Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The KKK was never connected with a national political party. It supported or opposed anybody who would serve its interests. In the convention referenced in the OP it supported McAdoo and opposed Underwood and Smith, all of them Democrats. In Oregon it got a mayor and a governor elected, one from each party. It was never there to play politics --- it has always been a self-appointed social police force.
On the evening of March 21, 1915, President Woodrow Wilson attended a special screening at the White House of THE BIRTH OF A NATION, a film directed by D.W. Griffith and based on THE CLANSMAN, a novel written by Wilson's good friend Thomas Dixon.
Again I will point out that starting in 1964- the Republican Party chose to nominate men who had opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act
Barry Goldwater- who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Ronald Reagan- famously running for governor telling California voters: "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house," he said, "he has a right to do so."
George Bush- ran for office in Texas on the issue of opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Which of course just demonstrates what MLK Jr. said in 1964
Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy
Despite its 100 years of civil rights history prior to Goldwater and Goldwater’s own support for civil rights, you lefties calling him a racist or racially insensitive because a man stood on principle.
Do you have any idea why Goldwater voted against the CRA of 1964?
Not me- Martin Luther King Jr. said these words
Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy
Again, you're not answering the question.
I think Martin Luther King Jr. answers the question quite well on my behalf
Not me- Martin Luther King Jr. said these words
Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy
You think you're funny with repeating that quote, but you're actually stuck on stupid.
First of all, you can say there was a "party switch" without admitting that Democrats were racist to begin with.
Second, leftist get their head stuck even deeper in their asses when they try to back their "party switch" claim with the fact that those "racist states" are all red states now. That doesn't mean what you think it means, that "those states are still racist". What it does mean is that Republicans beat racism, since those states are waaaaaay less racist now that they're Republican leaning states. By the way, when they were Democrat states there was lynching, harassment, crosses burning, segregation, etc.
And last, you do know that MLK was fighting Democrats, since they were ones denying blacks right to vote. Democrats had him jailed, the same ones who demand that Rosa Parks give up the seat to white folks. He was fighting Democrats who were hosing people on the street, releasing dogs on them. MLK saw wave after wave of Democrat institutionalized racism, but because of couple of cherry picks like Goldwater or Thurmond, and a quote you keep repeating you claim that MLK rejected Republicans and side himself with Democrat party? You do know that it was a Democrat who shot MLK, do ya?
You lefties do not own MLK legacy, he criticized Republicans in one or two passages of his book, but what you are not saying is that his whole life work was about fighting against everything that Democrats did to black people. Got it?
The KKK was never connected with a national political party. It supported or opposed anybody who would serve its interests. In the convention referenced in the OP it supported McAdoo and opposed Underwood and Smith, all of them Democrats. In Oregon it got a mayor and a governor elected, one from each party. It was never there to play politics --- it has always been a self-appointed social police force.
The Klan was always connected especially to Democrats. They were always considered the militant arm of Democrat party, similar to brown shirts of Nazi party.
Do you know who this is?
Would it help if I say he was life long Democrat?
And, of course, there never was any such 'party switch.'
Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
And, of course, there never was any such 'party switch.'
Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
Hey PC, I cut the rest because I want to add few words about the "party switch".
Leftist claims about "party switch" are primarily based on two facts. The first fact they point to is that whites in the south who used to be Democrats are today voting mostly for Republicans. The second fact is that blacks who used to vote Republican are today voting almost exclusively for Democrats. Those are facts and nobody is denying it.
What lefties are dishonest about is when blacks switched votes from Republican to Democrat party. If is truth that blacks switched to Democrats because of CRA and Republican racism, than the switch would happen in 70s and 80s. The actual "switch" happened in 30s, when Democrats were in their racist, segregationist, lynching prime time. If blacks left one party to join another because of racism of the first, they would never join Democrats because they were always, as you said above, party of slavery, segregation and second class citizenship. Within four years of FDR's New Deal, black voting for Democrats jumped from 15% to over 70%, everywhere except in southern states, where Democrats were still suppressing black votes with poll taxes and other barriers.
I just can't imagine how desperate blacks were back in time do leave the party of emancipation and Lincoln and joining the party of the KKK and Dixiecrats who were running the south as Democrats.
The second thing that lefties are dishonest about is when whites started switching to Republican party. No, it didn't happen because of CRA of 1964, or because of Goldwater, but later in 80s. And here are two more facts, the first is, as racism in the south was declining, the support for Republicans was increasing. The second fact is that least racist southerners became Republicans, and the most racists never became Republican, and with minor exceptions, they almost all stayed lifelong Democrats.
In order to prove "party switch", I asked lefties several times in this thread and elsewhere to provide five names of elected white southern Christian racist Democrats who became Republicans, and never got the answer, simply because there was no such thing, at least not in the terms lefties claiming it to be.
On the evening of March 21, 1915, President Woodrow Wilson attended a special screening at the White House of THE BIRTH OF A NATION, a film directed by D.W. Griffith and based on THE CLANSMAN, a novel written by Wilson's good friend Thomas Dixon.
PBS
The KKK was never connected with a national political party. It supported or opposed anybody who would serve its interests. In the convention referenced in the OP it supported McAdoo and opposed Underwood and Smith, all of them Democrats. In Oregon it got a mayor and a governor elected, one from each party. It was never there to play politics --- it has always been a self-appointed social police force.
The Klan was always connected especially to Democrats. They were always considered the militant arm of Democrat party, similar to brown shirts of Nazi party.
Do you know who this is?
Would it help if I say he was life long Democrat?
That would be Hiram Wesley Evans, "Imperial Wizard" (hence the dunce cap) who took over the national leadership of the Klan when Simmons was elbowed out.
And no, it wouldn't. It was during Evans' tenure that the Klan was stirring up politics -- although Evans didn't run for anything himself, that was the period the Klan successfully pushed Owen Brewster in Maine, Ed Jackson in Indiana, Rice Means and Clarence Morley in Colorado, George Baker in Oregon, four of the five city council seats in Anaheim, and dozens of local offices from coast to coast. He allegedly conspired with Brewster, after getting him elected governor, to sabotage the Senate candidacy of Arthur Gould, an anti-Klan candidate. ALL of the aforementioned were Republicans.
>> The Klan of the 1920s 'enrolled more members in Connecticut than in Mississippi, more in Oregon than in Louisiana, and more in New Jersey than in Alabama,' wrote historian Stanley Coben. Over half a million Klansmen lived in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. Klan-backed candidates, all running on platforms both dry and xenophobic, were elected governor in Oregon, Colorado, and Kansas. << --- The KKK and the Anti-Saloon League
It might be also in instructive to note that Maine, being as solidly Republican as the "solid South" was Democratic, saw two distinct factions at the time, pro-Klan Republicans like Brewster and aniti-Klan Republicans. So here's a Democrat, conspiring with a Republican, to push one Republican in and push another Republican out. While simultaneously pushing other Republicans --- or Democrats, whatever worked in a particular setting --- for the Klan's interests, and opposing other Democrats --- or Republicans --- who stood in the Klan's way such as Oscar Underwood and Al Smith during the aforementioned 1924 Democratic convention (and again opposing Smith, unsuccessfully, in 1928). When that election was done, Evans took credit for getting Hoover elected, citing several Southern border states that had voted for the Republican.
Evans is also the guy who made noises in 1934 about going to campaign against Huey Long in Louisiana. The ever-bombastic Long declared "that Imperial bastard will never set foot in Louisiana" and that if he did he'd be leaving "with his toes turned up". Evans backed down.
Again, even in its peak period of activity in the 1920s the KKK was never out for a politics agenda. It would support or oppose any politician of any party (or no party at all) depending on who it could count on for support and who it couldn't.
>> [Regional King Kleagle Eugene] Farnsworth reportedly spoke at length about two classes in America: Catholics and Protestants. He stated that the Catholic Church held a number of political prisoners, and he expressed concern that there were increasing numbers of Catholic teachers in public schools, working as policemen in cities, and controlling the courts. Farnsworth acknowledged that the Klan was a militant organization, with no political affiliations to a specific party. He made “brief reference to the Negro as another problem and briefly to the Jews as another race that cannot be assimilated,” explaining that “the Catholics, Jews, and Negroes are clannish and stick together, while the native born Americans are constantly rowing with one another.” << -- Maine's Gone Mad: Rising of the Klan
On the evening of March 21, 1915, President Woodrow Wilson attended a special screening at the White House of THE BIRTH OF A NATION, a film directed by D.W. Griffith and based on THE CLANSMAN, a novel written by Wilson's good friend Thomas Dixon.
PBS
Your Wilson quote has been debunked as mythology. There's no evidence Wilson said any such thing.
On the evening of March 21, 1915, President Woodrow Wilson attended a special screening at the White House of THE BIRTH OF A NATION, a film directed by D.W. Griffith and based on THE CLANSMAN, a novel written by Wilson's good friend Thomas Dixon.
PBS
Your Wilson quote has been debunked as mythology. There's no evidence Wilson said any such thing.
The 'parties switched' is only advanced by the most feeble minded of the drones.
On the evening of March 21, 1915, President Woodrow Wilson attended a special screening at the White House of THE BIRTH OF A NATION, a film directed by D.W. Griffith and based on THE CLANSMAN, a novel written by Wilson's good friend Thomas Dixon.
PBS
Your Wilson quote has been debunked as mythology. There's no evidence Wilson said any such thing.
The only thing worse that being the slime that you are, is being a lying-slime.
During Woodrow Wilson’s 1912 presidential campaign, he promised African Americans advancement. He stated, “Should I become President of the United States, [Negroes] [sic] may count upon me for absolute fair dealing and for everything by which I could assist in advancing the interests of their race in the United States.”(1) Believing in his promise, many African Americans broke their affiliation with the Republican Party and voted for Wilson. He did not, however, fulfill the promises he made during the campaign to the African American community during his presidency. Less than a month after his March 4, 1913 inauguration,(2) President Wilson’s Administration took the first steps towards segregating the federal service.
1) Nancy J. Weiss, “The Negro and the New Freedom: Fighting Wilsonian Segregation” Political Science Quarterly 84 (1969): 63.
2) “Presidential Inaugurations”, Library of Congress,U.S. Presidential Inaugurations: Resource Guides (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress),
(August 2, 2007).
The segregation implemented in the Department of Treasury and the Post Office Department involved not only screened-off working spaces, but separate lunchrooms and toilets. Other steps were taken by the Wilson Administration to make obtaining a civil service job more difficult. Primary among these was the requirement, begun in 1914, that all candidates for civil service jobs attach a photograph to their application(12) further allowing for discrimination in the hiring process.
National Postal Museum
As Jim Crow laws mushroomed in the wake of Plessy v. Ferguson , African-Americans saw hope in the presidential campaign of Governor Woodrow Wilson of New Jersey in 1912. According to Wilson biographer Arthur S. Link, African-Americans strongly supported Wilson for President in the hope that he would treat them with compassion. In supporting Wilson, African-Americans had to overlook the fears raised by his Virginia birth. They also had to overlook the fact that as president of Princeton University he had prevented African-Americans from enrolling and that as a professor, university president, and Governor of New Jersey, he had never "lifted his voice in defense of the minority race," as Link put it.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/road/s09.cfm
Author Jerrold M. Packard provided a less measured view of Wilson. He "wasn't a particularly vicious racist, but rather an intellectually convinced white supremacist who practiced the racial mores of his upbringing." Although he had courted the African-American vote and received more than any previous Democrat, he brought with him "not racial justice but instead Southern power and with it Southern racial mores." His segregation of the Federal workforce "resulted in weakening this exceptionally hard-won black presence in government." He appointed racist southerners to his Cabinet who "zealously followed their boss's lead." The entire workplace-work stations, cafeterias, rest rooms-was segregated. [Packard, Jerrold M., American Nightmare: The History of Jim Crow, St. Martins Griffin, 2002, p. 124]
Of course he'd show 'Birth of a Nation," you dunce.
Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
The 'parties switched' is only advanced by the most feeble minded of the drones.
Agreed, "party switch" is an inaccurate term. It implies an instant stroke, like a politician changing his party registration, which takes about a minute.
More correctly these are "party shifts", evolving over time. Significantly at the turn of the (19th>20th) century, which was the big one. In the mid-19th century the Democratic Party had been the carrier of "states rights", decentralized government, and had reach nationwide before the Republicans were founded. It also danced around the issue of slavery, as did several other parties who ceased to exist including the Whigs, trying to have it both ways.
The Republican Party upon its founding in 1854 to its credit took a decisive stand to push Abolition when Democrats, Whigs, Know Nothings, Constitutional Unionists and other dying parties were basically either trying to placate individual states or ignore altogether an issue that was not going to be ignored and which was already being addressed in Europe and its remaining colonies.
Like any political party, once that ideal was realized the next goal of the party became self-perpetuation. By the end of the 1800s the Republicans were taking on the interests of the wealthy and the corporations, while the Democrats were absorbing the Populist Party and movement, which put working-class and eventually minorities and immigrants into its camp, producing the party class divisions that still resonate now. These were represented respectively by the two Williams, McKinley and Bryan.
World war brought rapid industrialization, a lot of immigrants, and a lot of black migration to the North and Midwest. This of course fed the bigotry of the time --- it's no accident that the Klan was re-formed exactly in this period to capitalize on that paranoia --- and the Klan as already documented tried for a time to influence politics in both parties.
Once the Great Depression hit and FDR launched the New Deal the black vote went to Democrats, joining the Catholic, Jewish, immigrant and labor union constituencies, in the 1930s and has remained there ever since.
Meanwhile the same Democratic Party was playing a bipolar game with these minorities on one hand coexisting in the same party with staunch white conservatism in the South that opposed those same constituencies (as did the Klan itself), railing against "Northern Liberals" and "civil rights" and leading to several schisms (Thurmond 1948; Wallace 1964/68/72).
The Democrats were, again, spinelessly trying to have it both ways, Liberal here, Conservative there, knowing the white South in its hyperconservatism considered association with the Republican Party unthinkable. As long as those hyperconservatives were in the same party they were in a position to block progress, which they did. FDR chipped away at it in 1936 when at the height of his power he got the party convention nomination rules changed to a simple majority (it had been 2/3) so that the Southern bloc could not block Liberals it didn't like (as it had in 1924). The 1948 convention chipped away at it again when the South heard too much talk about "civil rights" from Truman and the young mayor of Minneapolis Hubert Humphrey, and walked out to run their own candidates. Even got Truman's name wiped off the ballot in Alabama.
Thurmond then endorsed Eisenhower in the next election, and in retaliation was kicked off the Democratic ballot and ran as a write-in (which he won). Twelve years later George Wallace tendered an offer to Barry Goldwater to switch parties and run with Goldwater as his running mate. Goldwater declined and Wallace didn't make the switch but clearly the idea of "Republican" was becoming thinkable.
Clearly there were opposing dynamics and something had to give. Enter the Civil Rights Act of 1964, drafted by Kennedy five months before his death, pushed by LBJ, shepherded through Congress by Democrats Humphrey and majority leader Mike Mansfield and opposed by Democrats Thurmond, Byrd, Eastland (MS), Russell (GA) and the South in general. When that Southern contingent lost that battle, Thurmond finally acknowledged that it was after all "thinkable" to join the party that more represented his conservatism and switched to Republican, becoming the first prominent white Southern politician to do that, ninety-nine years after the Civil War ended. The divorce was, finally, final. He would be followed by other traditional Democrats including the Senator who lauded him at his 100th birthday, Trent Lott.
That's what the "party shifts" were. The former (around 1900) was a shift in the two parties' constituency; the latter (1964- ) was a shift OF a constituency to the other party. Bottom line--- both voters, and politicians, join (or switch) political parties for many more reasons than that they agree with its presumed ideology, two of which are practicality and simple tradition.
Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
Slavery doesn't have a "party". It's a social construct. It has existed as a general practice throughout the world on every continent, and as our own racism-based transatlantic version since the 1500s. long long LONG before there was a country here or any political parties. If you insist on playing stupid with your juvenile Composition Fallacies, you'll find that the political parties of Presidents who owned slaves included Democratic, Republican, Whig, Democratic-Republican (unrelated to either) and No Party At All (George Washington).
But you might be interested to know that the guy who organized the Democratic Party, Martin van Buren ---- was himself an Abolitionist.
On the evening of March 21, 1915, President Woodrow Wilson attended a special screening at the White House of THE BIRTH OF A NATION, a film directed by D.W. Griffith and based on THE CLANSMAN, a novel written by Wilson's good friend Thomas Dixon.
PBS
Your Wilson quote has been debunked as mythology. There's no evidence Wilson said any such thing.
Debunked? Unlike you, I provided a link.
I suggest that you write to those right-wingers at PBS and ask them to remove it from their website.
Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
Slavery doesn't have a "party". It's a social construct. It has existed as a general practice throughout the world on every continent, and as our own racism-based transatlantic version since the 1500s. long long LONG before there was a country here or any political parties. If you insist on playing stupid with your juvenile Composition Fallacies, you'll find that the political parties of Presidents who owned slaves included Democratic, Republican, Whig, Democratic-Republican (unrelated to either) and No Party At All (George Washington).
But you might be interested to know that the guy who organized the Democratic Party, Martin van Buren ---- was himself an Abolitionist.
Wiki:
>> Wilson was falsely reported to have said about the film, "It is like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true".[37] Wilson's aide, Joseph Tumulty, denied the claims and said that "the President was entirely unaware of the nature of the play before it was presented and at no time has expressed his approbation of it."[38] Historians believe the quote attributed to Wilson originated with Dixon, who was relentless in publicizing the film. After controversy over the film had grown, Wilson wrote that he disapproved of the "unfortunate production".[39] <<
Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
Slavery doesn't have a "party". It's a social construct. It has existed as a general practice throughout the world on every continent, and as our own racism-based transatlantic version since the 1500s. long long LONG before there was a country here or any political parties. If you insist on playing stupid with your juvenile Composition Fallacies, you'll find that the political parties of Presidents who owned slaves included Democratic, Republican, Whig, Democratic-Republican (unrelated to either) and No Party At All (George Washington).
But you might be interested to know that the guy who organized the Democratic Party, Martin van Buren ---- was himself an Abolitionist.
I do Agree that America did not invented slavery and that it existed for millenniums before us. I do not agree however that slavery doesn't have a party. That would be true if what you said is true, that all parties had slave owners. But it's not truth, since no Republican ever owned a slave, meaning that, before Civil war, all 4 million slaves in America were owned exclusively by Democrats.
Wiki:
>> Wilson was falsely reported to have said about the film, "It is like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true".[37] Wilson's aide, Joseph Tumulty, denied the claims and said that "the President was entirely unaware of the nature of the play before it was presented and at no time has expressed his approbation of it."[38] Historians believe the quote attributed to Wilson originated with Dixon, who was relentless in publicizing the film. After controversy over the film had grown, Wilson wrote that he disapproved of the "unfortunate production".[39] <<
I wouldn't rely on Wiki much. It's not truth that Wilson didn't know the nature of the play. They changed the name of the movie before they showed it to him. The found that movie itself had a Wilson quote in it, and according to PBS: "After seeing the film, an enthusiastic Wilson reportedly remarked: "It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true."
Once again, I recommend reading Eric Forner's Short History of Reconstruction, since he spent years on researching the issue.
