I have been waiting two days to post this thread: Anti-union challengers are on the verge of victory

[Wyatt earp]

It's like a class revolt. The poor, uneducated, unskilled and powerless people are cheering on the super wealthy who want to crush another obstacle in their way to total power. The jealous people not in unions hate that union people are getting good salaries, pensions and health care while they live in traitor parks

Why does government workers need unions to protect them from themselves?

Because the people that work in government (education for example) work no matter which moron is elected. They weather the storms even when the dipshits take money out of one area or refuse to fund it.

Name me the last time a Republican was elected mayor of Chicago for example?


They in bed with each other and that's the problem.

And Chicago will be America soon. Shifting demographics favor Dems in a big way. GOP will be a rump party soon

Uhm did you read the link?

 

[Disir]

It's like a class revolt. The poor, uneducated, unskilled and powerless people are cheering on the super wealthy who want to crush another obstacle in their way to total power. The jealous people not in unions hate that union people are getting good salaries, pensions and health care while they live in traitor parks

Why does government workers need unions to protect them from themselves?

Because the people that work in government (education for example) work no matter which moron is elected. They weather the storms even when the dipshits take money out of one area or refuse to fund it.

Name me the last time a Republican was elected mayor of Chicago for example?


They in bed with each other and that's the problem.

And Chicago will be America soon. Shifting demographics favor Dems in a big way. GOP will be a rump party soon

The Democrats have to be worth a damn. Clearly, they are not.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I remember when I worked for DHS, the DHS TSA union did not want airport screeners to even have a pass/fail test and did not want any proficiency test failures noted in their records! They also objected to firing screeners who failed their proficiency test multiple times. Mind you, these are the folks who are supposed to detect bombs and other weapons!

 

[Jarlaxle]

You dont need a union to enjoy those benefits.

How do you figure that?

1. My pay rate is probably 35-40% higher in the Union than my education, skills, and experience would draw anywhere else.

2. What I pay for my insurance and the benefits package are far better than anywhere else I've ever worked, and better than the company's Management employees get.

3. My employer doesn't even offer a pension to its own Management hires at thus time. No other company I've worked for offered one.

4. No Non-union position I've ever had came without thst "other duties as assigned" caveat at the end if the job description.

5. Where else do you find a GUARANTEE thst you cannot be laid off, hsve your pay reduced, or be relocated?

Gee, I wonder why electric rates are so high.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Why didn't anyone think it was significant besides me?


Public sector unions are finished..


Anti-union challengers are on the verge of victory at Supreme Court


Anti-union challengers are on the verge of victory at Supreme Court


WASHINGTON — Dianne Knox describes herself as "a child of the '60s." Pam Harris grew up a butcher's daughter in a proud union household. Rebecca Friedrichs was secretary of her local teachers' union. Mark Janus supports the rights of workers to organize.


A 5-4 decision against the unions would free about 5 million government workers, teachers, police and firefighters, and others in 22 states from being forced to pay "fair share" fees — a potentially staggering blow to public employee unions.

The challengers' battles against the Service Employees International Union, the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Workers are based on disagreements with the political and policy priorities of the national leadership.

“This is not my father’s or my grandfather’s union," says Harris, recalling the Amalgamated Meat Cutters to which they belonged. “This is a money-making scheme. It is a way to advance political agendas.”

Union leaders see the opposite — a power grab by what they call corporate billionaires and right-wing special interests to cripple the unions standing in their way.

"It is a defunding strategy," Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said at a press conference with other union leaders Wednesday. "They want the economy to be further rigged in their favor."

Ignorance of history and false promises have helped to create the growing wage discrepancy between labor and capitol - as union dies that gap will expand.

"The labor movement in the United States grew out of the need to protect the common interest of workers. For those in the industrial sector, organized labor unions fought for better wages, reasonable hours and safer working conditions. The labor movement led efforts to stop child labor, give health benefits and provide aid to workers who were injured or retired."
Labor Movement - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

Even Franklin Roosevelt realized that government employees should not be allowed to unionize.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Why didn't anyone think it was significant besides me?


Public sector unions are finished..


Anti-union challengers are on the verge of victory at Supreme Court


Anti-union challengers are on the verge of victory at Supreme Court


WASHINGTON — Dianne Knox describes herself as "a child of the '60s." Pam Harris grew up a butcher's daughter in a proud union household. Rebecca Friedrichs was secretary of her local teachers' union. Mark Janus supports the rights of workers to organize.


A 5-4 decision against the unions would free about 5 million government workers, teachers, police and firefighters, and others in 22 states from being forced to pay "fair share" fees — a potentially staggering blow to public employee unions.

The challengers' battles against the Service Employees International Union, the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Workers are based on disagreements with the political and policy priorities of the national leadership.

“This is not my father’s or my grandfather’s union," says Harris, recalling the Amalgamated Meat Cutters to which they belonged. “This is a money-making scheme. It is a way to advance political agendas.”

Union leaders see the opposite — a power grab by what they call corporate billionaires and right-wing special interests to cripple the unions standing in their way.

"It is a defunding strategy," Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said at a press conference with other union leaders Wednesday. "They want the economy to be further rigged in their favor."

My father was born in the twenties, suffered under the depression. He fought in WW2. He was a union man, through and through. I wonder WHO is opposed to unions NOW? Because if they are, they need to explain themselves...

Quite simple, really: public sector unions exist for one reason only: to permit their members to continue gorging at the trough.

 

[Disir]

Gee, I wonder why electric rates are so high.

That depends on where you living. Utilities have a tendency to rise with shittier service when privatized.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Oh my goodness, I see someone equated being anti-union with siding with the KKK. When leftists use these kinds of silly, extreme arguments, they turn off reasonable people and only hurt their cause.

Unions served a valid purpose for several decades, but they have long since outlived their usefulness.

A Union should never be bad nor good. It's the threat of the Union that the worker brings into the equation. For instance, Walmart directly will fire you for speaking out for a Union. Tjheu won't actually fire you but they will cut your hours so low you can't afford to work for them. If that doesn't work, they will come up with a reason to close the store like "Bad Plumbing". And I can tell you this from personal experience that Walmart SHOULD be unionized until it cleans up it's act. Right now, Walmart has no reason to clean up it's act. They will work you until you are hurt unless you are a "SElect Few" who will not be required to work as hard as others. Now, compare Walmart to Target.

Target already receives 11 bucks an hour and will be raising the wages even higher across the board. The Workers do get the bonuses. Meanwhile, Wallmart's raise is only for new hire. That means that a newhire will be making more than a full time worker of 2 years. And MOST Walmarts don't give much of a bonus since they directly connect it to the Loss Program (meaning, how much is stolen or lost). lAnd Walmart makes it very easy to openly walk out of the store with merchandise. Walmart is the largest Corporate Welfare Company on the face of the Earth.

We still need to allow the Workers the right to unionize if the need arises. Again, the Union should neither be good nor bad. It is the threat of the Union that is important. I know a number of companies that pay better and have better benefits than their unionized counterpoints. Take a look at Coors versus Anhieser Busch. For decades, the Unions have tried to move into Coors but the Worker are treated better than the other Grain and Meal Unionized workers at Busch. You go to work for Coors for life while Busch may play silly assed games with your employment or cut you loose at their discretion.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Gee, I wonder why electric rates are so high.

That depends on where you living. Utilities have a tendency to rise with shittier service when privatized.

In Anachronism's area (New England), they are sky-high.

 

[Anathema]

Typical Modern Union Man…… You don’t care about the big picture. It’s all about you and your benefits..

Not at all. It's also about worker safety, ensuring the company isn't producing an unsafe product, and protecting our jobs from unfair labor practices.

In the old days the Unions were needed to fight the company store mentalit The Unions of that day brought the working man many benefits. I live in Coal Country and if I were alive back in the day I would have been up in the hills shooting at the Company men and their thugs..

Those days are gone and have been for decades. In a proper union environment these days the Company and the Union work together to make things work for everyone. Better to work together thsn to rip each other apart.

 

[Disir]

Gee, I wonder why electric rates are so high.

That depends on where you living. Utilities have a tendency to rise with shittier service when privatized.

In Anachronism's area (New England), they are sky-high.

The Origins of Privatization

^^^ lengthy track record. It does not serve the public's interest. In fact, municipalities are trying to buy back their electric grids.

 

[Flash]

Oh my goodness, I see someone equated being anti-union with siding with the KKK. When leftists use these kinds of silly, extreme arguments, they turn off reasonable people and only hurt their cause.

Unions served a valid purpose for several decades, but they have long since outlived their usefulness.

Nowadays the unions are nothing more than cash cows for the Democrat Party. That is really their only usefulness.

When in power the Democrats throw the unions some crumbs and reaped tons of money for doing that.

Unions need government protection because without it then they would have to earn the money they make instead of having a politician pass a law making their employer give them the money.

 

[Flash]

The fall of unions will rip the balls of the DNC!

 

[Pogo]

Ah, "anti-union challengers" is it?

Like these guys?

That's the 1908 Democrat convention..


Am I right?

Nope. Although there is a poster here, not to mantion any names but if we did it would be Geaux4it who posted that and claimed it was a 1924 Democratic convention. It's actually a funeral march for a slain policeman in Wisconsin from December of that year. Seems there was bootlegging afoot, and the Klan of course was always about Prohibition in addition to the anti-union stuff.

Klan didn't exist in 1908 anyway.

Klan didn't exist in 1908 anyway.


Liar

It was started in 1866 as a Gentlman's club. Nice way of putting it. They were created to try and stop the Reconstruction started in 1866 that the Republicans in power in Washington had started. They were against making Blacks equal to Whites.

Need some corrections here. 1865 versus 1866 is not a long time but it was started in 1865 as a joke social club. That's why it has all the silly K-alliteration (klan, klavern, kleagle etc). It was a college-fraternity type prank group. Within a short time though the name and the mysterious dressings were taken over by neighboring vigilante groups -- that would be the 1866. And it was one of dozens of similar such groups around the South, local and regional, usually secretive, such as the "Knights of the White Camellia" and the "Society of the White Rose". One of them, the "White League", was the instigator in the event memorialized in the monument in New Orleans that was the first one to be taken down recently in the Lost Cause monument removals.

But these were formed before Reconstruction began and before Republicans arrived in the South. Their common mission was in a broad sense "keeping order" in the chaos of postwar chaos, which in their case always included white supremacy in that order. This is also reflected in some of the groups' names, e.g. the "Heroes of America" (South Carolina), the "Knights of the Black Cross (Mississippi), the "Knights of the Red Hand", the "Knights of the Rising Sun" (Texas 1868) the "Knights of the White Carnation" (Alabama) and directly addressing the white supremacy thing, the "White Line" of Mississippi and the "White Brotherhood" of North Carolina.

Indeed the 1915 reincarnation of the defunct Klan by Simmons was officially called the "Knights of the Ku Klux Klan" and took some of its first members from the "Knights of Mary Phagan", a vigilante group that had lynched her accused killer Leo Frank. This was always a social force that saw itself as a "chivalrous" keeper of the social order --- meaning the old traditional social order of course.

So it's a common misconclusion to presume they were formed to "oppose Republicans" but the fact is they were already there when Republicans and Reconstruction arrived, and they saw the infiltration as one more (two more) influences to resist. In many ways these groups, commonly formed and/or populated by ex-Confederate soldiers, were in their mind continuing a war they didn't want to concede.

Anyway that Klan --- the original one --- was extinct by the middle of the 1870s, so when "Birth of a Nation" depicted Klanners in robes it was hearkening back to lost stories of a Lost Cause. It was also dressing it up with burning crosses, which the first Klan never did. That was purely a movie affectation. From that film sprang the re-formation of the Klan, late in the same year of 1915.

They started out backing the Democratic Party but during the New Deal, they bailed and started supporting the Republican Party that had more or less changed position with the old Democratic Party. During the late 50s and early 60s was when the first hints of getting rid of the Jim Crowe Laws and Practices. During that time, there were many, many lynchings, burning alive, beating to death and more.

Actually that terrorism had started immediately after the Civil War, due to the sudden upset of the old social order in that slaves were now free. They would often be beaten for having the temerity to walk into town or inquire about a job or making eye contact. There was rampant terrorism among the postwar chaos, including at least one case where a victim was skinned -- skinned, and the carcass hung as warning to other blacks. Our history books kind of "forget" to describe the degree of this chaos but these are the elements that would form dozens of white supremacy groups of the time.

It's all a little too convenient, and a little too façile, for these message board wags to paint a simplistic picture of "oh well, they were Democrats and they didn't like Republicans so they killed them" and keep one's message board post to a short paragraph, but the reality is far FAR more complex than that and has to do with social factors that cut way deeper than political parties.

What many don't remember is that the first Civil Rights were started by the Republicans, mainly, Ike. Kennedy and Johnson expanded on it. But somewhere in history Ike's roll has been left out.

Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman and Roosevelt all made inroads in their time, timidly at first owing to the social resistance to it. The only Southern POTUS of the first half of the 20th Century, Wilson, regressed it -- which also anticipates the analysis of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, in that it was opposed by Southerners regardless of party and supported by everybody else regardless of party. In the same way Wilson the opposer of civil rights was a Democrat (as were Thurmond, Wallace et al) but their opponents pushing for civil rights (Humphrey, Kennedy, Johnson et al) were also Democrats; they just weren't from the South.

The KKK will always claim to be whatever Party that suits them. Criminals really don't have a Party Affiliation. Outside of being criminal. We spend way too much time trying to use nicey nicey labels for them. They aren't nice and they are just criminals.

Exactly. Well said.

Historian Elaine Franz Parsons described (the first Klan):

>> Lifting the Klan mask revealed a chaotic multitude of antiblack vigilante groups, disgruntled poor white farmers, wartime guerrilla bands, displaced Democratic politicians, illegal whiskey distillers, coercive moral reformers, sadists, rapists, white workmen fearful of black competition, employers trying to enforce labor discipline, common thieves, neighbors with decades-old grudges, and even a few freedmen and white Republicans who allied with Democratic whites or had criminal agendas of their own. <<​

 

[Wyatt earp]

Ah, "anti-union challengers" is it?

Like these guys?

That's the 1908 Democrat convention..


Am I right?

Nope. Although there is a poster here, not to mantion any names but if we did it would be Geaux4it who posted that and claimed it was a 1924 Democratic convention. It's actually a funeral march for a slain policeman in Wisconsin from December of that year. Seems there was bootlegging afoot, and the Klan of course was always about Prohibition in addition to the anti-union stuff.

Klan didn't exist in 1908 anyway.

Klan didn't exist in 1908 anyway.


Liar

It was started in 1866 as a Gentlman's club. Nice way of putting it. They were created to try and stop the Reconstruction started in 1866 that the Republicans in power in Washington had started. They were against making Blacks equal to Whites.

Need some corrections here. 1865 versus 1866 is not a long time but it was started in 1865 as a joke social club. That's why it has all the silly K-alliteration (klan, klavern, kleagle etc). It was a college-fraternity type prank group. Within a short time though the name and the mysterious dressings were taken over by neighboring vigilante groups -- that would be the 1866. And it was one of dozens of similar such groups around the South, local and regional, usually secretive, such as the "Knights of the White Camellia" and the "Society of the White Rose". One of them, the "White League", was the instigator in the event memorialized in the monument in New Orleans that was the first one to be taken down recently in the Lost Cause monument removals.

But these were formed before Reconstruction began and before Republicans arrived in the South. Their common mission was in a broad sense "keeping order" in the chaos of postwar chaos, which in their case always included white supremacy in that order. This is also reflected in some of the groups' names, e.g. the "Heroes of America" (South Carolina), the "Knights of the Black Cross (Mississippi), the "Knights of the Red Hand", the "Knights of the Rising Sun" (Texas 1868) the "Knights of the White Carnation" (Alabama) and directly addressing the white supremacy thing, the "White Line" of Mississippi and the "White Brotherhood" of North Carolina.

Indeed the 1915 reincarnation of the defunct Klan by Simmons was officially called the "Knights of the Ku Klux Klan" and took some of its first members from the "Knights of Mary Phagan", a vigilante group that had lynched her accused killer Leo Frank. This was always a social force that saw itself as a "chivalrous" keeper of the social order --- meaning the old traditional social order of course.

So it's a common misconclusion to presume they were formed to "oppose Republicans" but the fact is they were already there when Republicans and Reconstruction arrived, and they saw the infiltration as one more (two more) influences to resist. In many ways these groups, commonly formed and/or populated by ex-Confederate soldiers, were in their mind continuing a war they didn't want to concede.

Anyway that Klan --- the original one --- was extinct by the middle of the 1870s, so when "Birth of a Nation" depicted Klanners in robes it was hearkening back to lost stories of a Lost Cause. It was also dressing it up with burning crosses, which the first Klan never did. That was purely a movie affectation. From that film sprang the re-formation of the Klan, late in the same year of 1915.

They started out backing the Democratic Party but during the New Deal, they bailed and started supporting the Republican Party that had more or less changed position with the old Democratic Party. During the late 50s and early 60s was when the first hints of getting rid of the Jim Crowe Laws and Practices. During that time, there were many, many lynchings, burning alive, beating to death and more.

Actually that terrorism had started immediately after the Civil War, due to the sudden upset of the old social order in that slaves were now free. They would often be beaten for having the temerity to walk into town or inquire about a job or making eye contact. There was rampant terrorism among the postwar chaos, including at least one case where a victim was skinned -- skinned, and the carcass hung as warning to other blacks. Our history books kind of "forget" to describe the degree of this chaos but these are the elements that would form dozens of white supremacy groups of the time.

It's all a little too convenient, and a little too façile, for these message board wags to paint a simplistic picture of "oh well, they were Democrats and they didn't like Republicans so they killed them" and keep one's message board post to a short paragraph, but the reality is far FAR more complex than that and has to do with social factors that cut way deeper than political parties.

What many don't remember is that the first Civil Rights were started by the Republicans, mainly, Ike. Kennedy and Johnson expanded on it. But somewhere in history Ike's roll has been left out.

Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman and Roosevelt all made inroads in their time, timidly at first owing to the social resistance to it. The only Southern POTUS of the first half of the 20th Century, Wilson, regressed it -- which also anticipates the analysis of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, in that it was opposed by Southerners regardless of party and supported by everybody else regardless of party. In the same way Wilson the opposer of civil rights was a Democrat (as were Thurmond, Wallace et al) but their opponents pushing for civil rights (Humphrey, Kennedy, Johnson et al) were also Democrats; they just weren't from the South.

The KKK will always claim to be whatever Party that suits them. Criminals really don't have a Party Affiliation. Outside of being criminal. We spend way too much time trying to use nicey nicey labels for them. They aren't nice and they are just criminals.

Exactly. Well said.

Historian Elaine Franz Parsons described (the first Klan):

>> Lifting the Klan mask revealed a chaotic multitude of antiblack vigilante groups, disgruntled poor white farmers, wartime guerrilla bands, displaced Democratic politicians, illegal whiskey distillers, coercive moral reformers, sadists, rapists, white workmen fearful of black competition, employers trying to enforce labor discipline, common thieves, neighbors with decades-old grudges, and even a few freedmen and white Republicans who allied with Democratic whites or had criminal agendas of their own. <<​

Ok pogo your two pet peeves is the Democrat KKK and the EC..


But you are wrong.

 

[Pogo]

Trump is fighting globalization by putting American interest first.

Those tax breaks will show those globalists who they are messing with.

Those tax breaks makes American business more competitive and that produces American jobs you nitwit. Lot better than the Democrat plan to have taxes so high that American businesses all go overseas like what happen when that affirmative action asshole Obama did.

Obama put cash in the pockets of Iranians and Trump is putting money in the pockets of Americans workers.

You Moon Bats have never met a third world shithole that you didn't love more than this country. That is why you elected that Obama asshole to go on a world tour to apologize for America's sins.

Speaking of globalization you Moon Bats don't even recognize the border between Mexico and the US.

Okay, well good luck with all that. Some just can't escape their tribal convictions.

Just remember who tried to save you from yourself all those years ago.........while you criticized them.

Where did that event take place?

It seems it took place in Seattle.

Here's an event that took place in West Virginia -- The Battle of Blair Mountain

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
>> By August 29, battle was fully joined. Chafin's men, though outnumbered, had the advantage of higher positions and better weaponry. Private planes were hired to drop homemade bombs on the miners. A combination of gas and explosive bombs left over from World War I were dropped in several locations near the towns of Jeffery, Sharples and Blair. At least one did not explode and was recovered by the miners; it was used months later to great effect during treason and murder trials following the battle. On orders from General Billy Mitchell, Army bombers from Maryland were also used for aerial surveillance. One Martin bomber crashed on its return flight, killing the three members of the crew.[24][25]

On August 30, Governor Morgan appointed Colonel WIlliam Eubanks of the West Virginia National Guard to command the government and volunteer forces confronting the miners.[26] Sporadic gun battles continued for a week, with the miners at one time nearly breaking through to the town of Logan and their target destinations, the non-unionized counties to the south, Logan and Mingo. Up to 30 deaths were reported by Chafin's side and 50–100 on the union miners' side, with hundreds more injured or wounded.

Chafin's forces consisted of 90 men from Bluefield, West Virginia; 40 men from Huntington, West Virginia and about 120 from the West Virginia State Police.[27]

....In the long-term, the battle raised awareness of the appalling conditions faced by miners in the dangerous West Virginia coalfields, and led directly to a change in union tactics in political battles to get the law on labor's side via confrontations with recalcitrant and abusive managements and thence to the much larger organized labor victory a few years later during the New Deal in 1933. That in turn led to the UMWA helping organize many better-known unions such as the Steel Workers during the mid-thirties.

In the final analysis, management's success was a pyrrhic victory that helped lead to a much larger and stronger organized labor movement in many other industries and labor union affiliations and umbrella organizations such as the American Federation of Labor (AFL) and Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). <<​

 

[Pogo]

That's the 1908 Democrat convention..


Am I right?

Nope. Although there is a poster here, not to mantion any names but if we did it would be Geaux4it who posted that and claimed it was a 1924 Democratic convention. It's actually a funeral march for a slain policeman in Wisconsin from December of that year. Seems there was bootlegging afoot, and the Klan of course was always about Prohibition in addition to the anti-union stuff.

Klan didn't exist in 1908 anyway.

Klan didn't exist in 1908 anyway.


Liar

It was started in 1866 as a Gentlman's club. Nice way of putting it. They were created to try and stop the Reconstruction started in 1866 that the Republicans in power in Washington had started. They were against making Blacks equal to Whites.

Need some corrections here. 1865 versus 1866 is not a long time but it was started in 1865 as a joke social club. That's why it has all the silly K-alliteration (klan, klavern, kleagle etc). It was a college-fraternity type prank group. Within a short time though the name and the mysterious dressings were taken over by neighboring vigilante groups -- that would be the 1866. And it was one of dozens of similar such groups around the South, local and regional, usually secretive, such as the "Knights of the White Camellia" and the "Society of the White Rose". One of them, the "White League", was the instigator in the event memorialized in the monument in New Orleans that was the first one to be taken down recently in the Lost Cause monument removals.

But these were formed before Reconstruction began and before Republicans arrived in the South. Their common mission was in a broad sense "keeping order" in the chaos of postwar chaos, which in their case always included white supremacy in that order. This is also reflected in some of the groups' names, e.g. the "Heroes of America" (South Carolina), the "Knights of the Black Cross (Mississippi), the "Knights of the Red Hand", the "Knights of the Rising Sun" (Texas 1868) the "Knights of the White Carnation" (Alabama) and directly addressing the white supremacy thing, the "White Line" of Mississippi and the "White Brotherhood" of North Carolina.

Indeed the 1915 reincarnation of the defunct Klan by Simmons was officially called the "Knights of the Ku Klux Klan" and took some of its first members from the "Knights of Mary Phagan", a vigilante group that had lynched her accused killer Leo Frank. This was always a social force that saw itself as a "chivalrous" keeper of the social order --- meaning the old traditional social order of course.

So it's a common misconclusion to presume they were formed to "oppose Republicans" but the fact is they were already there when Republicans and Reconstruction arrived, and they saw the infiltration as one more (two more) influences to resist. In many ways these groups, commonly formed and/or populated by ex-Confederate soldiers, were in their mind continuing a war they didn't want to concede.

Anyway that Klan --- the original one --- was extinct by the middle of the 1870s, so when "Birth of a Nation" depicted Klanners in robes it was hearkening back to lost stories of a Lost Cause. It was also dressing it up with burning crosses, which the first Klan never did. That was purely a movie affectation. From that film sprang the re-formation of the Klan, late in the same year of 1915.

They started out backing the Democratic Party but during the New Deal, they bailed and started supporting the Republican Party that had more or less changed position with the old Democratic Party. During the late 50s and early 60s was when the first hints of getting rid of the Jim Crowe Laws and Practices. During that time, there were many, many lynchings, burning alive, beating to death and more.

Actually that terrorism had started immediately after the Civil War, due to the sudden upset of the old social order in that slaves were now free. They would often be beaten for having the temerity to walk into town or inquire about a job or making eye contact. There was rampant terrorism among the postwar chaos, including at least one case where a victim was skinned -- skinned, and the carcass hung as warning to other blacks. Our history books kind of "forget" to describe the degree of this chaos but these are the elements that would form dozens of white supremacy groups of the time.

It's all a little too convenient, and a little too façile, for these message board wags to paint a simplistic picture of "oh well, they were Democrats and they didn't like Republicans so they killed them" and keep one's message board post to a short paragraph, but the reality is far FAR more complex than that and has to do with social factors that cut way deeper than political parties.

What many don't remember is that the first Civil Rights were started by the Republicans, mainly, Ike. Kennedy and Johnson expanded on it. But somewhere in history Ike's roll has been left out.

Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman and Roosevelt all made inroads in their time, timidly at first owing to the social resistance to it. The only Southern POTUS of the first half of the 20th Century, Wilson, regressed it -- which also anticipates the analysis of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, in that it was opposed by Southerners regardless of party and supported by everybody else regardless of party. In the same way Wilson the opposer of civil rights was a Democrat (as were Thurmond, Wallace et al) but their opponents pushing for civil rights (Humphrey, Kennedy, Johnson et al) were also Democrats; they just weren't from the South.

The KKK will always claim to be whatever Party that suits them. Criminals really don't have a Party Affiliation. Outside of being criminal. We spend way too much time trying to use nicey nicey labels for them. They aren't nice and they are just criminals.

Exactly. Well said.

Historian Elaine Franz Parsons described (the first Klan):

>> Lifting the Klan mask revealed a chaotic multitude of antiblack vigilante groups, disgruntled poor white farmers, wartime guerrilla bands, displaced Democratic politicians, illegal whiskey distillers, coercive moral reformers, sadists, rapists, white workmen fearful of black competition, employers trying to enforce labor discipline, common thieves, neighbors with decades-old grudges, and even a few freedmen and white Republicans who allied with Democratic whites or had criminal agendas of their own. <<​

Ok pogo your two pet peeves is the Democrat KKK and the EC..


But you are wrong.

Here's your task Twinkles....

*******PROVE******* anything I posted to be "wrong".

Proof talks -- bullshit walks.

Ah, "anti-union challengers" is it?

Like these guys?

Nope...

Those are democrats....

And your evidence is?

Exactly.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Nope. Although there is a poster here, not to mantion any names but if we did it would be Geaux4it who posted that and claimed it was a 1924 Democratic convention. It's actually a funeral march for a slain policeman in Wisconsin from December of that year. Seems there was bootlegging afoot, and the Klan of course was always about Prohibition in addition to the anti-union stuff.

Klan didn't exist in 1908 anyway.

Klan didn't exist in 1908 anyway.


Liar

It was started in 1866 as a Gentlman's club. Nice way of putting it. They were created to try and stop the Reconstruction started in 1866 that the Republicans in power in Washington had started. They were against making Blacks equal to Whites.

Need some corrections here. 1865 versus 1866 is not a long time but it was started in 1865 as a joke social club. That's why it has all the silly K-alliteration (klan, klavern, kleagle etc). It was a college-fraternity type prank group. Within a short time though the name and the mysterious dressings were taken over by neighboring vigilante groups -- that would be the 1866. And it was one of dozens of similar such groups around the South, local and regional, usually secretive, such as the "Knights of the White Camellia" and the "Society of the White Rose". One of them, the "White League", was the instigator in the event memorialized in the monument in New Orleans that was the first one to be taken down recently in the Lost Cause monument removals.

But these were formed before Reconstruction began and before Republicans arrived in the South. Their common mission was in a broad sense "keeping order" in the chaos of postwar chaos, which in their case always included white supremacy in that order. This is also reflected in some of the groups' names, e.g. the "Heroes of America" (South Carolina), the "Knights of the Black Cross (Mississippi), the "Knights of the Red Hand", the "Knights of the Rising Sun" (Texas 1868) the "Knights of the White Carnation" (Alabama) and directly addressing the white supremacy thing, the "White Line" of Mississippi and the "White Brotherhood" of North Carolina.

Indeed the 1915 reincarnation of the defunct Klan by Simmons was officially called the "Knights of the Ku Klux Klan" and took some of its first members from the "Knights of Mary Phagan", a vigilante group that had lynched her accused killer Leo Frank. This was always a social force that saw itself as a "chivalrous" keeper of the social order --- meaning the old traditional social order of course.

So it's a common misconclusion to presume they were formed to "oppose Republicans" but the fact is they were already there when Republicans and Reconstruction arrived, and they saw the infiltration as one more (two more) influences to resist. In many ways these groups, commonly formed and/or populated by ex-Confederate soldiers, were in their mind continuing a war they didn't want to concede.

Anyway that Klan --- the original one --- was extinct by the middle of the 1870s, so when "Birth of a Nation" depicted Klanners in robes it was hearkening back to lost stories of a Lost Cause. It was also dressing it up with burning crosses, which the first Klan never did. That was purely a movie affectation. From that film sprang the re-formation of the Klan, late in the same year of 1915.

They started out backing the Democratic Party but during the New Deal, they bailed and started supporting the Republican Party that had more or less changed position with the old Democratic Party. During the late 50s and early 60s was when the first hints of getting rid of the Jim Crowe Laws and Practices. During that time, there were many, many lynchings, burning alive, beating to death and more.

Actually that terrorism had started immediately after the Civil War, due to the sudden upset of the old social order in that slaves were now free. They would often be beaten for having the temerity to walk into town or inquire about a job or making eye contact. There was rampant terrorism among the postwar chaos, including at least one case where a victim was skinned -- skinned, and the carcass hung as warning to other blacks. Our history books kind of "forget" to describe the degree of this chaos but these are the elements that would form dozens of white supremacy groups of the time.

It's all a little too convenient, and a little too façile, for these message board wags to paint a simplistic picture of "oh well, they were Democrats and they didn't like Republicans so they killed them" and keep one's message board post to a short paragraph, but the reality is far FAR more complex than that and has to do with social factors that cut way deeper than political parties.

What many don't remember is that the first Civil Rights were started by the Republicans, mainly, Ike. Kennedy and Johnson expanded on it. But somewhere in history Ike's roll has been left out.

Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman and Roosevelt all made inroads in their time, timidly at first owing to the social resistance to it. The only Southern POTUS of the first half of the 20th Century, Wilson, regressed it -- which also anticipates the analysis of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, in that it was opposed by Southerners regardless of party and supported by everybody else regardless of party. In the same way Wilson the opposer of civil rights was a Democrat (as were Thurmond, Wallace et al) but their opponents pushing for civil rights (Humphrey, Kennedy, Johnson et al) were also Democrats; they just weren't from the South.

The KKK will always claim to be whatever Party that suits them. Criminals really don't have a Party Affiliation. Outside of being criminal. We spend way too much time trying to use nicey nicey labels for them. They aren't nice and they are just criminals.

Exactly. Well said.

Historian Elaine Franz Parsons described (the first Klan):

>> Lifting the Klan mask revealed a chaotic multitude of antiblack vigilante groups, disgruntled poor white farmers, wartime guerrilla bands, displaced Democratic politicians, illegal whiskey distillers, coercive moral reformers, sadists, rapists, white workmen fearful of black competition, employers trying to enforce labor discipline, common thieves, neighbors with decades-old grudges, and even a few freedmen and white Republicans who allied with Democratic whites or had criminal agendas of their own. <<​

Ok pogo your two pet peeves is the Democrat KKK and the EC..


But you are wrong.

Here's your task Twinkles....

*******PROVE******* anything I posted to be "wrong".

Proof talks -- bullshit walks.

Public opinion and history books , prove you wrong pogo...

 

[Pogo]

Klan didn't exist in 1908 anyway.


Liar

It was started in 1866 as a Gentlman's club. Nice way of putting it. They were created to try and stop the Reconstruction started in 1866 that the Republicans in power in Washington had started. They were against making Blacks equal to Whites.

Need some corrections here. 1865 versus 1866 is not a long time but it was started in 1865 as a joke social club. That's why it has all the silly K-alliteration (klan, klavern, kleagle etc). It was a college-fraternity type prank group. Within a short time though the name and the mysterious dressings were taken over by neighboring vigilante groups -- that would be the 1866. And it was one of dozens of similar such groups around the South, local and regional, usually secretive, such as the "Knights of the White Camellia" and the "Society of the White Rose". One of them, the "White League", was the instigator in the event memorialized in the monument in New Orleans that was the first one to be taken down recently in the Lost Cause monument removals.

But these were formed before Reconstruction began and before Republicans arrived in the South. Their common mission was in a broad sense "keeping order" in the chaos of postwar chaos, which in their case always included white supremacy in that order. This is also reflected in some of the groups' names, e.g. the "Heroes of America" (South Carolina), the "Knights of the Black Cross (Mississippi), the "Knights of the Red Hand", the "Knights of the Rising Sun" (Texas 1868) the "Knights of the White Carnation" (Alabama) and directly addressing the white supremacy thing, the "White Line" of Mississippi and the "White Brotherhood" of North Carolina.

Indeed the 1915 reincarnation of the defunct Klan by Simmons was officially called the "Knights of the Ku Klux Klan" and took some of its first members from the "Knights of Mary Phagan", a vigilante group that had lynched her accused killer Leo Frank. This was always a social force that saw itself as a "chivalrous" keeper of the social order --- meaning the old traditional social order of course.

So it's a common misconclusion to presume they were formed to "oppose Republicans" but the fact is they were already there when Republicans and Reconstruction arrived, and they saw the infiltration as one more (two more) influences to resist. In many ways these groups, commonly formed and/or populated by ex-Confederate soldiers, were in their mind continuing a war they didn't want to concede.

Anyway that Klan --- the original one --- was extinct by the middle of the 1870s, so when "Birth of a Nation" depicted Klanners in robes it was hearkening back to lost stories of a Lost Cause. It was also dressing it up with burning crosses, which the first Klan never did. That was purely a movie affectation. From that film sprang the re-formation of the Klan, late in the same year of 1915.

They started out backing the Democratic Party but during the New Deal, they bailed and started supporting the Republican Party that had more or less changed position with the old Democratic Party. During the late 50s and early 60s was when the first hints of getting rid of the Jim Crowe Laws and Practices. During that time, there were many, many lynchings, burning alive, beating to death and more.

Actually that terrorism had started immediately after the Civil War, due to the sudden upset of the old social order in that slaves were now free. They would often be beaten for having the temerity to walk into town or inquire about a job or making eye contact. There was rampant terrorism among the postwar chaos, including at least one case where a victim was skinned -- skinned, and the carcass hung as warning to other blacks. Our history books kind of "forget" to describe the degree of this chaos but these are the elements that would form dozens of white supremacy groups of the time.

It's all a little too convenient, and a little too façile, for these message board wags to paint a simplistic picture of "oh well, they were Democrats and they didn't like Republicans so they killed them" and keep one's message board post to a short paragraph, but the reality is far FAR more complex than that and has to do with social factors that cut way deeper than political parties.

What many don't remember is that the first Civil Rights were started by the Republicans, mainly, Ike. Kennedy and Johnson expanded on it. But somewhere in history Ike's roll has been left out.

Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman and Roosevelt all made inroads in their time, timidly at first owing to the social resistance to it. The only Southern POTUS of the first half of the 20th Century, Wilson, regressed it -- which also anticipates the analysis of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, in that it was opposed by Southerners regardless of party and supported by everybody else regardless of party. In the same way Wilson the opposer of civil rights was a Democrat (as were Thurmond, Wallace et al) but their opponents pushing for civil rights (Humphrey, Kennedy, Johnson et al) were also Democrats; they just weren't from the South.

The KKK will always claim to be whatever Party that suits them. Criminals really don't have a Party Affiliation. Outside of being criminal. We spend way too much time trying to use nicey nicey labels for them. They aren't nice and they are just criminals.

Exactly. Well said.

Historian Elaine Franz Parsons described (the first Klan):

>> Lifting the Klan mask revealed a chaotic multitude of antiblack vigilante groups, disgruntled poor white farmers, wartime guerrilla bands, displaced Democratic politicians, illegal whiskey distillers, coercive moral reformers, sadists, rapists, white workmen fearful of black competition, employers trying to enforce labor discipline, common thieves, neighbors with decades-old grudges, and even a few freedmen and white Republicans who allied with Democratic whites or had criminal agendas of their own. <<​

Ok pogo your two pet peeves is the Democrat KKK and the EC..


But you are wrong.

Here's your task Twinkles....

*******PROVE******* anything I posted to be "wrong".

Proof talks -- bullshit walks.

Public opinion and history books , prove you wrong pogo...

So much so that you can't quote any.

Keep walkin' Nancy.

 

[Pogo]

It's like a class revolt. The poor, uneducated, unskilled and powerless people are cheering on the super wealthy who want to crush another obstacle in their way to total power. The jealous people not in unions hate that union people are getting good salaries, pensions and health care while they live in traitor parks

Why does government workers need unions to protect them from themselves?

Because the people that work in government (education for example) work no matter which moron is elected. They weather the storms even when the dipshits take money out of one area or refuse to fund it.

Name me the last time a Republican was elected mayor of Chicago for example?


They in bed with each other and that's the problem.

That would be Big Bill Thompson. He got voted out for cozying up to Al Capone, and for hurling ethnic slurs at the Democrat who beat him out of office.