Just to educate the idiot population about the Conferate Flag and Confederacy.

[Pogo]

I'd rather have a descendant of Jefferson Davis educate me on the Confederate Flag and the Confederacy.

Actually you should check into one of the Confederacy's biggest heroes to learn more about the Confederacy.

His name is Nathan Bedford Forrest. You'd learn a lot about the Democrat Party's roots too.

Nathan Bedford Forrest has nothing to do with the Democratic Party's roots. Forrest wasn't even a politician; he was a general in the Civil War noted by both sides as a tactician and skilled swordsman. He was also a slave trader, a racist, a plantation owner and later after the war, a failure businessman. In 1867 the vigilante elements that had taken over the activities of the Ku Klux Klan, then a year and a half old, went to Forrest to be its figurehead so as to give the organization a status of "legitimacy". Less than two years later (January 1869), Forrest judged that the violent fringe elements had gotten completely out of control and issued a proclamation disbanding the KKK, even later denying that he had ever been part of it. Said fringe elements ignored the order and continued their violence anyway, just as they had infiltrated the group before they took on Forrest. Later Forrest went to Alabama to head a railroad, which soon went bankrupt.

But none of that has anything to do with the Democratic Party's "roots", which go back to 1828 (when Forrest was just turning seven years old) and already had five Presidents in office before the Civil War --- not seven Presidents, as your previous wacko bullet list of a few days ago alleged.

I have to wonder about your grip on the concept of linear time...

 

[Pogo]

Pre or post 1960's?

Oh please don't try that game with me that one magical night with pixie dust from on high that Republicans became Democrats and Democrats and Dixiecrats all became Republican.

It's a fairytale. A sad pathetic fairytale.

It didn't happen overnight but it most certainly happened. Adult remedial Social Studies 101 can help you make up for those skipped classes in high school.

The party membership changed while the attitudes remained in the regions. The confederate flag belongs to the attitude, not the party.

Well most Dixiecrats stayed Democrats. That's just a fact. If you want to believe in the fairytale that Republicans became Democrats and Democrats became Republicans well that's your choice.

But it's a fairy tale.

"Most Dixiecrats"? Here's the complete list of "Dixiecrats":

1. Strom Thurmond
2. Fielding Wright (Thurmond's running mate)

That's it. End of list. Two people.

Thurmond went Republican in 1964 after the CRA passed. Wright died in 1956, before either Civil Rights Act came up.

Thurmond had already been kicked off the state Democratic ballot for Senator ten years earlier after he endorsed Eisenhower over Stevenson in 1952.

So exactly 50% of "Dixiecrats" stayed kind-of Democrats, while the other 50% died.

You forgot Jesse Helms

By the way, "Dixiecrat" can refer to any Democrat in the traditional Old South (sorry Texas,Florida)

No, it really can't. The "Dixiecrats" refers specifically to that short-lived venture of 1948, which ran exactly two candidates, named above. Jesse Helms wasn't a part of that.

Even so, the whole "Democratic party split" does not tell the whole story why most Blacks vote Democrat/White Southerners vote Republican. It is basically the same story.

Agreed, it doesn't. Those are two separate dynamics, the black part of which I examined here:

The black vote started demonstrably going Democratic in FDR's first election (1932), and saw significant spikes in 1948 and 1964... 1932 of course was a huge vote for FDR as a quest for relief against the ravages of the Depression, appealing to the poor, the unemployed, the lower classes --- those most affected by the economic collapse. Add to this that the DP had taken on the Populist movement with the turn of the century while the RP had been shifting to the interests of corporations and the rich, and that the "Progressive" era policies both parties flirted with were largely embraced in Roosevelt's New Deal, and these are the seeds of the DP attracting minorities and the poor in general, including blacks, Jews, Catholics and immigrants.

While these may have been attractions to the DP for these constituencies, probably two factors acted as repulsion away from the RP: first, its association with the rich and hyper-rich around the turn of the century, and later, the association with the "Moral Majority". Both of these are polarizing dynamics that establish a meritocratic hierarchy. People don't go where they don't feel welcome.

​

It wasn't until 1948 though that most blacks self-identifed as "Democrats":

​

-- 1948 would be when Harry Truman had integrated the military and the DP convention made so much noise about "civil rights" including a stirring speech by Minneapolis Mayor Hubert Humphrey, that an entire contingent from the South walked out, started their own short-lived party, ran a candidate and very nearly cost Truman the election.

From the source of these charts:

Even after that, Republican nominees continued to get a large slice of the black vote for several elections. Dwight D. Eisenhower got 39 percent in 1956, and Richard Nixon got 32 percent in his narrow loss to John F. Kennedy in 1960.

But then President Lyndon B. Johnson pushed through the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 (outlawing segregation in public places) and his eventual Republican opponent, Sen. Barry Goldwater, opposed it. Johnson got 94 percent of the black vote that year, still a record for any presidential election.
​

This didn't come about from O'bama or in the last ten or twenty years; it's been the pattern as long as almost all of us have been alive. And its roots are really the same as any other constituency's preference-- they gravitate to where they see their interests best represented.

 

[amrchaos]

It was placed over state capitals and on state flags to protest desegregation.

Yeah, no racism there.

By Democrat Governors correct?

Would you like to make the assertion that Democrats today are the same, with the same political goals as the Southern Democrats back then?

Absolutely not. It's not the same Democrat party of old and thank heavens its not.

What I don't understand is why Democrats can't just admit a history that was not so pretty and pat themselves on the back for leaving those days behind.

Why do modern day Democrats so hell bent for leather that they have the need to demonize Republicans and attempt to flip both parties histories? Pixie dust falling and making all Democrats Republicans and all Republicans magically turning into Democrats. Overnight.

It's pretty sick.

In a sense, in the South, it almost did happen like that!! One year, allegiances just flipped!!

 

[Pogo]

It was placed over state capitals and on state flags to protest desegregation.

Yeah, no racism there.

By Democrat Governors correct?

Would you like to make the assertion that Democrats today are the same, with the same political goals as the Southern Democrats back then?

Absolutely not. It's not the same Democrat party of old and thank heavens its not.

What I don't understand is why Democrats can't just admit a history that was not so pretty and pat themselves on the back for leaving those days behind.

Why do modern day Democrats so hell bent for leather that they have the need to demonize Republicans and attempt to flip both parties histories? Pixie dust falling and making all Democrats Republicans and all Republicans magically turning into Democrats. Overnight.

It's pretty sick.

In a sense, in the South, it almost did happen like that!! One year, allegiances just flipped!!

It kinda seems that way. It just shows that there was a lot of pent-up sentiment in the South, where associating with the "Party of Lincoln", the guy who had defeated and humiliated it, was unthinkable, even though they'd been making advances that way for decades, until Thurmond (who had endorsed Eisenhower in 1952 and in retaliation was kicked off the Democratic Party state ballot in his next election) broke that psychological barrier in 1964. The Southern population of Thurmond's ilk had always been conservative, hence the endless squabbles with the DP.

 

[amrchaos]

It was placed over state capitals and on state flags to protest desegregation.

Yeah, no racism there.

By Democrat Governors correct?

Would you like to make the assertion that Democrats today are the same, with the same political goals as the Southern Democrats back then?

Absolutely not. It's not the same Democrat party of old and thank heavens its not.

What I don't understand is why Democrats can't just admit a history that was not so pretty and pat themselves on the back for leaving those days behind.

Why do modern day Democrats so hell bent for leather that they have the need to demonize Republicans and attempt to flip both parties histories? Pixie dust falling and making all Democrats Republicans and all Republicans magically turning into Democrats. Overnight.

It's pretty sick.

There you go again with the "overnight" horseshit.

​

We did this already. Now you're gonna pretend like it never happened.

It's pretty sick.


MOREOVER, nobody anywhere ever claimed "Republicans turned into Democrats". The South didn't have Republicans to turn.

Here's the historical elephant in the room you keep ignoring:

The Republican Party was founded just seven years before the Civil War broke out. It had no presence in the South whatsoever --- didn't even print ballots there, not in 1860, not in the prior election, not in the next election either. By the time the dust cleared in 1865, it was established -- by reputation -- in the South as the Party of Lincoln, the guy who had just vanquished and humiliated them in a war they expected to win. And then it came in with the "big government" Reconstructionists, which it saw as occupiers -- and these were the first Republicans the South saw.

Consequently it would become, and remain, unthinkable to associate with Republicans in the South for exactly 99 years -- until Thurmond broke the ice and finally jumped ship officially in 1964.

That meant the DP was the only game in town, like it or not. That meant if you were a racist in the South, and you were registered to vote, you were most likely a Democrat. If you were not a racist at all, you were still a Democrat. This has nothing to do with ideologies -- it has everything to do with political machines to get things done. Ideologically the Southern Democrats were completely at odds with the rest of the party. But for any political party, consistency of ideology is not the main goal. Acquiring power is.

Consequently it would become, and remain, unthinkable to associate with Republicans in the South for exactly 99 years -- until Thurmond broke the ice and finally jumped ship officially in 1964.

That meant the DP was the only game in town, like it or not. That meant if you were a racist in the South, and you were registered to vote, you were most likely a Democrat. If you were not a racist at all, you were still a Democrat. This has nothing to do with ideologies -- it has everything to do with political machines to get things done. Ideologically the Southern Democrats were completely at odds with the rest of the party. But for any political party, consistency of ideology is not the main goal. Acquiring power is.

The red part is not true.

For starters, Blacks were able to vote shortly after the civil war and they voted heavily Republican. In fact, the first Black Senator to congress was a Republican--from Mississippi! The first elected Black Senator came from Mississippi as well and was a Republican!


2nd--Southern Democrats started the tradition of vote suppression of Blacks. This was not just for"White supremacy" but to keep power out of Republican hands.

3rd--Republicans, in a way, help planted the early seeds of the civil rights movement by registering blacks and fighting against voter suppression. They did this not just because it was right, but the key to winning was through the massive number of uncounted Blacks not voting!!

(Funny thing, there was an attempt to pass a civil rights act around this time--it failed due to the Democrats!! )

There is a lot of history you just skipped or ignored. To be honest, it is a fascinating history about the South that fully describe what "Southern culture and tradition" actually is. You should learn it sometimes--It is an eye opening experience.

You know, when I think of people that don't really know Southern history, I begin to argue that we should keep the stars and bars flying in the South.

It keeps your attitude and beliefs about the Old South true.

 

[amrchaos]

It was placed over state capitals and on state flags to protest desegregation.

Yeah, no racism there.

By Democrat Governors correct?

Would you like to make the assertion that Democrats today are the same, with the same political goals as the Southern Democrats back then?

Absolutely not. It's not the same Democrat party of old and thank heavens its not.

What I don't understand is why Democrats can't just admit a history that was not so pretty and pat themselves on the back for leaving those days behind.

Why do modern day Democrats so hell bent for leather that they have the need to demonize Republicans and attempt to flip both parties histories? Pixie dust falling and making all Democrats Republicans and all Republicans magically turning into Democrats. Overnight.

It's pretty sick.

Who's denying our poor history in the Democrat Party, Tiny? Name names.

DNC website. No guff. I have many friends that are Dems and my father in law and brother in law are devout but true D's that I love and and admire. For the most part we all have remained classical liberal so our ideologies can be discussed and debated without feeling the need to slap each other around. I don't appreciate the progressives that have hijacked the Dems.

Here's a list from my stack of stuff that WSJ came up with that was missing from D history at the website. Lots more at the link. I want to stay within the copyright rules of the board.

So what's missing?

• There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms supporting slavery. There were six from 1840 through 1860.
• 
  
• There is no reference to the number of Democratic presidents who owned slaves. There were seven from 1800 through 1861
• 
  
• There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms that either supported segregation outright or were silent on the subject. There were 20, from 1868 through 1948.
• 
  
• There is no reference to "Jim Crow" as in "Jim Crow laws," nor is there reference to the role Democrats played in creating them. These were the post-Civil War laws passed enthusiastically by Democrats in that pesky 52-year part of the DNC's missing years.
• These laws segregated public schools, public transportation, restaurants, rest rooms and public places in general (everything from water coolers to beaches). The reason Rosa Parks became famous is that she sat in the "whites only" front section of a bus, the "whites only" designation the direct result of Democrats.
• 
  
• There is no reference to the formation of the Ku Klux Klan, which, according to Columbia University historian Eric Foner, became "a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party."
• 
  
• Nor is there reference to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease's description of the Klan as the "terrorist arm of the Democratic Party."
• 
  
• There is no reference to the fact Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The 13th banned slavery.
  
• 
  
• The 14th effectively overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision (made by Democratic pro-slavery Supreme Court justices) by guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves.
  
• 
  
• The 15th gave black Americans the right to vote.
• 
  
• There is no reference to the fact that Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was passed by the Republican Congress over the veto of President Andrew Johnson, who had been a Democrat before joining Lincoln's ticket in 1864.
  
• 
  
• The law was designed to provide blacks with the right to own private property, sign contracts, sue and serve as witnesses in a legal proceeding.There is no reference to the Democrats' opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1875.
• 
  
• It was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses Grant. The law prohibited racial discrimination in public places and public accommodations.

• There is no reference to the Democrats' 1904 platform, which devotes a section to "Sectional and Racial Agitation," claiming the GOP's protests against segregation and the denial of voting rights to blacks sought to "revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country," which in turn "means confusion, distraction of business, and the reopening of wounds now happily healed."
• 
  
• There is no reference to four Democratic platforms, 1908-20, that are silent on blacks, segregation, lynching and voting rights as racial problems in the country mount.
• 
  
• By contrast the GOP platforms of those years specifically address "Rights of the Negro" (1908), oppose lynching (in 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928) and, as the New Deal kicks in, speak out about the dangers of making blacks "wards of the state."

• There is no reference to the Democratic Convention of 1924, known to history as the "Klanbake." The 103-ballot convention was held in Madison Square Garden. Hundreds of delegates were members of the Ku Klux Klan, the Klan so powerful that a plank condemning Klan violence was defeated outright.
• 
  
• To celebrate, the Klan staged a rally with 10,000 hooded Klansmen in a field in New Jersey directly across the Hudson from the site of the convention.
  
• 
  
• Attended by hundreds of cheering convention delegates, the rally featured burning crosses and calls for violence against African-Americans and Catholics.

• There is no reference to the fact that it was Democrats who segregated the federal government, at the direction of President Woodrow Wilson upon taking office in 1913. There \is a reference to the fact that President Harry Truman integrated the military after World War II.
• 
  
• There is reference to the fact that Democrats created the Federal Reserve Board, passed labor and child welfare laws, and created Social Security with Wilson's New Freedom and FDR's New Deal.
  
• 
  
• There is no mention that these programs were created as the result of an agreement to ignore segregation and the lynching of blacks. Neither is there a reference to the thousands of local officials, state legislators, state governors, U.S. congressmen and U.S. senators who were elected as supporters of slavery and then segregation between 1800 and 1965.
• 
  
• Nor is there reference to the deal with the devil that left segregation and lynching as a way of life in return for election support for three post-Civil War Democratic presidents, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.

• There is no reference that three-fourths of the opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill in the U.S. House came from Democrats, or that 80% of the "nay" vote in the Senate came from Democrats.
  
• 
  
• Certainly there is no reference to the fact that the opposition included future Democratic Senate leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia (a former Klan member) and Tennessee Senator Albert Gore Sr., father of Vice President Al Gore.
• 
  
• Last but certainly not least, there is no reference to the fact that Birmingham, Ala., Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor, who infamously unleashed dogs and fire hoses on civil rights protestors, was in fact--yes indeed--a member of both the Democratic National Committee and the Ku Klux Klan.

More at link:

The Democrats Missing History - WSJ

Come on, dancer
When you are a political party that is need of votes, you are not going to remind your voters of all the bad things you've done!!

Oh--I think you missed the part how the Democratic South practiced gerrymandering, ran opposing elected officials out of office, and reinvented debt-slavery and illegally imprisoned people for non-existing infractions (both blacks and whites) and rented prisoners for cheap labor.

Oh there is a whole lot more. Hey, that is the South for ya.

 

[tinydancer]

I'd rather have a descendant of Jefferson Davis educate me on the Confederate Flag and the Confederacy.

Actually you should check into one of the Confederacy's biggest heroes to learn more about the Confederacy.

His name is Nathan Bedford Forrest. You'd learn a lot about the Democrat Party's roots too.

Nathan Bedford Forrest has nothing to do with the Democratic Party's roots. Forrest wasn't even a politician; he was a general in the Civil War noted by both sides as a tactician and skilled swordsman. He was also a slave trader, a racist, a plantation owner and later after the war, a failure businessman. In 1867 the vigilante elements that had taken over the activities of the Ku Klux Klan, then a year and a half old, went to Forrest to be its figurehead so as to give the organization a status of "legitimacy". Less than two years later (January 1869), Forrest judged that the violent fringe elements had gotten completely out of control and issued a proclamation disbanding the KKK, even later denying that he had ever been part of it. Said fringe elements ignored the order and continued their violence anyway, just as they had infiltrated the group before they took on Forrest. Later Forrest went to Alabama to head a railroad, which soon went bankrupt.

But none of that has anything to do with the Democratic Party's "roots", which go back to 1828 (when Forrest was just turning seven years old) and already had five Presidents in office before the Civil War --- not seven Presidents, as your previous wacko bullet list of a few days ago alleged.

I have to wonder about your grip on the concept of linear time...

Oh for Pete's sake. Forrest was THE Grand Wizard. I swear Pogo, the Brothers Grimm can't top Democrats for freaking fairy tales.

And his family claimed that their family went all the way back to the founding of the D party.

"Georgia-born Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan wrote on page 21 of the September 1928 edition of the Klan’s “The Kourier Magazine”: “I have never voted for any man who was not a regular Democrat.

My father … never voted for any man who was not a Democrat. My grandfather was …the head of the Ku Klux Klan in reconstruction days….

My great-grandfather was a life-long Democrat…. My great-great-grandfather was…one of the founders of the Democratic party.”

KKK Terrorist Arm of the Democratic Party National Black Republican Association

 

[g5000]

Get yourselves an education if you're even capable of reading:

"Black Confederates" by Charles Kelly Barrow

"Black Sourherners in Confederate Armies" by J.H. Segars

"Slavery was it the cause of the war between the states" by Gene Kizer Jr.

"Everything you were taught about the Civil War is Wrong" by Lochlainn Seabrook

"Why I wave the Confederate Flag, written by a black man" by Anthony Hervey

"Black Southerners in Gray" by Arthur W. Bergeron & Thomas Y. Cartwright



Don't believe the radical communists desecration of the Confederacy or comply with their indoctrination in their efforts to turn America into the former Soviet Union.

You retards are so precious. You find a couple of negroes who owned slaves or who fly a Confederate flag and think you are fooling somebody by avoiding mention of the overwhelming number of white retards and bigots like yourself who comprise the aggregate. All you are doing is deluding yourselves.

The Civil War was about slavery, period. Every single declaration of secession said so. Every speech in favor of secession said so. So your revisionist bullshit doesn't fly.

The Confederate flag was the chosen symbol of the secessionists, and therefore represents slavery, getting one's ass kicked in a war, and Jim Crow. That's the "heritage" it represents, and has absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

 

[tinydancer]

By Democrat Governors correct?

Would you like to make the assertion that Democrats today are the same, with the same political goals as the Southern Democrats back then?

Absolutely not. It's not the same Democrat party of old and thank heavens its not.

What I don't understand is why Democrats can't just admit a history that was not so pretty and pat themselves on the back for leaving those days behind.

Why do modern day Democrats so hell bent for leather that they have the need to demonize Republicans and attempt to flip both parties histories? Pixie dust falling and making all Democrats Republicans and all Republicans magically turning into Democrats. Overnight.

It's pretty sick.

Who's denying our poor history in the Democrat Party, Tiny? Name names.

DNC website. No guff. I have many friends that are Dems and my father in law and brother in law are devout but true D's that I love and and admire. For the most part we all have remained classical liberal so our ideologies can be discussed and debated without feeling the need to slap each other around. I don't appreciate the progressives that have hijacked the Dems.

Here's a list from my stack of stuff that WSJ came up with that was missing from D history at the website. Lots more at the link. I want to stay within the copyright rules of the board.

So what's missing?

• There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms supporting slavery. There were six from 1840 through 1860.
• 
  
• There is no reference to the number of Democratic presidents who owned slaves. There were seven from 1800 through 1861
• 
  
• There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms that either supported segregation outright or were silent on the subject. There were 20, from 1868 through 1948.
• 
  
• There is no reference to "Jim Crow" as in "Jim Crow laws," nor is there reference to the role Democrats played in creating them. These were the post-Civil War laws passed enthusiastically by Democrats in that pesky 52-year part of the DNC's missing years.
• These laws segregated public schools, public transportation, restaurants, rest rooms and public places in general (everything from water coolers to beaches). The reason Rosa Parks became famous is that she sat in the "whites only" front section of a bus, the "whites only" designation the direct result of Democrats.
• 
  
• There is no reference to the formation of the Ku Klux Klan, which, according to Columbia University historian Eric Foner, became "a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party."
• 
  
• Nor is there reference to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease's description of the Klan as the "terrorist arm of the Democratic Party."
• 
  
• There is no reference to the fact Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The 13th banned slavery.
  
• 
  
• The 14th effectively overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision (made by Democratic pro-slavery Supreme Court justices) by guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves.
  
• 
  
• The 15th gave black Americans the right to vote.
• 
  
• There is no reference to the fact that Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was passed by the Republican Congress over the veto of President Andrew Johnson, who had been a Democrat before joining Lincoln's ticket in 1864.
  
• 
  
• The law was designed to provide blacks with the right to own private property, sign contracts, sue and serve as witnesses in a legal proceeding.There is no reference to the Democrats' opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1875.
• 
  
• It was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses Grant. The law prohibited racial discrimination in public places and public accommodations.

• There is no reference to the Democrats' 1904 platform, which devotes a section to "Sectional and Racial Agitation," claiming the GOP's protests against segregation and the denial of voting rights to blacks sought to "revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country," which in turn "means confusion, distraction of business, and the reopening of wounds now happily healed."
• 
  
• There is no reference to four Democratic platforms, 1908-20, that are silent on blacks, segregation, lynching and voting rights as racial problems in the country mount.
• 
  
• By contrast the GOP platforms of those years specifically address "Rights of the Negro" (1908), oppose lynching (in 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928) and, as the New Deal kicks in, speak out about the dangers of making blacks "wards of the state."

• There is no reference to the Democratic Convention of 1924, known to history as the "Klanbake." The 103-ballot convention was held in Madison Square Garden. Hundreds of delegates were members of the Ku Klux Klan, the Klan so powerful that a plank condemning Klan violence was defeated outright.
• 
  
• To celebrate, the Klan staged a rally with 10,000 hooded Klansmen in a field in New Jersey directly across the Hudson from the site of the convention.
  
• 
  
• Attended by hundreds of cheering convention delegates, the rally featured burning crosses and calls for violence against African-Americans and Catholics.

• There is no reference to the fact that it was Democrats who segregated the federal government, at the direction of President Woodrow Wilson upon taking office in 1913. There \is a reference to the fact that President Harry Truman integrated the military after World War II.
• 
  
• There is reference to the fact that Democrats created the Federal Reserve Board, passed labor and child welfare laws, and created Social Security with Wilson's New Freedom and FDR's New Deal.
  
• 
  
• There is no mention that these programs were created as the result of an agreement to ignore segregation and the lynching of blacks. Neither is there a reference to the thousands of local officials, state legislators, state governors, U.S. congressmen and U.S. senators who were elected as supporters of slavery and then segregation between 1800 and 1965.
• 
  
• Nor is there reference to the deal with the devil that left segregation and lynching as a way of life in return for election support for three post-Civil War Democratic presidents, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.

• There is no reference that three-fourths of the opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill in the U.S. House came from Democrats, or that 80% of the "nay" vote in the Senate came from Democrats.
  
• 
  
• Certainly there is no reference to the fact that the opposition included future Democratic Senate leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia (a former Klan member) and Tennessee Senator Albert Gore Sr., father of Vice President Al Gore.
• 
  
• Last but certainly not least, there is no reference to the fact that Birmingham, Ala., Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor, who infamously unleashed dogs and fire hoses on civil rights protestors, was in fact--yes indeed--a member of both the Democratic National Committee and the Ku Klux Klan.

More at link:

The Democrats Missing History - WSJ

Come on, dancer
When you are a political party that is need of votes, you are not going to remind your voters of all the bad things you've done!!

Oh--I think you missed the part how the Democratic South practiced gerrymandering, ran opposing elected officials out of office, and reinvented debt-slavery and illegally imprisoned people for non-existing infractions (both blacks and whites) and rented prisoners for cheap labor.

Oh there is a whole lot more. Hey, that is the South for ya.

Remind voters of the bad things they've done? Hell no. They blatantly lie about the past. WP busted them for what they have on their website.

How's this for a freaking whopper of a statement.

"Our History
For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights...."



They have the balls to put this bullshit out there. Unmothertruckingjawdroppingreal!!!!!!!!!!!

Democrats.org

 

[Pogo]

It was placed over state capitals and on state flags to protest desegregation.

Yeah, no racism there.

By Democrat Governors correct?

Would you like to make the assertion that Democrats today are the same, with the same political goals as the Southern Democrats back then?

Absolutely not. It's not the same Democrat party of old and thank heavens its not.

What I don't understand is why Democrats can't just admit a history that was not so pretty and pat themselves on the back for leaving those days behind.

Why do modern day Democrats so hell bent for leather that they have the need to demonize Republicans and attempt to flip both parties histories? Pixie dust falling and making all Democrats Republicans and all Republicans magically turning into Democrats. Overnight.

It's pretty sick.

There you go again with the "overnight" horseshit.

​

We did this already. Now you're gonna pretend like it never happened.

It's pretty sick.


MOREOVER, nobody anywhere ever claimed "Republicans turned into Democrats". The South didn't have Republicans to turn.

Here's the historical elephant in the room you keep ignoring:

The Republican Party was founded just seven years before the Civil War broke out. It had no presence in the South whatsoever --- didn't even print ballots there, not in 1860, not in the prior election, not in the next election either. By the time the dust cleared in 1865, it was established -- by reputation -- in the South as the Party of Lincoln, the guy who had just vanquished and humiliated them in a war they expected to win. And then it came in with the "big government" Reconstructionists, which it saw as occupiers -- and these were the first Republicans the South saw.

Consequently it would become, and remain, unthinkable to associate with Republicans in the South for exactly 99 years -- until Thurmond broke the ice and finally jumped ship officially in 1964.

That meant the DP was the only game in town, like it or not. That meant if you were a racist in the South, and you were registered to vote, you were most likely a Democrat. If you were not a racist at all, you were still a Democrat. This has nothing to do with ideologies -- it has everything to do with political machines to get things done. Ideologically the Southern Democrats were completely at odds with the rest of the party. But for any political party, consistency of ideology is not the main goal. Acquiring power is.

Consequently it would become, and remain, unthinkable to associate with Republicans in the South for exactly 99 years -- until Thurmond broke the ice and finally jumped ship officially in 1964.

That meant the DP was the only game in town, like it or not. That meant if you were a racist in the South, and you were registered to vote, you were most likely a Democrat. If you were not a racist at all, you were still a Democrat. This has nothing to do with ideologies -- it has everything to do with political machines to get things done. Ideologically the Southern Democrats were completely at odds with the rest of the party. But for any political party, consistency of ideology is not the main goal. Acquiring power is.

The red part is not true.

For starters, Blacks were able to vote shortly after the civil war and they voted heavily Republican. In fact, the first Black Senator to congress was a Republican--from Mississippi! The first elected Black Senator came from Mississippi as well and was a Republican!


2nd--Southern Democrats started the tradition of vote suppression of Blacks. This was not just for"White supremacy" but to keep power out of Republican hands.

3rd--Republicans, in a way, help planted the early seeds of the civil rights movement by registering blacks and fighting against voter suppression. They did this not just because it was right, but the key to winning was through the massive number of uncounted Blacks not voting!!

(Funny thing, there was an attempt to pass a civil rights act around this time--it failed due to the Democrats!! )

There is a lot of history you just skipped or ignored. To be honest, it is a fascinating history about the South that fully describe what "Southern culture and tradition" actually is. You should learn it sometimes--It is an eye opening experience.

You know, when I think of people that don't really know Southern history, I begin to argue that we should keep the stars and bars flying in the South.

It keeps your attitude and beliefs about the Old South true.

Yeah um, you quote me out of context. I'm speaking there of the white South -- the contingency we're talking about when we describe lifelong Democrats turning into Republicans.

The black population turning from Republicans into Democrats is an entirely separate and unrelated issue, which we already covered separately. It's right above here, post 182.

Trust me, I know whereof I speak; I've been part of the South since the Truman Administration.

 

[Pogo]

Would you like to make the assertion that Democrats today are the same, with the same political goals as the Southern Democrats back then?

Absolutely not. It's not the same Democrat party of old and thank heavens its not.

What I don't understand is why Democrats can't just admit a history that was not so pretty and pat themselves on the back for leaving those days behind.

Why do modern day Democrats so hell bent for leather that they have the need to demonize Republicans and attempt to flip both parties histories? Pixie dust falling and making all Democrats Republicans and all Republicans magically turning into Democrats. Overnight.

It's pretty sick.

Who's denying our poor history in the Democrat Party, Tiny? Name names.

DNC website. No guff. I have many friends that are Dems and my father in law and brother in law are devout but true D's that I love and and admire. For the most part we all have remained classical liberal so our ideologies can be discussed and debated without feeling the need to slap each other around. I don't appreciate the progressives that have hijacked the Dems.

Here's a list from my stack of stuff that WSJ came up with that was missing from D history at the website. Lots more at the link. I want to stay within the copyright rules of the board.

So what's missing?

• There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms supporting slavery. There were six from 1840 through 1860.
• 
  
• There is no reference to the number of Democratic presidents who owned slaves. There were seven from 1800 through 1861
• 
  
• There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms that either supported segregation outright or were silent on the subject. There were 20, from 1868 through 1948.
• 
  
• There is no reference to "Jim Crow" as in "Jim Crow laws," nor is there reference to the role Democrats played in creating them. These were the post-Civil War laws passed enthusiastically by Democrats in that pesky 52-year part of the DNC's missing years.
• These laws segregated public schools, public transportation, restaurants, rest rooms and public places in general (everything from water coolers to beaches). The reason Rosa Parks became famous is that she sat in the "whites only" front section of a bus, the "whites only" designation the direct result of Democrats.
• 
  
• There is no reference to the formation of the Ku Klux Klan, which, according to Columbia University historian Eric Foner, became "a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party."
• 
  
• Nor is there reference to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease's description of the Klan as the "terrorist arm of the Democratic Party."
• 
  
• There is no reference to the fact Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The 13th banned slavery.
  
• 
  
• The 14th effectively overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision (made by Democratic pro-slavery Supreme Court justices) by guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves.
  
• 
  
• The 15th gave black Americans the right to vote.
• 
  
• There is no reference to the fact that Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was passed by the Republican Congress over the veto of President Andrew Johnson, who had been a Democrat before joining Lincoln's ticket in 1864.
  
• 
  
• The law was designed to provide blacks with the right to own private property, sign contracts, sue and serve as witnesses in a legal proceeding.There is no reference to the Democrats' opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1875.
• 
  
• It was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses Grant. The law prohibited racial discrimination in public places and public accommodations.

• There is no reference to the Democrats' 1904 platform, which devotes a section to "Sectional and Racial Agitation," claiming the GOP's protests against segregation and the denial of voting rights to blacks sought to "revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country," which in turn "means confusion, distraction of business, and the reopening of wounds now happily healed."
• 
  
• There is no reference to four Democratic platforms, 1908-20, that are silent on blacks, segregation, lynching and voting rights as racial problems in the country mount.
• 
  
• By contrast the GOP platforms of those years specifically address "Rights of the Negro" (1908), oppose lynching (in 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928) and, as the New Deal kicks in, speak out about the dangers of making blacks "wards of the state."

• There is no reference to the Democratic Convention of 1924, known to history as the "Klanbake." The 103-ballot convention was held in Madison Square Garden. Hundreds of delegates were members of the Ku Klux Klan, the Klan so powerful that a plank condemning Klan violence was defeated outright.
• 
  
• To celebrate, the Klan staged a rally with 10,000 hooded Klansmen in a field in New Jersey directly across the Hudson from the site of the convention.
  
• 
  
• Attended by hundreds of cheering convention delegates, the rally featured burning crosses and calls for violence against African-Americans and Catholics.

• There is no reference to the fact that it was Democrats who segregated the federal government, at the direction of President Woodrow Wilson upon taking office in 1913. There \is a reference to the fact that President Harry Truman integrated the military after World War II.
• 
  
• There is reference to the fact that Democrats created the Federal Reserve Board, passed labor and child welfare laws, and created Social Security with Wilson's New Freedom and FDR's New Deal.
  
• 
  
• There is no mention that these programs were created as the result of an agreement to ignore segregation and the lynching of blacks. Neither is there a reference to the thousands of local officials, state legislators, state governors, U.S. congressmen and U.S. senators who were elected as supporters of slavery and then segregation between 1800 and 1965.
• 
  
• Nor is there reference to the deal with the devil that left segregation and lynching as a way of life in return for election support for three post-Civil War Democratic presidents, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.

• There is no reference that three-fourths of the opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill in the U.S. House came from Democrats, or that 80% of the "nay" vote in the Senate came from Democrats.
  
• 
  
• Certainly there is no reference to the fact that the opposition included future Democratic Senate leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia (a former Klan member) and Tennessee Senator Albert Gore Sr., father of Vice President Al Gore.
• 
  
• Last but certainly not least, there is no reference to the fact that Birmingham, Ala., Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor, who infamously unleashed dogs and fire hoses on civil rights protestors, was in fact--yes indeed--a member of both the Democratic National Committee and the Ku Klux Klan.

More at link:

The Democrats Missing History - WSJ

Come on, dancer
When you are a political party that is need of votes, you are not going to remind your voters of all the bad things you've done!!

Oh--I think you missed the part how the Democratic South practiced gerrymandering, ran opposing elected officials out of office, and reinvented debt-slavery and illegally imprisoned people for non-existing infractions (both blacks and whites) and rented prisoners for cheap labor.

Oh there is a whole lot more. Hey, that is the South for ya.

Remind voters of the bad things they've done? Hell no. They blatantly lie about the past. WP busted them for what they have on their website.

How's this for a freaking whopper of a statement.

"Our History
For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights...."



They have the balls to put this bullshit out there. Unmothertruckingjawdroppingreal!!!!!!!!!!!

Democrats.org

That's quite impossible. The Democratic Party isn't even 200 years old yet.

 

[Pogo]

I'd rather have a descendant of Jefferson Davis educate me on the Confederate Flag and the Confederacy.

Actually you should check into one of the Confederacy's biggest heroes to learn more about the Confederacy.

His name is Nathan Bedford Forrest. You'd learn a lot about the Democrat Party's roots too.

Nathan Bedford Forrest has nothing to do with the Democratic Party's roots. Forrest wasn't even a politician; he was a general in the Civil War noted by both sides as a tactician and skilled swordsman. He was also a slave trader, a racist, a plantation owner and later after the war, a failure businessman. In 1867 the vigilante elements that had taken over the activities of the Ku Klux Klan, then a year and a half old, went to Forrest to be its figurehead so as to give the organization a status of "legitimacy". Less than two years later (January 1869), Forrest judged that the violent fringe elements had gotten completely out of control and issued a proclamation disbanding the KKK, even later denying that he had ever been part of it. Said fringe elements ignored the order and continued their violence anyway, just as they had infiltrated the group before they took on Forrest. Later Forrest went to Alabama to head a railroad, which soon went bankrupt.

But none of that has anything to do with the Democratic Party's "roots", which go back to 1828 (when Forrest was just turning seven years old) and already had five Presidents in office before the Civil War --- not seven Presidents, as your previous wacko bullet list of a few days ago alleged.

I have to wonder about your grip on the concept of linear time...

Oh for Pete's sake. Forrest was THE Grand Wizard. I swear Pogo, the Brothers Grimm can't top Democrats for freaking fairy tales.

And his family claimed that their family went all the way back to the founding of the D party.

"Georgia-born Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan wrote on page 21 of the September 1928 edition of the Klan’s “The Kourier Magazine”: “I have never voted for any man who was not a regular Democrat.

My father … never voted for any man who was not a Democrat. My grandfather was …the head of the Ku Klux Klan in reconstruction days….

My great-grandfather was a life-long Democrat…. My great-great-grandfather was…one of the founders of the Democratic party.”

KKK Terrorist Arm of the Democratic Party National Black Republican Association

That's another crock of shit. Forrest was born in Tennessee, not Georgia. He had nothing to do with fucking Georgia. And whether his ancestors were part of the founding of the Democratic Party or not (link?) it doesn't make HIM a founder of it. Again, he was SEVEN FRICKING YEARS OLD. I don't think seven-year-olds found political parties. The guy you're quoting there is the GRANDSON of Nathan Bedford Forrest.

And nor did he found the Ku Klux Klan. I've spelled that out repeatedly. He was hired on to be a figurehead after it was already established. Then after exactly 21 months, disbanded it, quit and denied having been part of it, though that denial was false.

And again -- nobody in the South (who was white) voted for anyone who was not a Democrat in those days. The Republican Party didn't even have a presence, or run a candidate, until after the Civil War. This political scoreboard you think you're putting points up on is a joke that ignores every context of history.

 

[Synthaholic]

Actually you should check into one of the Confederacy's biggest heroes

There are no heroes from the Confederacy. Just traitors.

 

[Synthaholic]

And his family claimed that their family went all the way back to the founding of the D party.

Yeah, and Republicans claim to be fiscally responsible, too. People make all kinds of bullshit claims.

 

[tinydancer]

Absolutely not. It's not the same Democrat party of old and thank heavens its not.

What I don't understand is why Democrats can't just admit a history that was not so pretty and pat themselves on the back for leaving those days behind.

Why do modern day Democrats so hell bent for leather that they have the need to demonize Republicans and attempt to flip both parties histories? Pixie dust falling and making all Democrats Republicans and all Republicans magically turning into Democrats. Overnight.

It's pretty sick.

Who's denying our poor history in the Democrat Party, Tiny? Name names.

DNC website. No guff. I have many friends that are Dems and my father in law and brother in law are devout but true D's that I love and and admire. For the most part we all have remained classical liberal so our ideologies can be discussed and debated without feeling the need to slap each other around. I don't appreciate the progressives that have hijacked the Dems.

Here's a list from my stack of stuff that WSJ came up with that was missing from D history at the website. Lots more at the link. I want to stay within the copyright rules of the board.

So what's missing?

• There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms supporting slavery. There were six from 1840 through 1860.
• 
  
• There is no reference to the number of Democratic presidents who owned slaves. There were seven from 1800 through 1861
• 
  
• There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms that either supported segregation outright or were silent on the subject. There were 20, from 1868 through 1948.
• 
  
• There is no reference to "Jim Crow" as in "Jim Crow laws," nor is there reference to the role Democrats played in creating them. These were the post-Civil War laws passed enthusiastically by Democrats in that pesky 52-year part of the DNC's missing years.
• These laws segregated public schools, public transportation, restaurants, rest rooms and public places in general (everything from water coolers to beaches). The reason Rosa Parks became famous is that she sat in the "whites only" front section of a bus, the "whites only" designation the direct result of Democrats.
• 
  
• There is no reference to the formation of the Ku Klux Klan, which, according to Columbia University historian Eric Foner, became "a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party."
• 
  
• Nor is there reference to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease's description of the Klan as the "terrorist arm of the Democratic Party."
• 
  
• There is no reference to the fact Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The 13th banned slavery.
  
• 
  
• The 14th effectively overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision (made by Democratic pro-slavery Supreme Court justices) by guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves.
  
• 
  
• The 15th gave black Americans the right to vote.
• 
  
• There is no reference to the fact that Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was passed by the Republican Congress over the veto of President Andrew Johnson, who had been a Democrat before joining Lincoln's ticket in 1864.
  
• 
  
• The law was designed to provide blacks with the right to own private property, sign contracts, sue and serve as witnesses in a legal proceeding.There is no reference to the Democrats' opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1875.
• 
  
• It was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses Grant. The law prohibited racial discrimination in public places and public accommodations.

• There is no reference to the Democrats' 1904 platform, which devotes a section to "Sectional and Racial Agitation," claiming the GOP's protests against segregation and the denial of voting rights to blacks sought to "revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country," which in turn "means confusion, distraction of business, and the reopening of wounds now happily healed."
• 
  
• There is no reference to four Democratic platforms, 1908-20, that are silent on blacks, segregation, lynching and voting rights as racial problems in the country mount.
• 
  
• By contrast the GOP platforms of those years specifically address "Rights of the Negro" (1908), oppose lynching (in 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928) and, as the New Deal kicks in, speak out about the dangers of making blacks "wards of the state."

• There is no reference to the Democratic Convention of 1924, known to history as the "Klanbake." The 103-ballot convention was held in Madison Square Garden. Hundreds of delegates were members of the Ku Klux Klan, the Klan so powerful that a plank condemning Klan violence was defeated outright.
• 
  
• To celebrate, the Klan staged a rally with 10,000 hooded Klansmen in a field in New Jersey directly across the Hudson from the site of the convention.
  
• 
  
• Attended by hundreds of cheering convention delegates, the rally featured burning crosses and calls for violence against African-Americans and Catholics.

• There is no reference to the fact that it was Democrats who segregated the federal government, at the direction of President Woodrow Wilson upon taking office in 1913. There \is a reference to the fact that President Harry Truman integrated the military after World War II.
• 
  
• There is reference to the fact that Democrats created the Federal Reserve Board, passed labor and child welfare laws, and created Social Security with Wilson's New Freedom and FDR's New Deal.
  
• 
  
• There is no mention that these programs were created as the result of an agreement to ignore segregation and the lynching of blacks. Neither is there a reference to the thousands of local officials, state legislators, state governors, U.S. congressmen and U.S. senators who were elected as supporters of slavery and then segregation between 1800 and 1965.
• 
  
• Nor is there reference to the deal with the devil that left segregation and lynching as a way of life in return for election support for three post-Civil War Democratic presidents, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.

• There is no reference that three-fourths of the opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill in the U.S. House came from Democrats, or that 80% of the "nay" vote in the Senate came from Democrats.
  
• 
  
• Certainly there is no reference to the fact that the opposition included future Democratic Senate leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia (a former Klan member) and Tennessee Senator Albert Gore Sr., father of Vice President Al Gore.
• 
  
• Last but certainly not least, there is no reference to the fact that Birmingham, Ala., Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor, who infamously unleashed dogs and fire hoses on civil rights protestors, was in fact--yes indeed--a member of both the Democratic National Committee and the Ku Klux Klan.

More at link:

The Democrats Missing History - WSJ

Come on, dancer
When you are a political party that is need of votes, you are not going to remind your voters of all the bad things you've done!!

Oh--I think you missed the part how the Democratic South practiced gerrymandering, ran opposing elected officials out of office, and reinvented debt-slavery and illegally imprisoned people for non-existing infractions (both blacks and whites) and rented prisoners for cheap labor.

Oh there is a whole lot more. Hey, that is the South for ya.

Remind voters of the bad things they've done? Hell no. They blatantly lie about the past. WP busted them for what they have on their website.

How's this for a freaking whopper of a statement.

"Our History
For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights...."



They have the balls to put this bullshit out there. Unmothertruckingjawdroppingreal!!!!!!!!!!!

Democrats.org

That's quite impossible. The Democratic Party isn't even 200 years old yet.

Pogo for crying out loud thats what is on the DNC fucking website. Go bitch at them.

"Our History
For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights, health care, Social Security, workers' rights, and women's rights. We are the party of Barack Obama, John F. Kennedy, FDR, and the countless everyday Americans who work each day to build a more perfect union. Take a look at some of our accomplishments, and you'll see why we're proud to be Democrats."

Democrats.org

 

[Pogo]

Who's denying our poor history in the Democrat Party, Tiny? Name names.

DNC website. No guff. I have many friends that are Dems and my father in law and brother in law are devout but true D's that I love and and admire. For the most part we all have remained classical liberal so our ideologies can be discussed and debated without feeling the need to slap each other around. I don't appreciate the progressives that have hijacked the Dems.

Here's a list from my stack of stuff that WSJ came up with that was missing from D history at the website. Lots more at the link. I want to stay within the copyright rules of the board.

So what's missing?

• There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms supporting slavery. There were six from 1840 through 1860.
• 
  
• There is no reference to the number of Democratic presidents who owned slaves. There were seven from 1800 through 1861
• 
  
• There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms that either supported segregation outright or were silent on the subject. There were 20, from 1868 through 1948.
• 
  
• There is no reference to "Jim Crow" as in "Jim Crow laws," nor is there reference to the role Democrats played in creating them. These were the post-Civil War laws passed enthusiastically by Democrats in that pesky 52-year part of the DNC's missing years.
• These laws segregated public schools, public transportation, restaurants, rest rooms and public places in general (everything from water coolers to beaches). The reason Rosa Parks became famous is that she sat in the "whites only" front section of a bus, the "whites only" designation the direct result of Democrats.
• 
  
• There is no reference to the formation of the Ku Klux Klan, which, according to Columbia University historian Eric Foner, became "a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party."
• 
  
• Nor is there reference to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease's description of the Klan as the "terrorist arm of the Democratic Party."
• 
  
• There is no reference to the fact Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The 13th banned slavery.
  
• 
  
• The 14th effectively overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision (made by Democratic pro-slavery Supreme Court justices) by guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves.
  
• 
  
• The 15th gave black Americans the right to vote.
• 
  
• There is no reference to the fact that Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was passed by the Republican Congress over the veto of President Andrew Johnson, who had been a Democrat before joining Lincoln's ticket in 1864.
  
• 
  
• The law was designed to provide blacks with the right to own private property, sign contracts, sue and serve as witnesses in a legal proceeding.There is no reference to the Democrats' opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1875.
• 
  
• It was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses Grant. The law prohibited racial discrimination in public places and public accommodations.

• There is no reference to the Democrats' 1904 platform, which devotes a section to "Sectional and Racial Agitation," claiming the GOP's protests against segregation and the denial of voting rights to blacks sought to "revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country," which in turn "means confusion, distraction of business, and the reopening of wounds now happily healed."
• 
  
• There is no reference to four Democratic platforms, 1908-20, that are silent on blacks, segregation, lynching and voting rights as racial problems in the country mount.
• 
  
• By contrast the GOP platforms of those years specifically address "Rights of the Negro" (1908), oppose lynching (in 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928) and, as the New Deal kicks in, speak out about the dangers of making blacks "wards of the state."

• There is no reference to the Democratic Convention of 1924, known to history as the "Klanbake." The 103-ballot convention was held in Madison Square Garden. Hundreds of delegates were members of the Ku Klux Klan, the Klan so powerful that a plank condemning Klan violence was defeated outright.
• 
  
• To celebrate, the Klan staged a rally with 10,000 hooded Klansmen in a field in New Jersey directly across the Hudson from the site of the convention.
  
• 
  
• Attended by hundreds of cheering convention delegates, the rally featured burning crosses and calls for violence against African-Americans and Catholics.

• There is no reference to the fact that it was Democrats who segregated the federal government, at the direction of President Woodrow Wilson upon taking office in 1913. There \is a reference to the fact that President Harry Truman integrated the military after World War II.
• 
  
• There is reference to the fact that Democrats created the Federal Reserve Board, passed labor and child welfare laws, and created Social Security with Wilson's New Freedom and FDR's New Deal.
  
• 
  
• There is no mention that these programs were created as the result of an agreement to ignore segregation and the lynching of blacks. Neither is there a reference to the thousands of local officials, state legislators, state governors, U.S. congressmen and U.S. senators who were elected as supporters of slavery and then segregation between 1800 and 1965.
• 
  
• Nor is there reference to the deal with the devil that left segregation and lynching as a way of life in return for election support for three post-Civil War Democratic presidents, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.

• There is no reference that three-fourths of the opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill in the U.S. House came from Democrats, or that 80% of the "nay" vote in the Senate came from Democrats.
  
• 
  
• Certainly there is no reference to the fact that the opposition included future Democratic Senate leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia (a former Klan member) and Tennessee Senator Albert Gore Sr., father of Vice President Al Gore.
• 
  
• Last but certainly not least, there is no reference to the fact that Birmingham, Ala., Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor, who infamously unleashed dogs and fire hoses on civil rights protestors, was in fact--yes indeed--a member of both the Democratic National Committee and the Ku Klux Klan.

More at link:

The Democrats Missing History - WSJ

Come on, dancer
When you are a political party that is need of votes, you are not going to remind your voters of all the bad things you've done!!

Oh--I think you missed the part how the Democratic South practiced gerrymandering, ran opposing elected officials out of office, and reinvented debt-slavery and illegally imprisoned people for non-existing infractions (both blacks and whites) and rented prisoners for cheap labor.

Oh there is a whole lot more. Hey, that is the South for ya.

Remind voters of the bad things they've done? Hell no. They blatantly lie about the past. WP busted them for what they have on their website.

How's this for a freaking whopper of a statement.

"Our History
For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights...."



They have the balls to put this bullshit out there. Unmothertruckingjawdroppingreal!!!!!!!!!!!

Democrats.org

That's quite impossible. The Democratic Party isn't even 200 years old yet.

Pogo for crying out loud thats what is on the DNC fucking website. Go bitch at them.

"Our History
For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights, health care, Social Security, workers' rights, and women's rights. We are the party of Barack Obama, John F. Kennedy, FDR, and the countless everyday Americans who work each day to build a more perfect union. Take a look at some of our accomplishments, and you'll see why we're proud to be Democrats."

Democrats.org

What da hell you want me to say, that it's true?

1828 to 2015 is 187 years. 187 is fewer that 200. Therefore there is nothing the Democratic Party has been doing "for more than 200 years". Including existing.

Is linear time just, like, an optional thing for you or what?

 

[tinydancer]

I'd rather have a descendant of Jefferson Davis educate me on the Confederate Flag and the Confederacy.

Actually you should check into one of the Confederacy's biggest heroes to learn more about the Confederacy.

His name is Nathan Bedford Forrest. You'd learn a lot about the Democrat Party's roots too.

Nathan Bedford Forrest has nothing to do with the Democratic Party's roots. Forrest wasn't even a politician; he was a general in the Civil War noted by both sides as a tactician and skilled swordsman. He was also a slave trader, a racist, a plantation owner and later after the war, a failure businessman. In 1867 the vigilante elements that had taken over the activities of the Ku Klux Klan, then a year and a half old, went to Forrest to be its figurehead so as to give the organization a status of "legitimacy". Less than two years later (January 1869), Forrest judged that the violent fringe elements had gotten completely out of control and issued a proclamation disbanding the KKK, even later denying that he had ever been part of it. Said fringe elements ignored the order and continued their violence anyway, just as they had infiltrated the group before they took on Forrest. Later Forrest went to Alabama to head a railroad, which soon went bankrupt.

But none of that has anything to do with the Democratic Party's "roots", which go back to 1828 (when Forrest was just turning seven years old) and already had five Presidents in office before the Civil War --- not seven Presidents, as your previous wacko bullet list of a few days ago alleged.

I have to wonder about your grip on the concept of linear time...

Oh for Pete's sake. Forrest was THE Grand Wizard. I swear Pogo, the Brothers Grimm can't top Democrats for freaking fairy tales.

And his family claimed that their family went all the way back to the founding of the D party.

"Georgia-born Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan wrote on page 21 of the September 1928 edition of the Klan’s “The Kourier Magazine”: “I have never voted for any man who was not a regular Democrat.

My father … never voted for any man who was not a Democrat. My grandfather was …the head of the Ku Klux Klan in reconstruction days….

My great-grandfather was a life-long Democrat…. My great-great-grandfather was…one of the founders of the Democratic party.”

KKK Terrorist Arm of the Democratic Party National Black Republican Association

That's another crock of shit. Forrest was born in Tennessee, not Georgia. He had nothing to do with fucking Georgia. And whether his ancestors were part of the founding of the Democratic Party or not (link?) it doesn't make HIM a founder of it. Again, he was SEVEN FRICKING YEARS OLD. I don't think seven-year-olds found political parties. The guy you're quoting there is the GRANDSON of Nathan Bedford Forrest.

And nor did he found the Ku Klux Klan. I've spelled that out repeatedly. He was hired on to be a figurehead after it was already established. Then after exactly 21 months, disbanded it, quit and denied having been part of it, though that denial was false.

And again -- nobody in the South (who was white) voted for anyone who was not a Democrat in those days. The Republican Party didn't even have a presence, or run a candidate, until after the Civil War. This political scoreboard you think you're putting points up on is a joke that ignores every context of history.

I never said he was born in Georgia. I was quoting his grandson who was from Georgia.

I never claimed to be quoting Forrest. I don't have a clue why you are harping on the fact that Bedford was seven years old. It's his grandson claiming his great great grandfather was one of the founders.

If you're going to get your knickers in a twist please get it right. Go bitch at the grandson not me.

 

[Synthaholic]

I'd rather have a descendant of Jefferson Davis educate me on the Confederate Flag and the Confederacy.

Actually you should check into one of the Confederacy's biggest heroes to learn more about the Confederacy.

His name is Nathan Bedford Forrest. You'd learn a lot about the Democrat Party's roots too.

Nathan Bedford Forrest has nothing to do with the Democratic Party's roots. Forrest wasn't even a politician; he was a general in the Civil War noted by both sides as a tactician and skilled swordsman. He was also a slave trader, a racist, a plantation owner and later after the war, a failure businessman. In 1867 the vigilante elements that had taken over the activities of the Ku Klux Klan, then a year and a half old, went to Forrest to be its figurehead so as to give the organization a status of "legitimacy". Less than two years later (January 1869), Forrest judged that the violent fringe elements had gotten completely out of control and issued a proclamation disbanding the KKK, even later denying that he had ever been part of it. Said fringe elements ignored the order and continued their violence anyway, just as they had infiltrated the group before they took on Forrest. Later Forrest went to Alabama to head a railroad, which soon went bankrupt.

But none of that has anything to do with the Democratic Party's "roots", which go back to 1828 (when Forrest was just turning seven years old) and already had five Presidents in office before the Civil War --- not seven Presidents, as your previous wacko bullet list of a few days ago alleged.

I have to wonder about your grip on the concept of linear time...

Oh for Pete's sake. Forrest was THE Grand Wizard. I swear Pogo, the Brothers Grimm can't top Democrats for freaking fairy tales.

And his family claimed that their family went all the way back to the founding of the D party.

"Georgia-born Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan wrote on page 21 of the September 1928 edition of the Klan’s “The Kourier Magazine”: “I have never voted for any man who was not a regular Democrat.

My father … never voted for any man who was not a Democrat. My grandfather was …the head of the Ku Klux Klan in reconstruction days….

My great-grandfather was a life-long Democrat…. My great-great-grandfather was…one of the founders of the Democratic party.”

KKK Terrorist Arm of the Democratic Party National Black Republican Association

That's another crock of shit. Forrest was born in Tennessee, not Georgia. He had nothing to do with fucking Georgia. And whether his ancestors were part of the founding of the Democratic Party or not (link?) it doesn't make HIM a founder of it. Again, he was SEVEN FRICKING YEARS OLD. I don't think seven-year-olds found political parties. The guy you're quoting there is the GRANDSON of Nathan Bedford Forrest.

And nor did he found the Ku Klux Klan. I've spelled that out repeatedly. He was hired on to be a figurehead after it was already established. Then after exactly 21 months, disbanded it, quit and denied having been part of it, though that denial was false.

And again -- nobody in the South (who was white) voted for anyone who was not a Democrat in those days. The Republican Party didn't even have a presence, or run a candidate, until after the Civil War. This political scoreboard you think you're putting points up on is a joke that ignores every context of history.

I never said he was born in Georgia. I was quoting his grandson who was from Georgia.

I never claimed to be quoting Forrest. I don't have a clue why you are harping on the fact that Bedford was seven years old. It's his grandson claiming his great great grandfather was one of the founders.

If you're going to get your knickers in a twist please get it right. Go bitch at the grandson not me.

But here you are repeating obvious lies by the grandson.

To what end?

 

[tinydancer]

DNC website. No guff. I have many friends that are Dems and my father in law and brother in law are devout but true D's that I love and and admire. For the most part we all have remained classical liberal so our ideologies can be discussed and debated without feeling the need to slap each other around. I don't appreciate the progressives that have hijacked the Dems.

Here's a list from my stack of stuff that WSJ came up with that was missing from D history at the website. Lots more at the link. I want to stay within the copyright rules of the board.

So what's missing?

• There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms supporting slavery. There were six from 1840 through 1860.
• 
  
• There is no reference to the number of Democratic presidents who owned slaves. There were seven from 1800 through 1861
• 
  
• There is no reference to the number of Democratic Party platforms that either supported segregation outright or were silent on the subject. There were 20, from 1868 through 1948.
• 
  
• There is no reference to "Jim Crow" as in "Jim Crow laws," nor is there reference to the role Democrats played in creating them. These were the post-Civil War laws passed enthusiastically by Democrats in that pesky 52-year part of the DNC's missing years.
• These laws segregated public schools, public transportation, restaurants, rest rooms and public places in general (everything from water coolers to beaches). The reason Rosa Parks became famous is that she sat in the "whites only" front section of a bus, the "whites only" designation the direct result of Democrats.
• 
  
• There is no reference to the formation of the Ku Klux Klan, which, according to Columbia University historian Eric Foner, became "a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party."
• 
  
• Nor is there reference to University of North Carolina historian Allen Trelease's description of the Klan as the "terrorist arm of the Democratic Party."
• 
  
• There is no reference to the fact Democrats opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution. The 13th banned slavery.
  
• 
  
• The 14th effectively overturned the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision (made by Democratic pro-slavery Supreme Court justices) by guaranteeing due process and equal protection to former slaves.
  
• 
  
• The 15th gave black Americans the right to vote.
• 
  
• There is no reference to the fact that Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was passed by the Republican Congress over the veto of President Andrew Johnson, who had been a Democrat before joining Lincoln's ticket in 1864.
  
• 
  
• The law was designed to provide blacks with the right to own private property, sign contracts, sue and serve as witnesses in a legal proceeding.There is no reference to the Democrats' opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1875.
• 
  
• It was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Ulysses Grant. The law prohibited racial discrimination in public places and public accommodations.

• There is no reference to the Democrats' 1904 platform, which devotes a section to "Sectional and Racial Agitation," claiming the GOP's protests against segregation and the denial of voting rights to blacks sought to "revive the dead and hateful race and sectional animosities in any part of our common country," which in turn "means confusion, distraction of business, and the reopening of wounds now happily healed."
• 
  
• There is no reference to four Democratic platforms, 1908-20, that are silent on blacks, segregation, lynching and voting rights as racial problems in the country mount.
• 
  
• By contrast the GOP platforms of those years specifically address "Rights of the Negro" (1908), oppose lynching (in 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928) and, as the New Deal kicks in, speak out about the dangers of making blacks "wards of the state."

• There is no reference to the Democratic Convention of 1924, known to history as the "Klanbake." The 103-ballot convention was held in Madison Square Garden. Hundreds of delegates were members of the Ku Klux Klan, the Klan so powerful that a plank condemning Klan violence was defeated outright.
• 
  
• To celebrate, the Klan staged a rally with 10,000 hooded Klansmen in a field in New Jersey directly across the Hudson from the site of the convention.
  
• 
  
• Attended by hundreds of cheering convention delegates, the rally featured burning crosses and calls for violence against African-Americans and Catholics.

• There is no reference to the fact that it was Democrats who segregated the federal government, at the direction of President Woodrow Wilson upon taking office in 1913. There \is a reference to the fact that President Harry Truman integrated the military after World War II.
• 
  
• There is reference to the fact that Democrats created the Federal Reserve Board, passed labor and child welfare laws, and created Social Security with Wilson's New Freedom and FDR's New Deal.
  
• 
  
• There is no mention that these programs were created as the result of an agreement to ignore segregation and the lynching of blacks. Neither is there a reference to the thousands of local officials, state legislators, state governors, U.S. congressmen and U.S. senators who were elected as supporters of slavery and then segregation between 1800 and 1965.
• 
  
• Nor is there reference to the deal with the devil that left segregation and lynching as a way of life in return for election support for three post-Civil War Democratic presidents, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt.

• There is no reference that three-fourths of the opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill in the U.S. House came from Democrats, or that 80% of the "nay" vote in the Senate came from Democrats.
  
• 
  
• Certainly there is no reference to the fact that the opposition included future Democratic Senate leader Robert Byrd of West Virginia (a former Klan member) and Tennessee Senator Albert Gore Sr., father of Vice President Al Gore.
• 
  
• Last but certainly not least, there is no reference to the fact that Birmingham, Ala., Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor, who infamously unleashed dogs and fire hoses on civil rights protestors, was in fact--yes indeed--a member of both the Democratic National Committee and the Ku Klux Klan.

More at link:

The Democrats Missing History - WSJ

Come on, dancer
When you are a political party that is need of votes, you are not going to remind your voters of all the bad things you've done!!

Oh--I think you missed the part how the Democratic South practiced gerrymandering, ran opposing elected officials out of office, and reinvented debt-slavery and illegally imprisoned people for non-existing infractions (both blacks and whites) and rented prisoners for cheap labor.

Oh there is a whole lot more. Hey, that is the South for ya.

Remind voters of the bad things they've done? Hell no. They blatantly lie about the past. WP busted them for what they have on their website.

How's this for a freaking whopper of a statement.

"Our History
For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights...."



They have the balls to put this bullshit out there. Unmothertruckingjawdroppingreal!!!!!!!!!!!

Democrats.org

That's quite impossible. The Democratic Party isn't even 200 years old yet.

Pogo for crying out loud thats what is on the DNC fucking website. Go bitch at them.

"Our History
For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights, health care, Social Security, workers' rights, and women's rights. We are the party of Barack Obama, John F. Kennedy, FDR, and the countless everyday Americans who work each day to build a more perfect union. Take a look at some of our accomplishments, and you'll see why we're proud to be Democrats."

Democrats.org

What da hell you want me to say, that it's true?

1828 to 2015 is 187 years. 187 is fewer that 200. Therefore there is nothing the Democratic Party has been doing "for more than 200 years". Including existing.

Is linear time just, like, an optional thing for you or what?

Then thrash it out with them Pogo. It's not my fault that they not only don't have the proper dates up but that they lied about leading the fight for civil rights for 200 years too.

 

[tinydancer]

Actually you should check into one of the Confederacy's biggest heroes to learn more about the Confederacy.

His name is Nathan Bedford Forrest. You'd learn a lot about the Democrat Party's roots too.

Nathan Bedford Forrest has nothing to do with the Democratic Party's roots. Forrest wasn't even a politician; he was a general in the Civil War noted by both sides as a tactician and skilled swordsman. He was also a slave trader, a racist, a plantation owner and later after the war, a failure businessman. In 1867 the vigilante elements that had taken over the activities of the Ku Klux Klan, then a year and a half old, went to Forrest to be its figurehead so as to give the organization a status of "legitimacy". Less than two years later (January 1869), Forrest judged that the violent fringe elements had gotten completely out of control and issued a proclamation disbanding the KKK, even later denying that he had ever been part of it. Said fringe elements ignored the order and continued their violence anyway, just as they had infiltrated the group before they took on Forrest. Later Forrest went to Alabama to head a railroad, which soon went bankrupt.

But none of that has anything to do with the Democratic Party's "roots", which go back to 1828 (when Forrest was just turning seven years old) and already had five Presidents in office before the Civil War --- not seven Presidents, as your previous wacko bullet list of a few days ago alleged.

I have to wonder about your grip on the concept of linear time...

Oh for Pete's sake. Forrest was THE Grand Wizard. I swear Pogo, the Brothers Grimm can't top Democrats for freaking fairy tales.

And his family claimed that their family went all the way back to the founding of the D party.

"Georgia-born Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan wrote on page 21 of the September 1928 edition of the Klan’s “The Kourier Magazine”: “I have never voted for any man who was not a regular Democrat.

My father … never voted for any man who was not a Democrat. My grandfather was …the head of the Ku Klux Klan in reconstruction days….

My great-grandfather was a life-long Democrat…. My great-great-grandfather was…one of the founders of the Democratic party.”

KKK Terrorist Arm of the Democratic Party National Black Republican Association

That's another crock of shit. Forrest was born in Tennessee, not Georgia. He had nothing to do with fucking Georgia. And whether his ancestors were part of the founding of the Democratic Party or not (link?) it doesn't make HIM a founder of it. Again, he was SEVEN FRICKING YEARS OLD. I don't think seven-year-olds found political parties. The guy you're quoting there is the GRANDSON of Nathan Bedford Forrest.

And nor did he found the Ku Klux Klan. I've spelled that out repeatedly. He was hired on to be a figurehead after it was already established. Then after exactly 21 months, disbanded it, quit and denied having been part of it, though that denial was false.

And again -- nobody in the South (who was white) voted for anyone who was not a Democrat in those days. The Republican Party didn't even have a presence, or run a candidate, until after the Civil War. This political scoreboard you think you're putting points up on is a joke that ignores every context of history.

I never said he was born in Georgia. I was quoting his grandson who was from Georgia.

I never claimed to be quoting Forrest. I don't have a clue why you are harping on the fact that Bedford was seven years old. It's his grandson claiming his great great grandfather was one of the founders.

If you're going to get your knickers in a twist please get it right. Go bitch at the grandson not me.

But here you are repeating obvious lies by the grandson.

To what end?

What obvious lies? The grandson talks about how his family had been Democrats since the beginning and that his grandfather was a Grand Wizard.

Where's the grandson lying?