"Republicans are the party of Lincoln." Umm...

[Deleted member 53821]

Not really no. Yet some guy on Real Time with Bill Maher said this very thing on a recent show. Think he was the guy who worked for National Review.

The modern Republican party is not the party of Lincoln beyond they both spell Republican the same way. But that's where their similarity ends. Today, Lincoln would be a Democrat, not a Republican.

The platform of both parties essentially flipped between 1860 and 1936 according to most historical scholars. Democrats in the South opposing policies of Republicans in the North, and over time both parties assumed positions of the other.

Why Did the Democratic and Republican Parties Switch Platforms Democrats Republicans

"During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed these measures. After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice; again, Democrats largely opposed these expansions of power."

Wow! You are so smart. Splitting the Republican Party between Lincoln supporters and everyone else is ingenious. I'm sure my great grandma will be voting democrat in the next few years. The question I wonder is wether or not the Democratic Party is the party of jfk.

 

[regent]

Parties change for the votes. But liberal and conservative are based on ideology with each having some core beliefs. We often mistake a means to achieve a core belief as part of the ideology, For example, the size of government is not an ideology but a means to carry out the ideology.

 

[Thirty6BelowZero]

The republican party used to have liberals and minorities but you guys ran them off and therefore have no right to their legacies or victories. You did welcome the dixiecrats with open arms and therefore inherited their legacy instead, see how that works? You cannot openly despise the same kind of people who fought for civil rights and lay claim to their legacy at the same time.

No, YOU guys called them sellouts to their race and Uncle Toms and created a fear within them to belong to the party of true equality. That's when they swapped over to the party of the blind and ignorant.

 

[Thirty6BelowZero]

And people wonder why 1964 is the last time a Democrat presidential candidate won the majority of the white vote.

Yeah because you can't win a presidential election without the majority of the white vote. It must hurt being that stupid. I deleted the rest of your post for the ignorance it stated.

 

[TheOldSchool]

And people wonder why 1964 is the last time a Democrat presidential candidate won the majority of the white vote.

Yeah because you can't win a presidential election without the majority of the white vote. It must hurt being that stupid. I deleted the rest of your post for the ignorance it stated.

Um what?

 

[g5000]

"During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed these measures. After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice; again, Democrats largely opposed these expansions of power."

Yeah, most modern day Republicans are ignorant of the fact the original Republicans were federal government expansionists.

 

[Correll]

If modern day conservatives reflect the politics of Abraham Lincoln, and since we have many modern day conservatives here at USMB,

why don't those of you who fit that description step up and tell us all of the Lincoln policies/positions/beliefs that you support?

I am against slavery and pro-Union.

I am not certain of his economic policies, and considering the changes in the economic environment, I'm not sure that direct comparisons would be fair.

 

[Correll]

Again with revisionist history. What you have to show to prove your point is where the Republican party EVER has done ANYTHING to harm a black person. Platforms were not switched the democrats changed theirs that is all. They quit being knuckle dragging OVERT racists and entered the 20th century. You know, they gave them n...ers a little something.

The argument is also interesting in that the same revisionists that make such claims will claim that Lincoln never wished to end slavery his interest was preserving the Union, only. Two faced at best.

The Republican party has supported every civil rights act since the reconstruction The Republican party is responsible for the all of civil right acts and none would have passed without their support. The Republican party is responsible for MLK birthday, signed into law by Reagan. The NAACP was started by Republicans. The Democrat party has yet to apologize for ONE of its acts against a black man, not one.

The democrat party's past is full of shame and I don't blame the democrats for trying to have people forget their sorted past. But revisionist history should do it. But I will admit there are large segments of our society that would rather believe the lie then confess the truth.

In my opinion the treatment of blacks is a reason there should not even be a democrat party today.

The republican party used to have liberals and minorities but you guys ran them off and therefore have no right to their legacies or victories. You did welcome the dixiecrats with open arms and therefore inherited their legacy instead, see how that works? You cannot openly despise the same kind of people who fought for civil rights and lay claim to their legacy at the same time.

You need to break open a history book. The Dixiecrats did not go to the Republcian party that is false it has been shown many times. They left the democrat party for a short period of time then returned to the democrat part when their presidential run failed. there would be absolutely no reason for racist democrats to leave the party of slavery for the party of Lincoln, especially in the south.

Really? Well they seem to have given republicans their attitudes towards liberals and minorities if not their votes then. I live down here and saw it all happen with my own eyes, don't try to pass off that bullshit on me.

What exactly did you see? Or more to the point what is it you think you remember?

Dixiecrats

On election day 1948, the Dixiecrats won Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina but failed to win any state in which Thurmond appeared as a third-party candidate. In Georgia, Thurmond came in a distant second to Truman. A closer analysis of the Dixiecrat phenomenon revealed an interesting pattern: the Dixiecrats were most successful in the states and counties where black citizens were the most numerous. The Deep South states boasted the largest black populations, and white voters in those states were the most determined to preserve racial segregation and black disenfranchisement, and thus were more likely to vote for the Dixiecrat ticket. A similar trend is evident in county-level election returns, in which Thurmond was more likely to win counties where black populations were large and white voters feared racial change. In the border South, where blacks were less abundant and white voters were less preoccupied with segregation, support for the Dixiecrat candidates was negligible.

Although the Dixiecrats immediately dissolved after the 1948 election, their impact lasted much longer. Many white voters who initially cast Dixiecrat ballots gravitated back toward the Democratic Party only grudgingly, and they remained nominal Democrats at best. Ultimately, the Dixiecrat movement paved the way for the rise of the modern Republican Party in the South. Many former Dixiecrat supporters eventually became Republicans, as was highlighted by Strom Thurmond's conversion in the 1960s.

I'm not sure what you mean by "nominal Democrats". THey certainly voted Democratic for quite some time.

48 to the "1960s" is quite a while to be disaffected by still giving those you are angry with your vote.

Thurmond switched parties. Byrd didn't. Do you have any further evidence that the aging Dixicrats were what switched the South?

And what exactly did Nixon supposedly do to attract these racists? As another poster pointed out, Nixon was quite aggressive in pursuing Civil Rights.

 

[Freewill]

Again with revisionist history. What you have to show to prove your point is where the Republican party EVER has done ANYTHING to harm a black person. Platforms were not switched the democrats changed theirs that is all. They quit being knuckle dragging OVERT racists and entered the 20th century. You know, they gave them n...ers a little something.

The argument is also interesting in that the same revisionists that make such claims will claim that Lincoln never wished to end slavery his interest was preserving the Union, only. Two faced at best.

The Republican party has supported every civil rights act since the reconstruction The Republican party is responsible for the all of civil right acts and none would have passed without their support. The Republican party is responsible for MLK birthday, signed into law by Reagan. The NAACP was started by Republicans. The Democrat party has yet to apologize for ONE of its acts against a black man, not one.

The democrat party's past is full of shame and I don't blame the democrats for trying to have people forget their sorted past. But revisionist history should do it. But I will admit there are large segments of our society that would rather believe the lie then confess the truth.

In my opinion the treatment of blacks is a reason there should not even be a democrat party today.

The Republicans nominated Barry Goldwater for PRESIDENT the same year he voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

And that hurt blacks how?