Here’s Proof That the Modern Day GOP Built Itself on Racism

[ptbw forever]

It's called re-writing history, The powerful often do that.

Before the deranged (mostly southern) rednecks and religious freaks (aka most of the delusional posters on here) were brought into the party, the original republican party was a northeastern centered moderate, socially centrist party that favored birth control, abortion and civil rights:

There's a Long History of Republicans Supporting Planned Parenthood—Why Is No One Talking About It?

The ancestors of these moronic posters were hillbilly conservative democrats who were ejected by LBJ and supported by anti-civil rights act Goldwater and Reagan, and anti-desegregation busing Nixon.

Even Reagan supported gay rights, and legalized abortion and implemented gun control in California. Even Goldwater was pro-Planned Parenthood and pro gay rights. Bush Sr also backed Planned Parenthood. It was supposed to be a game, they didn't actually beleive that many morons existed and believed in this crap. Now these inbred descendants of redneck hillbilly conservative democrats (who had limited power in the old democratic party) have taken over the republican party lock, stock and barrel.

It would be impossible for Goldwater or Reagan to be nominated by the modern Hillbilly-dominated Republican party.

Goldwater would be our nominee if he was still alive.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[Pogo]

No way in hell I'm gonna go thru this history again with Pogo and the other deniers. They never learn. Probably because they don't READ history.. They just mine web links. I'll do a Bull Ring with anyone on the CRA or how my Tenn neighbors in Pulaski VOTED for years before they formed the KKK... I live on a battlefield from that war. We KNOW the facts...

Tell us wise one --- what political parties existed in Pulaski in 1865, and before?

And again --- I've issued this challenge for years to no response whatsoever --- where is any record of a political affiliation or activity for Lester? Or Kennedy? Or McCord? Or Crowe? Or Jones? Or Reed? Where is it? I've got volumes and volumes and books on top of books and I don't have one.

Actually -- you've NEVER gone through this history with me.

I live on a battlefield from that war. We KNOW the facts

You forget --- so do I. I'm in the state that used to own yours.

The topic here is "racist MODERN GOP" THe CRA is a valid discussion point. The creation of the KKK is a valid point. 1865 ------ not so much...

That's why I'm not following you around the briar patch again..

That's a contradiction then, because 1865 is when the Klan was founded. If the Klan is a valid discussion point, then 1865 must be. That's where it's born. Plus, you just cited "how my Tenn neighbors in Pulaski VOTED for years before they formed the KKK", which makes my question inevitable.

And the answer is, they were Democrats, they were Whigs before that party disintegrated, a good number of them were Constitutional Unionists (who won the state's Presidential electors in 1860); they were Know Nothings, and they were whatever other parties existed before that, which were many. But they weren't Republicans since that party did not yet exist in the South, nor for that matter did the right to vote anyway owing to the War, so it's kind of moot. Technically in 1865 Tennessee wasn't even in the United States.

On the other hand, since the Klan was not a political organization it's questionable as being a valid discussion point in this thread. That's why I refuted it as such.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Once again Stupid --- the Klan was not created by any political party in any of its incarnations, ever

If this is a new "big lie" campaign, you will have to get a LOT more of your fellow Marxists on board.

--- nor was it created to wage war on anybody. As I've pointed out for years on this board. Prove me wrong.

What a fucking retard.

That ^^ oughta send him whimpering under mommy's skirts for at least two days...

Lincoln was not a Conservative by modern meaning, but he sure the fuck wasn't a leftist/progressive as you have perverted the term "liberal" to mean, either.

Except that ISN'T what the term means and never has been. Dolt.

Ah yes, your Humpty Dumpty routine, words mean only what you wish them to mean at any given moment..

Here retard; learn something for the first time in your life.

{Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders.}

Ku Klux Klan - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

From YOUR OWN LINK:

Founding of the Ku Klux Klan
A group including many former Confederate veterans founded the first branch of the Ku Klux Klan as a social club in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1866.​

The video says the same thing in more detail including its infiltration by the already-existing "slave patrols", of which it became a quasi-organized extension --- as I have posted precipitously on this site. .

YOUR OWN LINK.

Actually it gets the year wrong, it was Christmas 1865, and the founders were, specifically, (Capt) John Lester, (Capt) John Kennedy Frank McCord, James (Maj) James Crowe, Calvin Jones and Richard Reed, none of whom were politically active or had any known political affiliation at all; Which I already went over in post 73, and issued a challenge on the same mythology in 103, which went completely unanswered.

See that newspaper clipping above? The one where blacks are threatening to not vote for Republican candidates backed by the Klan? Care to essplain why an organization "created by Democrats" would be backing Republicans? Care to explain why it would be electing Clarence Morley, Owen Brewster, George Baker, Ed Jackson and Owen Brewster -- all of whom were Republicans? Care to essplain why they'd be backing Hoover over Al Smith, as also outlined above?

Dumbass.

More detail on the origins:

=> It was the boredom of small-town life that led six young Confederate veterans to gather around a fireplace one December evening in 1865 and form a social club. the place was Pulaski, Tenn., near the Alabama border. when they reassembled a week later, the six young men were full of ideas for their new society. it would be secret, to heighten the amusement of the thing, and the titles for the various offices were to have names as preposterous-sounding as possible, partly for the fun of it and partly to avoid any military or political implications. <= (much more detail follows; this is on page 11 of Ku Klux Klan: A History of Racism)​

-- This is also why the Klan has all those silly K-alliterations ... Klan, Klavern, Kleagle, etc. It was supposed to be a simple joke. That is the origin, and it was soon after taken over by the already-existing "slave patrols"....

=> Freedom for slaves represented for many white Southerners a bitter defeat — a defeat not only of their armies in the field but of their economic and social way of life. It was an age-old nightmare come true, for early in Southern life whites in general and plantation owners in particular had begun to view the large number of slaves living among them as a potential threat to their property and their lives. A series of bloody slave revolts in Virginia and other parts of the South resulted in the widespread practice of authorized night patrols composed of white men specially deputized for that purpose. White Southerners looked upon these night patrols as a civic duty, something akin to serving on a jury or in the militia. The mounted patrols, or regulators, as they were called, prowled Southern roads, enforcing the curfew for slaves, looking for runaways, and guarding rural areas against the threat of black uprisings. They were authorized by law to give a specific number of lashes to any violators they caught. The memory of these legal night riders and their whips was still fresh in the minds of both defeated Southerners and liberated blacks when the first Klansmen took to those same roads in 1866. (ibid) <=
​

A "civic duty". However perverse that characterization is, it's got nothing to do with political parties. If the Klan has any political ancestor/affinity at all it would be with the old Know Nothings. Which I posted about here recently on the anniversary of one of their riots.

What a fucking retard.

No different than a 9-11 truther....

 

[Pogo]

Once again Stupid --- the Klan was not created by any political party in any of its incarnations, ever

If this is a new "big lie" campaign, you will have to get a LOT more of your fellow Marxists on board.

--- nor was it created to wage war on anybody. As I've pointed out for years on this board. Prove me wrong.

What a fucking retard.

That ^^ oughta send him whimpering under mommy's skirts for at least two days...

Lincoln was not a Conservative by modern meaning, but he sure the fuck wasn't a leftist/progressive as you have perverted the term "liberal" to mean, either.

Except that ISN'T what the term means and never has been. Dolt.

Ah yes, your Humpty Dumpty routine, words mean only what you wish them to mean at any given moment..

Here retard; learn something for the first time in your life.

{Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) extended into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks. Its members waged an underground campaign of intimidation and violence directed at white and black Republican leaders.}

Ku Klux Klan - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

From YOUR OWN LINK:

Founding of the Ku Klux Klan
A group including many former Confederate veterans founded the first branch of the Ku Klux Klan as a social club in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1866.​

The video says the same thing in more detail including its infiltration by the already-existing "slave patrols", of which it became a quasi-organized extension --- as I have posted precipitously on this site. .

YOUR OWN LINK.

Actually it gets the year wrong, it was Christmas 1865, and the founders were, specifically, (Capt) John Lester, (Capt) John Kennedy Frank McCord, James (Maj) James Crowe, Calvin Jones and Richard Reed, none of whom were politically active or had any known political affiliation at all; Which I already went over in post 73, and issued a challenge on the same mythology in 103, which went completely unanswered.

See that newspaper clipping above? The one where blacks are threatening to not vote for Republican candidates backed by the Klan? Care to essplain why an organization "created by Democrats" would be backing Republicans? Care to explain why it would be electing Clarence Morley, Owen Brewster, George Baker, Ed Jackson and Rice Means -- all of whom were Republicans? Care to essplain why they'd be backing Hoover over Al Smith, as also outlined above?

Dumbass.

More detail on the origins:

=> It was the boredom of small-town life that led six young Confederate veterans to gather around a fireplace one December evening in 1865 and form a social club. the place was Pulaski, Tenn., near the Alabama border. when they reassembled a week later, the six young men were full of ideas for their new society. it would be secret, to heighten the amusement of the thing, and the titles for the various offices were to have names as preposterous-sounding as possible, partly for the fun of it and partly to avoid any military or political implications. <= (much more detail follows; this is on page 11 of Ku Klux Klan: A History of Racism)​

-- This is also why the Klan has all those silly K-alliterations ... Klan, Klavern, Kleagle, etc. It was supposed to be a simple joke. That is the origin, and it was soon after taken over by the already-existing "slave patrols"....

=> Freedom for slaves represented for many white Southerners a bitter defeat — a defeat not only of their armies in the field but of their economic and social way of life. It was an age-old nightmare come true, for early in Southern life whites in general and plantation owners in particular had begun to view the large number of slaves living among them as a potential threat to their property and their lives. A series of bloody slave revolts in Virginia and other parts of the South resulted in the widespread practice of authorized night patrols composed of white men specially deputized for that purpose. White Southerners looked upon these night patrols as a civic duty, something akin to serving on a jury or in the militia. The mounted patrols, or regulators, as they were called, prowled Southern roads, enforcing the curfew for slaves, looking for runaways, and guarding rural areas against the threat of black uprisings. They were authorized by law to give a specific number of lashes to any violators they caught. The memory of these legal night riders and their whips was still fresh in the minds of both defeated Southerners and liberated blacks when the first Klansmen took to those same roads in 1866. (ibid) <=
​

A "civic duty". However perverse that characterization is, it's got nothing to do with political parties. If the Klan has any political ancestor/affinity at all it would be with the old Know Nothings. Which I posted about here recently on the anniversary of one of their riots.

What a fucking retard.

No different than a 9-11 truther....

Except that Troofers deal in conspiracy theories whereas I deal in documented history.

Perhaps you missed the crucial phrase in all of that. Here it is again:

"Prove me wrong".

You failed.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The usual “go-to” rhetoric from many conservatives and Republicans regarding racism harkens back to the fact that during the days of the Civil War, the creation and rise of the Ku Klux Klan and the decades of segregation, the Democratic party was mostly behind all of that.

Well, that much is true; there’s no denying that Democrats were once a party driven by white supremacy and overrun with racists.

The problem, of course, is that there’s a distinction which is often overlooked by these modern day Republicans who often use this rhetoric: When the Democratic party was the party of racism, they were considered conservatives while Republicans were considered the liberals. It’s why Republicans mostly flourished in the North while Democrats ruled the South.

That all began to change around the mid-40’s during President Truman’s time in office. He was the first Democratic president who really began to push civil rights into the Democratic platform. It was a move which was so controversial among Southern Democrats that it briefly spawned the “Dixiecrats” in 1948, which was a segregationist party that picked renowned racist Strom Thurmond as its presidential candidate, winning the states of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Georgia.

I would like to point out that those are all former Confederate states and are currently states considered “strongly Republican.”

By the way, the staunch racist and segregationist Thurmond, who was furious that Democrats were embracing equality, denounced his allegiance to the party in 1964 and joined the Republicans. You know, the same year the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed, officially ending segregation. This was also around the same time that the GOP was implementing what’s known as the “Southern Strategy” – a strategic ploy to pander to white racism to lure in voters as more African-Americans began aligning with Democrats.


Interesting fact: Between the Senate and the House, only 9 of the 124 politicians from “Confederate states” (all Democrats) voted for the Civil Rights Act. It didn’t get a single Southern Republican vote – not one.

There’s a reason why when we look at our nation’s history, practically every state that fought for the Confederacy, and in turn supported slavery (and are today “red”/Republican states), are also the same ones that:

• Opposed women’s suffrage.
  
• Supported segregation.
  
• Banned interracial marriage.
  
• Opposed the Civil Rights Act.

As The Guardian points out concerning the vote on the Civil Rights Act:

You can see that geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation. ​

And why is that? Because this was right in the middle of the transition where Republicans began to embrace racism and Democrats were pushing for civil rights and equality. And once again, the “constant” in determining which states were on the “right side of history” on these issues came down to who fought for the North and who fought for the South – regardless of party affiliation.

While some Democrats remained in the South through the 70’s and 80’s, most of them were leftovers from the past as Republicans continued to gain a stronghold over most of these former Confederate states. And as we all know, Republicans are now the unheralded political force in most of the former Confederate South.

So, it’s not exactly difficult to follow the historical pattern that began during the 40’s to see where the dynamics of the parties switched, as Democrats embraced equality and civil rights while the Republican party was quick to embrace the racism and hate Democrats were leaving behind.

That’s why when I encounter one of these Republicans who ignores this clear historic shift between the parties (which is almost always) I ask these three questions:

1. What party do white supremacists and the KKK vote for today?
   
2. Which party elected former Grand Wizard of the KKK, David Duke, in 1989?
   
3. Which party had one of its highest ranking member speak in front of a white supremacist group in 2001?

Typically you won’t get many of these folks to give you a straight answer to any of those, if they’ll even answer them at all. They usually just deflect back to 50+ years ago because they know the answers to those questions are all the same: The Republican party.

Oh, and let me debunk a quick myth that’s been going around about Bill Clinton and a campaign button from his 1992 election depicting the Confederate flag. While the button apparently did exist, it was never sanctioned by the Clinton campaign and was basically just something someone made on their own. It “proves” nothing because it has no ties or affiliation with the former president’s campaign in any way.

Like I’ve said plenty of times before, denial is a powerful thing. Conservatives will continue to cling to their myths, folklores and delusions because that’s what they’ve been told their whole lives and no amount of factual evidence will ever matter to the overwhelming majority of these people.

But the indisputable facts remain that practically every state that fought for the Confederacy, and supported some of the most horrific policies in our nation’s history, today are all “strongly Republican,” and the modern day GOP is supported by white supremacist groups and the KKK.

And while conservatives can twist all of this however they like (and I’m sure they will) that doesn’t change the reality they seem determined to pretend doesn’t exist.

No Longer the Party of Lincoln: Here's Proof That the Modern Day GOP Built Itself on Racism

Although Democrats were once a party driven by white supremacy and racism - the Party of Lincoln now owns that legacy.

 

[flacaltenn]

No way in hell I'm gonna go thru this history again with Pogo and the other deniers. They never learn. Probably because they don't READ history.. They just mine web links. I'll do a Bull Ring with anyone on the CRA or how my Tenn neighbors in Pulaski VOTED for years before they formed the KKK... I live on a battlefield from that war. We KNOW the facts...

Tell us wise one --- what political parties existed in Pulaski in 1865, and before?

And again --- I've issued this challenge for years to no response whatsoever --- where is any record of a political affiliation or activity for Lester? Or Kennedy? Or McCord? Or Crowe? Or Jones? Or Reed? Where is it? I've got volumes and volumes and books on top of books and I don't have one.

Actually -- you've NEVER gone through this history with me.

I live on a battlefield from that war. We KNOW the facts

You forget --- so do I. I'm in the state that used to own yours.

The topic here is "racist MODERN GOP" THe CRA is a valid discussion point. The creation of the KKK is a valid point. 1865 ------ not so much...

That's why I'm not following you around the briar patch again..

That's a contradiction then, because 1865 is when the Klan was founded. If the Klan is a valid discussion point, then 1865 must be. That's where it's born. Plus, you just cited "how my Tenn neighbors in Pulaski VOTED for years before they formed the KKK", which makes my question inevitable.

And the answer is, they were Democrats, they were Whigs before that party disintegrated, a good number of them were Constitutional Unionists (who won the state's Presidential electors in 1860); they were Know Nothings, and they were whatever other parties existed before that, which were many. But they weren't Republicans since that party did not yet exist in the South, nor for that matter did the right to vote anyway owing to the War, so it's kind of moot. Technically in 1865 Tennessee wasn't even in the United States.

On the other hand, since the Klan was not a political organization it's questionable as being a valid discussion point in this thread. That's why I refuted it as such.

You are so woefullly misinformed if you think the KKK was NOT a political organization. Obviously you didn't READ the PBS link I provided. It was formed to push a racist agenda and OPPOSE the the growth of the Republican party in the South.. Get real.. Start studying. Get a clue..

 

[Uncensored2008]

[


Except that Troofers deal in conspiracy theories whereas I deal in documented history.

Perhaps you missed the crucial phrase in all of that. Here it is again:

"Prove me wrong".

You failed.

You deal in "prove a negative" fallacy.

You are an absurd little troll, who has been repeatedly proven wrong in this thread. That you lack the wits to grasp the fact, notwithstanding.

 

[Pogo]

No way in hell I'm gonna go thru this history again with Pogo and the other deniers. They never learn. Probably because they don't READ history.. They just mine web links. I'll do a Bull Ring with anyone on the CRA or how my Tenn neighbors in Pulaski VOTED for years before they formed the KKK... I live on a battlefield from that war. We KNOW the facts...

Tell us wise one --- what political parties existed in Pulaski in 1865, and before?

And again --- I've issued this challenge for years to no response whatsoever --- where is any record of a political affiliation or activity for Lester? Or Kennedy? Or McCord? Or Crowe? Or Jones? Or Reed? Where is it? I've got volumes and volumes and books on top of books and I don't have one.

Actually -- you've NEVER gone through this history with me.

I live on a battlefield from that war. We KNOW the facts

You forget --- so do I. I'm in the state that used to own yours.

The topic here is "racist MODERN GOP" THe CRA is a valid discussion point. The creation of the KKK is a valid point. 1865 ------ not so much...

That's why I'm not following you around the briar patch again..

That's a contradiction then, because 1865 is when the Klan was founded. If the Klan is a valid discussion point, then 1865 must be. That's where it's born. Plus, you just cited "how my Tenn neighbors in Pulaski VOTED for years before they formed the KKK", which makes my question inevitable.

And the answer is, they were Democrats, they were Whigs before that party disintegrated, a good number of them were Constitutional Unionists (who won the state's Presidential electors in 1860); they were Know Nothings, and they were whatever other parties existed before that, which were many. But they weren't Republicans since that party did not yet exist in the South, nor for that matter did the right to vote anyway owing to the War, so it's kind of moot. Technically in 1865 Tennessee wasn't even in the United States.

On the other hand, since the Klan was not a political organization it's questionable as being a valid discussion point in this thread. That's why I refuted it as such.

You are so woefullly misinformed if you think the KKK was NOT a political organization. Obviously you didn't READ the PBS link I provided. It was formed to push a racist agenda and OPPOSE the the growth of the Republican party in the South.. Get real.. Start studying. Get a clue..

I already have. By chance I inherited a library on the topic, got interested, and have waxed loquacious about this very topic on this very board for years.

The PBS link -- I know the one you mean -- is badly worded as it implies the Klan was founded by Democrats. But I have dozens --- literally dozens -- of links and books directly refuting that implication, which I've posted and have available, and at the same time as already noted I've put out the challenge, including just now directly to you, to show me any political activities or affiliations for the six founders. Or for that matter for the 1915 founder of its revival group, Simmons. To date, no one ever has, and I haven't either.

Bottom line -- I don't believe in mythologizing history when I already know better.

 

[flacaltenn]

No way in hell I'm gonna go thru this history again with Pogo and the other deniers. They never learn. Probably because they don't READ history.. They just mine web links. I'll do a Bull Ring with anyone on the CRA or how my Tenn neighbors in Pulaski VOTED for years before they formed the KKK... I live on a battlefield from that war. We KNOW the facts...

Tell us wise one --- what political parties existed in Pulaski in 1865, and before?

And again --- I've issued this challenge for years to no response whatsoever --- where is any record of a political affiliation or activity for Lester? Or Kennedy? Or McCord? Or Crowe? Or Jones? Or Reed? Where is it? I've got volumes and volumes and books on top of books and I don't have one.

Actually -- you've NEVER gone through this history with me.

I live on a battlefield from that war. We KNOW the facts

You forget --- so do I. I'm in the state that used to own yours.

The topic here is "racist MODERN GOP" THe CRA is a valid discussion point. The creation of the KKK is a valid point. 1865 ------ not so much...

That's why I'm not following you around the briar patch again..

That's a contradiction then, because 1865 is when the Klan was founded. If the Klan is a valid discussion point, then 1865 must be. That's where it's born. Plus, you just cited "how my Tenn neighbors in Pulaski VOTED for years before they formed the KKK", which makes my question inevitable.

And the answer is, they were Democrats, they were Whigs before that party disintegrated, a good number of them were Constitutional Unionists (who won the state's Presidential electors in 1860); they were Know Nothings, and they were whatever other parties existed before that, which were many. But they weren't Republicans since that party did not yet exist in the South, nor for that matter did the right to vote anyway owing to the War, so it's kind of moot. Technically in 1865 Tennessee wasn't even in the United States.

On the other hand, since the Klan was not a political organization it's questionable as being a valid discussion point in this thread. That's why I refuted it as such.

You are so woefullly misinformed if you think the KKK was NOT a political organization. Obviously you didn't READ the PBS link I provided. It was formed to push a racist agenda and OPPOSE the the growth of the Republican party in the South.. Get real.. Start studying. Get a clue..

I already have. By chance I inherited a library on the topic, got interested, and have waxed loquacious about this very topic on this very board for years.

The PBS link -- I know the one you mean -- is badly worded as it implies the Klan was founded by Democrats. But I have dozens --- literally dozens -- of links and books directly refuting it, which I've posted and have available, and at the same time as already noted I've put out the challenge, including just now directly to you, to show me any political activities or affiliations for the six founders. Or for that matter for the 1915 founder of its revival group, Simmons. To date, no one ever has, and I haven't either.

History and the PBS quote clearly repeats the phrase that the KKK was created (in part) to OPPOSE Republican influence in the South. Size doesn't matter in SOME things. Like it doesn't matter what the SIZE of your library is -- if you don't READ it or you stuff it with only factoids. That's what some of our skinheads at USMB do.. Their libraries are VERY large. Measured in Yards, not inches.

 

[flacaltenn]

From a neutral Libertarian perspective -- this is just ONE of the massive cross-blaming finger pointing poo-flinging contests that have reduced political discussion to the gutter. There are NO WINNERS by party in the Civil Rights History.

Ku Klux Klan in Alabama from 1915-1930 | Encyclopedia of Alabama

The Ku Klux Klan first appeared in Alabama following the Civil War, when many Confederate veterans and Democratic Party supporters formed the group to oppose the extension of citizenship and voting rights among former slaves and to end Republican Party control of the state government.

Where this partisan Bullshit blows up.. Is the difference between the ORIGINAL Klan and it's resurrection in the 60s and 70s AFTER it had been defanged. The "new" Klan was a bunch of losers with hardly ANY Power or purpose other than looking like morons. The "old" Klan was brutal and ENTRENCHED in local politics.

KKK crucial to building the South’s enduring Republican majority, study finds

The researchers also found that a poll conducted in 1992, “decades after the Klan’s decline, [showed] conservative racial attitudes strongly predict southerners’ Republican voting, but only in counties where the Klan was organized in the 1960s.”

KKK chapters were more likely to be formed in strongly Democratic counties earlier in the civil rights movement, which reflected the long-standing link between southern Democrats and white supremacists.

But that political bond began unraveling as the national Democratic Party became increasingly aligned with the black civil rights struggle, and many of those former Democratic voters backed Republican Barry Goldwater in 1964 and third-party anti-desegregation candidate George Wallace 1968.

Just STOP this kind of pissing contest. FOCUS on the current party arrogance and dysfunction. And quit trying to "gotcha" each other over pissant details like this -- while America is in a leadership crisis BECAUSE of your gang warfare. Vote for Johnson/Weld and put yourselves in "time-out". Get some real stuff done for a change..

 

[Pogo]

Tell us wise one --- what political parties existed in Pulaski in 1865, and before?

And again --- I've issued this challenge for years to no response whatsoever --- where is any record of a political affiliation or activity for Lester? Or Kennedy? Or McCord? Or Crowe? Or Jones? Or Reed? Where is it? I've got volumes and volumes and books on top of books and I don't have one.

Actually -- you've NEVER gone through this history with me.

You forget --- so do I. I'm in the state that used to own yours.

The topic here is "racist MODERN GOP" THe CRA is a valid discussion point. The creation of the KKK is a valid point. 1865 ------ not so much...

That's why I'm not following you around the briar patch again..

That's a contradiction then, because 1865 is when the Klan was founded. If the Klan is a valid discussion point, then 1865 must be. That's where it's born. Plus, you just cited "how my Tenn neighbors in Pulaski VOTED for years before they formed the KKK", which makes my question inevitable.

And the answer is, they were Democrats, they were Whigs before that party disintegrated, a good number of them were Constitutional Unionists (who won the state's Presidential electors in 1860); they were Know Nothings, and they were whatever other parties existed before that, which were many. But they weren't Republicans since that party did not yet exist in the South, nor for that matter did the right to vote anyway owing to the War, so it's kind of moot. Technically in 1865 Tennessee wasn't even in the United States.

On the other hand, since the Klan was not a political organization it's questionable as being a valid discussion point in this thread. That's why I refuted it as such.

You are so woefullly misinformed if you think the KKK was NOT a political organization. Obviously you didn't READ the PBS link I provided. It was formed to push a racist agenda and OPPOSE the the growth of the Republican party in the South.. Get real.. Start studying. Get a clue..

I already have. By chance I inherited a library on the topic, got interested, and have waxed loquacious about this very topic on this very board for years.

The PBS link -- I know the one you mean -- is badly worded as it implies the Klan was founded by Democrats. But I have dozens --- literally dozens -- of links and books directly refuting it, which I've posted and have available, and at the same time as already noted I've put out the challenge, including just now directly to you, to show me any political activities or affiliations for the six founders. Or for that matter for the 1915 founder of its revival group, Simmons. To date, no one ever has, and I haven't either.

History and the PBS quote clearly repeats the phrase that the KKK was created (in part) to OPPOSE Republican influence in the South.

Yes, it does imply that, without directly saying it. And I'm telling you, again the same thing, that that implication is INACCURATE. It was formed as a simple social club for no other reason than simple boredom, as I've already posted. Obviously it didn't stay that way, being soon infiltrated by "night patrols" (which I've also posted, not for the first time), but the six Confederate veteran founders had no political affiliations or motivations. Again --- prove me wrong.

That's the whole reason the Klan has those silly names and K-alliterations of Klaverns and Kleagles and Grand Dragons --- it's founded on a joke. Terrorism is serious business and by definition aims to be intimidating. You don't intimidate anyone with jokey alliterative titles.

More on the political thing:

Simmons, the restarter of the 1915 Klan, the one that was by far the biggest and farthest reaching, described it as "the most powerful, secret, non-political organization in existence" (The Fiery Cross, Wyn Craig Wade, p. 151).

Then there was Eugene Farnsworth, Klan propagandist in Maine:

>> Farnsworth reportedly spoke at length about two classes in America: Catholics and Protestants. He stated that the Catholic Church held a number of political prisoners, and he expressed concern that there were increasing numbers of Catholic teachers in public schools, working as policemen in cities, and controlling the courts. Farnsworth acknowledged that the Klan was a militant organization, with no political affiliations to a specific party. He made “brief reference to the Negro as another problem and briefly to the Jews as another race that cannot be assimilated,” explaining that “the Catholics, Jews, and Negroes are clannish and stick together, while the native born Americans are constantly rowing with one another.” << -- Maine's Gone Mad: The Rising of the Klan
​

--- To try to hammer the past into some binary box of "political parties" who weren't involved anyway is to disrespect History. The Klan was a social movement heralding back to, in the first iteration the Night Patrols and the rhetoric of the Know Nothings, and in the second iteration to the first Klan as well as the National Defense League and its splinter the American Defense Society. This was a socio-cultural movement, not a political one.

>> In the end, the Klan was important not for what it did but for what it signified. It accomplished little but, as Evans appreciated, it expressed the otherwise inarticulate rage and resentment of millions. At bottom its members' quarrel was with modernity. In particular, they objected to the rise of Catholics and Jews to positions of power and prominence; they feared that science would undermine the moral authority of the Bible; they worried that a "New Woman" would refuse to the submit to patriarchal authority; they worried that a "New Negro" would reject white supremacy. In matters trivial and profound they found themselves threatened with being passed by. The Klan captured perfectly, as did the Eugenics movement, their simultaneous sense of being entitled and endangered. >> (here)

 

[Pogo]

Ku Klux Klan in Alabama from 1915-1930 | Encyclopedia of Alabama

The Ku Klux Klan first appeared in Alabama following the Civil War, when many Confederate veterans and Democratic Party supporters formed the group to oppose the extension of citizenship and voting rights among former slaves and to end Republican Party control of the state government.

And again, that's uninformed and refutable on its details. The six founders did it as a lark, nothing more -- and there is no record of their having a political affiliation or purpose. I keep challenging you -- or anyone -- to prove me wrong on that, and I keep getting CRICKETS.

And once again --- there were no "voting rights" at the time of the Klan's founding --- for ANYBODY. The Confederacy was disenfranchised until the individual states were readmitted, which for Tennessee -- the locale of the founding -- wasn't until the following year, July of 1866.

Where this partisan Bullshit blows up.. Is the difference between the ORIGINAL Klan and it's resurrection in the 60s and 70s AFTER it had been defanged. The "new" Klan was a bunch of losers with hardly ANY Power or purpose other than looking like morons. The "old" Klan was brutal and ENTRENCHED in local politics.

Actually its resurrection was a hell of a lot earlier than that -- 1915. And it was exponentially larger, more widespread, and more influential in that second iteration than the first, which lasted about seven years and would have faded into history alongside the White League, the Knights of the White Camellia and other movements also started by Confederate veterans, if not for the Simmons regurgitation in 1915 capitalizing on the notoritety of the film "Birth of a Nation". THAT is where all the massive marches took place (again see the newspaper report of 1928), THAT is where it dabbled into getting people elected to office, both Republican and Democrat depending on whatever served their purpose in that time and place. At one point it was estimated that one-third of the entire male population of Indiana was in the Klan.

​

Again --- does that story mean the Klan is "Republican"? No it does not. That would be the same Association Fallacy and yet another enslaved binary-bot thinking bridge to nowhere that demands that everything on earth be defined in terms of two political parties -- which is absurd on its face. Not everything IS defined that way. In fact when a pol affiliated with the Klan he was taken to task by members of his own party, as was e.g. Brewster (R), as was McAdoo (D).

As a socio-cultural fascist movement the Klan sought access -- when it was large enough to --- to politicians who would smooth its way, whether they were Republicans here or Democrats there -- and would oppose those (like Al Smith noted above) who were Democrats here or Republicans there. That's not a political agenda; that's a group looking to perpetuate itself.

If we're going to hold judgments on the Klan and its influence it's essential to understand what it was --- and what it was not.

 

[Pogo]

[


Except that Troofers deal in conspiracy theories whereas I deal in documented history.

Perhaps you missed the crucial phrase in all of that. Here it is again:

"Prove me wrong".

You failed.

You deal in "prove a negative" fallacy.

You are an absurd little troll, who has been repeatedly proven wrong in this thread. That you lack the wits to grasp the fact, notwithstanding.

Nope. It's a positive. It starts with your assertion, that "Klan was started by a political party" bullshit. Your job: prove it.
You can't do it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Ku Klux Klan in Alabama from 1915-1930 | Encyclopedia of Alabama

The Ku Klux Klan first appeared in Alabama following the Civil War, when many Confederate veterans and Democratic Party supporters formed the group to oppose the extension of citizenship and voting rights among former slaves and to end Republican Party control of the state government.

And again, that's uninformed and refutable on its details. The six founders did it as a lark, nothing more -- and there is no record of their having a political affiliation or purpose. I keep challenging you -- or anyone -- to prove me wrong on that, and I keep getting CRICKETS.

And once again --- there were no "voting rights" at the time of the Klan's founding --- for ANYBODY. The Confederacy was disenfranchised until the individual states were readmitted, which for Tennessee -- the locale of the founding -- wasn't until the following year, July of 1866.

Where this partisan Bullshit blows up.. Is the difference between the ORIGINAL Klan and it's resurrection in the 60s and 70s AFTER it had been defanged. The "new" Klan was a bunch of losers with hardly ANY Power or purpose other than looking like morons. The "old" Klan was brutal and ENTRENCHED in local politics.

Actually its resurrection was a hell of a lot earlier than that -- 1915. And it was exponentially larger, more widespread, and more influential in that second iteration than the first, which lasted about seven years and would have faded into history alongside the White League, the Knights of the White Camellia and other movements also started by Confederate veterans, if not for the Simmons regurgitation in 1915 capitalizing on the notoritety of the film "Birth of a Nation". THAT is where all the massive marches took place (again see the newspaper report of 1928), THAT is where it dabbled into getting people elected to office, both Republican and Democrat depending on whatever served their purpose in that time and place. At one point it was estimated that one-third of the entire male population of Indiana was in the Klan.

​

Again --- does that story mean the Klan is "Republican"? No it does not. That would be the same Association Fallacy and yet another enslaved binary-bot thinking bridge to nowhere that demands that everything on earth be defined in terms of two political parties -- which is absurd on its face. Not everything IS defined that way. In fact when a pol affiliated with the Klan he was taken to task by members of his own party, as was e.g. Brewster (R), as was McAdoo (D).

As a socio-cultural fascist movement the Klan sought access -- when it was large enough to --- to politicians who would smooth its way, whether they were Republicans here or Democrats there -- and would oppose those (like Al Smith noted above) who were Democrats here or Republicans there. That's not a political agenda; that's a group looking to perpetuate itself.

Right --- "they did as a lark".. Where's your logic and reason??? Are they not responsible for the very PARTISAN organization that their "little prank" turned into? You are all factoids and no perspective.

Six guys who didn't HAVE a lot of influence on the monster they created? There's no winner here. It is what it was.

 

[flacaltenn]

[


Except that Troofers deal in conspiracy theories whereas I deal in documented history.

Perhaps you missed the crucial phrase in all of that. Here it is again:

"Prove me wrong".

You failed.

You deal in "prove a negative" fallacy.

You are an absurd little troll, who has been repeatedly proven wrong in this thread. That you lack the wits to grasp the fact, notwithstanding.

Nope. It's a positive. It starts with your assertion, that "Klan was started by a political party" bullshit. Your job: prove it.
You can't do it.

Nobody CLAIMED it was started "by a political party". But you have ignore a Crapload of responsible history that it didn't initially conspire to end Republican influence in the South. You think PBS is "uninformed"??? QUICK -- defund those deniers.

 

[Pogo]

KKK crucial to building the South’s enduring Republican majority, study finds

The researchers also found that a poll conducted in 1992, “decades after the Klan’s decline, [showed] conservative racial attitudes strongly predict southerners’ Republican voting, but only in counties where the Klan was organized in the 1960s.”

KKK chapters were more likely to be formed in strongly Democratic counties earlier in the civil rights movement, which reflected the long-standing link between southern Democrats and white supremacists.

But that political bond began unraveling as the national Democratic Party became increasingly aligned with the black civil rights struggle, and many of those former Democratic voters backed Republican Barry Goldwater in 1964 and third-party anti-desegregation candidate George Wallace 1968.

Thanks, I was going to get around to that, although the phrase "strongly Democratic counties" when speaking about the South of that period, is redundant. But this does illustrate the shift that some of the deniers in this thread continue to bury their heads in the sand about. Although I still resist the sweeping generalization of the resulting Association Fallacy that results in the title of this thread.

 

[Iceweasel]

When the tards slam the racist Democrats of the past, they are so ill-informed, they don't realize they are slamming their own political ancestors.

It is amazing their heads don't explode from cognitive dissonance.

I wear the Confederate flag because I am proud of my heritage!

Those old Confederates were slave owners and racists! Yeeeee-haaaaawwwww! That's my proud heritage!

Show us evidence that Dems switched parties. And that guy doesn't look 150 years old.

 

[WillowTree]

Who called Ben Carson a coon? It wasn't a Republican. Who called Condoleeza rice Aunt Jehmimah? It wasn't a Republican. Who called for the death of all white men? He eats in the WH. That's right! Try again later. It will still be the truth.

 

[Pogo]

Ku Klux Klan in Alabama from 1915-1930 | Encyclopedia of Alabama

The Ku Klux Klan first appeared in Alabama following the Civil War, when many Confederate veterans and Democratic Party supporters formed the group to oppose the extension of citizenship and voting rights among former slaves and to end Republican Party control of the state government.

And again, that's uninformed and refutable on its details. The six founders did it as a lark, nothing more -- and there is no record of their having a political affiliation or purpose. I keep challenging you -- or anyone -- to prove me wrong on that, and I keep getting CRICKETS.

And once again --- there were no "voting rights" at the time of the Klan's founding --- for ANYBODY. The Confederacy was disenfranchised until the individual states were readmitted, which for Tennessee -- the locale of the founding -- wasn't until the following year, July of 1866.

Where this partisan Bullshit blows up.. Is the difference between the ORIGINAL Klan and it's resurrection in the 60s and 70s AFTER it had been defanged. The "new" Klan was a bunch of losers with hardly ANY Power or purpose other than looking like morons. The "old" Klan was brutal and ENTRENCHED in local politics.

Actually its resurrection was a hell of a lot earlier than that -- 1915. And it was exponentially larger, more widespread, and more influential in that second iteration than the first, which lasted about seven years and would have faded into history alongside the White League, the Knights of the White Camellia and other movements also started by Confederate veterans, if not for the Simmons regurgitation in 1915 capitalizing on the notoritety of the film "Birth of a Nation". THAT is where all the massive marches took place (again see the newspaper report of 1928), THAT is where it dabbled into getting people elected to office, both Republican and Democrat depending on whatever served their purpose in that time and place. At one point it was estimated that one-third of the entire male population of Indiana was in the Klan.

​

Again --- does that story mean the Klan is "Republican"? No it does not. That would be the same Association Fallacy and yet another enslaved binary-bot thinking bridge to nowhere that demands that everything on earth be defined in terms of two political parties -- which is absurd on its face. Not everything IS defined that way. In fact when a pol affiliated with the Klan he was taken to task by members of his own party, as was e.g. Brewster (R), as was McAdoo (D).

As a socio-cultural fascist movement the Klan sought access -- when it was large enough to --- to politicians who would smooth its way, whether they were Republicans here or Democrats there -- and would oppose those (like Al Smith noted above) who were Democrats here or Republicans there. That's not a political agenda; that's a group looking to perpetuate itself.

Right --- "they did as a lark".. Where's your logic and reason??? Are they not responsible for the very PARTISAN organization that their "little prank" turned into? You are all factoids and no perspective.

Six guys who didn't HAVE a lot of influence on the monster they created? There's no winner here. It is what it was.

Not once it spun away from them, no they didn't. Nor did Nathan Bedford Forrest, who was recruited to head the thing and less than two years later issued his first and only General Order disbanding the entire thing and ordering regalia to be destroyed as he was appalled by its violence. They ignored him too and kept going ad hoc, without an organization.

But the original claim was "created by one political party to oppose another political party". And that simply is not the case at all.

 

[Pogo]

[


Except that Troofers deal in conspiracy theories whereas I deal in documented history.

Perhaps you missed the crucial phrase in all of that. Here it is again:

"Prove me wrong".

You failed.

You deal in "prove a negative" fallacy.

You are an absurd little troll, who has been repeatedly proven wrong in this thread. That you lack the wits to grasp the fact, notwithstanding.

Nope. It's a positive. It starts with your assertion, that "Klan was started by a political party" bullshit. Your job: prove it.
You can't do it.

Nobody CLAIMED it was started "by a political party". But you have ignore a Crapload of responsible history that it didn't initially conspire to end Republican influence in the South. You think PBS is "uninformed"??? QUICK -- defund those deniers.

Ahem...

Yes, your filthy party created the KKK to wage war on Republicans.

I can see why you would have missed it --- Pothead excises his own quotes out when he replies. He thinks that makes them go away.

Then there was this:

It was formed to push a racist agenda and OPPOSE the the growth of the Republican party in the South.

Which doesn't say "created by a political party" but does get the whole purpose wrong.

What you fallacists don't seem to get is that "opposing Republicans" ----- doesn't automatically mean "therefore they were Democrats". That's a classic False Dichotomy and again, the product of binary duopoly-party thinking.

It's crucial to consider what "Republican" meant at the time, which was an invading/occupying army and "carpetbaggers". These acts, however terroristic they got, were not political partisanship --- they were insurgency. They were in effect trying to continue a war which had already been lost but couldn't be admitted to. It's no accident that various similar groups, a couple of which I mentioned, were formed by former Confederate veterans -- they were trying to deny and reverse the outcome of the War itself.

That's not an act of political partisanship; it's an act of war. In other words these insurgents didn't believe the War was over. That sentiment, culturally, even lived on into my own lifetime. That's how deep it ran.