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

[Syriusly]

151 years ago white men founded the KKK
Therefore all white men are supporters of the KKK

151 years ago Southerners founded the KKK.
Therefore all Southerners are supporters of the KKK

151 years ago Confederate veterans founded the KKK
Therefore all descendants of Confederate veterans are supporters of the KKK

IF you want to attack the Democratic Party for a supposed link to the KKK of 150 years- then you are a hypocrite if you do not also attack:

• all white men
• all Southerners
• all descendants of Confederate soldiers and citizens
• all fans of the Confederate States of America.

I look forward to seeing all of the condemnations of white men, Southerners, and the Confederate States by the OP and others.

 

[g5000]

Of the states which seceded, five of them issued declarations of the causes of their succession.

In those five declarations, they mention slavery no less than 83 times!

Mississippi: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

 

[g5000]

In 1860 states rights and the right to remain a slave state were synonymous. They were equivalent.

Wake up.

Not synonymous, no, but the the right to have slaves did fall under that category.

If slavery had nothing to do with secession, why was it only the major slave states that seceded?

Coincidence? lol

I phrased it wrong, it was a factor, but not the biggest factor. It was only brought to the forefront of issues when Lincoln tried to free them as a war measure, for more man-power and to cripple the southern economy.

It was not just the biggest factor, it was the only factor.

It wasn't the only factor, it wasn't even brought to the forefront until Lincoln wanted to abolish it as a war measure. Secession had been discussed long before the war, as Pogo mentioned earlier.

You have been seriously misinformed. It was all about slavery.

Those discussions of secession before the war were always in the context of slavery.

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

Read those.

Slavery, and nothing but slavery.

Some seriously fucked up propagandists have started this revisionist bullshit that slavery wasn't the main cause of secession. They have filled your head with lies. You have to be profoundly stupid to think it wasn't about slavery.

Seriously stupid.

Once again the propaganda mills have absolutely depended on the total ignorance of the rubes in order to pass off complete bullshit.

 

[g5000]

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

Un-fucking-equivocal.

 

[francoHFW]

You mean like Apalachia?

like chicago

Racist GOPers hold back the blacks DUH. Like all the KKKers NOW. 150 years ago is just brainwashed stupidity.

you should get out then and clean your stupid! Cause kkk is yours bubba. you have to live with it. I personally will keep telling you how bad people demturds are. The majority are the scum of society and unfit to be included in human kind. What's funny is they think they are the footprint for man. When in reality they are the kumquat of life.

Dude, BTW, you can call me racist all day long. It isn't close to correct, cause we have your parties history and facts support you as the true racist kumquats.

Did I call you that? But they're mainly GOPers DUHHHHHHH. We're talking 21st century, not 150 years ago. That's for brainwashed functional morons like YOU.

you have no fking evidence and babbling on like we care about your rants. white supremacy and all that garbage out of the mouths of those that bred it, libturds. funny shit to say the least.

You Fox/Rushbot don't care about reality lol. When 50% of GOPers believe Obama is a muslim Kenyan and our Trump man in NYS Paladino says Michelle is a man who should go back to Tanzania and marry a gorilla named,Max....Let alone half the USMB GOPers being blatant bigots....HELLO?!?

 

[GWV5903]

All of them

You can't even name one, two of them have been named in this thread...

 

[jc456]

like chicago

Racist GOPers hold back the blacks DUH. Like all the KKKers NOW. 150 years ago is just brainwashed stupidity.

you should get out then and clean your stupid! Cause kkk is yours bubba. you have to live with it. I personally will keep telling you how bad people demturds are. The majority are the scum of society and unfit to be included in human kind. What's funny is they think they are the footprint for man. When in reality they are the kumquat of life.

Dude, BTW, you can call me racist all day long. It isn't close to correct, cause we have your parties history and facts support you as the true racist kumquats.

Did I call you that? But they're mainly GOPers DUHHHHHHH. We're talking 21st century, not 150 years ago. That's for brainwashed functional morons like YOU.

you have no fking evidence and babbling on like we care about your rants. white supremacy and all that garbage out of the mouths of those that bred it, libturds. funny shit to say the least.

You Fox/Rushbot don't care about reality lol. When 50% of GOPers believe Obama is a muslim Kenyan and our Trump man in NYS Paladino says Michelle is a man who should go back to Tanzania and marry a gorilla named,Max....Let alone half the USMB GOPers being blatant bigots....HELLO?!?

 

[paperview]

 

[paperview]

Georgia Senator Robert Toombs:

"In 1790 we had less than 800,000 slaves. Under our mild and humane administration of the system, they have increased above 4 million. The country has expanded to meet this growing want; and Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri have received this increasing tide of African labor; before the end of this century, at precisely the same rate of increase, the Africans among us in a subordinate condition will amount to 11 million persons. What shall be done with them?

We must expand or perish.

We are constrained by an inexorable necessity to accept expansion or extermination.

Those who tell you that the territorial question is an abstraction, that you can never colonize another territory without the African slave trade are both deaf and blind to the history of the last sixty years. All just reasoning, all past history condemn the fallacy.

The North understand it better - they have told us for twenty years that their object was to pen up slavery within its present limits - surround it with a border of free states, and, like the scorpion surrounded with fire, they will make it sting itself to death. One thing at least is certain, that whatever may be the effect of your exclusion from the territories, there is no dispute but that the North mean it, and adopt it as a measure hostile to slavery upon this point."

- Robert Toombs, December 7, 1860

 

[paperview]

In Slaves We Trust. Their foundation, their cornerstone, the engine that ran the southern economy, their lifeblood working the fields, emblazoned right on their currency.

Before the war.

During:

 

[g5000]

It was all about slavery. And once again Southerners were duped by the greedy idiot rich, the slave owners/plantation owners...

It had nothing to do with slavery until Lincoln decided to free the slaves as a war measure.

It had to do with the fears of southern aristocrats and their dupes. The usual conservative bigot operation.

You must be missing the part where they weren't conservatives, but Democrats that were keeping slaves. Hence your party being the one that filled the KKK and passed the Jim Crow laws~

The South has always been conservative throughout. You can't have slaves and not be conservative. It demands a hierarchical view of humans. You're perhaps too young to have seen enough of the world to know this but trust me. I grew up a child of parents from each side of the Mason Dixon line. I was immersed in both from an early age. White Southerners, while as a group conservatives, weren't Democrats because they were conservative but in spite of it. To get this you have to grasp something of the emotional history.

When the Civil War began there was no Republican Party in the South. Lincoln's name didn't even appear on ballots there in either election he ran in. The party was only six years old and concentrated its efforts in the North and Midwest, where it knew its support would be. Consequently in 1861 there were no Republicans in the South.

When the War was over the Republicans were seen culturally as the heavy hand of federal gummint (they were after all largely Whigs) and most deeply as the "party of Lincoln", the man who had defeated and humiliated it. Consequently it became unthinkable for white Southerners, who very much saw themselves as playing defense, to be a Republican, for a long long time. 99 years to be exact. As a result of that, the South was in effect a one-party State. You wanted to run for office, your choices were: (1) run as a Democrat, or (2) lose. That had to do much more with tradition than with any ideology. Tradition and the emotional baggage of Lincoln's name.

But that conservatism was always at odds with the rest of the Democratic Party's base, which was to its shame trying to be all things to all people to amass votes (which is after all what a political party exists for). Case in point, George Wallace in the 1960s constantly railing against "Liberals" -- he's talking about the other side of his own bipolar party. Case in point, the Dixiecrats who walked out of the Democratic convention in 1948 and ran their own candidates --- even got Harry Truman pulled off the ballot in at least one state. They did that because they were hearing way too much Liberalism from Truman and from then-Minneapolis Mayor Hubert Humphrey who made an impassioned speech for civil rights.

This bipolar tension was always there, even back to 1860 when Southerners also walked out of that year's convention and again ran their own ticket.

The short version --- "conservative" doesn't necessarily mean "Republican", even when Republicans became conservatives.

That all didn't change until 1964 (there's your 99 years) when Strom Thurmnd did the unthinkable and became a Republican. And he did that because the Democrats just weren't conservative enough and he couldn't hack it any more. It was a big step at the time because it was a huge break with tradition.

(Thurmond was a bit of a maverick though --- after he endorsed Eisenhower in 1952 the state Democrats kicked him off the ballot and he had to run as a write-in ..... which he won.)

The last part of your post ---- no, the Klan wasn't founded by or comprised of "Democrats" except to the point where they may have been coincidental. But it required no political party. Were some of the Klan also Democrats? Almost certainly. If you were white and registered with a party at all, you were usually a Democrat, whether you were a racist or not. Just as in Maine (the largest chapter outside the South) if you were a Klanner you were probably a Republican, again simply because they dominated Maine for the same hundred year period (1855-1955). But that doesn't make either party a causation.

You're wrong, name the Democrats who became Republicans from the 11 Confederate states who switched parties as you claim from 1861 to 2016...

The Southern conservatives have moved from the Democratic to the Republican party through attrition. It wasn't done in one generation by way of defections, although there were some. Strom Thurmond being the most notable.

A Southern conservative more than 50 years ago was likely to be a Democrat. Today, a Southern conservative is more likely to be a Republican.

How do you think that happened, genius?

Or do you deny those Southern Democrats were conservatives back then. Please do. It would make my day.

 

[GWV5903]

Pogo thanks for playing along, 2 of these were never Democrat candidates, Condalezza Rice shows your desperation and she never ran for an elected office, so she really doesn't belong on here, but since you're so desperate I'll just leave it, only point out your flaw. So you can name 13 out of over 1,500 elected politicians over a 150 year period who changed from being a Democrat to being a Republican. It's safe to say you dug pretty hard to find these and it makes my point, over 90% of the elected politicians in the original 11 Confederate States were Democrats from the Civil War into the late '70's and remained Democrats, never switching parties...

Strom Thurmond - correct
Jesse Helms- correct
Trent Lott- wrong
Richard Shelby- correct
Sonny Perdue- correct
Dave Treen- correct
Buddy Roemer- correct
Billy Tauzin- correct
Richard Baker- correct
Woody Jenkins- correct
Rick Perry- correct
Bob Martínez- correct
Bob Barr- wrong
Phil Gramm- correct
Condoleeza Rice- correct and I like this quote of hers ("My father joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did.")

George Wallace Jr.- correct
David Duke- correct

 

[g5000]

Georgia Senator Robert Toombs:

"In 1790 we had less than 800,000 slaves. Under our mild and humane administration of the system, they have increased above 4 million. The country has expanded to meet this growing want; and Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri have received this increasing tide of African labor; before the end of this century, at precisely the same rate of increase, the Africans among us in a subordinate condition will amount to 11 million persons. What shall be done with them?

We must expand or perish.

We are constrained by an inexorable necessity to accept expansion or extermination.

Those who tell you that the territorial question is an abstraction, that you can never colonize another territory without the African slave trade are both deaf and blind to the history of the last sixty years. All just reasoning, all past history condemn the fallacy.

The North understand it better - they have told us for twenty years that their object was to pen up slavery within its present limits - surround it with a border of free states, and, like the scorpion surrounded with fire, they will make it sting itself to death. One thing at least is certain, that whatever may be the effect of your exclusion from the territories, there is no dispute but that the North mean it, and adopt it as a measure hostile to slavery upon this point."

- Robert Toombs, December 7, 1860

Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 18

 

[g5000]

Again, the conservative Democrats didn't become conservative Republicans by defection. They became that way by attrition. The sons of conservative Democrats grew up to be conservative Republicans.

A Southerner who is a conservative today didn't defect from the Democrats and become a Republican. He has always been a Republican.

The Klan has always been a far right wing Christian terrorist organization. Party affiliation is a sideshow for retards put on by their propaganda mills to keep them in everlasting ignorance of the right wing Christian DNA of that klub.

In the North, you were more likely to find a Republican Klansman than a Democratic one. And vice versa in the South.

It's all about where the Republican or Democratic Klansman resides on the political spectrum. And it has always been on the Right for the Knights.

That's what eats at the guts of the tards. So they avoid this truth at all costs, even at the expense of publicly shouting out their stupidity with topics like this one. Their anguish over these facts causing them to reflexively start idiotic topics like this one at least once a month in a futile attempt to bury their shame under a mountain of bullshit.

 

[GWV5903]

Any name in 1964 vs any name now, dupes. And some just switched parties DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. Google it DUH.

Dig deep, your buddy Pogo did and only came up with 13 over a 150 year period, pretty weak...

 

[GWV5903]

The Southern conservatives have moved from the Democratic to the Republican party through attrition. It wasn't done in one generation by way of defections, although there were some. Strom Thurmond being the most notable.

A Southern conservative more than 50 years ago was likely to be a Democrat. Today, a Southern conservative is more likely to be a Republican.

How do you think that happened, genius?

Or do you deny those Southern Democrats were conservatives back then. Please do. It would make my day.

The time frame is over a 150 year period, not just 50 years ago, genius...

Try keeping up...

 

[g5000]

The Southern conservatives have moved from the Democratic to the Republican party through attrition. It wasn't done in one generation by way of defections, although there were some. Strom Thurmond being the most notable.

A Southern conservative more than 50 years ago was likely to be a Democrat. Today, a Southern conservative is more likely to be a Republican.

How do you think that happened, genius?

Or do you deny those Southern Democrats were conservatives back then. Please do. It would make my day.

The time frame is over a 150 year period, not just 50 years ago, genius...

Try keeping up...

Yes, but the transition for the conservative Southern Democrats didn't start until 50 years ago, genius.

Until about 1958 or so, both parties had an equal number of liberals and conservatives.

Learn some American history, would ya? Instead of getting your "knowledge" from propaganda mills.

 

[Russ Alllah Gehry]

RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes
By Mike Allen
Thursday, July 14, 2005

-

RNC Chair Michael Steele Confesses to Race-Based Southern Strategy
by Tommy Christopher | 3:23 pm, April 23rd, 2010

-

RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes

RNC Chair Michael Steele Confesses to Race-Based Southern Strategy

You start out in 1954 by saying, “******, ******, ******.” By 1968 you can’t say “******”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “******, ******.”

Now, the same indefatigable researcher who brought us Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” remarks, James Carter IV, has dug up the entire forty-two-minute interview from which that quote derives. Here, The Nation publishes it in its entirety for the very first time.

Listen to the full forty-two-minute conversation with Atwater: Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy

All facts

no replies


way to go righties

 

[g5000]

All this bluster to try to bury the fact the KKK is a far right Christian terrorist organization.

And always has been.

All this bluster to try to bury the fact the KKK was both Republicans and Democrats.

The poor rubes just can't absorb this truth.

I would pity them if they were just ignorant. But they do this on purpose, so I have nothing but contempt.

 

[GWV5903]

Yes, but the transition for the conservative Southern Democrats didn't start until 50 years ago, genius.

Hey Dumb Dumb, they still didn't convert to being Republicans at any significant percentage, Dumb Dumb...

But knock yourself out trying to make that work...

Until about 1958 or so, both parties had an equal number of liberals and conservatives.

Not really, but keep telling yourself this...

Learn some American history, would ya? Instead of getting your "knowledge" from propaganda mills.

I have forgotten more than you will ever know, move along...