Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You talk a lot but say nothing. You admitted that you could not prove anything by posting crap that says nothing except to claim that you proved something. Lets take it from the top.Horseshit. How did I misrepresent you?. You did not even make a case for whatever it is that your trying to covey. All that you do is spew vitriol about liberals. You could not refute my points and I called you on it. How the fuck is that misrepresentation? Learn how to have an adult conversation or stop wasting my time.It is doubtful that you can prove the OP is lying.
Sometimes the ugly truth feels like a "vile smear".
So far no one has posted a single link to a credible source to counter his facts.
Well, if you completely blind hate filled partisans are the judge, then no, I can't.
And all you have to do to "prove" your vile smear is make it.
In your own little, and utterly closed minds.
His "Facts"? LOL!!!
Thank you for admitting that you can't refute a damned thing that I said
Wow.
By just completely misrepresenting what I just said, you just proved my point, that you are completely dishonest and would stone wall any argument, no matter how well presented or supported.
Liberals: All the self awareness of a potted plant.
My point was obviously that you and your ilk are too dishonest to admit when/if I were to prove something.
You dishonestly pretended that I "admitted" that I could not prove anything.
In doing that, you demonstrated the dishonesty that I claimed you have.
BOOM, IN YOUR FACE.
It was stupid of you to not see that coming. THis is you with your complete lack of self awareness.
Y
What was that quest, and answer again? You blow so much smoke that I can't seeI answered your question as you asked it.
I care about and condemn all racism but I also recognize that racism on the part of minorities is largely born of the discrimination and marginalization that they have historically been subjected to. All racism is not equal. OK, go a head and have your little shit fit over that- coming from a white guy.If you wanted to exempt black and hispanics racists from consideration, then you should have specified that you only care about WHITE racists, and do not consider other racists to be a problem. Because you like them.
I'm an old white guy that has seen a lot in my time and have not problem with anything that you're saying.This is another one of the conservatives weak attempts at defection. While they will not say not all democrats, we are expected use a disclaimer every time we talk about them saying not all republicans are this or that. The republican party is the racist party. Period. Think what you want about what was said..
I will not say "all democrats are not..." but you essentially say "all republicans are racists". You don't see the inherent hypocrisy here?
I don't see any hypocrisy. I haven't said all of anything and every time I'm talking about whites or republicans I'm not going to keep saying not all before I say anything.
Since I got here you've been saying that all whites are either guilty of racism or guilty by association or guilty of benefiting from the racist system and so whites owe blacks. And who knows how long before that.
What I have done is speak to the truth of what historically documented fact shows to be true. What I have also said there are whites who are not racist just not that many here. Most of the whites in this section are racists but you are not all white people. But when you are called on your racism you want to use that childish ploy whining about how people are talking about all whites when in this case I am talking only abut you. In each case where I have said a white person was racist it was based in their own comments. Not on some fake perception those like you have made up about how I see all whites the same.
I did not see you saying some blacks are more racist than whites when that thread was open it was blacks are more racist than whites. But you think you deserve some special language exemption whereby we have to say things the way you want them said. History speaks for itself. Whites should not have done what they did and most certainly they should not still be doing it while lying abut how it's a thing of the past.
CC Ghost
Correll
You a sick and disgusting liar Blaylock!
All racism is not equal.…
Having said that , this thread is about white racism…
You'll have to take that up with him. For my part I try not to call anyone a racist but I will call them on anything racist that they say.I'm an old white guy that has seen a lot in my time and have not problem with anything that you're saying.I will not say "all democrats are not..." but you essentially say "all republicans are racists". You don't see the inherent hypocrisy here?
I don't see any hypocrisy. I haven't said all of anything and every time I'm talking about whites or republicans I'm not going to keep saying not all before I say anything.
Since I got here you've been saying that all whites are either guilty of racism or guilty by association or guilty of benefiting from the racist system and so whites owe blacks. And who knows how long before that.
What I have done is speak to the truth of what historically documented fact shows to be true. What I have also said there are whites who are not racist just not that many here. Most of the whites in this section are racists but you are not all white people. But when you are called on your racism you want to use that childish ploy whining about how people are talking about all whites when in this case I am talking only abut you. In each case where I have said a white person was racist it was based in their own comments. Not on some fake perception those like you have made up about how I see all whites the same.
I did not see you saying some blacks are more racist than whites when that thread was open it was blacks are more racist than whites. But you think you deserve some special language exemption whereby we have to say things the way you want them said. History speaks for itself. Whites should not have done what they did and most certainly they should not still be doing it while lying abut how it's a thing of the past.
CC Ghost
Correll
I'm a 54 year old white guy myself and I'm betting you've only seen the tip of the iceberg of the things he's said. Besides, there are at least two falsehoods in this post.
1.) He calls me a racist when I'm not.
2.) In the second paragraph he claims that I said that blacks were more racist when that is not at all what I said.
Which party insists skin color be used to see who gets a job or gets into a university?Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War. The intent seems to be to draw attention away from the party that harbors the racists of today by shaming the Democrats for the sins of our forefathers.
It’s a sleazy tactic that doesn’t work, and It is time to set the record straight. First of all, Democrats- for the most part- do not deny or try to hide the parties past. Second, I will show how, when and why the racists fled from the Democratic Party and found a new home and lastly, I will present evidence that shows how, during the civil rights era, support for civil right legislation was split, not by party affiliation but by regional loyalty-specifically the old Confederacy and the Union. Let’s begin by talking about the civil war era
https://classroom.synonym.com/civil-warera-political-parties-north-vs-south-8901.html
Democratic Party
The Democratic Party was formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792 and held considerable power in the years leading up to the Civil War. The Democratic Party became divided in the 1850s over the issue of slavery, with some factions in the north supporting abolitionist causes, some northern factions supporting accommodation of the South and Southern Democrats supporting the continuation and expansion of slavery. During the elections of 1860, Southern and Northern Democrats nominated separate candidates for president. After the Civil War broke out, former Southern Democrats held considerable clout in the Confederate Congress. Northern Democrats lost much of their political power in the North during the Civil War.
Republican Party
The Republican Party was founded in the 1850s by northerners who wanted to abolish slavery. The demise of the Whig Party and the split in the Democratic Party in the years leading up to the 1860 elections gave the Republicans an opportunity to advance. Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln won the U.S. Presidential election in 1860 and Republicans gained control of Congress, leading to the secession of eleven Southern states. The Republican Party had very little support in the South before the war and virtually none after war broke out. In 1864, the Republican Party joined with Democrats who favored the war effort to form the National Union Party. Other Republicans, who were in favor of pressing the war more forcefully, left the Republican Party to form the Radical Democracy Party. The National Union Party won the 1864 presidential election.
The truth about Republicans and civil rights even then was not as clear cut as some would like us to believe:
https://medium.com/everyvote/how-the-republicans-and-democrats-switched-on-civil-rights-in-5-racist-steps-92c1b41480b
Republicans and Democrats after the Civil War
It’s true that many of the first Ku Klux Klan members were Democrats. It’s also true that the early Democratic Party opposed civil rights. But there’s more to it.
In the Civil War-era GOP wasn’t that into civil rights. They were more interested in punishing the South for seceding and monopolizing the new black vote.
In any event, by the 1890s, Republicans had begun to distance themselves from civil rights.
As for the democrats
Democrats v Republicans on Jim Crow
Segregation and Jim Crow lasted for 100 years after the end of the Civil War.
During this time, African Americans were largely disenfranchised. There was no African-American voting bloc. Neither party pursued civil rights policies — it wasn’t worth their while.
Democrats dominated Southern politics throughout the Jim Crow Era. It’s fair to say that Democratic governors and legislatures are responsible for creating and upholding white supremacist policies.
Southern Democrats were truly awful.
Then things began to change
President Truman Integrates the Troops: 1948
Fast forward about sixty shitty years. Black people are still living in segregation under Jim Crow. Nonetheless, African Americans agree to serve in World War II. At war’s end, President Harry Truman, a Democrat, used an Executive Order to integrate the troops. (That order was not executed until 1963, however because: racism.)
The Party of Kennedy v the Party of Nixon in the Civil Rights Era
Two things started happening at the same time:
· Racist Democrats were getting antsy
· Neither party could afford to ignore civil rights anymore
In 1960 Kennedy defeated Nixon. At the time of his election, the both parties unevenly supported civil rights. But President Kennedy decided to move forward.
After Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, Johnson continued Kennedy’s civil rights focus.
As you can imagine, that did not sit particularly well with most Southern Democrats. This is when Strom Thurmond flew the coop for good.
In fact, a greater percentage of Congressional Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats. Support for the Act followed geographic, not party, lines. ( More on that later)
Get that? Support for civil rights was along geographic, not party lines. Now we get to the meat of the matter:
Soon after, the Republicans came up with their Southern Strategy — a plan to woo white Southern voters to the party for the 1968 election.
The Kennedy and Johnson administrations had advanced civil rights, largely through national legislation and direct executive actions. So, the Southern Strategy was the opposite — states’ rights and no integration.
As in the Civil War, the concepts of “states’ rights” and “tradition,” were codes for “maintaining white supremacy.”
The divide between the north and the south vs the Democrats and the Republicans can be easily illustrated:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights
As we saw earlier more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act, but that is not the whole story
View attachment 193443
You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
View attachment 193444
But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".
View attachment 193445
In conclusion, maligning the entire Democratic Party as the historical racist party without regard to regional loyalties or the fact that the racists fled from the Democrats ranks in the 60’s is just dumbed down revisionist history, and patently dishonest. I have to wonder, which party will be remembered as the party of racists in another 150 years or so. Any guesses?
How the hell is this a "leftist thread" ? I presented a balled view of who the racists were and are historically and documented the culpability of the democrats. There is also plenty of evidence for who the racists are today. You're the one imploding because you don't like the truth..YET ANOTHER LEFTIST THREAD SELF IMPLODES IN THEIR FACE.
Claiming that affirmative action is racism is a right wing talking point and opinion. Secondly, even if it is racism, it does not negate the arguments being made. Rather it is nothing more than an appeal to hypocrisy and a red herring logical fallacy.Which party insists skin color be used to see who gets a job or gets into a university?
WHO IN THE WORLD WOULD THINK USING SKIN COLOR TO DENY PEOPLE JOBS OR EDUCATION WAS RACISM?Claiming that affirmative action is racism is a right wing talking point and opinion. Secondly, even if it is racism, it does not negate the arguments being made. Rather it is nothing more than an appeal to hypocrisy and a red herring logical fallacy.Which party insists skin color be used to see who gets a job or gets into a university?
Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War. The intent seems to be to draw attention away from the party that harbors the racists of today by shaming the Democrats for the sins of our forefathers.
It’s a sleazy tactic that doesn’t work, and It is time to set the record straight. First of all, Democrats- for the most part- do not deny or try to hide the parties past. Second, I will show how, when and why the racists fled from the Democratic Party and found a new home and lastly, I will present evidence that shows how, during the civil rights era, support for civil right legislation was split, not by party affiliation but by regional loyalty-specifically the old Confederacy and the Union. Let’s begin by talking about the civil war era
https://classroom.synonym.com/civil-warera-political-parties-north-vs-south-8901.html
Democratic Party
The Democratic Party was formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792 and held considerable power in the years leading up to the Civil War. The Democratic Party became divided in the 1850s over the issue of slavery, with some factions in the north supporting abolitionist causes, some northern factions supporting accommodation of the South and Southern Democrats supporting the continuation and expansion of slavery. During the elections of 1860, Southern and Northern Democrats nominated separate candidates for president. After the Civil War broke out, former Southern Democrats held considerable clout in the Confederate Congress. Northern Democrats lost much of their political power in the North during the Civil War.
Republican Party
The Republican Party was founded in the 1850s by northerners who wanted to abolish slavery. The demise of the Whig Party and the split in the Democratic Party in the years leading up to the 1860 elections gave the Republicans an opportunity to advance. Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln won the U.S. Presidential election in 1860 and Republicans gained control of Congress, leading to the secession of eleven Southern states. The Republican Party had very little support in the South before the war and virtually none after war broke out. In 1864, the Republican Party joined with Democrats who favored the war effort to form the National Union Party. Other Republicans, who were in favor of pressing the war more forcefully, left the Republican Party to form the Radical Democracy Party. The National Union Party won the 1864 presidential election.
The truth about Republicans and civil rights even then was not as clear cut as some would like us to believe:
https://medium.com/everyvote/how-the-republicans-and-democrats-switched-on-civil-rights-in-5-racist-steps-92c1b41480b
Republicans and Democrats after the Civil War
It’s true that many of the first Ku Klux Klan members were Democrats. It’s also true that the early Democratic Party opposed civil rights. But there’s more to it.
In the Civil War-era GOP wasn’t that into civil rights. They were more interested in punishing the South for seceding and monopolizing the new black vote.
In any event, by the 1890s, Republicans had begun to distance themselves from civil rights.
As for the democrats
Democrats v Republicans on Jim Crow
Segregation and Jim Crow lasted for 100 years after the end of the Civil War.
During this time, African Americans were largely disenfranchised. There was no African-American voting bloc. Neither party pursued civil rights policies — it wasn’t worth their while.
Democrats dominated Southern politics throughout the Jim Crow Era. It’s fair to say that Democratic governors and legislatures are responsible for creating and upholding white supremacist policies.
Southern Democrats were truly awful.
Then things began to change
President Truman Integrates the Troops: 1948
Fast forward about sixty shitty years. Black people are still living in segregation under Jim Crow. Nonetheless, African Americans agree to serve in World War II. At war’s end, President Harry Truman, a Democrat, used an Executive Order to integrate the troops. (That order was not executed until 1963, however because: racism.)
The Party of Kennedy v the Party of Nixon in the Civil Rights Era
Two things started happening at the same time:
· Racist Democrats were getting antsy
· Neither party could afford to ignore civil rights anymore
In 1960 Kennedy defeated Nixon. At the time of his election, the both parties unevenly supported civil rights. But President Kennedy decided to move forward.
After Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, Johnson continued Kennedy’s civil rights focus.
As you can imagine, that did not sit particularly well with most Southern Democrats. This is when Strom Thurmond flew the coop for good.
In fact, a greater percentage of Congressional Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats. Support for the Act followed geographic, not party, lines. ( More on that later)
Get that? Support for civil rights was along geographic, not party lines. Now we get to the meat of the matter:
Soon after, the Republicans came up with their Southern Strategy — a plan to woo white Southern voters to the party for the 1968 election.
The Kennedy and Johnson administrations had advanced civil rights, largely through national legislation and direct executive actions. So, the Southern Strategy was the opposite — states’ rights and no integration.
As in the Civil War, the concepts of “states’ rights” and “tradition,” were codes for “maintaining white supremacy.”
The divide between the north and the south vs the Democrats and the Republicans can be easily illustrated:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights
As we saw earlier more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act, but that is not the whole story
View attachment 193443
You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
View attachment 193444
But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".
View attachment 193445
In conclusion, maligning the entire Democratic Party as the historical racist party without regard to regional loyalties or the fact that the racists fled from the Democrats ranks in the 60’s is just dumbed down revisionist history, and patently dishonest. I have to wonder, which party will be remembered as the party of racists in another 150 years or so. Any guesses?
Democrats Are No Longer the Racist Party
They have been active race related since the Civil War and no one noticed it was just as bad in the North. Slaves can and do take different forms they own you by controling your attitudes, thinking, voting, and public perception by the public.Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War. The intent seems to be to draw attention away from the party that harbors the racists of today by shaming the Democrats for the sins of our forefathers.
It’s a sleazy tactic that doesn’t work, and It is time to set the record straight. First of all, Democrats- for the most part- do not deny or try to hide the parties past. Second, I will show how, when and why the racists fled from the Democratic Party and found a new home and lastly, I will present evidence that shows how, during the civil rights era, support for civil right legislation was split, not by party affiliation but by regional loyalty-specifically the old Confederacy and the Union. Let’s begin by talking about the civil war era
https://classroom.synonym.com/civil-warera-political-parties-north-vs-south-8901.html
Democratic Party
The Democratic Party was formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792 and held considerable power in the years leading up to the Civil War. The Democratic Party became divided in the 1850s over the issue of slavery, with some factions in the north supporting abolitionist causes, some northern factions supporting accommodation of the South and Southern Democrats supporting the continuation and expansion of slavery. During the elections of 1860, Southern and Northern Democrats nominated separate candidates for president. After the Civil War broke out, former Southern Democrats held considerable clout in the Confederate Congress. Northern Democrats lost much of their political power in the North during the Civil War.
Republican Party
The Republican Party was founded in the 1850s by northerners who wanted to abolish slavery. The demise of the Whig Party and the split in the Democratic Party in the years leading up to the 1860 elections gave the Republicans an opportunity to advance. Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln won the U.S. Presidential election in 1860 and Republicans gained control of Congress, leading to the secession of eleven Southern states. The Republican Party had very little support in the South before the war and virtually none after war broke out. In 1864, the Republican Party joined with Democrats who favored the war effort to form the National Union Party. Other Republicans, who were in favor of pressing the war more forcefully, left the Republican Party to form the Radical Democracy Party. The National Union Party won the 1864 presidential election.
The truth about Republicans and civil rights even then was not as clear cut as some would like us to believe:
https://medium.com/everyvote/how-the-republicans-and-democrats-switched-on-civil-rights-in-5-racist-steps-92c1b41480b
Republicans and Democrats after the Civil War
It’s true that many of the first Ku Klux Klan members were Democrats. It’s also true that the early Democratic Party opposed civil rights. But there’s more to it.
In the Civil War-era GOP wasn’t that into civil rights. They were more interested in punishing the South for seceding and monopolizing the new black vote.
In any event, by the 1890s, Republicans had begun to distance themselves from civil rights.
As for the democrats
Democrats v Republicans on Jim Crow
Segregation and Jim Crow lasted for 100 years after the end of the Civil War.
During this time, African Americans were largely disenfranchised. There was no African-American voting bloc. Neither party pursued civil rights policies — it wasn’t worth their while.
Democrats dominated Southern politics throughout the Jim Crow Era. It’s fair to say that Democratic governors and legislatures are responsible for creating and upholding white supremacist policies.
Southern Democrats were truly awful.
Then things began to change
President Truman Integrates the Troops: 1948
Fast forward about sixty shitty years. Black people are still living in segregation under Jim Crow. Nonetheless, African Americans agree to serve in World War II. At war’s end, President Harry Truman, a Democrat, used an Executive Order to integrate the troops. (That order was not executed until 1963, however because: racism.)
The Party of Kennedy v the Party of Nixon in the Civil Rights Era
Two things started happening at the same time:
· Racist Democrats were getting antsy
· Neither party could afford to ignore civil rights anymore
In 1960 Kennedy defeated Nixon. At the time of his election, the both parties unevenly supported civil rights. But President Kennedy decided to move forward.
After Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, Johnson continued Kennedy’s civil rights focus.
As you can imagine, that did not sit particularly well with most Southern Democrats. This is when Strom Thurmond flew the coop for good.
In fact, a greater percentage of Congressional Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats. Support for the Act followed geographic, not party, lines. ( More on that later)
Get that? Support for civil rights was along geographic, not party lines. Now we get to the meat of the matter:
Soon after, the Republicans came up with their Southern Strategy — a plan to woo white Southern voters to the party for the 1968 election.
The Kennedy and Johnson administrations had advanced civil rights, largely through national legislation and direct executive actions. So, the Southern Strategy was the opposite — states’ rights and no integration.
As in the Civil War, the concepts of “states’ rights” and “tradition,” were codes for “maintaining white supremacy.”
The divide between the north and the south vs the Democrats and the Republicans can be easily illustrated:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights
As we saw earlier more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act, but that is not the whole story
View attachment 193443
You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
View attachment 193444
But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".
View attachment 193445
In conclusion, maligning the entire Democratic Party as the historical racist party without regard to regional loyalties or the fact that the racists fled from the Democrats ranks in the 60’s is just dumbed down revisionist history, and patently dishonest. I have to wonder, which party will be remembered as the party of racists in another 150 years or so. Any guesses?
Really? Is that what I think? How the hell do you know what I think!??Democrats Are No Longer the Racist Party
No, of course not, you just think brown people are completely incapable of achieving anything on our own without a hand out from sophisticated white people like you.
I think you think you're gay. What do you think?Really? Is that what I think? How the hell do you know what I think!??Democrats Are No Longer the Racist Party
No, of course not, you just think brown people are completely incapable of achieving anything on our own without a hand out from sophisticated white people like you.
You'll have to take that up with him. For my part I try not to call anyone a racist but I will call them on anything racist that they say.I'm an old white guy that has seen a lot in my time and have not problem with anything that you're saying.I don't see any hypocrisy. I haven't said all of anything and every time I'm talking about whites or republicans I'm not going to keep saying not all before I say anything.
Since I got here you've been saying that all whites are either guilty of racism or guilty by association or guilty of benefiting from the racist system and so whites owe blacks. And who knows how long before that.
What I have done is speak to the truth of what historically documented fact shows to be true. What I have also said there are whites who are not racist just not that many here. Most of the whites in this section are racists but you are not all white people. But when you are called on your racism you want to use that childish ploy whining about how people are talking about all whites when in this case I am talking only abut you. In each case where I have said a white person was racist it was based in their own comments. Not on some fake perception those like you have made up about how I see all whites the same.
I did not see you saying some blacks are more racist than whites when that thread was open it was blacks are more racist than whites. But you think you deserve some special language exemption whereby we have to say things the way you want them said. History speaks for itself. Whites should not have done what they did and most certainly they should not still be doing it while lying abut how it's a thing of the past.
CC Ghost
Correll
I'm a 54 year old white guy myself and I'm betting you've only seen the tip of the iceberg of the things he's said. Besides, there are at least two falsehoods in this post.
1.) He calls me a racist when I'm not.
2.) In the second paragraph he claims that I said that blacks were more racist when that is not at all what I said.
What?They have been active race related since the Civil War and no one noticed it was just as bad in the North. Slaves can and do take different forms they own you by controling your attitudes, thinking, voting, and public perception by the public.Few things annoy me more than when people who want to stick a thumb in the eye of Democrats resort to tactics such as pointing out they founded the Ku Klux Klan or pushed through Jim Crow laws following the Civil War. The intent seems to be to draw attention away from the party that harbors the racists of today by shaming the Democrats for the sins of our forefathers.
It’s a sleazy tactic that doesn’t work, and It is time to set the record straight. First of all, Democrats- for the most part- do not deny or try to hide the parties past. Second, I will show how, when and why the racists fled from the Democratic Party and found a new home and lastly, I will present evidence that shows how, during the civil rights era, support for civil right legislation was split, not by party affiliation but by regional loyalty-specifically the old Confederacy and the Union. Let’s begin by talking about the civil war era
https://classroom.synonym.com/civil-warera-political-parties-north-vs-south-8901.html
Democratic Party
The Democratic Party was formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792 and held considerable power in the years leading up to the Civil War. The Democratic Party became divided in the 1850s over the issue of slavery, with some factions in the north supporting abolitionist causes, some northern factions supporting accommodation of the South and Southern Democrats supporting the continuation and expansion of slavery. During the elections of 1860, Southern and Northern Democrats nominated separate candidates for president. After the Civil War broke out, former Southern Democrats held considerable clout in the Confederate Congress. Northern Democrats lost much of their political power in the North during the Civil War.
Republican Party
The Republican Party was founded in the 1850s by northerners who wanted to abolish slavery. The demise of the Whig Party and the split in the Democratic Party in the years leading up to the 1860 elections gave the Republicans an opportunity to advance. Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln won the U.S. Presidential election in 1860 and Republicans gained control of Congress, leading to the secession of eleven Southern states. The Republican Party had very little support in the South before the war and virtually none after war broke out. In 1864, the Republican Party joined with Democrats who favored the war effort to form the National Union Party. Other Republicans, who were in favor of pressing the war more forcefully, left the Republican Party to form the Radical Democracy Party. The National Union Party won the 1864 presidential election.
The truth about Republicans and civil rights even then was not as clear cut as some would like us to believe:
https://medium.com/everyvote/how-the-republicans-and-democrats-switched-on-civil-rights-in-5-racist-steps-92c1b41480b
Republicans and Democrats after the Civil War
It’s true that many of the first Ku Klux Klan members were Democrats. It’s also true that the early Democratic Party opposed civil rights. But there’s more to it.
In the Civil War-era GOP wasn’t that into civil rights. They were more interested in punishing the South for seceding and monopolizing the new black vote.
In any event, by the 1890s, Republicans had begun to distance themselves from civil rights.
As for the democrats
Democrats v Republicans on Jim Crow
Segregation and Jim Crow lasted for 100 years after the end of the Civil War.
During this time, African Americans were largely disenfranchised. There was no African-American voting bloc. Neither party pursued civil rights policies — it wasn’t worth their while.
Democrats dominated Southern politics throughout the Jim Crow Era. It’s fair to say that Democratic governors and legislatures are responsible for creating and upholding white supremacist policies.
Southern Democrats were truly awful.
Then things began to change
President Truman Integrates the Troops: 1948
Fast forward about sixty shitty years. Black people are still living in segregation under Jim Crow. Nonetheless, African Americans agree to serve in World War II. At war’s end, President Harry Truman, a Democrat, used an Executive Order to integrate the troops. (That order was not executed until 1963, however because: racism.)
The Party of Kennedy v the Party of Nixon in the Civil Rights Era
Two things started happening at the same time:
· Racist Democrats were getting antsy
· Neither party could afford to ignore civil rights anymore
In 1960 Kennedy defeated Nixon. At the time of his election, the both parties unevenly supported civil rights. But President Kennedy decided to move forward.
After Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, Johnson continued Kennedy’s civil rights focus.
As you can imagine, that did not sit particularly well with most Southern Democrats. This is when Strom Thurmond flew the coop for good.
In fact, a greater percentage of Congressional Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats. Support for the Act followed geographic, not party, lines. ( More on that later)
Get that? Support for civil rights was along geographic, not party lines. Now we get to the meat of the matter:
Soon after, the Republicans came up with their Southern Strategy — a plan to woo white Southern voters to the party for the 1968 election.
The Kennedy and Johnson administrations had advanced civil rights, largely through national legislation and direct executive actions. So, the Southern Strategy was the opposite — states’ rights and no integration.
As in the Civil War, the concepts of “states’ rights” and “tradition,” were codes for “maintaining white supremacy.”
The divide between the north and the south vs the Democrats and the Republicans can be easily illustrated:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/28/republicans-party-of-civil-rights
As we saw earlier more Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act, but that is not the whole story
View attachment 193443
You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not.
View attachment 193444
But what happens when we control for both party affiliation and region? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".
View attachment 193445
In conclusion, maligning the entire Democratic Party as the historical racist party without regard to regional loyalties or the fact that the racists fled from the Democrats ranks in the 60’s is just dumbed down revisionist history, and patently dishonest. I have to wonder, which party will be remembered as the party of racists in another 150 years or so. Any guesses?
