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

[owebo]

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)

Didn't make it past that. It's rubber room material.

Note the newbie appears to have a hate on for USMB conservative posters and yet he just joined. Interesting.

Hitlery panic shill....

 

[Iceweasel]

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)

Didn't make it past that. It's rubber room material.

Note the newbie appears to have a hate on for USMB conservative posters and yet he just joined. Interesting.

Likely a sock of someone nobody will talk to anymore.

 

[Pogo]

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.

There's a lot to chew on here, but this history background is a wee bit shaky, and very oversimplified.

"That all" didn't begin to change with Truman. He was a part of an ongoing evolution but he didn't just pop up out of a vacuum. Depending on what we mean by "that all", we can demonstrate in the near field the migration of the black vote from loyal Republican to loyal Democratic during the first term of FDR, and in the big picture we look back to the 19th century.

While it's true the DP represented conservatism and 'states rights' and the Republicans started out as fairly radical Liberals, the significant shift in those outlooks developed at the turn of the 19th/20th century when the RP gravitated to the interests of the wealthy and the corporations (personified in McKinley) and the DP absorbed the Populist movment (capsulized in W. J. Bryan). This is a significant and unignorable starting point as it serves as a basis that widely still exists today, whether by realities of performance or by traditional perceptions. It's where the DP starts to be associated with minorities, immigrants, women, etc.... and labor. Not insignificant is this comparative quote from Lincoln:

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."​

--- half a century later no Republican would take such a view sympathetic to labor with the exception of Teddy Roosevelt, who actually campaigned against that pro-capital shift, easily won most of the primary elections and sauntered into the 1912 Republican convention expecting to win the nomination but was snubbed by the establishment. If there's a single event where this hierarchical line is drawn, this would be it. (TR went on to run as a third party, which pushed the Republican Taft to third place, handing Wilson the Presidency with less than 42% of the vote.)

Both parties at this point were easing gingerly into their new roles, Democrats to "labor" (in the larger sense) and Republicans to "capital". Wilson for example presided over the women's suffrage Amendment but he was no fan of it and went along with what was politically expedient.

So if there's a point where "that all began to change" it would be back there around vaguely a century ago. FDR accelerated it with the New Deal, which is where the DP took on the constituency of black people, though without doing a whole lot for their position, save some baby steps from FDR and Truman. For his part Truman did indeed make 'civil rights' a focus of his campaign, and following an impassioned speech to that end by Minneapolis mayor Hubert Humphrey, Thurmond and his fellow travellers walked out and ran their own third party

(In the next Presidential election, Thurmond would endorse the Republican Dwight Eisenhower, which led to the state Democratic Party kicking him off the ballot for his own re-election, forcing Thurmond to run as a write-in, which he did and won.)

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.

The Southern Strategy actually came a bit later, when it was clear the DP and the South had finalized a divorce and the votes could be up for grabs. Prior to Thurmond's jumping parties in 1964, the idea of associating with the "party of Linoln" had been unthinkable for exactly 99 years.

To come full circle -- Ronald Reagan launched his 1980 Presidential campaign in Philadelphia Mississippi, the site of civil rights tensions in the recent past, talking "states rights" --- the same phrase Southerners had been using as a battle cry since before the Civil War, right down to George Wallace.

I have news for you. Lincoln hated State's Rights and the Supreme Court. He ignored 'constitutional principles' and laughed at the Court as illegitimate when they ruled against him, since he never gave a shit about the constitution or principles as he wasn't a conservative when he launch a civil war against state's rights.

This brings up another point about the early Republican Party -- it was originally comprised largely of the abolitionist faction of the Whig Party, which was then disintegrating over its inability to come to terms with the ongoing question of slavery. Those that were against it, including Lincoln himself, joined the new Republicans. The Whigs had also been the party of "doing big things with government", in opposition to the whole "states rights" idea. So in effect the Republicans were "big gummint" and the Democrats "smaller".

Bottom line, again as always, is that history always has mitigating context and political parties cannot be crammed into binary bags as if they're static ideologies. The purpose of a political party is simply to consolidate and organize power, and whenever political winds shift, political parties shift with them.

 

[Pogo]

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.

This is a salient and inescapable point, which I often illustrate here thusly:

(for this purpose "Northern" means "everywhere outside the South")
The original House version:

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

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

The Senate version:

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

Only a slight party pattern with marginally more support from the D side than the R side. But 94 versus 85 by political party is not significant. They're both landslides.

But 96 on one (geographical) side versus 92 on the other side -- that is a contrast. If anything this represents the schizophrenic nature of the Democratic Party in the era, carrying proud "Liberals" outside the South while simultaneously counting staunch "anti-Liberal" conservatives in the South. Which in effect shows that tradition trumps ideology.

 

[Pogo]

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?

To be fair no "party" votes for, supports, etc the KKK as such. The Klan has never been a political organization per se. When it dabbled in politics at all (in the 1920s) it worked for, or against, both Democrats and Republicans, whatever would advance its goals in that time and place. There may be a demonstrable affinity here and there but to attribute that affinity to a political party as an elemental is to construct an Association Fallacy.

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

Again, both are sweeping association-fallacy generalizations that invite many counterexamples. There is no "party of white supremacy" and there never has been. "White supremacy" and its fellow diseases are legacies of -- one is tempted to say "the South" but to be correct, of slaveholding. That's where it starts, and that's way older than political parties.

I make the distinction because, for another example, I live in the South, yet this particular area never had a history of slaveholding and consequently never developed a "white supremacy" or "Klan" culture. Not insignificantly it also voted NOT to secede from the Union and stayed largely loyal to that Union -- so I'll continue to resists stereotypes about the South as much as those about political parties.

It's equally inaccurate to label the DP as "the party of racism" or whatever; if anything it was a party of non-backbone, trying to be all things to the slave and the free states simultaneously, which is why it's experienced so many renegade breakaways as far back as 1860. The DP tried to play it both ways to hold the votes of diametrically opposed ideologies --- until 1964.

Hiding its collective head in the sand hoping the issue would just go away was not an uncommon approach at the time; it destroyed the Whigs and it failed to sustain the Constitutional Union Party and the Know Nothings through the Civil War. The radicals taking the bold action and facing the issue head-on were the new radical Republican Party. But the Democrats were already firmly established, north and south, and in effect had no opposition in the South, so that if you were a racist, you were a Democrat, and if you were not a racist, you were still a Democrat, because everybody was a Democrat.

 

[Pogo]

No, the south was fine with all of FDR's economic programs, they were even willing to sign on with a national healthcare system, it was Truman desegregating the military and the Northern Democrats that advocated desegregation that changed everything in the coalition. Then Goldwater and Reagan said they were against the civil rights act, and the racists went over to vote for them ever since.

Indeed, Goldwater's only state wins aside from his home state were in the Deep South. George Wallace actually volunteered to switch to Republican and be Goldwater's running mate against LBJ, which offer Goldwater declined as too polarizing. Then he had to talk Wallace out of bolting and running his own third party campaign.

 

[Pogo]

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

Lyndon Baines Johnson (D) 1963... "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... I'll have them nig---s voting Democratic for the next two hundred years".

President LBJ: "I’ll have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years" - Is this a real quote? • /r/AskHistorians

Yawzirrr, boss...

Bogus quote.
And btw we can't link to other message boards here. I got busted on that as a rookie.

 

[Pogo]

Leftists have been trying this song and dance for a long time. There was NO migration to the GOP. Three guys switched parties and only one was a racist, Strom Thurman, who renounced his past behavior.

The south wanted more economic freedom (sound familiar) and the GOP platform was more attractive so they grew while the Dems shrank. Today the Democrat party still relies heavily on race to divide and conquer.

No, the south was fine with all of FDR's economic programs, they were even willing to sign on with a national healthcare system, it was Truman desegregating the military and the Northern Democrats that advocated desegregation that changed everything in the coalition. Then Goldwater and Reagan said they were against the civil rights act, and the racists went over to vote for them ever since.

Harry Truman and Health Care Reform: The Debate Started Here | Pediatrics Perspectives | Pediatrics

The only state that voted against FDR all times was Vermont, because the old school republican party was very different, there were no bigots and religious fanatics like in modern times. Those guys were conservative democrats back then.

No, you don't get to rewrite history to suit your hatred. Sorry. Three guys jumped ship and not because of racial matter. The GOP helped pass civil rights legislation, the dems were holding it up.

"Three guys" huh?

Care to name these "three guys"?

 

[Pogo]

View attachment 85860

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

Who is rewriting history?

You are..

Only three democrats switched, the rest like Al Gore's dad remained in the democrat party.

Jimmy Carter won the South.

The youth of the redstates wanted middle class manufacturing jobs instead of farm or textile jobs and the republicans delivered in states like South and North Carolina.

The last president to win white males was LBJ, wonder why?

Carter won due to Watergate, and Clinton due to Perot. By 2000, demographics had begun to change, and Gore had won the Popular Vote on his own.

Democrats celebrate that racist democrat clown to this day....

Goldwater was the racist who said he would never ever sign the civil rights act, LBJ supported it. Even Obama has used the word '******', no one cares. Actions matter more than words.

I don't know of any evidence that Goldwater was ever a racist, and plenty that he was not. He opposed CRA on ideological grounds, although the mere fact of his opposition certainly appealed to racists. An Alabama Klan leader famously endorsed him at the time, but the candidate can't control that.

To his credit once CRA passed Goldwater took the stance that it's now the law of the land, let's see if it works.

 

[norwegen]

Leftists have been trying this song and dance for a long time. There was NO migration to the GOP. Three guys switched parties and only one was a racist, Strom Thurman, who renounced his past behavior.

The south wanted more economic freedom (sound familiar) and the GOP platform was more attractive so they grew while the Dems shrank. Today the Democrat party still relies heavily on race to divide and conquer.

No, the south was fine with all of FDR's economic programs, they were even willing to sign on with a national healthcare system, it was Truman desegregating the military and the Northern Democrats that advocated desegregation that changed everything in the coalition. Then Goldwater and Reagan said they were against the civil rights act, and the racists went over to vote for them ever since.

Harry Truman and Health Care Reform: The Debate Started Here | Pediatrics Perspectives | Pediatrics

The only state that voted against FDR all times was Vermont, because the old school republican party was very different, there were no bigots and religious fanatics like in modern times. Those guys were conservative democrats back then.

No, you don't get to rewrite history to suit your hatred. Sorry. Three guys jumped ship and not because of racial matter. The GOP helped pass civil rights legislation, the dems were holding it up.

Yes, the Civil Rights Act of '64 passed thanks to the Republicans.

Liberals spew some convoluted story about Democrats switching sides some time early in the 1900s (or thereabouts). What happened in the early '60s? Did they switch back?

Try asking one, and then sit a back and watch the convoluted fun (kinda like the OP).

 

[g5000]

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.

So Woodrow Wilson and FDR were conservatives?

That alone proves you're totally full of shit. Democrats have always been in favor of big government and tax and spend.

Nope. You have the utter ignorance of American history upon which your propagandists heavily depend.

The influence of liberals in the Democratic party started before Truman. However, the Democratic Party was predominantly conservative until the 1940s/1950s.

FDR's conservative vice president, John Nance Garner of Texas, was so angry with FDR's deficit spending and the New Deal's expansion of federal powers that he ran against FDR for the 1940 Democratic nomination.

Garner was beaten by FDR, and returned to Texas. He was replaced by Henry Wallace as FDR's VP.

 

[Lakhota]

The old racist KKK Democrats either evolved or switched to the Republican Party. Senator Robert Byrd evolved and remained a Democrat. I'm not aware of any Democrats who are currently members of the KKK or any other white supremacist groups.

 

[Pogo]

By the mid-1860s, the Republican Party’s alliance with blacks had caused a noticeable strain on the Democrats’ struggle for electoral significance in the post-Civil War era. This prompted the Democratic Party in 1866 to develop a new pseudo-secret political action group whose sole purpose was to help gain control of the electorate. The new group was known simply by their initials, KKK (Ku Klux Klan).

Yet more binary-bot Bullshit.
Number one, the Klan was formed in 1865, same year as the Civil War ended;

number two, "getting control of the electorate" wasn't a reality in a defeated would-be nation that had been disenfranchised by its victor -- there was no "electorate";

number three, the Klan was established by six Confederate veterans: (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;

number four, it was formed as a joke and had nothing to do even with racism, let alone politics -- that element would infiltrate later from the already-existing "slave patrols", which were also not a political movement.

Again --- rewriting history.

his political relationship was nationally solidified shortly thereafter during the 1868 Democratic National Convention when former Civil War General Nathan Bedford Forrest was honored as the KKK’s first Grand Wizard.

Forrest, a well-known general from the War, was recruited by the disparate Klan in April 1867 to be its figurehead as a move to give the group the credibility of his name. When its activities got out of hand and engaged in violence, he issued his first and only General Order less than two years later, officially disbanding the Klan and ordering its regalia to be destroyed (January 1869). This order would be largely ignored and the movement continued without a figurehead on an ad hoc local basis for about four more years before it was extinguished (1873)

One of the most vivid examples of collusion between the KKK and Democratic Party was when Democrat Senator Wade Hampton ran for the governorship of South Carolina in 1876. The Klan put into action a battle plan to help Democrats win, stating: “Every Democrat must feel honor bound to control the vote of at least one Negro by intimidation…. Democrats must go in as large numbers…and well-armed.”

Again, Bullshit. The Klan was defunct by 1876, especially in South Carolina.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The old racist KKK Democrats either evolved or switched to the Republican Party. Senator Robert Byrd evolved and remained a Democrat. I'm not aware of any Democrats who are currently members of the KKK or any other white supremacist groups.

What you forget about the grand poo bah of the KKK supporting OWS?

KKK is still old white democrats down here.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The old racist KKK Democrats either evolved or switched to the Republican Party. Senator Robert Byrd evolved and remained a Democrat. I'm not aware of any Democrats who are currently members of the KKK or any other white supremacist groups.

KKK has given $20K to Hillary Clinton’s campaign: Klan leader

 

[Wyatt earp]

By the mid-1860s, the Republican Party’s alliance with blacks had caused a noticeable strain on the Democrats’ struggle for electoral significance in the post-Civil War era. This prompted the Democratic Party in 1866 to develop a new pseudo-secret political action group whose sole purpose was to help gain control of the electorate. The new group was known simply by their initials, KKK (Ku Klux Klan).

Yet more binary-bot Bullshit.
Number one, the Klan was formed in 1865, same year as the Civil War ended;

number two, "getting control of the electorate" wasn't a reality in a defeated would-be nation that had been disenfranchised by its victor -- there was no "electorate";

number three, the Klan was established by six Confederate veterans: (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;

number four, it was formed as a joke and had nothing to do even with racism, let alone politics -- that element would infiltrate later from the already-existing "slave patrols", which were also not a political movement.

Again --- rewriting history.

his political relationship was nationally solidified shortly thereafter during the 1868 Democratic National Convention when former Civil War General Nathan Bedford Forrest was honored as the KKK’s first Grand Wizard.

Forrest, a well-known general from the War, was recruited by the disparate Klan in April 1867 to be its figurehead as a move to give the group the credibility of his name. When its activities got out of hand and engaged in violence, he issued his first and only General Order less than two years later, officially disbanding the Klan and ordering its regalia to be destroyed (January 1869). This order would be largely ignored and the movement continued without a figurehead on an ad hoc local basis for about four more years before it was extinguished (1873)

One of the most vivid examples of collusion between the KKK and Democratic Party was when Democrat Senator Wade Hampton ran for the governorship of South Carolina in 1876. The Klan put into action a battle plan to help Democrats win, stating: “Every Democrat must feel honor bound to control the vote of at least one Negro by intimidation…. Democrats must go in as large numbers…and well-armed.”

Again, Bullshit. The Klan was defunct by 1876, especially in South Carolina.

Bullshit I seen their literature a few years ago in my town, in fact it made national headlines

 

[Pogo]

No, the south was fine with all of FDR's economic programs, they were even willing to sign on with a national healthcare system, it was Truman desegregating the military and the Northern Democrats that advocated desegregation that changed everything in the coalition. Then Goldwater and Reagan said they were against the civil rights act, and the racists went over to vote for them ever since.

Harry Truman and Health Care Reform: The Debate Started Here | Pediatrics Perspectives | Pediatrics

The only state that voted against FDR all times was Vermont, because the old school republican party was very different, there were no bigots and religious fanatics like in modern times. Those guys were conservative democrats back then.

No, you don't get to rewrite history to suit your hatred. Sorry. Three guys jumped ship and not because of racial matter. The GOP helped pass civil rights legislation, the dems were holding it up.

Nope, both the northern democrats and republicans supported it. It was the southerners (both democrats, and the couple of republicans) that opposed it. Then they ran Goldwater who campaigned against Civil Rights, and promised to never sign the legislation for president, and then Goldwater got the southern votes. Later Nixon campaigned against Forced Busing, and Reagan was also against the Civil Rights by appealing to those same racists.

A higher percentage of non-southern democrats supported the Civil Rights Act vs. Republicans.

Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten

The south voted for FDR 4 times (while Vermont voted against him), then magically Truman starts talking about desegregation and they start to leave the party, hmmm, why could that be? Even when they otherwise supported his economic proposals including national healthcare.

A few Republicans in the south opposed the civil rights bill so that shoots the rest of your theory down. Cherry picking won't work, sorry.

And by the way, the ability to post a link doesn't win anything. Any retard can do it. If you are too lazy or stupid to find the content it isn't our problem.

No, it shows that more non-southern democrats supported civil rights vs. republicans. The democrats who opposed it were almost exclusively southerners, but guess what? The few southern republican congressman also opposed it.

Non-southern? Most people call those northerners. Like I said, a few Republicans opposed it so why would the racist Democrats run over there? Makes no sense. Not to mention there is no record of that happening.

Fail.

We also call them "midwesterners", "westerners" "Alaskans" and "Hawaiians".

And yes there is a record. Elaborated in post number (fittingly) 64.

 

[Pogo]

You Democrats still need to white wash your horrible history don't you?



Gee, guess who first introduced what would later become the 19th Amendment? And guess what party he belonged to?

"In January 1878, Senator Sargent introduced the 29 words that would later become the 19th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, allowing women the right to vote. Sargent’s wife, Ellen Clark Sargent, was a leading voting rights advocate, and a friend of such suffrage leaders as Susan B. Anthony. The bill calling for the amendment would be introduced unsuccessfully each year for the next forty years. Sargent returned to California in 1880."

Aaron A. Sargent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have news for you. Lincoln hated State's Rights and the Supreme Court. He ignored 'constitutional principles' and laughed at the Court as illegitimate when they ruled against him, since he never gave a shit about the constitution or principles as he wasn't a conservative when he launch a civil war against state's rights.

No...he hated you slavry owner/slavery champion liberals....

There's no such thing. That's an oxymoron. You can't be a "Liberal" and own a slave. They're mutually exclusive.

 

[Pogo]

By the mid-1860s, the Republican Party’s alliance with blacks had caused a noticeable strain on the Democrats’ struggle for electoral significance in the post-Civil War era. This prompted the Democratic Party in 1866 to develop a new pseudo-secret political action group whose sole purpose was to help gain control of the electorate. The new group was known simply by their initials, KKK (Ku Klux Klan).

Yet more binary-bot Bullshit.
Number one, the Klan was formed in 1865, same year as the Civil War ended;

number two, "getting control of the electorate" wasn't a reality in a defeated would-be nation that had been disenfranchised by its victor -- there was no "electorate";

number three, the Klan was established by six Confederate veterans: (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;

number four, it was formed as a joke and had nothing to do even with racism, let alone politics -- that element would infiltrate later from the already-existing "slave patrols", which were also not a political movement.

Again --- rewriting history.

his political relationship was nationally solidified shortly thereafter during the 1868 Democratic National Convention when former Civil War General Nathan Bedford Forrest was honored as the KKK’s first Grand Wizard.

Forrest, a well-known general from the War, was recruited by the disparate Klan in April 1867 to be its figurehead as a move to give the group the credibility of his name. When its activities got out of hand and engaged in violence, he issued his first and only General Order less than two years later, officially disbanding the Klan and ordering its regalia to be destroyed (January 1869). This order would be largely ignored and the movement continued without a figurehead on an ad hoc local basis for about four more years before it was extinguished (1873)

One of the most vivid examples of collusion between the KKK and Democratic Party was when Democrat Senator Wade Hampton ran for the governorship of South Carolina in 1876. The Klan put into action a battle plan to help Democrats win, stating: “Every Democrat must feel honor bound to control the vote of at least one Negro by intimidation…. Democrats must go in as large numbers…and well-armed.”

Again, Bullshit. The Klan was defunct by 1876, especially in South Carolina.

Bullshit I seen their literature a few years ago in my town, in fact it made national headlines

That's the SECOND Klan, formed in 1915 by "Colonel Joe" Simmons, modeled after the film "Birth of a Nation", after the original Klan had been dead over four decades.

And he had no political affiliation either.

 

[Pogo]

The strained alliance between the more rural South and the immigrant urban dems of the North broke apart as the Dems were not offering the race voters of the South anything.

Civil Rights became a non issue as BOTH parties supported it.

Agree, although I would have said "didn't become an issue until both parties...".

There was no "Southern Strategy" in the sense of a outreach to racist voters.

Actually it's already been articulated, and apologized for:

Articulation:

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.[1 --- Kevin Phillips, Nixon strategist, 1970​

"You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******."" --- Lee Atwater, Republican Party strategist, 1981​

Concession:

"Republican candidates often have prospered by ignoring black voters and even by exploiting racial tensions," and, "by the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African-American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out. Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."[79][80] -- Ken Mehlman, RNC Chair, 2005
​

All here --- Southern Strategy Not a secret.