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

[Pogo]

Oh please. Whittle Bill on YouTube? I'll tear that poser to shreds. See if you can come up with a legitimate source.

Actually see if you can answer the damn question I posted instead of running away from it.

Here's your missing Democratic history.

When you have to resort to YouTubes ----- it shows you can't support a point.

STILL can't answer the question. Because it has no answer. Because it isn't there. Which I already knew.

Videos are just another form of communicating information, pogo. You are getting your ass handed to you, not because I am more intelligent than you, although I probably am, but because what I am posting is the truth. Your heritage is that of a terrorists, racist, thugs. Deal with it because the weight of its 150 year history is overwhelming and will crush you. Your call.

You've had what --- three chances now to cite the citation in what you claim exists in the 1871 document? And yet you can't ----- you traipse over to YouTube where anyone can make any kind of video making any kind of point (or myth) they like without any kind of documentation.
That's because you don't HAVE the documentation. This ploy is as transparent as a new pane of glass.

I'm pretty happy that I've made my case. You on the other hand have no case other than dismissing your defeat and ignoring the incongruities of the cold hard history of historical facts that I have presented to you. I believe you are making a mistake, but it is your mistake to make. I will be more than happy to use your opposition to reality as a platform to share this information with others. Your call.

You made no "case" Elmer. You claimed a document says something it doesn't say and then got called on it.
Next time vet your own material to make sure it works because you can bet someone else already has.

 

[ding]

Note the scumbag in the upper right-hand corner.

k
Democrats proposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
A majority of Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
A Democrat signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act into law.

Who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
The 1964 GOP Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater.
President Ronald Reagan
President George Bush

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”

Lyndon Johnson

The Democratic Party's Two-Facedness of Race Relations | Huffington Post

Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson III, By Robert A. Caro, p662

That's LBJ supposedly speaking to Richard Russell, a Southern segregationist, code-switching to get his point across, about the 1957 civil rights bill. He did that a lot -- even to the point of pronouncing the word "negro" differently to different Southerners to match their own dialect. That's the same 1957 bill that I alluded to a few posts up, where LBJ earned charges of "betrayal" from his fellow Southerners yet got the bill passed after cajoling them and came up personally at least smelling like a rose even if it was at their expense.

Every single Democratic President could have ended the horror of your terrorist past at any time, but they didn't. They had more than enough support from Republicans to do so.

 

[Pogo]

There are 13 Congressional Volumes which detail how the KKK was formed as the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party for the express purpose of taking back their statehouses from BLACK REPUBLICANS through force and intimidation.

Full text of "Report of the Joint select committee appointed to inquire in to the condition of affairs in the late insurrectionary states : so far as regards the execution of the laws, and the safety of the lives and property of the citizens of the United States and Testimony taken"

Uh -----nnnnnno, there are not.

Oh there are the Congressional documents. I've got 'em right here, seen 'em before. But they don't say what you claim here. They don't go into the formation of the Klan at all at that time. Prove me wrong. Give me a citation. Page number.

See, I've already been down this road. There's no there there. Go ahead --- find it.

Ku Klux Klan Conspiracy 1871 Congressional Testimony Documents

7,012 pages of Congressional testimony published in 1872 on the Ku Klux Klan activity, archived on two CD-ROMs.

In 1869, a federal grand jury declared the Ku Klux Klan to be a terrorist organization. In January 1871, Pennsylvania Republican senator John Scott convened a committee, which took testimony from witnesses about Klan atrocities. In 1872, the U.S. Congress published the 13 volume "Report of the Joint Select Committee Appointed to Inquire in to the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States." Historians often referred to these volumes as the KKK Testimony.

Yeah yeah, I already have the document, since you're not the first asshat to float this myth without checking to make sure it was there.

I did. It isn't.

 

[paperview]

Oh please. Whittle Bill on YouTube? I'll tear that poser to shreds. See if you can come up with a legitimate source.

Actually see if you can answer the damn question I posted instead of running away from it.

Here's your missing Democratic history.

When you have to resort to YouTubes ----- it shows you can't support a point.

STILL can't answer the question. Because it has no answer. Because it isn't there. Which I already knew.

Videos are just another form of communicating information, pogo. You are getting your ass handed to you, not because I am more intelligent than you, although I probably am, but because what I am posting is the truth. Your heritage is that of a terrorists, racist, thugs. Deal with it because the weight of its 150 year history is overwhelming and will crush you. Your call.

Pogo is killing you -- and you can't even answer his simple question.

You've been exposed, gump.

I can tell from your lack of objectivity and intellectual response that you are a low paid worker bee.

Listen to the newb - ad homing away...and still not producing the information requested by Pogo.

Wassamatter, can't do it?

I see you're quite the worker bee yourself, here about 65 days and almost 5,500 posts.

Yikes.

 

[Pogo]

There are 13 Congressional Volumes which detail how the KKK was formed as the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party for the express purpose of taking back their statehouses from BLACK REPUBLICANS through force and intimidation.

Full text of "Report of the Joint select committee appointed to inquire in to the condition of affairs in the late insurrectionary states : so far as regards the execution of the laws, and the safety of the lives and property of the citizens of the United States and Testimony taken"

Uh -----nnnnnno, there are not.

Oh there are the Congressional documents. I've got 'em right here, seen 'em before. But they don't say what you claim here. They don't go into the formation of the Klan at all at that time. Prove me wrong. Give me a citation. Page number.

See, I've already been down this road. There's no there there. Go ahead --- find it.

Of course the 13 Congressional Volumes prove that the KKK was the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.

Ku Klux Klan - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

WGBH American Experience . U.S. Grant: Warrior | PBS

Oh please. Whittle Bill on YouTube? I'll tear that poser to shreds. See if you can come up with a legitimate source.

Actually see if you can answer the damn question I posted instead of running away from it.

This Wittle Bill video is actually one of my favorite pieces of low-hanging fruit. Seen this before too. He actually goes out of his way to whine that Lincoln didn't get any votes in the South (he did, but not Electoral votes, a distinction that seems over his head). He neglects to mention that the six-year-old Republican Party didn't even put Lincoln's name on ballots in the South. He wasn't a candidate there.

In those days you didn't get a single ballot listing every candidate for every office --- you got a ballot printed by the political party with all their candidates on it. Whelp --- the Republican Party hadn't done that in the South in 1856 with Frémont, and it didn't do it in 1860 with Lincoln (or in 1864 either for that matter --- Lincoln wasn't even on a ballot in his own state of Kentucky until 1864). The Party didn't bother to do that because it concentrated its resources in the North and Midwest, calculating (correctly) that that's where their support was and betting they could amass enough votes from that area to carry an election -- which they did.

Wittle Bill also fails to mention that while Republican Lincoln got zero of the South's then-88 electoral votes, the Democratic candidate Stephen Douglas got exactly the same number from the South --- zero. Wonder why he forgets to mention that. Maybe because he's a pilot and not a historian.

Here's the deal Wittle Bill ------ I won't tell you how to fly a fucking plane......

 

[Pogo]

There are 13 Congressional Volumes which detail how the KKK was formed as the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party for the express purpose of taking back their statehouses from BLACK REPUBLICANS through force and intimidation.

Full text of "Report of the Joint select committee appointed to inquire in to the condition of affairs in the late insurrectionary states : so far as regards the execution of the laws, and the safety of the lives and property of the citizens of the United States and Testimony taken"

Uh -----nnnnnno, there are not.

Oh there are the Congressional documents. I've got 'em right here, seen 'em before. But they don't say what you claim here. They don't go into the formation of the Klan at all at that time. Prove me wrong. Give me a citation. Page number.

See, I've already been down this road. There's no there there. Go ahead --- find it.

Of course the 13 Congressional Volumes prove that the KKK was the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.

Ku Klux Klan - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

WGBH American Experience . U.S. Grant: Warrior | PBS

Oh please. Whittle Bill on YouTube? I'll tear that poser to shreds. See if you can come up with a legitimate source.

Actually see if you can answer the damn question I posted instead of running away from it.

I can go on for weeks with never having to repost the same thing. I can parade historical accounts, historians, historical documents and public record personal testimony. I can go on and on and on. Let's go.

Then it's odd you keep resorting to the candyass bastion of YouTube.

You got docs -- bring 'em on. I challenged anyone anywhere, both in this thread and way before, to show me any political connections for Capt. John B. Kennedy, Capt. John Lester, Frank McCord, Richard Reed, Calvin Jones or James Crowe. Whatcha got? Or for that matter any racial or political motivations for any of them. Whatcha got?

How 'bout the bonus track --- any political activity or affiliation for William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons?
Again ---- whatcha got? Something a bit more tangible than YouFuckingTube if you please.

Bring it.

 

[paperview]

There are 13 Congressional Volumes which detail how the KKK was formed as the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party for the express purpose of taking back their statehouses from BLACK REPUBLICANS through force and intimidation.

Full text of "Report of the Joint select committee appointed to inquire in to the condition of affairs in the late insurrectionary states : so far as regards the execution of the laws, and the safety of the lives and property of the citizens of the United States and Testimony taken"

Uh -----nnnnnno, there are not.

Oh there are the Congressional documents. I've got 'em right here, seen 'em before. But they don't say what you claim here. They don't go into the formation of the Klan at all at that time. Prove me wrong. Give me a citation. Page number.

See, I've already been down this road. There's no there there. Go ahead --- find it.

Of course the 13 Congressional Volumes prove that the KKK was the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.

Ku Klux Klan - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

WGBH American Experience . U.S. Grant: Warrior | PBS

Oh please. Whittle Bill on YouTube? I'll tear that poser to shreds. See if you can come up with a legitimate source.

Actually see if you can answer the damn question I posted instead of running away from it.

This Wittle Bill video is actually one of my favorite pieces of low-hanging fruit. Seen this before too. He actually goes out of his way to whine that Lincoln didn't get any votes in the South (he did, but not Electoral votes, a distinction that seems over his head). He neglects to mention that the six-year-old Republican Party didn't even put Lincoln's name on ballots in the South. He wasn't a candidate there.

In those days you didn't get a single ballot listing every candidate for every office --- you got a ballot printed by the political party with all their candidates on it. Whelp --- the Republican Party hadn't done that in the South in 1856 with Frémont, and it didn't do it in 1860 with Lincoln (or in 1864 either for that matter --- Lincoln wasn't even on a ballot in his own state of Kentucky until 1864). The Party didn't bother to do that because it concentrated its resources in the North and Midwest, calculating (correctly) that that's where their support was and betting they could amass enough votes from that area to carry an election -- which they did.

Wittle Bill also fails to mention that while Republican Lincoln got zero of the South's then-88 electoral votes, the Democratic candidate Stephen Douglas got exactly the same number from the South --- zero. Wonder why he forgets to mention that. Maybe because he's a pilot and not a historian.

Here's the deal Wittle Bill ------ I won't tell you how to fly a fucking plane......

I gave up trying to watch that mess after a few minutes...I did read the accompanying write up though.

Some funnyass shit there.

"...after Republicans—including Republican Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.—finally won the civil rights battle against the racist Democrats."

 

[paperview]

I betcha dingo here prolly thinks MLK, Jr. was a republican too.

 

[emilynghiem]

America used really to be a scary country, still is partially. I imagine 150 years ago if you had a darker skin you had to be afraid, really afraid.

150 years ago at least in the South, it was chaos. The land and its entire economic infrastructure was devastated. Hundreds of thousands of breadwinners were dead and many more physically crippled by new arms technology. Whole systems of employment and basic finding a meal were upset. And an occupying army had the land under military rule while freed slaves competed for elusive jobs and living space. To this add an influx of non-military opportunists looking to exploit the devastation (known as 'carpetbaggers').

All of these elements were targets of Southern backlash, sometimes as individuals, sometimes as loosely organized parties for a specific occasion, sometimes as ongoing organizations such as infiltrated the Klan --- which was one of at least two dozen such regional vigilante organizations.

So yes it would have been dicey to have darker skin, or to be wearing a blue military uniform, or even to be talking with a Northern accent.

Most African Americans vote nowadays democratic so the roles are reversed eventhogh the Democrats founded the KKK its now different. Is anyone as stupid as to buy into "democrats founded the klan so now they are racist"

Democrats didn't found the Klan though. Six ex-Confederate soldiers founded it. They did so as a social club, not for any political purpose, and they had no known political affiliations anyway. This is just another OP making up myths.

Dear Pogo and Edgetho
My understanding of the Klan was it arose from a citizens patrol afraid of crime and backlash against whites by loose numbers of freed slaves with access to weapons who had no means of support and no education, but relied on either charity or robbing others.

What started as defense against crimes quickly turned to lynch mobs.

So I would compare to post war Germany where criminal mobs loose on the streets led to the rise of Hitler. People wanted safety from crime and chaos run amok with no law and order.

So what started as imposing law and order turned out to be strong armed dictatorship that didn't respect due process but went overboard lynching people by association by label.

One extreme to the other.
But the intention was originally to secure the people afraid of criminal mobs. In the post war South the fear was black crimes and mobs so the blacks were targeted as potential criminals. In post war Germany Hitler targeted not just Jews to blame for economic monopoly oppressing the masses, but Gypsies, disabled and other "undesirables" estimated about 2 million nonjews counted in the genocide numbers.

I would go with Pogos take that it was originally in response to mob crimes and fear of blacks running free with guns and no means of legal support.

Edgetho this is the first I heard the Klan was purely political against Republicans and not blacks per se.
Could it be both, that the lynch mobs rose in reaction to fear of black criminal mobs, and the political organization arose in opposition to party leadership. One part was political and one part was physical response to criminal threats against property and security. Could it be both combined?

 

[2aguy]

There are 13 Congressional Volumes which detail how the KKK was formed as the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party for the express purpose of taking back their statehouses from BLACK REPUBLICANS through force and intimidation.

Full text of "Report of the Joint select committee appointed to inquire in to the condition of affairs in the late insurrectionary states : so far as regards the execution of the laws, and the safety of the lives and property of the citizens of the United States and Testimony taken"

Uh -----nnnnnno, there are not.

Oh there are the Congressional documents. I've got 'em right here, seen 'em before. But they don't say what you claim here. They don't go into the formation of the Klan at all at that time. Prove me wrong. Give me a citation. Page number.

See, I've already been down this road. There's no there there. Go ahead --- find it.

Of course the 13 Congressional Volumes prove that the KKK was the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.

Ku Klux Klan - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

WGBH American Experience . U.S. Grant: Warrior | PBS

Oh please. Whittle Bill on YouTube? I'll tear that poser to shreds. See if you can come up with a legitimate source.

Actually see if you can answer the damn question I posted instead of running away from it.

This Wittle Bill video is actually one of my favorite pieces of low-hanging fruit. Seen this before too. He actually goes out of his way to whine that Lincoln didn't get any votes in the South (he did, but not Electoral votes, a distinction that seems over his head). He neglects to mention that the six-year-old Republican Party didn't even put Lincoln's name on ballots in the South. He wasn't a candidate there.

In those days you didn't get a single ballot listing every candidate for every office --- you got a ballot printed by the political party with all their candidates on it. Whelp --- the Republican Party hadn't done that in the South in 1856 with Frémont, and it didn't do it in 1860 with Lincoln (or in 1864 either for that matter --- Lincoln wasn't even on a ballot in his own state of Kentucky until 1864). The Party didn't bother to do that because it concentrated its resources in the North and Midwest, calculating (correctly) that that's where their support was and betting they could amass enough votes from that area to carry an election -- which they did.

Wittle Bill also fails to mention that while Republican Lincoln got zero of the South's then-88 electoral votes, the Democratic candidate Stephen Douglas got exactly the same number from the South --- zero. Wonder why he forgets to mention that. Maybe because he's a pilot and not a historian.

Here's the deal Wittle Bill ------ I won't tell you how to fly a fucking plane......

None of the southerners would stand as his electors.....

The democrat party was the party of slavery....you cannot deny that....it is the truth.....lie all you want.

 

[Pogo]

Coupla course corrections:

First off, the KKK was NOT formed to fight, lynch or otherwise harm Blacks.

Blacks were no threat to the South. At all.

The KKK was formed to fight, murder and lynch WHITE Republicans.

True that the Klan was not formed to fight, lynch or otherwise harm --- anybody. It was a simple social club. That element came later --- 1866/1867 as I've posted earlier, from elements that already existed even before the Civil War. See post 865.

Specifically from that passage:

>> .... The [1867] Nashville Klan convention was called to grapple with these problems by creating a chain of command and deciding just what sort of organization the Klan would be. The meeting gave birth to the official philosophy of white supremacy as the fundamental creed of the Ku Klux Klan. Throughout the summer of 1867 the Invisible Empire changed, shedding the antics that had brought laughter during its parades and other public appearances, and instead taking on the full nature of a secret and powerful force with a sinister purpose.

All the now-familiar tactics of the Klan date from this period — the threats delivered to blacks, radicals and other enemies warning them to leave town; the night raids on individuals they singled out for rougher treatment; and the mass demonstrations of masked and robed Klansmen designed to cast their long shadow of fear over a troubled community. <<​

Whether blacks were no threat to the South, well those whose world was turned upside down by the War and were now competing with, or forced to pay, those freed slaves in an entirely new economic paradigm didn't see it that way.

Finally -- again it was formed as a social club, but the element that soon and infamously took it over wasn't targeting any kind of political party, it was targeting what it saw as intruders and sycophants -- the former of which would include Union army personnel and nonmilitary "carpetbaggers", and the latter of which would have included the freed slaves and the native white "scalawags" which they saw as the equivalent of union 'scabs'. None of which have anything to do with political parties.

You see, the right to vote was being taken away from Southerners WHO FOUGHT UNDER THE REBEL FLAG. So they felt, rightly, that they had no representation.

And they formed the KKK to intimidate and, if necessary, murder REPUBLICANS NOT BLACKS.

Again, true at the start --- Tennessee was in fact disenfranchised and not part of the United States when the Klan was formed in 1865, so they had no vote anyway and yes had no representation until re-admittance the next year. Again the Klan wasn't formed to intimidate and murder anybody but when that element took it over, yes they murdered both Republicans and Blacks as well as 'carpetbaggers', 'scalawags' and even philandering and/or abusive husbands.

In fact (and this is historic FACT) the number of Blacks murdered by the KKK didn't start to equal the number of WHITE REPUBLICANS MURDERED until the 1880s

FACT

Actually -- the Klan was extinct before 1880. Fact. Lynchings certainly were not extinct, and if anything increased but the Klan wasn't re-formed until 1915.

In between, there were other entities such as....

• the American Protective Association (APA) (Iowa 1887 to 1914) (which targeted Catholics)

By 1896, claiming 2.5 million members nationwide*, the APA dominated local politics in Omaha, Kansas City, Toledo, Rockford, Duluth, Saginaw and Louisville while boasting strong outposts in Detroit, St.Louis and Denver --- White Robes and Burning Crosses: A History of the Ku Klux Klan from 1866 (Michael Newton, McFarland, 2014)

It didn't spread into the South but kept the ground fertile for Simmons to exploit with his 1915 Klan. Note the presence of Omaha and Duluth, two sites of notorious lynchings in the area, and Detroit and Denver where Simmons-Klan candidates later made inroads

• And the White Caps (Indiana 1888-1906)*

* the White Caps' targets expanded from blacks Hispanics and Jews to "the poor whites and ne'er-do-wells of the American coutryside", "loose women" and "drunken, shiftless and wife-beating whites" (ibid, p. 28)

--- yet another precursor to the 1915 Klan's targets of Jews, "loose women" and bootleggers.

 

[2aguy]

I betcha dingo here prolly thinks MLK, Jr. was a republican too.

and he was.....

There are 13 Congressional Volumes which detail how the KKK was formed as the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party for the express purpose of taking back their statehouses from BLACK REPUBLICANS through force and intimidation.

Full text of "Report of the Joint select committee appointed to inquire in to the condition of affairs in the late insurrectionary states : so far as regards the execution of the laws, and the safety of the lives and property of the citizens of the United States and Testimony taken"

Uh -----nnnnnno, there are not.

Oh there are the Congressional documents. I've got 'em right here, seen 'em before. But they don't say what you claim here. They don't go into the formation of the Klan at all at that time. Prove me wrong. Give me a citation. Page number.

See, I've already been down this road. There's no there there. Go ahead --- find it.

Of course the 13 Congressional Volumes prove that the KKK was the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.

Ku Klux Klan - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

WGBH American Experience . U.S. Grant: Warrior | PBS

Oh please. Whittle Bill on YouTube? I'll tear that poser to shreds. See if you can come up with a legitimate source.

Actually see if you can answer the damn question I posted instead of running away from it.

I can go on for weeks with never having to repost the same thing. I can parade historical accounts, historians, historical documents and public record personal testimony. I can go on and on and on. Let's go.

Then it's odd you keep resorting to the candyass bastion of YouTube.

You got docs -- bring 'em on. I challenged anyone anywhere, both in this thread and way before, to show me any political connections for Capt. John B. Kennedy, Capt. John Lester, Frank McCord, Richard Reed, Calvin Jones or James Crowe. Whatcha got? Or for that matter any racial or political motivations for any of them. Whatcha got?

How 'bout the bonus track --- any political activity or affiliation for William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons?
Again ---- whatcha got? Something a bit more tangible than YouFuckingTube if you please.

Bring it.

YEs....officers of the confederate army.......had absolutely no political affiliation or sympathies after having fought republicans and lost.....that is just an insane proposition that holds no water.

 

[paperview]

I betcha dingo here prolly thinks MLK, Jr. was a republican too.

and he was.....

Another one that fell for that stupid lie.

No, MLK, Jr was not a republican.

 

[Little-Acorn]

True that the Klan was not formed to fight, lynch or otherwise harm --- anybody. It was a simple social club.

Sure. And guys who get Playboy just read it for the articles.

Odd thing is, these liberals expect somebody to BELIEVE their tripe.

 

[Little-Acorn]

YEs....officers of the confederate army.......had absolutely no political affiliation or sympathies after having fought republicans and lost.....that is just an insane proposition that holds no water.

Poor little pogo also expects us to believe that the Confederates were all loyal Lincoln voters.

 

[2aguy]

I betcha dingo here prolly thinks MLK, Jr. was a republican too.

and he was.....

Another one that fell for that stupid lie.

No, MLK, Jr was not a republican.

Not a lie asshole......King was a black fighting for Civil Rights against democrats who were murdering blacks and Republicans......so you say he voted democrat? Are you really that dumb?

Registration Unknown, Martin Luther King Was Likely Republican

It is impossible to know whether King was Democrat, Republican, or independent. His home state of Georgia did not have registration by party, so allegiance to a political party depended on which primaries a voter chose to cast a ballot in.

The Atlanta pastor kept this to himself. His choice of primaries to vote in is not known and, as the intellectual force the civil rights cause, King carefully avoided embracing political candidates.

But there is some evidence as to where his party leanings were, including the observations of the Republican who was Martin Luther King's congressman.

"I believe Dr. King was a Republican," Fletcher Thompson, who represented the Atlanta area in Congress from 1966-72, told Newsmax. "Most of the blacks in the late 1950s and at least up to 1960 were Republican. Our party was sympathetic to them and the Democrats were the ones enforcing 'Jim Crow' laws and segregation."

Thompson, who never personally met King, recalled how C.A. Scott, publisher of the Atlanta World -- the only newspaper in Georgia owned by blacks -- and a close associate of King's, "was a Republican and 'The World' always endorsed me when I ran for Congress."

With the 1960 presidential campaign approaching, New York Times political reporter Tom Wicker noted that "the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. had volunteered to lead a voter registration drive among blacks, which King though would produce many new Republican voters."

As to King's favorite candidate, "It is open secret among many Negroes that the Rev. Martin Luther King, if he were to speak out on the subject, would probably indicate a preference for [Republican Richard] Nixon over [Democratic nominee John] Kennedy," The Reporter magazine noted in October 1960.


But Republican hopes of major gains among black voters in 1960 were dashed on October 19, when King was sentenced to four months in Reidsville (Ga.) Penitentiary for violating probation after he was sentenced for driving with an expired license and tags a month before.

Fearing for the minister's life once imprisoned, family and friends pleaded with both major party candidates for help.

Nixon felt King was getting "a bum rap," but he said no to King supporters -- including baseball great Jackie Robinson -- because he felt "it would be completely improper for me or another other lawyer to call the judge."

In contrast, Kennedy called King's wife Coretta and offered to do anything he could for her. Working quietly with Georgia Democratic Gov. Ernest Vandiver, the candidate and campaign manager arranged for the minister to be released from jail.

 

[Pogo]

Oh please. Whittle Bill on YouTube? I'll tear that poser to shreds. See if you can come up with a legitimate source.

Actually see if you can answer the damn question I posted instead of running away from it.

Here's your missing Democratic history.

When you have to resort to YouTubes ----- it shows you can't support a point.

STILL can't answer the question. Because it has no answer. Because it isn't there. Which I already knew.

Videos are just another form of communicating information, pogo. You are getting your ass handed to you, not because I am more intelligent than you, although I probably am, but because what I am posting is the truth. Your heritage is that of a terrorists, racist, thugs. Deal with it because the weight of its 150 year history is overwhelming and will crush you. Your call.

You've had what --- three chances now to cite the citation in what you claim exists in the 1871 document? And yet you can't ----- you traipse over to YouTube where anyone can make any kind of video making any kind of point (or myth) they like without any kind of documentation.
That's because you don't HAVE the documentation. This ploy is as transparent as a new pane of glass.

I'm pretty happy that I've made my case. You on the other hand have no case other than dismissing your defeat and ignoring the incongruities of the cold hard history of historical facts that I have presented to you. I believe you are making a mistake, but it is your mistake to make. I will be more than happy to use your opposition to reality as a platform to share this information with others. Your call.

WHICH ONE of us has been posting extensive histories and WHICH ONE of us is resorting to Wittle Bill on YouTube after having been called out on content of a document that doesn't even exist?

I like my chances. As I said before --- bring it.

 

[2aguy]

I betcha dingo here prolly thinks MLK, Jr. was a republican too.

and he was.....

Another one that fell for that stupid lie.

No, MLK, Jr was not a republican.

Not a lie asshole......King was a black fighting for Civil Rights against democrats who were murdering blacks and Republicans......so you say he voted democrat? Are you really that dumb?

Registration Unknown, Martin Luther King Was Likely Republican

It is impossible to know whether King was Democrat, Republican, or independent. His home state of Georgia did not have registration by party, so allegiance to a political party depended on which primaries a voter chose to cast a ballot in.

The Atlanta pastor kept this to himself. His choice of primaries to vote in is not known and, as the intellectual force the civil rights cause, King carefully avoided embracing political candidates.

But there is some evidence as to where his party leanings were, including the observations of the Republican who was Martin Luther King's congressman.

"I believe Dr. King was a Republican," Fletcher Thompson, who represented the Atlanta area in Congress from 1966-72, told Newsmax. "Most of the blacks in the late 1950s and at least up to 1960 were Republican. Our party was sympathetic to them and the Democrats were the ones enforcing 'Jim Crow' laws and segregation."

Thompson, who never personally met King, recalled how C.A. Scott, publisher of the Atlanta World -- the only newspaper in Georgia owned by blacks -- and a close associate of King's, "was a Republican and 'The World' always endorsed me when I ran for Congress."

With the 1960 presidential campaign approaching, New York Times political reporter Tom Wicker noted that "the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. had volunteered to lead a voter registration drive among blacks, which King though would produce many new Republican voters."

As to King's favorite candidate, "It is open secret among many Negroes that the Rev. Martin Luther King, if he were to speak out on the subject, would probably indicate a preference for [Republican Richard] Nixon over [Democratic nominee John] Kennedy," The Reporter magazine noted in October 1960.


But Republican hopes of major gains among black voters in 1960 were dashed on October 19, when King was sentenced to four months in Reidsville (Ga.) Penitentiary for violating probation after he was sentenced for driving with an expired license and tags a month before.

Fearing for the minister's life once imprisoned, family and friends pleaded with both major party candidates for help.

Nixon felt King was getting "a bum rap," but he said no to King supporters -- including baseball great Jackie Robinson -- because he felt "it would be completely improper for me or another other lawyer to call the judge."

In contrast, Kennedy called King's wife Coretta and offered to do anything he could for her. Working quietly with Georgia Democratic Gov. Ernest Vandiver, the candidate and campaign manager arranged for the minister to be released from jail.

This shows that King was foolish at the end......his entire life democrats had murdered and abused blacks, creating laws making them second class citizens....while the Republican party freed them from slavery and protected them in their freedom and welcomed them in citizenship....helping them gain the protection of our Constitution and then, when the Republican candidate decides to let the legal process go through, while the democrat makes a show.....blacks switched sides....

And they have been paying for that mistake with the lives of their children.....

 

[2aguy]

Here's your missing Democratic history.

When you have to resort to YouTubes ----- it shows you can't support a point.

STILL can't answer the question. Because it has no answer. Because it isn't there. Which I already knew.

Videos are just another form of communicating information, pogo. You are getting your ass handed to you, not because I am more intelligent than you, although I probably am, but because what I am posting is the truth. Your heritage is that of a terrorists, racist, thugs. Deal with it because the weight of its 150 year history is overwhelming and will crush you. Your call.

You've had what --- three chances now to cite the citation in what you claim exists in the 1871 document? And yet you can't ----- you traipse over to YouTube where anyone can make any kind of video making any kind of point (or myth) they like without any kind of documentation.
That's because you don't HAVE the documentation. This ploy is as transparent as a new pane of glass.

I'm pretty happy that I've made my case. You on the other hand have no case other than dismissing your defeat and ignoring the incongruities of the cold hard history of historical facts that I have presented to you. I believe you are making a mistake, but it is your mistake to make. I will be more than happy to use your opposition to reality as a platform to share this information with others. Your call.

WHICH ONE of us has been posting extensive histories and WHICH ONE of us is resorting to Wittle Bill on YouTube after having been called out on content of a document that doesn't even exist?

I like my chances. As I said before --- bring it.

Sorry....claiming that former confederate officers had no political leanings is a lie.......it is nonsense.....

 

[paperview]

Not a lie asshole......King was a black fighting for Civil Rights against democrats who were murdering blacks and Republicans......so you say he voted democrat? Are you really that dumb?....

He doubles down.

Next you'll be telling us King voted for Goldwater.