The Underground Railway

[jbrownson0831]

No

But BLM told me that all the white republicans who organized and executed the "railroad" were racist, and should have supported the democrats aka the confederacy....

Everyone who came out in defense of the the various confederate memorials willingly inherited their legacy all the way down the line. That's the hard right, welcome to the confederate party.

No, we didn't. That was just people like you, making up shit.

Completely reasonable to celebrate the sacrifice and heroism of soldiers defending their homes, while not celebrating all the aspects of their government of the time.


Do you celebrate America's defeat of the nazis in wwii? Does that mean you celebrate the internment of japanese americans or the dropping of the atom bombs?

Dumbass.

OK then look at it this way, do you think the hard right would ever support any legislation protecting the civil rights of minorities? Clearly they would not. They stand in the same political space as the dixiecrats in any current discussion on civil rights. In the fight against police brutality they not only stand with the police but the brutality as well.

I'm not sure what you mean by "hard right". Every Republican President since....the beginning of the Party has been in the forefront of increasing or equal rights for minorities since the party was founded.

Ike was. Nixon was. Reagan was. The Bushes. Trump;. Do you consider any of them "hard right"?

Anyone more to the right of them, had the choice of voting for them, voting for the lefties with the dems, or staying home.

No past republican president would have a prayer of getting elected in the Trumpublican party. Why are you using them as an example? You hate Romney. You hate McCain. You don't even claim the Bushes. Face it. The Trumpublicans pissed on everything good, decent and fair and rejected everyone who wasn't Trump. He is your one and only example of what you stand for and there is precious little to be proud of.

The Muslim in Chief caused Trump, everyone knows that. All the other Republican candidates just wanted more mush mouth talk, no action. Somebody had to bring the country back to some sensibility.

This is what you call sensibility:
Declaring his supporters are patriots in Storming the US Capital in an attempt to overturn the election
Suggesting the CDC look into putting disinfectants in the body as a cure for Covid-19
Claiming the worst epidemic in the US in a hundred years is just the Flu
Claiming the 2020 election was rigged despite numerous investigation and certification by every state and the Congress.
Donald Trump is a lot of things but being sensible is not one of them.

People have a right to protest, you should know yours burned down cities when they did it and you supported
He never said put disinfectants into your body
The leftyflu has a 99.999999% survival rate what would you compare it to?
The election was misrepresented in several key states with forged leftyvirus mailin ballots
Who else could put America first after the racist clown Obammy nearly destroyed it?

 

[Flopper]

No

But BLM told me that all the white republicans who organized and executed the "railroad" were racist, and should have supported the democrats aka the confederacy....

When are you going to acknowledge that the two parties switched stands on social issues like race? This fact is widely known. If I had lived in the 1860s, I might have been a Republican supporter, although female people were denied participation in democracy at that time in this "free" land, and assisted enslaved persons to freedom, but the political parties have changed places while the ethics that motivate us remain the same.

They never flipped. THe dems are still the party of racism, just anti-white instead of anti-black.

I was around in the the 1950's and lived in the South. Believe me, the democratic party was the party of whites and segregation where the old south was a way of life. The civil rights movement in the early 50's was led by republicans By the late 1970's Blacks in the South were a major voice in the democratic party. White segregationist had began to vote and support the republican party particularly in national elections. Republican who had championed civil rights and voter registration drives in the early 50's were questioning the wisdom of Civil Rights and Voting Rights laws. Any leader in the democratic party in 1950 would have been shocked by the racial make up in 1980 in the South. In the north the change was not near as significant as in south. Today racism directed at Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Jews, or Muslims is not limited to either party.

White Segregationists? Why would a "segregationist? support a part that was supporting desegregation and equal rights for blacks? As all the GOP platforms of the 70s did.

It wasn't till the 60's that white southerners began to lose faith in the democrat party. In the 1960's, democrat administrations in Washington turn their back on Whites in the South and were dead set on abolishing segregation. They championed the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights laws, federal welfare programs, and jobs programs, which benefited Blacks in the South much more than Whites. When Kennedy and Johnson sent federal troops and federal marshals into the Deep South to cram integration down the throats of Whites, it was just too much. The party that they had supported since the Civil War had turned against them.

Those that began to support the Republican Party certainly didn't support them because they embraced republican values. They started voting republican particularly in federal elections because they weren't going to vote with the damn N* and elect democrats in Washington that were destroying their way of life. Not all democrats rushed to the Republican party. Many remained loyal to the Democrat party but deserted them in federal elections. However, Kennedy and Johnson had lost the Democrat solid South and the party has never been able to reclaim it.

The 60's republicans supported equal rights and a better life for all races. However, the party split over the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and vigorously opposed both Kennedy and Johnson's actions in the South to use force to end segregation.

Couple of points.

1. White Southerners were changing BEFORE the dems flipped on the race issue. The poor rural south was industrializing and the white middle class was growing and voting more republican, especially northern whites who had moved south.

2. Correct. The "white southerners" as a group might have felt that way, ie betrayed by the dems, and thus a. had no reason to stay with the dems, and b. might have wanted to punish them.

3. BUT, it MUST be said, to understand the situation, that the GOP did NOT pander to them, with any policy or actions. The stereotypical white southern RACIST, from that point in time, had no voice in national politics. They were effective marginalized from then on.

4. The GOP did not split over the issue. The Party as a whole, remained committed to desegregation and racial equality. NIXON, for example, who came AFTER Kennedy and Johnson, AND who was elected with massive support, continued and greatly accelerated school desegregation in the south.


5. From the 60s on, the dems, instead of trying to pander for white racist votes, by holding down the black man, switched to trying to pander to black votes, by offering them government back discrimination in their favor, at the expense of whites. Hence my point that the only thing that flipped, was who the dems were racists against.

• Today at 6:51 AM
• New
• Add bookmark
• #26

Flopper said:

Correll said:

Flopper said:

Correll said:

Lysistrata said:

EMH said:
No

But BLM told me that all the white republicans who organized and executed the "railroad" were racist, and should have supported the democrats aka the confederacy....
Click to expand...

When are you going to acknowledge that the two parties switched stands on social issues like race? This fact is widely known. If I had lived in the 1860s, I might have been a Republican supporter, although female people were denied participation in democracy at that time in this "free" land, and assisted enslaved persons to freedom, but the political parties have changed places while the ethics that motivate us remain the same.
Click to expand...

They never flipped. THe dems are still the party of racism, just anti-white instead of anti-black.
Click to expand...

I was around in the the 1950's and lived in the South. Believe me, the democratic party was the party of whites and segregation where the old south was a way of life. The civil rights movement in the early 50's was led by republicans By the late 1970's Blacks in the South were a major voice in the democratic party. White segregationist had began to vote and support the republican party particularly in national elections. Republican who had championed civil rights and voter registration drives in the early 50's were questioning the wisdom of Civil Rights and Voting Rights laws. Any leader in the democratic party in 1950 would have been shocked by the racial make up in 1980 in the South. In the north the change was not near as significant as in south. Today racism directed at Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Jews, or Muslims is not limited to either party.
Click to expand...

White Segregationists? Why would a "segregationist? support a part that was supporting desegregation and equal rights for blacks? As all the GOP platforms of the 70s did.
Click to expand...

It wasn't till the 60's that white southerners began to lose faith in the democrat party. In the 1960's, democrat administrations in Washington turn their back on Whites in the South and were dead set on abolishing segregation. They championed the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights laws, federal welfare programs, and jobs programs, which benefited Blacks in the South much more than Whites. When Kennedy and Johnson sent federal troops and federal marshals into the Deep South to cram integration down the throats of Whites, it was just too much. The party that they had supported since the Civil War had turned against them.

Those that began to support the Republican Party certainly didn't support them because they embraced republican values. They started voting republican particularly in federal elections because they weren't going to vote with the damn N* and elect democrats in Washington that were destroying their way of life. Not all democrats rushed to the Republican party. Many remained loyal to the Democrat party but deserted them in federal elections. However, Kennedy and Johnson had lost the Democrat solid South and the party has never been able to reclaim it.

The 60's republicans supported equal rights and a better life for all races. However, the party split over the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and vigorously opposed both Kennedy and Johnson's actions in the South to use force to end segregation.
Click to expand...

I don't know exactly what you call pandering but the Republican party's war against big government in Washington, welfare programs, expansion of civil rights, busing, and affirmative actions was exactly what these white southern democrats wanted. That sounds like pandering to me. The Republics party was growing rapidly in the South in the later half of the 20th century and they had broken the solid south. They were not about lose it.

Nixon is the one that enforced bussing. He desegregated southern schools more than anyone..

The extent of his "pandering"? He ram it though fast, so it would be a fait accompli by the time of the next election.


The southern strategy is a myth.


White racists have not had a voice in national politics since the dems stopped working with them.


They have been marginalized since then. THe constant attempt to fight them is akin to a witch hunt.

During a press conference on April 29, 1971, a reporter asked President Nixon if he approved of “the mandatory use of busing to overcome racial segregation” ruled by the Supreme Court.
Nixon replied, “…I am against busing. This is, of course, one of those clear cut issues in this campaign.”

The fact is most busing was ordered by federal district courts based on complains of the NAACP and other such organizations After the first year or so, school districts were required to submit a busing plan to the court or degradation plans which usually included busing. If approved, the district was obligated to flow that plan. These plans were often modified for various reason. When a district clearly violated the court order by not following the approved plan, the court took action which might be holding the superintendent or possibly the school board in contempt of court or other statues such as the Civil Rights act which could mean jail or fines and those fines levied against the district could be severe. The actual physical enforce was done by federal marshals acting under an order by the judge.

The forming of biracial committees in 8 southern states to workout out plans for desegregation was probably Nixon's greatest contribution to integration. Busing was proving to be very unpopular so as one would expect, the president supported the law while claiming he was against it.

OR, he really thought it was a ruling with problems, but did his job anyways.

Either way, he did his job and desegregated southern schools more than anyone.

That is him NOT pandering to racists. That greatly undermines the Southern Strategy by itself.

Actually School busing and desegregation peaked in 1988. Although school busing to desegregation schools began in 1950, it was a Supreme Court ruling in 1971 that started school busing to desegregate schools through out the country. I frankly don't know what Nixon thought about it. However, thinking racial politics had no effect is rather naïve. Beginning in the 60's southern democrat support of republicans grew rapidly as did the number of registered republicans. For example, prior to 1956, there was no republican Party in the state of Mississippi. In the presidential election of 1964, Mississippians voted republican for first time since reconstruction. Over the next 50 years they would vote democrat in only one election.

In the 60's and 70's, republican presidential candidates campaigning in the South sounded a lot like George Wallace but in the north they turn the heat down stressing equal treatment for all and laying off the the horrors of integration and busing. Slowly, republican rhetoric in the South changed from integration and busing to democrat big government which worked as well in the South as in the North. Southerners had first hand experience when US troops invaded Mississippi and federal Marshals were arresting governors, mayors, and superintendent of schools. Of course republicans pandered to the white racist in the south because that is what most white voters were in those days. Republicans grabbing the Solid South had enormous political impact.

Goldwater in 1964, did not sound like George Wallace. He did NOT pander to white racists.

Johnson won much of the South. It was not solid. The historical reality does not seem to match your claims.

In the case of Goldwater, I may have exaggerated a bit. I do remember that when he campaigned in the South, he openly supported segregation and condemned forcefully integration. He praised Governor Barnett of Mississippi and Governor Wallace of Georgia, two of the most outspoken segregationist in the South. His campaign in northern states avoided the segregation issue. He failed to vote for 1960 civil rights act and voted against the 1964 civil rights act. He won 6 states. 5 of them, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and South Carolina are considered to be the heart of the solid south who never vote for a republican from 1880 to 1952.

Did he really support segregation or merely disagree with the way it was being addressed?

Both really. He was a strong supporter of states rights and did not believe the federal government should be forcing states to integrate. He wanted the states to the make their own decision on integration which meant maintaining segregation in the Deep South. Integration among Whites in the South was about as popular as a rat sandwich in those days.

IMHO, had the federal government not crammed integration down the throats of White Southerners, state mandated segregation would have remained the law in the Deep South for at least a half century. Eventually, segregation would have disappear but millions would have suffer for many years waiting for equal rights.

That does not fit with what I have read of his life long support of civil rights and personal support of integration.

Goldwater supported civil rights and voting right, he just did believe in federal government legislation and enforcement of it. He was in complete agreement with segregations that civil rights should be a state issue, not federal. This is why he voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Bill and the 1965 Voting Rights Bill.

 

[Correll]

No

But BLM told me that all the white republicans who organized and executed the "railroad" were racist, and should have supported the democrats aka the confederacy....

When are you going to acknowledge that the two parties switched stands on social issues like race? This fact is widely known. If I had lived in the 1860s, I might have been a Republican supporter, although female people were denied participation in democracy at that time in this "free" land, and assisted enslaved persons to freedom, but the political parties have changed places while the ethics that motivate us remain the same.

They never flipped. THe dems are still the party of racism, just anti-white instead of anti-black.

I was around in the the 1950's and lived in the South. Believe me, the democratic party was the party of whites and segregation where the old south was a way of life. The civil rights movement in the early 50's was led by republicans By the late 1970's Blacks in the South were a major voice in the democratic party. White segregationist had began to vote and support the republican party particularly in national elections. Republican who had championed civil rights and voter registration drives in the early 50's were questioning the wisdom of Civil Rights and Voting Rights laws. Any leader in the democratic party in 1950 would have been shocked by the racial make up in 1980 in the South. In the north the change was not near as significant as in south. Today racism directed at Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Jews, or Muslims is not limited to either party.

White Segregationists? Why would a "segregationist? support a part that was supporting desegregation and equal rights for blacks? As all the GOP platforms of the 70s did.

It wasn't till the 60's that white southerners began to lose faith in the democrat party. In the 1960's, democrat administrations in Washington turn their back on Whites in the South and were dead set on abolishing segregation. They championed the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights laws, federal welfare programs, and jobs programs, which benefited Blacks in the South much more than Whites. When Kennedy and Johnson sent federal troops and federal marshals into the Deep South to cram integration down the throats of Whites, it was just too much. The party that they had supported since the Civil War had turned against them.

Those that began to support the Republican Party certainly didn't support them because they embraced republican values. They started voting republican particularly in federal elections because they weren't going to vote with the damn N* and elect democrats in Washington that were destroying their way of life. Not all democrats rushed to the Republican party. Many remained loyal to the Democrat party but deserted them in federal elections. However, Kennedy and Johnson had lost the Democrat solid South and the party has never been able to reclaim it.

The 60's republicans supported equal rights and a better life for all races. However, the party split over the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and vigorously opposed both Kennedy and Johnson's actions in the South to use force to end segregation.

Couple of points.

1. White Southerners were changing BEFORE the dems flipped on the race issue. The poor rural south was industrializing and the white middle class was growing and voting more republican, especially northern whites who had moved south.

2. Correct. The "white southerners" as a group might have felt that way, ie betrayed by the dems, and thus a. had no reason to stay with the dems, and b. might have wanted to punish them.

3. BUT, it MUST be said, to understand the situation, that the GOP did NOT pander to them, with any policy or actions. The stereotypical white southern RACIST, from that point in time, had no voice in national politics. They were effective marginalized from then on.

4. The GOP did not split over the issue. The Party as a whole, remained committed to desegregation and racial equality. NIXON, for example, who came AFTER Kennedy and Johnson, AND who was elected with massive support, continued and greatly accelerated school desegregation in the south.


5. From the 60s on, the dems, instead of trying to pander for white racist votes, by holding down the black man, switched to trying to pander to black votes, by offering them government back discrimination in their favor, at the expense of whites. Hence my point that the only thing that flipped, was who the dems were racists against.

• Today at 6:51 AM
• New
• Add bookmark
• #26

Flopper said:

Correll said:

Flopper said:

Correll said:

Lysistrata said:

EMH said:
No

But BLM told me that all the white republicans who organized and executed the "railroad" were racist, and should have supported the democrats aka the confederacy....
Click to expand...

When are you going to acknowledge that the two parties switched stands on social issues like race? This fact is widely known. If I had lived in the 1860s, I might have been a Republican supporter, although female people were denied participation in democracy at that time in this "free" land, and assisted enslaved persons to freedom, but the political parties have changed places while the ethics that motivate us remain the same.
Click to expand...

They never flipped. THe dems are still the party of racism, just anti-white instead of anti-black.
Click to expand...

I was around in the the 1950's and lived in the South. Believe me, the democratic party was the party of whites and segregation where the old south was a way of life. The civil rights movement in the early 50's was led by republicans By the late 1970's Blacks in the South were a major voice in the democratic party. White segregationist had began to vote and support the republican party particularly in national elections. Republican who had championed civil rights and voter registration drives in the early 50's were questioning the wisdom of Civil Rights and Voting Rights laws. Any leader in the democratic party in 1950 would have been shocked by the racial make up in 1980 in the South. In the north the change was not near as significant as in south. Today racism directed at Blacks, Whites, Hispanics, Jews, or Muslims is not limited to either party.
Click to expand...

White Segregationists? Why would a "segregationist? support a part that was supporting desegregation and equal rights for blacks? As all the GOP platforms of the 70s did.
Click to expand...

It wasn't till the 60's that white southerners began to lose faith in the democrat party. In the 1960's, democrat administrations in Washington turn their back on Whites in the South and were dead set on abolishing segregation. They championed the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights laws, federal welfare programs, and jobs programs, which benefited Blacks in the South much more than Whites. When Kennedy and Johnson sent federal troops and federal marshals into the Deep South to cram integration down the throats of Whites, it was just too much. The party that they had supported since the Civil War had turned against them.

Those that began to support the Republican Party certainly didn't support them because they embraced republican values. They started voting republican particularly in federal elections because they weren't going to vote with the damn N* and elect democrats in Washington that were destroying their way of life. Not all democrats rushed to the Republican party. Many remained loyal to the Democrat party but deserted them in federal elections. However, Kennedy and Johnson had lost the Democrat solid South and the party has never been able to reclaim it.

The 60's republicans supported equal rights and a better life for all races. However, the party split over the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and vigorously opposed both Kennedy and Johnson's actions in the South to use force to end segregation.
Click to expand...

I don't know exactly what you call pandering but the Republican party's war against big government in Washington, welfare programs, expansion of civil rights, busing, and affirmative actions was exactly what these white southern democrats wanted. That sounds like pandering to me. The Republics party was growing rapidly in the South in the later half of the 20th century and they had broken the solid south. They were not about lose it.

Nixon is the one that enforced bussing. He desegregated southern schools more than anyone..

The extent of his "pandering"? He ram it though fast, so it would be a fait accompli by the time of the next election.


The southern strategy is a myth.


White racists have not had a voice in national politics since the dems stopped working with them.


They have been marginalized since then. THe constant attempt to fight them is akin to a witch hunt.

During a press conference on April 29, 1971, a reporter asked President Nixon if he approved of “the mandatory use of busing to overcome racial segregation” ruled by the Supreme Court.
Nixon replied, “…I am against busing. This is, of course, one of those clear cut issues in this campaign.”

The fact is most busing was ordered by federal district courts based on complains of the NAACP and other such organizations After the first year or so, school districts were required to submit a busing plan to the court or degradation plans which usually included busing. If approved, the district was obligated to flow that plan. These plans were often modified for various reason. When a district clearly violated the court order by not following the approved plan, the court took action which might be holding the superintendent or possibly the school board in contempt of court or other statues such as the Civil Rights act which could mean jail or fines and those fines levied against the district could be severe. The actual physical enforce was done by federal marshals acting under an order by the judge.

The forming of biracial committees in 8 southern states to workout out plans for desegregation was probably Nixon's greatest contribution to integration. Busing was proving to be very unpopular so as one would expect, the president supported the law while claiming he was against it.

OR, he really thought it was a ruling with problems, but did his job anyways.

Either way, he did his job and desegregated southern schools more than anyone.

That is him NOT pandering to racists. That greatly undermines the Southern Strategy by itself.

Actually School busing and desegregation peaked in 1988. Although school busing to desegregation schools began in 1950, it was a Supreme Court ruling in 1971 that started school busing to desegregate schools through out the country. I frankly don't know what Nixon thought about it. However, thinking racial politics had no effect is rather naïve. Beginning in the 60's southern democrat support of republicans grew rapidly as did the number of registered republicans. For example, prior to 1956, there was no republican Party in the state of Mississippi. In the presidential election of 1964, Mississippians voted republican for first time since reconstruction. Over the next 50 years they would vote democrat in only one election.

In the 60's and 70's, republican presidential candidates campaigning in the South sounded a lot like George Wallace but in the north they turn the heat down stressing equal treatment for all and laying off the the horrors of integration and busing. Slowly, republican rhetoric in the South changed from integration and busing to democrat big government which worked as well in the South as in the North. Southerners had first hand experience when US troops invaded Mississippi and federal Marshals were arresting governors, mayors, and superintendent of schools. Of course republicans pandered to the white racist in the south because that is what most white voters were in those days. Republicans grabbing the Solid South had enormous political impact.

Goldwater in 1964, did not sound like George Wallace. He did NOT pander to white racists.

Johnson won much of the South. It was not solid. The historical reality does not seem to match your claims.

In the case of Goldwater, I may have exaggerated a bit. I do remember that when he campaigned in the South, he openly supported segregation and condemned forcefully integration. He praised Governor Barnett of Mississippi and Governor Wallace of Georgia, two of the most outspoken segregationist in the South. His campaign in northern states avoided the segregation issue. He failed to vote for 1960 civil rights act and voted against the 1964 civil rights act. He won 6 states. 5 of them, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and South Carolina are considered to be the heart of the solid south who never vote for a republican from 1880 to 1952.

Did he really support segregation or merely disagree with the way it was being addressed?

Both really. He was a strong supporter of states rights and did not believe the federal government should be forcing states to integrate. He wanted the states to the make their own decision on integration which meant maintaining segregation in the Deep South. Integration among Whites in the South was about as popular as a rat sandwich in those days.

IMHO, had the federal government not crammed integration down the throats of White Southerners, state mandated segregation would have remained the law in the Deep South for at least a half century. Eventually, segregation would have disappear but millions would have suffer for many years waiting for equal rights.

That does not fit with what I have read of his life long support of civil rights and personal support of integration.

Goldwater supported civil rights and voting right, he just did believe in federal government legislation and enforcement of it. He was in complete agreement with segregations that civil rights should be a state issue, not federal. This is why he voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Bill and the 1965 Voting Rights Bill.

Goldwater supported civil rights and voting rights. We agree on that.

Goldwater disagreed with the way those were being implemented, specifically he felt it was leading to federal overreach.

The segregationists, OPPOSED civil rights.

That is not complete agreement.


Their support of Goldwater desperate rearguard action to hold back change, that failed miserably.

It was an historical blip.

It is a dot. That conspiracy theorists use to draw imaginary lines to later events, and craft the illusion of The Southern Strategy.

 

[EMH]

Who did Goldwater run against ?


LBJ


Go search for

LBJ racist



And read....