151 years ago today: Democrats founded and staffed the Ku Klux Klan

[Pogo]

It's easy to understand your denial, Forrest was the original Grand Wizard (Delegate to the 1868 DNC), Coolidge played The Birth of a Nation as the first movie to be shown in the White House and when you look at the statistical facts, Republican Senators and Congressman voted considerably more in favor for CRA from the 1860's all the way until the 1964 CRA.

Actually I don't think the DNC has "delegates". Don't know about that but as I posted way earlier --- because I actually DO know this shit ---- Forrest was drafted in absentia by a Klan that was already in existence, in order to improve its reputation. And by January 1869 he had issued his first and only General Order in that role, disbanding the Klan and ordering its paraphernalia to be destroyed, specifically because of that reputation.. That order was ignored by many, but he wasn't a founder. The founders were, again, Crowe, McCord, Kennedy, Jones, Lester and Reed ---- none of whom have any recorded political affiliations.

And Coolidge did not play Birth of a Nation, that would be Wilson. It was Griffith who set that up, and then implied in his advertising that Wilson had "endorsed" it. Coolidge did however come under fire for not coming out against lynchings....

But today we have the liberals many of whom post here on USMB like Pogo, Jake and RW who want you to believe none of this is true. No they want you to believe it has some weird twist and these are just coincidental FACTS that have nothing to do with the the DNC. I'll say it again, name the Southern Democrats (the 11 Confederate States) who became Southern Republicans over this 150+ year period of time, and to date you can only name 1, Strom Thurmond. That is statistically very weak considering the number of US Senators, US Congressman, State Senators, State Representatives, State Governors, etc... that have been elected.

You must be retarded. NOBODY claimed there was party-switching over a 150+ year period. I don't know if anyone but I addressed it, and I specifically said that did *NOT* happen for exactly 99 years (until Thurmond). I also explained why politicians don't switch parties before their voting base does.

The truth is that the DNC was and has been the strongest connection to the KKK from it's inception when it comes to our political parties, this is recorded history no matter how you try to manipulate it...

No Spunky. The truth is there is no connection between the Klan and any political party, unless you want to count the Know Nothings as ideological forebears. THAT is what history records. And it's "its inception" not "it is inception".

Go ahead. Try to prove me wrong. In great big letters.

 

[GWV5903]

You are missing the point

No I'm not, name the progressive legislation that has helped the minorities?

It is not politicians switching parties but the electorate switching who they vote for

So now it's not about the party platforms? You just missed the message from our November elections. Keep it up and the DNC will be NON EXISTENT...

After Democrat LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, the South turned from Solid Democrat to Solid Republican

I wonder why?!?!?! And those Democrats remained Democrats...

 

[whitehall]

Here's the deal, we know that the KKK was a democrat party creation and the mid 20th century incarnation of the KKK was a political tool of the democrat party. We also know how skilled the criminal enterprise known as the mainstream media is in twisting facts and protecting democrats not to mention their well established dirty tricks operatives. Why should we be surprised and distracted when the mainstream media promotes the false narrative of Trump and the KKK and left wing operatives create scenarios that they are so easily disproved that they are almost laughable such as burning a Black church and writing "Trump" on the wall. It's all part of the dying democrat party's desperate propaganda effort.

 

[Pogo]

Here's the deal, we know that the KKK was a democrat party creation <snip>

Here's the deal --- no we do not. We know that's USMB mythology tries to float that myth as the OP did here, but there's absolute Zero evidence. In fact his own link contradicts him in its first two sentences. And he's so dense that he reposted the same thing. TWICE.

Once again there is no evidence extant anywhere that the six founders of the original Klan (1865) NOR the founder of the revival one (1915) ---- had any political affiliations or activities at all. Zero. None.

the mid 20th century incarnation of the KKK was a political tool of the democrat party.

And here's the other deal: by the mid-20th century (April 23 1944 to be exact) the Klan had officially ceased to exist as an organization. It was done in the same way Al Capone was --- by the IRS. During the FDR Administration.

You think any part of that is "easily disproved" do you?

Go ahead. Demonstrate. I'll watch.

 

[Pogo]

It's easy to understand your denial, Forrest was the original Grand Wizard (Delegate to the 1868 DNC), Coolidge played The Birth of a Nation as the first movie to be shown in the White House and when you look at the statistical facts, Republican Senators and Congressman voted considerably more in favor for CRA from the 1860's all the way until the 1964 CRA.

But today we have the liberals many of whom post here on USMB like Pogo, Jake and RW who want you to believe none of this is true. No they want you to believe it has some weird twist and these are just coincidental FACTS that have nothing to do with the the DNC. I'll say it again, name the Southern Democrats (the 11 Confederate States) who became Southern Republicans over this 150+ year period of time, and to date you can only name 1, Strom Thurmond. That is statistically very weak considering the number of US Senators, US Congressman, State Senators, State Representatives, State Governors, etc... that have been elected.

The truth is that the DNC was and has been the strongest connection to the KKK from it's inception when it comes to our political parties, this is recorded history no matter how you try to manipulate it...

You are missing the point

It is not politicians switching parties but the electorate switching who they vote for

After Democrat LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, the South turned from Solid Democrat to Solid Republican

And here's the catalyst for that:

CRA '64
The original House version:

• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• >>> ALL SOUTHERNERS: 7-97 (6.7%--93.3%)

• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94 – 6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85 – 15%)
• >>> ALL NON-SOUTHERNERS: 283-33 (89.6%--11.4%)

The Senate version:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)
• ALL SOUTHERNERS: 1--21 (4.5%--95.5%)
• ALL NON-SOUTHERNERS: 72--6 (92.3%--7.7%)

Political party exclusive of region: D 94 R 85 .... not significant. Bipartisan agreement.

Region exclusive of political party: 8 in the South versus 96 everywhere else --- extremely signficant.

South: Dems and Repubs are agin' it.
Everywhere else: Dems and Repubs are for it.

 

[Syriusly]

Youtube- the last refuge of scoundrels

1960 Civil Rights Act- passed by Democrats in the House and Senate:
After several amendments, the House of Representatives approved the bill on March 24, 1960 by a vote of 311-109.[2][4] 179 Democrats and 132 Republicans voted Aye. 93 Democrats, 15 Republicans, and 1 Independent Democrat voted Nay. 2 Democrats and 1 Republican voted present.[5]

s.[3] After amendments in the Senate, H.R. 8601 was approved by the Senate on April 8, 1960 by a vote of 71-18.

 

[Little-Acorn]

A greater percentage of Republicans, in both the House and Senate, voted for the Civil Rights Act, than the percentage of Democrats.

House Democrats: 152-–96 (61%-39%)
House Republicans: 138–-34 (80%–20%)

Senate Democrats: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Senate Republicans: 27-6 (82%-18%)

Even though Democrats were in the majority in both houses, they would not have been able to pass it at all, unless such large majorities of Republicans also voted to pass. Fortunately the Republicans came through and saved the bill from the defeat Democrats alone would have given it.

Democrats have always supported racism. From their founding of the KKK, to their current majority membership in it, to the majority support of racist legislation in Congress even today.

If I were a Democrat, I'd try to fake as many excuses for not associating racism with Democrats as I could, just as the leftists in this thread do. The truth is just too painful for Democrats... as usual.

 

[Pogo]

From their founding of the KKK, to their current majority membership in it, to the majority support of racist legislation in Congress even today.

If I were a Democrat, I'd try to fake as many excuses for not associating racism with Democrats as I could

their founding of the KKK

Link?

their current majority membership in it

Link?

the majority support of racist legislation in Congress even today.

Link?


If I were making a valid point I'd have links and references to back it up.

I see you have no links or references. Three points, no basis.
Quelle surprise.

 

[rightwinger]

You are missing the point

No I'm not, name the progressive legislation that has helped the minorities?

It is not politicians switching parties but the electorate switching who they vote for

So now it's not about the party platforms? You just missed the message from our November elections. Keep it up and the DNC will be NON EXISTENT...

After Democrat LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act, the South turned from Solid Democrat to Solid Republican

I wonder why?!?!?! And those Democrats remained Democrats...

It still went right over your head

It was the REPUBLICAN platform that changed after the Civil Rights Bill.....opposed to affirmative action and busing

Pushing the buttons of racists......just like today

 

[NYcarbineer]

Political opponents to civil rights, desegregation, etc., in the 20th century were part of what was called the Conservative Coalition,

bi-partisan, CONSERVATIVE, and racist.

 

[rightwinger]

A greater percentage of Republicans, in both the House and Senate, voted for the Civil Rights Act, than the percentage of Democrats.

House Democrats: 152-–96 (61%-39%)
House Republicans: 138–-34 (80%–20%)

Senate Democrats: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Senate Republicans: 27-6 (82%-18%)

Even though Democrats were in the majority in both houses, they would not have been able to pass it at all, unless such large majorities of Republicans also voted to pass. Fortunately the Republicans came through and saved the bill from the defeat Democrats alone would have given it.

Democrats have always supported racism. From their founding of the KKK, to their current majority membership in it, to the majority support of racist legislation in Congress even today.

If I were a Democrat, I'd try to fake as many excuses for not associating racism with Democrats as I could, just as the leftists in this thread do. The truth is just too painful for Democrats... as usual.

Why do Republicans struggle so much with statistics?

Instead of breaking it down between Democrats and Republicans, break it down between north and south

Find a single Republican from the south that supported Civil Rights

 

[SuperDemocrat]

The KKK was started by former soldiers of the Confederacy,

which is the single most important reason you see so many conservatives so vigorously defend the display of the Confederate Flag.

Because some people really don't really care if someone wears the confederate flag or not until someone screams it is racist just because it may have meaning to people who believe in state's rights. Have you noticed how Obama implied the electorial college was racist? The democratic party is going to milk this racism thing to the very end.

 

[Pogo]

Have you noticed how Obama implied the electorial college was racist?

Do tell.

 

[JQPublic1]

Conservatism, has traditionally been associated with racism in this country no matter which party claims it!

Yeah if you believe everything the LMSM tells you, the Democrats gave birth to the KKK in the 1860's, the 1910's and the 1950's, this is recorded history...

I don't know what the LMSM is. I do know that the FIRST manifestation of the KKK occurred in the year 1865 and was formed by conservative men who were NOT citizens of the USA. Subsequent manifestations of the KKK are not origins.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

The Confederate Flag is a symbol of State Rights, which has little to do with Slavery. It honors all of those who fought for their state rights, and apparently offends all of those who don't understand what the Civil War was about. Lots of good reasons to love the Confederate Flag.

The Confederate flag is a symbol of the TRAITORS who made WAR against the United States of America, its People and the Constitution! Your revision of history has no rational truth or validity in the real world!

It's not revision if it's accurate. They fought for state rights against a President who believed the government didn't have enough power.

It's not revision if it's accurate.

Your first statement is obviously correct in and of its self, but is nothing more than an obfuscation on your part when held against our exchange for comparison!

Your second and last statement is yet another obfuscation using the euphemism of 'States Rights' as if it had nothing at all to do with the core issue of SLAVERY! The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was about that singular core 'States Rights' issue of SLAVERY! That predated Lincoln's election by 40 years when he was just 11 years old!

They fought for state rights against a President who believed the government didn't have enough power.

Now just what additional power was the New President-elect in 1860 seeking to take from South Carolina in December 1860 when that State seceded. Further, what laws were signed into law by Lincoln which took rights away from South Carolina before April 12, 1861 when that State started it's bombardment of Fort Sumter forcing the US forces within the fort to surrender the next day? What EXACTLY did Lincoln do when he was just a young boy, or as the President-elect or as the President BEFORE the Southern States began their TRAITOROUS REBELLION?

The fact of the matter is 'States Rights' was a dog whistle to euphemistically refer to slavery and was the rallying call of the anti-federalists at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, before ratification of the Constitution and afterward till today. The anti-federalists lost and Federalism won out over the old and dysfunctional Articles of Confederation! As I said in my first post to you in this thread;

The Confederate flag is a symbol of the TRAITORS who made WAR against the United States of America, its People and the Constitution! Your revision of history has no rational truth or validity in the real world!

Actually she said "until" so in effect you kinda supported her point.

It's not really accurate though. It would be inaccurate to say Slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War and equally inaccurate to say it was the only cause. The rift and rivalry between North and South was at base economic, and Slavery was an inseparable part of the South's dominating economy. It was a wedge between North and South since the country was founded and festered for decades until it could no longer be ignored and the whole thing boiled over.

But at base the concept of secession had also been festering for decades long before the Slavery question came to a head. South Carolinians were calling for secession at least as far back as 1828 over the Quincy Adams "Tariff of Abominations", which had nothing to do with slavery. So the seeds were already sown long before 1861. South Carolina, one will recall, was also the first state to take the step of secession, as well as the site of the first shots of the War.

So we could say the cause of the Civil War was technically an economic rift, but an essential and inseparable part of it was the question of Slavery and whether it would be allowed to continue, which directly affected that economy. Had Slavery not been in question, the economic rift would have still been present. How it would have resolved we can only guess. The North was beginning to urbanize and industrialize so change was inevitable in some form. And the various European and Latin American nations were themselves already doing away with Slavery so its days were already numbered.

Punkin is correct that the EP was a war measure. Our history books like to crow "Lincoln freed the slaves" but he really didn't. That wasn't done until the 13th Amendment after Lincoln was dead. What the EP did was free slaves inside the Confederacy that were living in Union-occupied territory ---- which gave him more soldiers.

You ignored Pogo's post again. Since you've avoided it twice now, you must be fully aware that it was correct. He explains it perfectly.

 

[JQPublic1]

Deflection..

Maybe we should ask NY since he is such an historical scholar-----> forget the KKK for a second..........remember when Kennedy had to send in the national guard, remember when all the water cannons were used on black people fighting for their rights? Which political party did virtually ALL of the people doing these transgressions belong to! Oh wait, wait, say it isn't so....you mean the charming, delightful, open minded, all inclusive DEMOCRATS?!?!?!?!?!

And now.........wait for it........we are going to hear all about how Democrats and Republicans switched sides, but this time, we are ready for them! Let us look back and see which politicians in control in the South switched party's-) If they didn't switch party's leftists, it didn't happen, now did it, lol. Be specific! And of course, we will show all the politicians who were in charge of the water cannons, and which political party they belonged to a little further down the road-) Once you delve into individual politicians, your whole phony theory falls apart, and you are laid bare as the party of racism!

And you do know that JFK was a DEMOCRAT President, don't YOU? A Democrat President sent troops to put down civil unrest wrought by White racists, not Democrats. There is no proof that the rioting White racists of that era were affiliated with any political party. You just assume they were without really knowing. But looking at the GOP today, I don't see much difference between the two when it comes to racial matters.Both parties fre full of racists.
Blacks are democrats because most of them are working class people who have a vested interest in labor and the collective bargaining apparatus that drives it. Most Blacks aren't liberal, they are just part of a labor force that is politically aligned with the Democratic Party. 75% of Backs live above the poverty level as a result of that strategy.

Ummm, really! Seriously? Ever hear of George Wallace? How about Bull Connor!

Folks, are these lefties that dumb, or do they think that we are that dumb not to catch them in their obvious, propaganda lies, lol!

Yes, I have heard of those two conservative democrats. Did you hear George Wallace refer to
the Freedom Riders as liberals although most were democrats too? Your attempt to make hatred and prejudice he national character of the Democratic Party fails miserably under closer scrutiny. And that held true even during the civil rights era. Republicans are quick to point the finger at conservative democrats of a bygone era while extolling the "virtues" of GOP conservatism today. For people of color, the key word here is "conservative." When a "conservative takes off his blue coat and dons a red jacket he remains a conservative.
Conservatism, has traditionally been associated with racism in this country no matter which party claims it!

Mostly agree although I would put it the opposite way. It's certainly possible to be conservative and not be racist (far as I know that would apply to Goldwater) --- but it's not possible to be racist and not be conservative.

The mistake the wags on this board constantly make is to ass ---ume that the label "Democrat" always means "liberal" and "Republican" always means "conservative". Not only is that not the case over historical what time, it's not even true on a single day.

I'll keep hammering the point until it sinks in for them --- the purpose of a political party is not to represent this or that ideology; it is to get elected.

Well, thanks for acknowledging the part you agree with. I wholeheartedly agree that it is possible to be conservative and not be a racist. But here's a twist you might not have thought of.

First allow me to ask a question. Are Black Christians who attend church regularly, have excellent family bread winners, live a middle class lifestyle and are law abiding differ in any way from so-called White conservatives? There is one difference that rushes to the front of my mind.
The Black conservatives, as defined by me , in general, are not associated with racism. Unlike their white Christian counterparts whose shepherds looked the other way when members of their flock were lynching Blacks and spreading terrorism throughout the south and midwest.
While that one example from the past serves me well , I'll navigate forward to the present:



The word conservative take on an entirely different meaning when applied to Black folks by White people. White conservatives tend to attach the general conservative label to any Black who stands with them on social issues. Clarence Thomas and Ben Carson are two glaring examples of that. But should we accept that limited definition when defining the core citizenry of the Black community? They certainly aren't liberals. And don't make me bring the ultra conservative Farrakhan and the NOI into the mix!

By partaking in political discussions with Black friends, I have concluded that Black people do not see themselves as either liberal or conservative. So I had to study their worldview to determine if their lifestyle was that of conservatism in the classic sense. Now here is where my empiricism comes into play. By comparing the classic definition of conservatism to the behavior of the average Black churchgoing, hard-working family, I was able to conclude unequivocally that a great number of Blacks are conservative. On the other hand my other study showed manyWhite guys, especially low information types, who claim to be conservative use the term as a euphemism for whiteness.

In that context, the term takes on racial overtones.

 

[rdean]

Again, why won't you guys answer the most obvious question?

This is how it goes so far. The South was mostly Democrat, and the north Republican. The Civil War happened and the Republicans in the north won. Since that time, the south is mostly Republican and the north mostly Democrat. So how did that happen? How did the northern Republicans move south and the southern Democrats move North? And how did the KKK, the Alt Right, the Confederates and the Aryan Nation end up part of the Republican Party?

Can you at least explain this obvious outcome? Until you answer this one simple question, all other arguments are moot.

 

[Syriusly]

The truth is that the DNC was and has been the strongest connection to the KKK from it's inception when it comes to our political parties, this is recorded history no matter how you try to manipulate it...

By by 'truth' you mean you haven't shown any connection at all.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The Confederate Flag is a symbol of State Rights, which has little to do with Slavery. It honors all of those who fought for their state rights, and apparently offends all of those who don't understand what the Civil War was about. Lots of good reasons to love the Confederate Flag.

The Confederate flag is a symbol of the TRAITORS who made WAR against the United States of America, its People and the Constitution! Your revision of history has no rational truth or validity in the real world!

It's not revision if it's accurate. They fought for state rights against a President who believed the government didn't have enough power.

It's not revision if it's accurate.

Your first statement is obviously correct in and of its self, but is nothing more than an obfuscation on your part when held against our exchange for comparison!

Your second and last statement is yet another obfuscation using the euphemism of 'States Rights' as if it had nothing at all to do with the core issue of SLAVERY! The Missouri Compromise of 1820 was about that singular core 'States Rights' issue of SLAVERY! That predated Lincoln's election by 40 years when he was just 11 years old!

They fought for state rights against a President who believed the government didn't have enough power.

Now just what additional power was the New President-elect in 1860 seeking to take from South Carolina in December 1860 when that State seceded. Further, what laws were signed into law by Lincoln which took rights away from South Carolina before April 12, 1861 when that State started it's bombardment of Fort Sumter forcing the US forces within the fort to surrender the next day? What EXACTLY did Lincoln do when he was just a young boy, or as the President-elect or as the President BEFORE the Southern States began their TRAITOROUS REBELLION?

The fact of the matter is 'States Rights' was a dog whistle to euphemistically refer to slavery and was the rallying call of the anti-federalists at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, before ratification of the Constitution and afterward till today. The anti-federalists lost and Federalism won out over the old and dysfunctional Articles of Confederation! As I said in my first post to you in this thread;

The Confederate flag is a symbol of the TRAITORS who made WAR against the United States of America, its People and the Constitution! Your revision of history has no rational truth or validity in the real world!

Actually she said "until" so in effect you kinda supported her point.

It's not really accurate though. It would be inaccurate to say Slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War and equally inaccurate to say it was the only cause. The rift and rivalry between North and South was at base economic, and Slavery was an inseparable part of the South's dominating economy. It was a wedge between North and South since the country was founded and festered for decades until it could no longer be ignored and the whole thing boiled over.

But at base the concept of secession had also been festering for decades long before the Slavery question came to a head. South Carolinians were calling for secession at least as far back as 1828 over the Quincy Adams "Tariff of Abominations", which had nothing to do with slavery. So the seeds were already sown long before 1861. South Carolina, one will recall, was also the first state to take the step of secession, as well as the site of the first shots of the War.

So we could say the cause of the Civil War was technically an economic rift, but an essential and inseparable part of it was the question of Slavery and whether it would be allowed to continue, which directly affected that economy. Had Slavery not been in question, the economic rift would have still been present. How it would have resolved we can only guess. The North was beginning to urbanize and industrialize so change was inevitable in some form. And the various European and Latin American nations were themselves already doing away with Slavery so its days were already numbered.

Punkin is correct that the EP was a war measure. Our history books like to crow "Lincoln freed the slaves" but he really didn't. That wasn't done until the 13th Amendment after Lincoln was dead. What the EP did was free slaves inside the Confederacy that were living in Union-occupied territory ---- which gave him more soldiers.

You ignored Pogo's post again. Since you've avoided it twice now, you must be fully aware that it was correct. He explains it perfectly.

I haven't avoided Pogo's post, rather it was irrelevant vis-à-vis OUR exchange and of no merit worthy of response being a somewhat misaimed response to my exchange with you. But you have definitely avoided responding to ANY of my posts with any substance whatsoever. The proof is in your post to which I'm now responding, which I had inadvertently overlooked, that appears on page 5 and Pogo's post you are so anxious for me to make a reply came much later on page #20 which makes it doubly irrelevant being ~140 posts beyond our earlier exchange, to which this and my last post is directed!

Given you display an absolute resistance to responding to any points of ANY of my posts, I can only conclude you are unable to refute with any degree of definitive substance any of those points made or positions taken. You opinions are also irrelevant and are nothing more than self-serving ploys to avoid taking responsibility for your own words!

Again;
The Confederate flag is a symbol of the TRAITORS who made WAR against the United States of America, its People and the Constitution! Your revision of history has no rational truth or validity in the real world!

 

[Syriusly]

[o. Have you noticed how Obama implied the electorial college was racist? \.

No- I tend to ignore right wing nut jobs.