I'd like to have a discussion about the Dixiecrats and the claim that the Democrats come from racism

[Confounding]

It's technically accurate that pre-1964 the "Democrats" supported racist policies, particularly a faction of the Democrats that became the Dixiecrats. The Dixiecrats were also largely against immigration and social security. Claiming that pre-1964 Democrats are connected to the modern left wing is dishonest and a perversion of history. It’s actually the Republican party that’s the spiritual successor of the pre-1964 Democratic party. A lot of platforms changed and moved around during that time, and it had the effect of flipping the labels that were being used.

Don't believe me? Go look it up. The "Democrats" were the right wing of the country at that point in history. The right sometimes uses this fact to create the dishonest claim that the left is racist, and that their history proves it. If you actually understand the history though, rather than just focusing on a label that has changed in meaning, you'll realize that that claim is complete nonsense. That's the history of the right, not the left. They have so little shame that they blame the left for their own history in an attempt to save face. I challenge those of you that would disagree to go look up the party platform of the Dixiecrats in the 1950s. I bet you'll find a lot of stuff that you agree with.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

It's technically accurate that pre-1964 the "Democrats" supported racist policies. They were also largely against immigration and social security. Though claiming that pre-1964 Democrats are connected to the modern left wing is dishonest and a perversion of history. It’s actually the Republican party that’s the spiritual successor of the pre-1964 Democratic party. A lot of platforms changed and moved around during that time, and it actually had the effect of flipping the labels that were being used.

Don't believe me? Go look it up. The "Democrats" were the right wing of the country at that point in history. The right sometimes uses this fact to create the dishonest claim that the left is racist, and that their history proves it. If you actually understand the history though, rather than just focusing on a label that has changed in meaning, you'll realize that that claim is complete nonsense. That's the history of the right, not the left. They have so little shame that they attempt to blame the left for their own history in an attempt to save face. I challenge those of you that would disagree to go look up the party platform of the Democrats in the 1950s. I bet you'll find a lot of stuff that you agree with.

https://www.amazon.com/Setting-Record-Straight-American-History/dp/1932225277&tag=ff0d01-20
Or you could read this book and find out how a bunch of crooked Marxists have planned for the destruction of the United States and there attempt at still trying to.



The OSB Politico: The Fallacy of the Republican/Democratic Flip/Flop on Civil Rights and Racism

Once again Paul Krugman tries to re-write history as he explains why the South deserted the Democrats; not because they outgrew segregation, but because Republicans were willing to abandon the founding values of their party for Southern votes; it's the old flip/flop theory the Democrats have espoused to try and falsely place themselves on the right side of history. “There was a time when Republicans used to refer to themselves, proudly, as “the party of Lincoln.” But you don’t hear that line much these days. Why? The main answer, presumably, lies in the G.O.P.’s decision, long ago, to seek votes from Southerners angered by the end of legal segregation. With the old Confederacy now the heart of the Republican base, boasting about the party’s Civil War-era legacy is no longer advisable.” Abraham Lincoln, Inflationist

Paul Krugman is a tool of the Democrat Party and will say anything to move the Marxist agenda..

 

[Confounding]

It's technically accurate that pre-1964 the "Democrats" supported racist policies. They were also largely against immigration and social security. Though claiming that pre-1964 Democrats are connected to the modern left wing is dishonest and a perversion of history. It’s actually the Republican party that’s the spiritual successor of the pre-1964 Democratic party. A lot of platforms changed and moved around during that time, and it actually had the effect of flipping the labels that were being used.

Don't believe me? Go look it up. The "Democrats" were the right wing of the country at that point in history. The right sometimes uses this fact to create the dishonest claim that the left is racist, and that their history proves it. If you actually understand the history though, rather than just focusing on a label that has changed in meaning, you'll realize that that claim is complete nonsense. That's the history of the right, not the left. They have so little shame that they attempt to blame the left for their own history in an attempt to save face. I challenge those of you that would disagree to go look up the party platform of the Democrats in the 1950s. I bet you'll find a lot of stuff that you agree with.

https://www.amazon.com/Setting-Record-Straight-American-History/dp/1932225277&tag=ff0d01-20
Or you could read this book and find out how a bunch of crooked Marxists have planned for the destruction of the United States and there attempt at still trying to.



The OSB Politico: The Fallacy of the Republican/Democratic Flip/Flop on Civil Rights and Racism

Once again Paul Krugman tries to re-write history as he explains why the South deserted the Democrats; not because they outgrew segregation, but because Republicans were willing to abandon the founding values of their party for Southern votes; it's the old flip/flop theory the Democrats have espoused to try and falsely place themselves on the right side of history. “There was a time when Republicans used to refer to themselves, proudly, as “the party of Lincoln.” But you don’t hear that line much these days. Why? The main answer, presumably, lies in the G.O.P.’s decision, long ago, to seek votes from Southerners angered by the end of legal segregation. With the old Confederacy now the heart of the Republican base, boasting about the party’s Civil War-era legacy is no longer advisable.” Abraham Lincoln, Inflationist

Paul Krugman is a tool of the Democrat Party and will say anything to move the Marxist agenda..

The party of Lincoln was left wing. The Republicans were left wing. You're using labels that no longer carry the same meaning to try to distort history. Regardless of what labels were used when, it was the left that freed the slaves and the right that did everything it could to prevent black people from being seen as equal.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the Democratic Party was the party of racism,

Trump would have won California, Massachusetts, Illinois, and New York.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

It's technically accurate that pre-1964 the "Democrats" supported racist policies. They were also largely against immigration and social security. Though claiming that pre-1964 Democrats are connected to the modern left wing is dishonest and a perversion of history. It’s actually the Republican party that’s the spiritual successor of the pre-1964 Democratic party. A lot of platforms changed and moved around during that time, and it actually had the effect of flipping the labels that were being used.

Don't believe me? Go look it up. The "Democrats" were the right wing of the country at that point in history. The right sometimes uses this fact to create the dishonest claim that the left is racist, and that their history proves it. If you actually understand the history though, rather than just focusing on a label that has changed in meaning, you'll realize that that claim is complete nonsense. That's the history of the right, not the left. They have so little shame that they attempt to blame the left for their own history in an attempt to save face. I challenge those of you that would disagree to go look up the party platform of the Democrats in the 1950s. I bet you'll find a lot of stuff that you agree with.

https://www.amazon.com/Setting-Record-Straight-American-History/dp/1932225277&tag=ff0d01-20
Or you could read this book and find out how a bunch of crooked Marxists have planned for the destruction of the United States and there attempt at still trying to.



The OSB Politico: The Fallacy of the Republican/Democratic Flip/Flop on Civil Rights and Racism

Once again Paul Krugman tries to re-write history as he explains why the South deserted the Democrats; not because they outgrew segregation, but because Republicans were willing to abandon the founding values of their party for Southern votes; it's the old flip/flop theory the Democrats have espoused to try and falsely place themselves on the right side of history. “There was a time when Republicans used to refer to themselves, proudly, as “the party of Lincoln.” But you don’t hear that line much these days. Why? The main answer, presumably, lies in the G.O.P.’s decision, long ago, to seek votes from Southerners angered by the end of legal segregation. With the old Confederacy now the heart of the Republican base, boasting about the party’s Civil War-era legacy is no longer advisable.” Abraham Lincoln, Inflationist

Paul Krugman is a tool of the Democrat Party and will say anything to move the Marxist agenda..

The party of Lincoln was left wing. The Republicans were left wing. You're using labels that no longer carry the same meaning to try to distort history. Regardless of what labels were used when, it was the left that freed the slaves and the right that did everything it could to prevent black people from being seen as equal.

I guess you don't understand that classical liberalism is what the United States was founded on and the Republicans wanted it for all men.

Classical liberalism
Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom.
Classical liberalism - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Then Woodrow Wilson saw an opportunity and started changing history

How Woodrow Wilson's propaganda machine changed American journalism

In its crusade to “make the world safe for democracy,” the Wilson administration took immediate steps at home to curtail one of the pillars of democracy – press freedom – by implementing a plan to control, manipulate and censor all news coverage, on a scale never seen in U.S. history.

Then later on after Senator Lyndon B. Johnson voted against the Civil Rights act of 1957, he then signed into law the Civil Rights act of 1964(Democrat bill that passed with a majority of Republicans helped) because if he didn't the Democrat Party would never again see power.

HR. 6127. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1957. -- Senate Vote #75 -- Aug 7, 1957
H.R. 7152. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964. ADOPTION OF A ... -- House Vote #182 -- Jul 2, 1964

Lyndon Johnson was a civil rights hero. But also a racist.

Then in 1957, Johnson would not help get the “nigga bill” passed, known to most as the Civil Rights Act of 1957. With the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the segregationists would go to their graves knowing the cause they’d given their lives to had been betrayed, Frank Underwood style, by a man they believed to be one of their own. When Caro asked segregationist Georgia Democrat Herman Talmadge how he felt when Johnson, signing the Civil Rights Act, said ”we shall overcome,” Talmadge said “sick.”

 

[Confounding]

It's technically accurate that pre-1964 the "Democrats" supported racist policies. They were also largely against immigration and social security. Though claiming that pre-1964 Democrats are connected to the modern left wing is dishonest and a perversion of history. It’s actually the Republican party that’s the spiritual successor of the pre-1964 Democratic party. A lot of platforms changed and moved around during that time, and it actually had the effect of flipping the labels that were being used.

Don't believe me? Go look it up. The "Democrats" were the right wing of the country at that point in history. The right sometimes uses this fact to create the dishonest claim that the left is racist, and that their history proves it. If you actually understand the history though, rather than just focusing on a label that has changed in meaning, you'll realize that that claim is complete nonsense. That's the history of the right, not the left. They have so little shame that they attempt to blame the left for their own history in an attempt to save face. I challenge those of you that would disagree to go look up the party platform of the Democrats in the 1950s. I bet you'll find a lot of stuff that you agree with.

https://www.amazon.com/Setting-Record-Straight-American-History/dp/1932225277&tag=ff0d01-20
Or you could read this book and find out how a bunch of crooked Marxists have planned for the destruction of the United States and there attempt at still trying to.



The OSB Politico: The Fallacy of the Republican/Democratic Flip/Flop on Civil Rights and Racism

Once again Paul Krugman tries to re-write history as he explains why the South deserted the Democrats; not because they outgrew segregation, but because Republicans were willing to abandon the founding values of their party for Southern votes; it's the old flip/flop theory the Democrats have espoused to try and falsely place themselves on the right side of history. “There was a time when Republicans used to refer to themselves, proudly, as “the party of Lincoln.” But you don’t hear that line much these days. Why? The main answer, presumably, lies in the G.O.P.’s decision, long ago, to seek votes from Southerners angered by the end of legal segregation. With the old Confederacy now the heart of the Republican base, boasting about the party’s Civil War-era legacy is no longer advisable.” Abraham Lincoln, Inflationist

Paul Krugman is a tool of the Democrat Party and will say anything to move the Marxist agenda..

The party of Lincoln was left wing. The Republicans were left wing. You're using labels that no longer carry the same meaning to try to distort history. Regardless of what labels were used when, it was the left that freed the slaves and the right that did everything it could to prevent black people from being seen as equal.

I guess you don't understand that classical liberalism is what the United States was founded on and the Republicans wanted it for all men.

Classical liberalism
Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom.
Classical liberalism - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Then Woodrow Wilson saw an opportunity and started changing history

How Woodrow Wilson's propaganda machine changed American journalism

In its crusade to “make the world safe for democracy,” the Wilson administration took immediate steps at home to curtail one of the pillars of democracy – press freedom – by implementing a plan to control, manipulate and censor all news coverage, on a scale never seen in U.S. history.

Then later on after Senator Lyndon B. Johnson voted against the Civil Rights act of 1957, he then signed into law the Civil Rights act of 1964(Democrat bill that passed with a majority of Republicans helped) because if he didn't the Democrat Party would never again see power.

HR. 6127. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1957. -- Senate Vote #75 -- Aug 7, 1957
H.R. 7152. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964. ADOPTION OF A ... -- House Vote #182 -- Jul 2, 1964

Lyndon Johnson was a civil rights hero. But also a racist.

Then in 1957, Johnson would not help get the “nigga bill” passed, known to most as the Civil Rights Act of 1957. With the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the segregationists would go to their graves knowing the cause they’d given their lives to had been betrayed, Frank Underwood style, by a man they believed to be one of their own. When Caro asked segregationist Georgia Democrat Herman Talmadge how he felt when Johnson, signing the Civil Rights Act, said ”we shall overcome,” Talmadge said “sick.”

Labels change in meaning constantly. The spirit of the left and right have used different labels at different points in history. The left freed the slaves and eventually gave them the ability to vote and be seen as not less than white people. That's the truth of it no matter how much obfuscation and propaganda you post. Claiming that the left wing was born in racism is an absurd misrepresentation of history. We all know people that support clan/Nazi ideology are not voting for left wing politicians.

 

[grainbely]

It's technically accurate that pre-1964 the "Democrats" supported racist policies. They were also largely against immigration and social security. Though claiming that pre-1964 Democrats are connected to the modern left wing is dishonest and a perversion of history. It’s actually the Republican party that’s the spiritual successor of the pre-1964 Democratic party. A lot of platforms changed and moved around during that time, and it had the effect of flipping the labels that were being used.

Don't believe me? Go look it up. The "Democrats" were the right wing of the country at that point in history. The right sometimes uses this fact to create the dishonest claim that the left is racist, and that their history proves it. If you actually understand the history though, rather than just focusing on a label that has changed in meaning, you'll realize that that claim is complete nonsense. That's the history of the right, not the left. They have so little shame that they blame the left for their own history in an attempt to save face. I challenge those of you that would disagree to go look up the party platform of the Dixiecrats in the 1950s. I bet you'll find a lot of stuff that you agree with.

If white people can get away with saying they are not guilty for the sins of their slave owning ancestors, then any political following can do the same. I believe it's not very important. Until this point I've been voting mostly Democrat because they tend to hold the same position on issues. Few republicans agree with my positions. What's more important is who continues to stand for racist or sexist policies or elevate past racism.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

It's technically accurate that pre-1964 the "Democrats" supported racist policies. They were also largely against immigration and social security. Though claiming that pre-1964 Democrats are connected to the modern left wing is dishonest and a perversion of history. It’s actually the Republican party that’s the spiritual successor of the pre-1964 Democratic party. A lot of platforms changed and moved around during that time, and it actually had the effect of flipping the labels that were being used.

Don't believe me? Go look it up. The "Democrats" were the right wing of the country at that point in history. The right sometimes uses this fact to create the dishonest claim that the left is racist, and that their history proves it. If you actually understand the history though, rather than just focusing on a label that has changed in meaning, you'll realize that that claim is complete nonsense. That's the history of the right, not the left. They have so little shame that they attempt to blame the left for their own history in an attempt to save face. I challenge those of you that would disagree to go look up the party platform of the Democrats in the 1950s. I bet you'll find a lot of stuff that you agree with.

https://www.amazon.com/Setting-Record-Straight-American-History/dp/1932225277&tag=ff0d01-20
Or you could read this book and find out how a bunch of crooked Marxists have planned for the destruction of the United States and there attempt at still trying to.



The OSB Politico: The Fallacy of the Republican/Democratic Flip/Flop on Civil Rights and Racism

Once again Paul Krugman tries to re-write history as he explains why the South deserted the Democrats; not because they outgrew segregation, but because Republicans were willing to abandon the founding values of their party for Southern votes; it's the old flip/flop theory the Democrats have espoused to try and falsely place themselves on the right side of history. “There was a time when Republicans used to refer to themselves, proudly, as “the party of Lincoln.” But you don’t hear that line much these days. Why? The main answer, presumably, lies in the G.O.P.’s decision, long ago, to seek votes from Southerners angered by the end of legal segregation. With the old Confederacy now the heart of the Republican base, boasting about the party’s Civil War-era legacy is no longer advisable.” Abraham Lincoln, Inflationist

Paul Krugman is a tool of the Democrat Party and will say anything to move the Marxist agenda..

The party of Lincoln was left wing. The Republicans were left wing. You're using labels that no longer carry the same meaning to try to distort history. Regardless of what labels were used when, it was the left that freed the slaves and the right that did everything it could to prevent black people from being seen as equal.

I guess you don't understand that classical liberalism is what the United States was founded on and the Republicans wanted it for all men.

Classical liberalism
Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom.
Classical liberalism - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Then Woodrow Wilson saw an opportunity and started changing history

How Woodrow Wilson's propaganda machine changed American journalism

In its crusade to “make the world safe for democracy,” the Wilson administration took immediate steps at home to curtail one of the pillars of democracy – press freedom – by implementing a plan to control, manipulate and censor all news coverage, on a scale never seen in U.S. history.

Then later on after Senator Lyndon B. Johnson voted against the Civil Rights act of 1957, he then signed into law the Civil Rights act of 1964(Democrat bill that passed with a majority of Republicans helped) because if he didn't the Democrat Party would never again see power.

HR. 6127. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1957. -- Senate Vote #75 -- Aug 7, 1957
H.R. 7152. CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964. ADOPTION OF A ... -- House Vote #182 -- Jul 2, 1964

Lyndon Johnson was a civil rights hero. But also a racist.

Then in 1957, Johnson would not help get the “nigga bill” passed, known to most as the Civil Rights Act of 1957. With the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the segregationists would go to their graves knowing the cause they’d given their lives to had been betrayed, Frank Underwood style, by a man they believed to be one of their own. When Caro asked segregationist Georgia Democrat Herman Talmadge how he felt when Johnson, signing the Civil Rights Act, said ”we shall overcome,” Talmadge said “sick.”

Labels change in meaning constantly. The spirit of the left and right have used different labels at different points in history. The left freed the slaves and eventually gave them the ability to vote and be seen as not less than white people. That's the truth of it no matter how much obfuscation and propaganda you post. Claiming that the left wing was born in racism is an absurd misrepresentation of history. We all know people that support clan/Nazi ideology are not voting for left wing politicians.

Marxists name never changes, but the way they get people to be uneducated so they can manipulate them is constantly changing.

 

[Hossfly]

It's technically accurate that pre-1964 the "Democrats" supported racist policies. They were also largely against immigration and social security. Though claiming that pre-1964 Democrats are connected to the modern left wing is dishonest and a perversion of history. It’s actually the Republican party that’s the spiritual successor of the pre-1964 Democratic party. A lot of platforms changed and moved around during that time, and it had the effect of flipping the labels that were being used.

Don't believe me? Go look it up. The "Democrats" were the right wing of the country at that point in history. The right sometimes uses this fact to create the dishonest claim that the left is racist, and that their history proves it. If you actually understand the history though, rather than just focusing on a label that has changed in meaning, you'll realize that that claim is complete nonsense. That's the history of the right, not the left. They have so little shame that they blame the left for their own history in an attempt to save face. I challenge those of you that would disagree to go look up the party platform of the Dixiecrats in the 1950s. I bet you'll find a lot of stuff that you agree with.

If white people can get away with saying they are not guilty for the sins of their slave owning ancestors, then any political following can do the same. I believe it's not very important. Until this point I've been voting mostly Democrat because they tend to hold the same position on issues. Few republicans agree with my positions. What's more important is who continues to stand for racist or sexist policies or elevate past racism.

True story.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here, for the thousandth time is what happened (historically indisputable)

1. In the 19th century, the conservative party in the South was the Democratic Party

2. In the early 20th century, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, mostly Northeners, and the conservative wing in the South formed a left/right coalition. This was made possible by the northern wing essentially turning a blind eye on the racist/segregationist conservative South.

3. This coalition lasted until Harry Truman (D) made the decision to stop tolerating the conservative racist wing of the party and began to push for civil rights.

4. By 1948 Truman's initiatives had so enraged the conservative Democrats in the South that they broke with the party in large numbers, creating the Dixiecrats, led by future Republican conservative hero, Strom Thurmond. The Dixiecrats managed to win 39 electoral votes in the South.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

It's technically accurate that pre-1964 the "Democrats" supported racist policies. They were also largely against immigration and social security. Though claiming that pre-1964 Democrats are connected to the modern left wing is dishonest and a perversion of history. It’s actually the Republican party that’s the spiritual successor of the pre-1964 Democratic party. A lot of platforms changed and moved around during that time, and it had the effect of flipping the labels that were being used.

Don't believe me? Go look it up. The "Democrats" were the right wing of the country at that point in history. The right sometimes uses this fact to create the dishonest claim that the left is racist, and that their history proves it. If you actually understand the history though, rather than just focusing on a label that has changed in meaning, you'll realize that that claim is complete nonsense. That's the history of the right, not the left. They have so little shame that they blame the left for their own history in an attempt to save face. I challenge those of you that would disagree to go look up the party platform of the Dixiecrats in the 1950s. I bet you'll find a lot of stuff that you agree with.

If white people can get away with saying they are not guilty for the sins of their slave owning ancestors, then any political following can do the same. I believe it's not very important. Until this point I've been voting mostly Democrat because they tend to hold the same position on issues. Few republicans agree with my positions. What's more important is who continues to stand for racist or sexist policies or elevate past racism.

So even though my son is married to a women from Peru, and my daughter has a Nigerian for a friend, am I considered a racist for allowing such in my house and family? We don't judge people by the color of their skin but by the content of their character... Sounds familiar? Google it...

Radical liberalism/Marxism is all about identity politics, and the most recent election proved how EVIL the left is in their Marxist ways.

Unite and Fight?: Marxism and Identity Politics | WeAreMany.org

How we understand the nature of racial, gender and other oppressions shapes whether and how we challenge them. At the heart of the theory of identity politics, which has dominated US social movements for decades, lies the notion that only those experiencing a particular form of oppression can define or fight it.

Liberalism is all about VICTIMHOOD, which is why identity politics work so well on the uneducated, for those people are too stupid(because of the public education system) to know that the United States with God's gifts can you achieve success.

 

[Thinker101]

If the Democratic Party was the party of racism,

Trump would have won California, Massachusetts, Illinois, and New York.

Because those states are full of racists? Makes sense to me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the Democratic Party was the party of racism,

Trump would have won California, Massachusetts, Illinois, and New York.

Because those states are full of racists? Makes sense to me.

But he didn't, because they aren't. You're one of the slow people around here.

 

[Confounding]

True story.

I honestly agree with this. I am just tired of the nonsense argument some Republicans make regarding history and racism.

 

[bendog]

It's technically accurate that pre-1964 the "Democrats" supported racist policies. They were also largely against immigration and social security. Though claiming that pre-1964 Democrats are connected to the modern left wing is dishonest and a perversion of history. It’s actually the Republican party that’s the spiritual successor of the pre-1964 Democratic party. A lot of platforms changed and moved around during that time, and it had the effect of flipping the labels that were being used.

Don't believe me? Go look it up. The "Democrats" were the right wing of the country at that point in history. The right sometimes uses this fact to create the dishonest claim that the left is racist, and that their history proves it. If you actually understand the history though, rather than just focusing on a label that has changed in meaning, you'll realize that that claim is complete nonsense. That's the history of the right, not the left. They have so little shame that they blame the left for their own history in an attempt to save face. I challenge those of you that would disagree to go look up the party platform of the Dixiecrats in the 1950s. I bet you'll find a lot of stuff that you agree with.

Being a former Republican transplanted in the South, I have to say its more complex.

The dem state govts in the South voted for the New Deal, and insured the Dems had a lock on the area up through 1964 and the advent of civil rights. There was a wink and a nod that the Southern dem controlled state govts would just not let blacks get any benefit from the New Deal, and the natl dem party was ok with that. And the dems had a lock on natl power, except during Eisenhower's terms, and he was not anti-New Deal.

Two different types of things began when the civil rights protesters began sit ins to just get basic service in restaurants and hotels. 1) hearts and minds of decent people in other parts of the country began to change. Blacks didn't get fair treatment there either, and the nation was segregated in blacks had "their areas" in LA, Chi, NY, etc. But it just wasn't as blatant, because Blacks only began moving out of the South in the middle/late 1940s. In 1948, the Dixiecrats ran their challenge to Truman:

'We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race; the constitutional right to choose one's associates; to accept private employment without governmental interference, and to earn one's living in any lawful way. We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed civil rights program. We favor home-rule, local self-government and a minimum interference with individual rights.' Dixiecrat - Wikipedia

"high minded" southerners (like me) will say, Wal-Mart and KFC would have ended segregation in public accomodations, and States weren't going to hold back interracial marriage when it was nationally becoming part of the past (as nobody was holding back gay marriage no matter what the Supreme Court said a few years ago).

2) voting rights was the bombshell (pun intended) Once we began blowing up children in churches, firebombing a man who registered voters and burning him to death as his family fled the flames, and using the Highway Patrol to assassinate people registering voters ... even JFK had to act. And then, by 1968, the State parties had to integrate, because the federal govt could not tolerate not letting blacks vote, and republicans and democrats outside the South joined. Public accomodations were covered as was voting, and a greater % of republicans voted for it than did dems.Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia

Goldwater opposed Jim Crowe personally, but he thought the federal govt should not interfere with elections or contracts. The Goldwater State gop parties were not racist, and were open to blacks joining. Of course since we didn't want pubic accommodation laws, and thought miscegenation was purely a state issue, blacks failed to see the appeal. Whites did. And the result is that dem state parties are overwhelming black, and gop are white.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It's technically accurate that pre-1964 the "Democrats" supported racist policies, particularly a faction of the Democrats called the Dixiecrats. The Dixiecrats were also largely against immigration and social security. Though claiming that pre-1964 Democrats are connected to the modern left wing is dishonest and a perversion of history. It’s actually the Republican party that’s the spiritual successor of the pre-1964 Democratic party. A lot of platforms changed and moved around during that time, and it had the effect of flipping the labels that were being used.

Don't believe me? Go look it up. The "Democrats" were the right wing of the country at that point in history. The right sometimes uses this fact to create the dishonest claim that the left is racist, and that their history proves it. If you actually understand the history though, rather than just focusing on a label that has changed in meaning, you'll realize that that claim is complete nonsense. That's the history of the right, not the left. They have so little shame that they blame the left for their own history in an attempt to save face. I challenge those of you that would disagree to go look up the party platform of the Dixiecrats in the 1950s. I bet you'll find a lot of stuff that you agree with.

It's hardly farfetched to say the Democratic Party of today is much different than that of the pre Civil Rights Movement. You guys continue to look down upon minorities in this country as being too incapable and incompetent to achieve anything on our own without the help of leftist white elitists like yourself. Unfortunately, you've done a good job convincing a lot of minorities that it's true, but there are still plenty of us around who don't buy into your bullshit as anymore legitimate than believing LBJ was actually trying to help blacks in the 60s.

 

[Confounding]

Here, for the thousandth time is what happened (historically indisputable)

1. In the 19th century, the conservative party in the South was the Democratic Party

2. In the early 20th century, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, mostly Northeners, and the conservative wing in the South formed a left/right coalition. This was made possible by the northern wing essentially turning a blind eye on the racist/segregationist conservative South.

3. This coalition lasted until Harry Truman (D) made the decision to stop tolerating the conservative racist wing of the party and began to push for civil rights.

4. By 1948 Truman's initiatives had so enraged the conservative Democrats in the South that they broke with the party in large numbers, creating the Dixiecrats, led by future Republican conservative hero, Strom Thurmond. The Dixiecrats managed to win 39 electoral votes in the South.

Basically it's complete bullshit to suggest that modern leftism is connected to racism from the 19th and 20th centuries.

 

[Thinker101]

If the Democratic Party was the party of racism,

Trump would have won California, Massachusetts, Illinois, and New York.

Because those states are full of racists? Makes sense to me.

But he didn't, because they aren't. You're one of the slow people around here.

Actually Trump is not racist which is why he didn't win those states....dumbass.

 

[HappyJoy]

It's technically accurate that pre-1964 the "Democrats" supported racist policies, particularly a faction of the Democrats that became the Dixiecrats. The Dixiecrats were also largely against immigration and social security. Claiming that pre-1964 Democrats are connected to the modern left wing is dishonest and a perversion of history. It’s actually the Republican party that’s the spiritual successor of the pre-1964 Democratic party. A lot of platforms changed and moved around during that time, and it had the effect of flipping the labels that were being used.

Don't believe me? Go look it up. The "Democrats" were the right wing of the country at that point in history. The right sometimes uses this fact to create the dishonest claim that the left is racist, and that their history proves it. If you actually understand the history though, rather than just focusing on a label that has changed in meaning, you'll realize that that claim is complete nonsense. That's the history of the right, not the left. They have so little shame that they blame the left for their own history in an attempt to save face. I challenge those of you that would disagree to go look up the party platform of the Dixiecrats in the 1950s. I bet you'll find a lot of stuff that you agree with.

True except it wasn't the Democrats, it was southern Democrats. Civil rights legislation was overwhelmingly approved by northerners, Democrats and Republicans alike.

 

[bendog]

It's technically accurate that pre-1964 the "Democrats" supported racist policies, particularly a faction of the Democrats called the Dixiecrats. The Dixiecrats were also largely against immigration and social security. Though claiming that pre-1964 Democrats are connected to the modern left wing is dishonest and a perversion of history. It’s actually the Republican party that’s the spiritual successor of the pre-1964 Democratic party. A lot of platforms changed and moved around during that time, and it had the effect of flipping the labels that were being used.

Don't believe me? Go look it up. The "Democrats" were the right wing of the country at that point in history. The right sometimes uses this fact to create the dishonest claim that the left is racist, and that their history proves it. If you actually understand the history though, rather than just focusing on a label that has changed in meaning, you'll realize that that claim is complete nonsense. That's the history of the right, not the left. They have so little shame that they blame the left for their own history in an attempt to save face. I challenge those of you that would disagree to go look up the party platform of the Dixiecrats in the 1950s. I bet you'll find a lot of stuff that you agree with.

It's hardly farfetched to say the Democratic Party of today is much different than that of the pre Civil Rights Movement. You guys continue to look down upon minorities in this country as being too incapable and incompetent to achieve anything on our own without the help of leftist white elitists like yourself. Unfortunately, you've done a good job convincing a lot of minorities that it's true, but there are still plenty of us around who don't buy into your bullshit as anymore legitimate than believing LBJ was actually trying to help blacks in the 60s.

yet the gop is disenfranchising voters in Wisc Ind Miss Ga Tenn .....