War, the SOUTHERN states were still racist. Not a single Republican from a Southern state voted for the Civil Rights Act.
Only 8 out of 118 Southerners in the House & Senate voted for the Civil Rights Act -- ALL 8 were Democrats.
The racist South, which had five states swing Republican in 1964, became a stronghold of the Republican party by the 1990s.
The facts don't lie.
.
The racist South, which had five states swing Republican in 1964, became a stronghold of the Republican party by the 1990s.
As I recall those 5 states voters were fed up with Democratic Party Civil Rights Policies/Abuses and really, why not?
(Perhaps if you read over the unlined section of my previous post, it would help, also.)
Last edited:
GWV5903
Gold Member
You have no idea what you're talking about...
I understand your easily influenced to believe the lie, most of the Democrat working class are pretty gullible and some are just angry, which one are you?
https://www.fold3.com/page/2725_jim_crow_laws/
oldsoul
Gold Member
Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Hit the books my freind...
Last edited:
GWV5903
Gold Member
The south is where most racism stems from. It's true the south was once mostly Democrat. It's true the south is now mostly Republican.
Another simple minded liberal...
So your naïve enough to believe racism is predominantly a southern state issue, this supports the gullible side of my point, no surprise...
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
New Topics
-
The job market since Trump took office - January 2025 thru February 2026- Started by ElmerMudd
- Replies: 8
-
We can't trust the press as I and other republicans keep saying- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 6
-
The Republican Party is protecting Ilhan Omar from accountability (2nd Attempt)- Started by YoursTruly
- Replies: 14
-
