The lily-white movement was an anti-civil-rights movement within the Republican Party in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The movement was a response to the political and socioeconomic gains made by African-Americans following the Civil War and the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which eliminated slavery. Black leaders gained increasing influence in the party by organizing blacks as an important voting bloc. Conservative white groups attempted to eliminate this influence and recover white voters who had defected to the Democratic Party.
The term lily-white movement is generally attributed to Texas Republican leader Norris Wright Cuney who used the term in an 1888 Republican convention to describe efforts by white conservatives to oust blacks from positions of Texas party leadership and incite riots to divide the party. The term came to be used nationally to describe this ongoing movement as it further developed in the early 20th century. Localized movements began immediately after the war but by the beginning of the 20th century the effort had become national.
According to author and professor Michael K. Fauntroy,
The lily white movement is one of the darkest and underexamined eras of US Republicanism.
—Michael K. Fauntroy, The Huffington Post
This movement is largely credited with driving blacks out of the Republican party during the early 20th century, setting the stage for their eventual support of the Democrats.
Lily-white movement
You republicans have lied long enough. You might be the party of Lincoln but then again here's Lincoln:
I'm struggling to get your point.
The United States was founded on the notion that the signers of the Constitution were establishing a nation for a specific people. The Preamble states (in part):
"...
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.."
My 1828 Webster's Dictionary (the first dictionary published in the United States AND by a founder) defines posterity as:
"
Descendants; children, children's children, etc. indefinitely; the race that proceeds from a progenitor."
As unpopular as it is, Roger Taney, the Chief Justice in the Dred Scott v Sanford decision (which said blacks could not be citizens) spent a lot of time explaining the laws. Wikipedia puts it this way:
"
Taney spent pages 407–421 of his decision chronicling the history of slave and negro law in the British colonies and American states to decide if federal law could recognize Scott as a citizen of any state within the meaning of Article III."
Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia
Insofar as political parties are concerned, both the Ds and the Rs have been racist (sic) in the past (Democrats representing the KKK and segregationists before the Rs did.) If you're trying to claim the Democrats have some right to the loyalty of blacks would be disingenuous at best.
I know all of this crap you posted up and there is no defense or justification for any of it. The united states was founded upon the principle that all men were created equal. I did not see any racial designation stated in the wording. So again, there is no defense and you really should not try presenting that weak shit to someone of color like it's an actual logical defense. As far as I am concerned, if this nation was supposed to be for a specific people then that specific people should have been the ones working the fucking fields, building the buildings and serving the masters and the wealthy. But they were not, therefore this nation was not just for that specific group. On top of that some 500 nations were already here so then using your logic this land was meant for them and the whites who invaded had no right to be here.
My point is this and you need to understand it. Todays republicans want to pawn themselves off as the party of always being the ones for racial equality. They are not. The democrats have been honest and never stated they always have been for racial equality. What we see I todays republican is that in the same days republicans today are talking about how republicans fought against slavery and fought for the freedom of blacks that they actually moved towards a whites only government and power structure. Therefore they did not stand for equality of the races ever.
As for today, the reality is that the democratic party is the party blacks should put our loyalty into as it was a democrat who ended racial segregation, the lily white movement, separate but equal, and all of the things that were preventing us fro a chance at whatever equality we have today. That's not disingenuous, it is fact. So unless Lyndon Johnson was a republican then to state that blacks should have ANY loyalty to a party whose leader signed a piece of paper not freeing anyone in the United States but only in the states that had seceded and did believe that blacks were inferior is what's disingenuous.
Last and most importantly, the same types of people who want to give themselves credit for something that happened before they were born want to dismiss the truth of how they benefitted from a racist system claiming that the same time period in which they tell us how the democrats supported slavery and how we should be republicans because of that, say should not be held responsible for the racism they benefited from during that time because et was before they were born. So they want credit for something that happened before they were born, but don't want to be held accountable for anything else that occurred during that same time.
That's what we here ca a bunch of bullshit. So when you want to use the word disingenuous, know what it means. Because that's exactly what republicans are as it pertains to the issue of race.
Let's give you a little history lesson.
ALL the signers of the Constitution were still alive when the first naturalization law was passed. Here is an excerpt from that law:
"
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof..."
naturalization laws 1790-1795
In virtually all of the early
state constitutions, one could not vote, hold public office, etc. without being white. Let me give you a few examples:
"
Constitution of California (1849) - Art. II Sec. 1 - Every white male citizen of the United States, and every white male of Mexico, who shall have elected to become a citizen of the United States...shall be entitled to vote at all elections which are now or hereafter may be authorized by law
...Article IV Sec. 29 - The number of Senators and members of assembly, shall be ... apportioned among the several counties and districts to be established by law, according to the number of white inhabitants.
Georgia Constitution (1777) Art. IX - All male white inhabitants of the age of twenty one years, and possessed in his own right of ten pounds value, and liable to pay tax in this State... shall have a right to vote at all elections for representatives, or any other officers..."
There are other sections within those constitutions, but most of the early state constitutions contained similar language. You can see the state constitutions of Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin for examples of proof that only whites could vote or hold public office at the state level while no non-whites were afforded the
benefits and privileges of citizenship.
It is true that the Declaration of Independence says that "
all men are created equal." It also states that all men have
unalienable Rights. Now, here is the straight skinny:
Even though our Constitution required one to be white in order to be eligible to be a citizen, vote, hold public office, etc. we welcomed people from all over the globe. And they came, seeking opportunities and jobs... and freedom.
Unalienable Rights, Freedom, and Liberty are
NOT the benefits and privileges of citizenship. Citizenship is a
privilege, NOT a Right. The problem for me is that the 14th Amendment nullified
Unalienable Rights; it attempted to put all of us under the purview of the 14th Amendment and do away with
unalienable Rights.
I'm not a Republican. That
IS why your argument fails. Since I'm not a Democrat either, it allows me to see both sides clearly. The Republicans violated the Constitution and illegally ratified the 14th Amendment.
IF you believe the political argument (FWIW I do NOT buy the political argument) that the War of Northern Aggression / Civil War was about slavery, then the Republicans put their lives on the line for the Freedom and Liberty of blacks. The Dems did not.
It's true that the Republicans have not always supported social equality, but they have always supported (until recent years) the concept of
unalienable Rights. So, you're welcome for the history lesson and just remember: social equality has NOTHING to do with
unalienable Rights. As a matter of fact, social equality and civil statutes are nullifying the whole concept of God given Rights aka natural Rights and
unalienable Rights.
