Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…

[Pogo]

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.

Nope. Again, counting only Presidents, which is a tiny population --- George Washington owned hundreds of slaves, and had no party at all. Jefferson, Madison, Monroe all owned slaves and they were Democratic-Republicans, unrelated to either contemporary party. Jackson owned slaves and was elected before "Democrats" existed. William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor owned slaves and they were Whigs. And the last POTUS to have been a slaveowner was Republican Ulysses Grant. Then there were other slaveholder candidates who didn't win like John Bell (Constitutional Unionist, former Whig) and Henry Clay who had been a Democratic-Republican, a Whig and a National Republican ("Know Nothing"). You can look all this up. You can also attack the messenger and trash Wiki all you like but it's sourced. Again, it's those sources you have to disprove.

The Whigs, which originated as "anti-Jacksonians" before they were a formal party, actually disintegrated because they couldn't come to common agreement ON slavery. Some favored keeping it, some favored abolishing it. Bell mentioned above was a slaveowner who opposed its expansion. In the first four score and seven years, politically there was a whole lot of running away from the issue and hoping it would just magically go away.

Coincidentally Bell also won (1860) the same Southern states that Klan "Imperial Wizard" Evans above took credit for swaying to Herbert Hoover in 1928.

That's just Presidential candidates, which has nothing to do with slavery ---- obviously you didn't need to hold office to hold slaves. You didn't need to be a politician --- you didn't even need to have a political party. Had that been the case we would have needed political parties on this continent for five hundred years. Landowners owned slaves for labor, just as, in the thinking of that time, they owned cattle. There's nothing "political" in that. It's a social construct referring to how you think the economic world works. In other eras how the world works would have involved serfs, sharecroppers, migrant field workers or third world sweatshops.

Matter of fact this country's (failure to) address slavery is one of the origins of the Electoral College. Southern slaveholders, who made up four of the first five Presidents all from Virginia, wanted to award themselves more power than their population warranted, so the infamous Three-Fifths Compromise allowed them Congressional representation based on counting three-fifths of their slaves for the purpose of representation demographics, while awarding those slaves zero-fifths of a vote or any Constitutional rights. It could have been described as "representation without representation is tyranny". The first two non-slaveowner POTUSes, who were also the first two not from the South, who were both named Adams, had a hell of a time breaking through that stacked deck. And they each got limited to one term in contrast to two each for the Virginians, one of whom was elected unopposed.

 

[Pogo]

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.


The simplest proof is that the first or second most popular Democrat elected official, Bill Clinton.....personification of the Democrat Party.....has always ......always....

...been a life-long racist.


Fits that party perfectly.

You genuinely have no clue what a Composition Fallacy is, do you?

That's soooo cute. Perhaps that spandex is inhibiting cranial circulation.

Lemme give you a hint.

​

From this, of course, we may conclude that all Republicans are named "David".
Just as all Democrats are named "Bill".

Of course this also means that anyone named "Bill" is a Democrat

--- and anyone name "David" is a Republican.

​

--- see how that works?

Nah, you probably don't.

 

[Ame®icano]

Again, prove us all wrong --- show the world an actual source

I'm puzzled here. You keep asking me to show source for the quote...

First, what quote you're referring to?
Second, why you keep asking me?

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

Nope. Again, counting only Presidents, which is a tiny population --- George Washington owned hundreds of slaves, and had no party at all. Jefferson, Madison, Monroe all owned slaves and they were Democratic-Republicans, unrelated to either contemporary party. Jackson owned slaves and was elected before "Democrats" existed. William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor owned slaves and they were Whigs. And the last POTUS to have been a slaveowner was Republican Ulysses Grant. Then there were other slaveholder candidates who didn't win like John Bell (Constitutional Unionist, former Whig) and Henry Clay who had been a Democratic-Republican, a Whig and a National Republican ("Know Nothing"). You can look all this up. You can also attack the messenger and trash Wiki all you like but it's sourced. Again, it's those sources you have to disprove.

The Whigs, which originated as "anti-Jacksonians" before they were a formal party, actually disintegrated because they couldn't come to common agreement ON slavery. Some favored keeping it, some favored abolishing it. Bell mentioned above was a slaveowner who opposed its expansion. In the first four score and seven years, politically there was a whole lot of running away from the issue and hoping it would just magically go away.

Coincidentally Bell also won (1860) the same Southern states that Klan "Imperial Wizard" Evans above took credit for swaying to Herbert Hoover in 1928.

That's just Presidential candidates, which has nothing to do with slavery ---- obviously you didn't need to hold office to hold slaves. You didn't need to be a politician --- you didn't even need to have a political party. Had that been the case we would have needed political parties on this continent for five hundred years. Landowners owned slaves for labor, just as, in the thinking of that time, they owned cattle. There's nothing "political" in that. It's a social construct referring to how you think the economic world works. In other eras how the world works would have involved serfs, sharecroppers, migrant field workers or third world sweatshops.

Matter of fact this country's (failure to) address slavery is one of the origins of the Electoral College. Southern slaveholders, who made up four of the first five Presidents all from Virginia, wanted to award themselves more power than their population warranted, so the infamous Three-Fifths Compromise allowed them Congressional representation based on counting three-fifths of their slaves for the purpose of representation demographics, while awarding those slaves zero-fifths of a vote or any Constitutional rights. It could have been described as "representation without representation is tyranny". The first two non-slaveowner POTUSes, who were also the first two not from the South, who were both named Adams, had a hell of a time breaking through that stacked deck. And they each got limited to one term in contrast to two each for the Virginians, one of whom was elected unopposed.

Lets begin with this...

When Republican party was formed?

Once you answer that, you'll see that most of your post above is not relevant to Republican party.

Second question, why Republican party was formed?

And third, what I said above is truth, on the brink of Civil War no Republican owned a slave. It's truth that Ulysses Grant owned a slave that he inherited from his father-in-law, and he freed him. What you did not mention about Grant is, at the time he inherited that slave he was a Democrat.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.


The simplest proof is that the first or second most popular Democrat elected official, Bill Clinton.....personification of the Democrat Party.....has always ......always....

...been a life-long racist.


Fits that party perfectly.

You genuinely have no clue what a Composition Fallacy is, do you?

That's soooo cute. Perhaps that spandex is inhibiting cranial circulation.

Lemme give you a hint.

​

From this, of course, we may conclude that all Republicans are named "David".
Just as all Democrats are named "Bill".

Of course this also means that anyone named "Bill" is a Democrat

--- and anyone name "David" is a Republican.

​

--- see how that works?

Nah, you probably don't.

You are currently a lying low-life, and, no need to re-monogram those towels...you'll always be a lying low-life.



David Duke....the Democrat.

State Senator, 1975 (Baton Rouge Area)[edit]
Threshold > 50%

First Ballot, November 1, 1975

Louisiana State Senate, 1975
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Kenneth Osterberger 22,287 66
Democratic David Duke 11,079 33
N/A Others 1
Total 100
State Senator, 10th District, 1979 (Suburban New Orleans)[edit]
Threshold > 50% First Ballot, October 27, 1979

Louisiana State Senate, 10th District, 1979
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Joseph Tiemann 21,329 57
Democratic David Duke 9,897 26
N/A Others 6,459 17
Total 37,685 100
Democratic Nomination for United States Presidential Candidate, 1988 (Louisiana results)[edit]
Threshold = Plurality

1988 Democratic Presidential primary in Louisiana
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Jesse Jackson 221,522 35
Democratic Al Gore 174,971 28
Democratic Michael Dukakis 95,661 15
Democratic Dick Gephardt 67,029 11
Democratic Gary Hart 26,437 4
Democratic David Duke 23,391 4
Democratic Others 16,008 3
Total 625,019 100
Electoral history of David Duke - Wikipedia

 

[paperview]

There's a reason the lying wench PC cuts off David Duke's electoral history at 1988.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There's a reason the lying wench PC cuts off David Duke's electoral history at 1988.

What I posted was absolute fact.

I never lie.


Now, half-head....here's a question you can't answer: was I accurate and correct????

 

[paperview]

What happened after 1988, chicky?

 

[PoliticalChic]

What happened after 1988, chicky?

Now, half-head....here's a question you can't answer: was I accurate and correct????

The answer, of course, is 'yes....totally accurate and correct.'


As I predicted: you were far too much a low-life to answer.


You said I lied....I never lie....but we just proved that you do.



Now....do you have the class to apologize....or are you a Liberal?

 

[PoliticalChic]

What happened after 1988, chicky?

Hey.....don't try to slither away, low-life.

1. I was totally accurate in showing David Duke to be, in both his formative years, when he learned to be a racist, and in his political career....A DEMOCRAT.



2. As you have been trained to toss the word 'racist' at anyone who disagrees with Liberal propaganda, let's remember that the most frequent visitor to Obama, in the White House was racist Al Sharpton.



3. The Democrats have always been associated with racism. The Democrat icon Franklin Roosevelt, in fact, made a KKKer his very first pick for the Supreme Court:

. "... [Hugo] Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..."
http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/10/hugo-black-and-real-history-of-wall-of.html]



And so.....once again, we find:

You: Paper-weight

Me: Pay-per-View

 

[Pogo]

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.

Nope. Again, counting only Presidents, which is a tiny population --- George Washington owned hundreds of slaves, and had no party at all. Jefferson, Madison, Monroe all owned slaves and they were Democratic-Republicans, unrelated to either contemporary party. Jackson owned slaves and was elected before "Democrats" existed. William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor owned slaves and they were Whigs. And the last POTUS to have been a slaveowner was Republican Ulysses Grant. Then there were other slaveholder candidates who didn't win like John Bell (Constitutional Unionist, former Whig) and Henry Clay who had been a Democratic-Republican, a Whig and a National Republican ("Know Nothing"). You can look all this up. You can also attack the messenger and trash Wiki all you like but it's sourced. Again, it's those sources you have to disprove.

The Whigs, which originated as "anti-Jacksonians" before they were a formal party, actually disintegrated because they couldn't come to common agreement ON slavery. Some favored keeping it, some favored abolishing it. Bell mentioned above was a slaveowner who opposed its expansion. In the first four score and seven years, politically there was a whole lot of running away from the issue and hoping it would just magically go away.

Coincidentally Bell also won (1860) the same Southern states that Klan "Imperial Wizard" Evans above took credit for swaying to Herbert Hoover in 1928.

That's just Presidential candidates, which has nothing to do with slavery ---- obviously you didn't need to hold office to hold slaves. You didn't need to be a politician --- you didn't even need to have a political party. Had that been the case we would have needed political parties on this continent for five hundred years. Landowners owned slaves for labor, just as, in the thinking of that time, they owned cattle. There's nothing "political" in that. It's a social construct referring to how you think the economic world works. In other eras how the world works would have involved serfs, sharecroppers, migrant field workers or third world sweatshops.

Matter of fact this country's (failure to) address slavery is one of the origins of the Electoral College. Southern slaveholders, who made up four of the first five Presidents all from Virginia, wanted to award themselves more power than their population warranted, so the infamous Three-Fifths Compromise allowed them Congressional representation based on counting three-fifths of their slaves for the purpose of representation demographics, while awarding those slaves zero-fifths of a vote or any Constitutional rights. It could have been described as "representation without representation is tyranny". The first two non-slaveowner POTUSes, who were also the first two not from the South, who were both named Adams, had a hell of a time breaking through that stacked deck. And they each got limited to one term in contrast to two each for the Virginians, one of whom was elected unopposed.

Lets begin with this...

When Republican party was formed?

1854, Ripon Wisconsin.

We'll recall that Wisconsin is the same state where the photo in the OP was taken, claiming it to be the Democratic convention happening a thousand miles away.

Once you answer that, you'll see that most of your post above is not relevant to Republican party.

It's not supposed to be "relevant to Republican Party". It's relevant to your post that was quoted. Specifically, this part:

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.

---- which is provably, bullshit. I gave examples of multiple slaveowners who were Democratic-Republican, Whig, Know Nothing, Republican, and no party at all. And again that was just politicians ---- nobody needed a political office, or a political party, to own a slave.

Again, slavery, the transAtlantic African version, was going on long LONG before there was even a country here, let alone political parties. It was also going on elsewhere in the Americas, as long as five hundred years ago. No political parties were needed to do that. All that was needed was human traffic merchants.

Second question, why Republican party was formed?

At the time, to take charge of the Abolition movement.

And third, what I said above is truth, on the brink of Civil War no Republican owned a slave. It's truth that Ulysses Grant owned a slave that he inherited from his father-in-law, and he freed him. What you did not mention about Grant is, at the time he inherited that slave he was a Democrat.

Irrelevant. He's the same guy. Just as David Duke is the same guy. Changing political parties doesn't make you a different person. Arlen Specter was a Democrat, then a Republican, then a Democrat again. That doesn't make Arlen Specter three different guys.

Anyway, not that it matters but I don't have any evidence that Grant was ever a Democrat. In office he was a Republican.

All of which goes to illustrate that, again, political party affiliation doesn't somehow change or determine one's personality. Only abject morons like Stuporgirl trot out those kinds of Composition Fallacies and think anybody's going to actually take them seriously.

--- all of which returns us to the point that slavery is not a political practice. Nor is racism.
Abolition is politica, since it advocates passing laws to illegalize it. Hence the term "abolish". But slavery wasn't. You don't need politics or laws to establish a practice that was already widespread before your country existed.

 

[Bleipriester]

Has anything changed since then? Oh, yes, they stopped wearing those white sheets.

Yeah, and their hatred is now directed against the color white. I have seen leftists that refuse to wash their clothes in fear they could go white. People go mad over colors. When I was a child it was hard for me to answer the question what my favorite color is but over time I figured out color is an essential part of our life.

 

[Pogo]

Again, prove us all wrong --- show the world an actual source

I'm puzzled here. You keep asking me to show source for the quote...

First, what quote you're referring to?
Second, why you keep asking me?

Because you brought it up. Posts 242 and then 249.

And when you brought it up you quoted my post about the two origins of the Klan --- yet for some reason wiped out the entire content of my post. Wonder why. Let's revisit that post shall we?

I love revisionist history

First off.... The klan is and always was a Conservative organization. Liberals are not welcome

Secondly.... the second generation klan that emerged in the early 1900 s was comprised of both Democrats in the south and Republicans in the Midwest.

Thirdly..... TODAYS klan is staunchly Republican and Conservative
.

First off, the klan was started by Democrats.

Second, they were revived in early 1900s again by Democrats (Wilson).

Third, you sure have a proof that Republicans support the klan, do ya?

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnope.
Let's just run this for the 8462nd time for those who can't be bothered to either pay attention or do their homework.

The Klan (originally) was founded by, in alphabetical order, (Maj) James Crowe, Calvin Jones, (Capt) John B. Kennedy, (Capt) John Lester, Frank O. McCord, and Richard Reed, Christmas 1865, in the law office building of Calvin Jones' father Thomas Jones, while he was housesitting for the holidays. All six were ex-Confederate soldiers in their twenties. None had any known political affiliations or activities, nor did they found their little club for any such purpose. Prove me wrong.

Moreover Tennessee had no political parties in 1865 anyway. It was not a part of the United States, and when it had been a part of the CSA, that country had no political parties.

Here's the plaque put up on that building at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski, Tennessee exactly one hundred years ago, by the Daughters of the Confederacy, showing those same names:

That Klan was out of their hands within a few months and extinguished altogether within a decade.

Exactly fifty years less one month later, Thanksgiving Day 1915, one William Joseph "Colonel Joe" Simmons, a former Methodist minister, salesman, irrepressible club-joiner and con man, took several minions up Stone Mountain outside Atlanta in a rented bus, and re-founded it as the "Knights of the Ku Klux Klan", complete with burning cross taken directly from the movie "Birth of a Nation" that he was emulating, and registered it with the state of Georgia. Simmons' purpose was to exploit the notoriety of that film by providing a real-life Klan as portrayed in the movie that people could join, and thereby make money from memberships (which he did).

There was no one named "Wilson" present. There were however ex-members of the "Knights of Mary Phagan" including Simmons himself, a lynch mob that had captured and hung Leo Frank, a Jew accused of murder on shaky evidence.

Simmons also had no known political affiliation or activity. Prove me wrong.

His Klan however, once he too lost control of it, was dabbling in politics in the 1920s, opposing blacks, Catholics, Jews, immigrants and labor unions ----------- all of which happen to be Democratic Party constituents. And they pushed lots of Republicans where it served their interests (Baker - Oregon; Morley and Means - Colorado; Jackson - Indiana; Brewster - Maine; and a slew of local offices) and opposed Democrats who didn't serve them, as in the aforementioned Underwood and Al Smith:

>> The Ku Klux Klan continued to be a powerful force in America, with a membership that historians now estimate as high as two to four million. When Smith's campaign train headed West, it was met by burning crosses on the hills and explosions from dynamite charges echoing across the prairies. Klansmen and other religious bigots swayed ignorant voters by telling them that the Catholic Smith, having supposedly sworn fealty to the pope, would turn the United States over to "Romanism and Ruin." Protestant ministers told their congregations that if Smith became president, all non-Catholic marriages would be annulled and all children of these marriages declared illegitimate. Preachers even warned their congregations that if they voted for Al Smith, they would go straight to hell. << -- Dirty Campaigning in the Roaring Twenties
​

--- that sound like what a "Democratic" outfit would be doing? Undermining its own candidates?

Dumbass.

Oh and btw that state charter that Simmons filed to make his Klan official? It was revoked in the 1940s by Governor Ellis Arnall. A Democrat.

Wow, look at all those white conservatives. Glad they became Republicans.

Name five who did so.

I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?

1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

They became Republicans in the ballot box starting in 1964.

Then you sure can provide four more names of those Democrats who became Republicans in the ballot box starting in 1964. Let's see them.

This wasn't posted to me but I'm afraid I already gave one away in another post -- Trent Lott.

So you want three more?

3. That Cochran
4. Jesse Helms
5. Phil Gramm

But let's go back to the Klan history.
............... what happened to your claim that Woodrow Wilson ---- who was at the time holding the office of President of the United States ---- found it necessary to charge up Stone Mountain on Thanksgiving Day 1915 to re-start the Klan?

First off, the klan was started by Democrats.

Second, they were revived in early 1900s again by Democrats (Wilson).

Have we run away from that altogether without acknowledging anything? Is that why you wiped out the entire content of my post spelling out that history?

 

[Ame®icano]

Lets begin with this...

When Republican party was formed?

1854, Ripon Wisconsin.

We'll recall that Wisconsin is the same state where the photo in the OP was taken, claiming it to be the Democratic convention happening a thousand miles away.

What photo from the OP has to do with my question "when Republican party was formed"?

It's not supposed to be "relevant to Republican Party". It's relevant to your post that was quoted. Specifically, this part:

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.

---- which is provably, bullshit. I gave examples of multiple slaveowners who were Democratic-Republican, Whig, Know Nothing, Republican, and no party at all. And again that was just politicians ---- nobody needed a political office, or a political party, to own a slave.

Again, at the brink of Civil War, no Republican owned the slave. If you have any data proving otherwise, you would present it by now. Note that you calling something "bullshit" is not a proof.

Now, Democratic-Republican Party was dissolved in 1825, Whig party was dissolved in 1854, and Know Nothing party is dissolved in 1860. That leaves us with two major parties at the start of Civil War, Democrats and Republicans. If no Republican owned a slave, who did?

And third, what I said above is truth, on the brink of Civil War no Republican owned a slave. It's truth that Ulysses Grant owned a slave that he inherited from his father-in-law, and he freed him. What you did not mention about Grant is, at the time he inherited that slave he was a Democrat.

Irrelevant. He's the same guy. Just as David Duke is the same guy. Changing political parties doesn't make you a different person. Arlen Specter was a Democrat, then a Republican, then a Democrat again. That doesn't make Arlen Specter three different guys.

Did you read what I said? He inherited one slave from his father in law, then he freed him. Just because you say it's irrelevant, it doesn't mean it is. Your statement would be relevant if he kept him, or sold him for profit.

Anyway, not that it matters but I don't have any evidence that Grant was ever a Democrat. In office he was a Republican.

Yeah, you couldn't find anything so I must be lying. I was trying to have a conversation with you, but you keep acting as classic leftist asshole.

Ulysses S. Grant: Triumph Over Adversity
Ulysses S. Grant: His Life and Character

And here, from Wikipedia:

"In the 1856 election, Grant cast his first presidential vote for Democrat James Buchanan, later saying he was really voting against Republican John C. Frémont over concern that his anti-slavery position would lead to southern secession and war.[88] Many considered Grant to be allied politically to his father-in-law, Frederick Dent, a prominent Missouri Democrat. Although Grant was not an abolitionist, neither was he considered a "slavery man", and could not bring himself to force slaves to do work. In 1859, Grant's suspected Democratic leanings cost him an appointment to become county engineer. By the 1860 election, Grant was openly Democratic, favoring Democrat Stephen A. Douglas over Abraham Lincoln, and Lincoln over the Southern Democrat, John C. Breckinridge. Lacking the residency requirements in Illinois at the time, he could not vote. After Lincoln was elected, Southern states seceded from the Union forming a Confederacy, seizing federal forts and institutions."

 

[Ame®icano]

Again, prove us all wrong --- show the world an actual source

I'm puzzled here. You keep asking me to show source for the quote...

First, what quote you're referring to?
Second, why you keep asking me?

Because you brought it up. Posts 242 and then 249.

I provided the source that Wilson attended a screening at the White House of The Birth Of a Nation and you rejected it as "debunked". Saying "Debunked" without providing any source or analysis means nothing and I told you that in Post 249.

Now, take time and think before you answer the question: Screening movies in the White House is done for whom? Best guess, perhaps?

 

[Pogo]

Lets begin with this...

When Republican party was formed?

1854, Ripon Wisconsin.

We'll recall that Wisconsin is the same state where the photo in the OP was taken, claiming it to be the Democratic convention happening a thousand miles away.

What photo from the OP has to do with my question "when Republican party was formed"?

Nothing to do with "when", but rather "where".
The OP ----- who has since run away ---- claimed his photo was of the 1924 Democratic convention, which took place in New York. His photo is actually from Wisconsin.

That's just extra info. Whether it puts a hair up your ass or not, you don't get to edit my posts. That's just the way it is. Like it or lump it.

"When" was already answered. "Where" was answered even though it was not asked.
Neither is incorrect, yet here you are whining about a correct answer.

It's not supposed to be "relevant to Republican Party". It's relevant to your post that was quoted. Specifically, this part:

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.

---- which is provably, bullshit. I gave examples of multiple slaveowners who were Democratic-Republican, Whig, Know Nothing, Republican, and no party at all. And again that was just politicians ---- nobody needed a political office, or a political party, to own a slave.

Again, at the brink of Civil War, no Republican owned the slave. If you have any data proving otherwise, you would present it by now. Note that you calling something "bullshit" is not a proof.

Note that your moving your own goalposts is more bullshit. You posted "before the Civil war", not "at the brink of". And it still wouldn't work anyway since Whigs, Constitutional Unionists, Know Nothings and people with no party at all ALL owned slaves. Once again, maybe I forgot to mention, no political party registration was ever required to own a slave.

Next?

Now, Democratic-Republican Party was dissolved in 1825, Whig party was dissolved in 1854, and Know Nothing party is dissolved in 1860. That leaves us with two major parties at the start of Civil War, Democrats and Republicans. If no Republican owned a slave, who did?

More bullshit. None of those parties were "dissolved". They disintegrated. Gradually.

In 1860 there was one "major" party, the Democratic. The Republican Party was six years old and hadn't established itself nationally. It didn't even run a POTUS candidate in the South until after the War (Grant, 1868). Lincoln's name didn't even appear on a ballot in Kentucky --- his home state --- until 1864, and never appeared in the South at all. The Constitutional Union Party as already mentioned won three states in that election (including Kentucky), easily surpassing Douglas who came in fourth. That Constitutional Union Party's candidate John Bell as also already mentioned was a slaveowner who nonetheless opposed expansion of slavery. For one.

Shall we call the Constitutional Union Party a "major" party? It did run nationally, but it didn't last long. I wouldn't consider that a "major" party but if we do count it that makes TWO "major" parties in 1860, the Democrats and the Constitutional Unionists. Republicans were regional and did not run nationally, and Breckinridge ran without a party. But the CU never won much and didn't hang on. So my answer is still "one".

And once again ------ as pointed out about 78 times by now ------ nobody needed a fucking political party to own a slave anyway.

Sooner or later you'll need to grow up and leave this childish dichotomy where the entire world is made up of either "Democrats" or "Republicans". Life just isn't that simplistic.

And third, what I said above is truth, on the brink of Civil War no Republican owned a slave. It's truth that Ulysses Grant owned a slave that he inherited from his father-in-law, and he freed him. What you did not mention about Grant is, at the time he inherited that slave he was a Democrat.

Irrelevant. He's the same guy. Just as David Duke is the same guy. Changing political parties doesn't make you a different person. Arlen Specter was a Democrat, then a Republican, then a Democrat again. That doesn't make Arlen Specter three different guys.

Did you read what I said? He inherited one slave from his father in law, then he freed him. Just because you say it's irrelevant, it doesn't mean it is. Your statement would be relevant if he kept him, or sold him for profit.

Anyway, not that it matters but I don't have any evidence that Grant was ever a Democrat. In office he was a Republican.

Yeah, you couldn't find anything so I must be lying. I was trying to have a conversation with you, but you keep acting as classic leftist asshole.

Ulysses S. Grant: Triumph Over Adversity
Ulysses S. Grant: His Life and Character

And here, from Wikipedia:

"In the 1856 election, Grant cast his first presidential vote for Democrat James Buchanan, later saying he was really voting against Republican John C. Frémont over concern that his anti-slavery position would lead to southern secession and war.[88] Many considered Grant to be allied politically to his father-in-law, Frederick Dent, a prominent Missouri Democrat. Although Grant was not an abolitionist, neither was he considered a "slavery man", and could not bring himself to force slaves to do work. In 1859, Grant's suspected Democratic leanings cost him an appointment to become county engineer. By the 1860 election, Grant was openly Democratic, favoring Democrat Stephen A. Douglas over Abraham Lincoln, and Lincoln over the Southern Democrat, John C. Breckinridge. Lacking the residency requirements in Illinois at the time, he could not vote. After Lincoln was elected, Southern states seceded from the Union forming a Confederacy, seizing federal forts and institutions."

That's the same link I looked up. Nowhere does it say he was a Democrat. In fact what it DOES say is he could not vote. Assessing "who he favored in a particular election" that he couldn't even vote in anyway isn't the same thing as "being a Democrat".

NOR does it matter. Because again, 79th time now --- nobody needed a political party to own a slave.

"Lying" is your own assessment, and "assholes" don't enter into it. It simply IS NOT IN THERE. And there's nothing you can do about that, whine and stomp your feet all you like.

Just as that cockamamie bullshit story you tried to sell about Woodrow Wilson trotting up Stone Mountain to revive the Klan isn't in the history books either. Nor is any record of Crowe, Jones, Kennedy, Lester, McCord or Reed having a political party or political activities. Funny how you want to walk away and pretend you never floated those turds once you got corrected.

 

[Ame®icano]

What photo from the OP has to do with my question "when Republican party was formed"?

Nothing to do with "when", but rather "where".
The OP ----- who has since run away ---- claimed his photo was of the 1924 Democratic convention, which took place in New York. His photo is actually from Wisconsin.

"When" was already answered. "Where" was answered even though it was not asked.
Neither is incorrect, yet here you are whining about a correct answer.

Photo in the OP has nothing to do with my questions and everything to do with your claims that Republicans were slave owners and as much racist as Democrats. They were not, they were completely against slavery and they formed the party to fight racist pro slavery Democrats on north and south.

Once that gets thru your think head, you'll realize that Republicans cannot be put in the same contest with slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregation, lynching laws and KKK which are exclusively Democrat thing.

Note that your moving your own goalposts is more bullshit. You posted "before the Civil war", not "at the brink of". And it still wouldn't work anyway since Whigs, Constitutional Unionists, Know Nothings and people with no party at all ALL owned slaves. Once again, maybe I forgot to mention, no political party registration was ever required to own a slave.

From the 1854 when Republican party was formed to the start of Civil War was seven years.

"Before the Civil War" and "at the brink of the Civil War" is pretty much the same thing written in different form. It still covers the same period from the formation of Republican party to the start of the Civil War. Got it yet?

That's the same link I looked up. Nowhere does it say he was a Democrat. In fact what it DOES say is he could not vote. Assessing "who he favored in a particular election" that he couldn't even vote in anyway isn't the same thing as "being a Democrat".

Beside of Wikipedia link I provided links to two books, that are among the others sources that say Grant was a Democrat. Still not sure are you plain idiot or just acting, but here is again the same quote with the same bold text that you ignored first time:

""In the 1856 election, Grant cast his first presidential vote for Democrat James Buchanan, later saying he was really voting against Republican John C. Frémont over concern that his anti-slavery position would lead to southern secession and war.[88] Many considered Grant to be allied politically to his father-in-law, Frederick Dent, a prominent Missouri Democrat. Although Grant was not an abolitionist, neither was he considered a "slavery man", and could not bring himself to force slaves to do work. In 1859, Grant's suspected Democratic leanings cost him an appointment to become county engineer. By the 1860 election, Grant was openly Democratic, favoring Democrat Stephen A. Douglas over Abraham Lincoln, and Lincoln over the Southern Democrat, John C. Breckinridge. Lacking the residency requirements in Illinois at the time, he could not vote. After Lincoln was elected, Southern states seceded from the Union forming a Confederacy, seizing federal forts and institutions."

You were trying to prove that Republican Grant owned the slave. My reply to you was, he did not willingly own the slave, he inherited a slave from his father in law, and then he freed him. By the way, even if he was the slave owner for short period of time, that happened when he was Democrat. Got it? Yet?

NOR does it matter. Because again, 79th time now --- nobody needed a political party to own a slave.

I agree, nobody needed political party to own the slave. Without providing data, your guess is as good as mine. If you owned the slave, first you couldn't be Republican, and second, you would't relate or vote for someone who wants to abolish slavery. I suspect it's real challenge for you, but I'll ask anyways, if you were slave owner, who would you relate to?

One more thing... I never edited or changed your posts. Every time I quoted parts of your posts that are relevant to my replies I provided links to your originals. It's obvious, so stop bitching.

 

[Pogo]

What photo from the OP has to do with my question "when Republican party was formed"?

Nothing to do with "when", but rather "where".
The OP ----- who has since run away ---- claimed his photo was of the 1924 Democratic convention, which took place in New York. His photo is actually from Wisconsin.

"When" was already answered. "Where" was answered even though it was not asked.
Neither is incorrect, yet here you are whining about a correct answer.

Photo in the OP has nothing to do with my questions and everything to do with your claims that Republicans were slave owners and as much racist as Democrats. They were not, they were completely against slavery and they formed the party to fight racist pro slavery Democrats on north and south.

Once that gets thru your think head, you'll realize that Republicans cannot be put in the same contest with slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregation, lynching laws and KKK which are exclusively Democrat thing.

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnope. Those are cultural things.
And I've already schooled you twice on the Klan history, giving you specific names, dates and places, challenging you to find any evidence that those founders and re-founders had any political affiliations or political purposes. You failed. And you failed because it doesn't exist. It's a myth you hold onto even after being proven wrong. I don't have the psychiatric training to explain why that is.

Hell you even posted, right in this thread, that a sitting President of the United States found his postilion so powerless that he found it necessary to charge up Stone Mountain and rekindle the Klan, and organization he had never been part of. You've failed to explain that one too ----- or acknowledge you made it up.

Again, I don't have the psychiatric background to explain that either so let's leave it at

Let's move on to the last line -- "racist pro-slavery Democrats North and South".

Firstly, again the Republicans didn't "fight racist pro-slavery Democrats in the South" --- they did not run a candidate there before the Civil War. Not in 1860, not in 1856, and not in 1864. Lincoln's name was never on a ballot in the South, nor was Frémont's. The Republican Party was strictly regional at that point, having concentrated itself in the North, Midwest and West. That's why it doesn't count as a "major political party" in 1860, yet another point you tried to make until I corrected it. The country was severely divided by region, which is obvious since it was about to erupt into civil war.

As a result, Lincoln pulled of course zero Southern votes in the Electoral College. The Democrat Stephen Douglas, whose name was on the Southern ballots, pulled exactly the same number ---- zero. Those racist pro-slavery Democrats had already kicked the party out in Charleston at a convention which had to be suspended upon the disruption. Why did they do that? Because the Democratic Party wasn't 'pro-slavery" enough for them. Much the same reason the same thing happened in 1948. And as also mentioned already, those racist pro-slavery Whigs also voted for John Bell, the Constitutional Unionist Party, an offshoot of the Whigs. Bell won three states, including Kentucky the home state of both Breckinridge and Lincoln.

Once that election was decided, Democrat Douglas (who came in fourth having carried one state, Missouri) toured on President-Elect Lincoln's behalf making the case for compromise and keeping the Union intact. And when that failed advised Lincoln on how to attack the South. So I'm afraid this isn't the simplistic black-and-white dichotomy you seem to want to pretend.

Note that your moving your own goalposts is more bullshit. You posted "before the Civil war", not "at the brink of". And it still wouldn't work anyway since Whigs, Constitutional Unionists, Know Nothings and people with no party at all ALL owned slaves. Once again, maybe I forgot to mention, no political party registration was ever required to own a slave.

From the 1854 when Republican party was formed to the start of Civil War was seven years.

"Before the Civil War" and "at the brink of the Civil War" is pretty much the same thing written in different form. It still covers the same period from the formation of Republican party to the start of the Civil War. Got it yet?

Nnnnnnnnope. This country existed for four score less two years before the Republican Party was formed. In the interim by the way forming a slew of other parties, some of which also stood for Abolition.

That's the same link I looked up. Nowhere does it say he was a Democrat. In fact what it DOES say is he could not vote. Assessing "who he favored in a particular election" that he couldn't even vote in anyway isn't the same thing as "being a Democrat".

Beside of Wikipedia link I provided links to two books, that are among the others sources that say Grant was a Democrat. Still not sure are you plain idiot or just acting, but here is again the same quote with the same bold text that you ignored first time:

You posted titles of two books, which link to an Amazon purchase page and a front title photo. No citation therein at all --- such as I did with specific pages numbers to my quoted content. Without such a citation, for all I know these claims are pulled from the same ass that has a President charging up a hill with a flaming cross to re-found the Klan.

Again, the point is moot anyway. I'm not the one claiming that being or not being a slaveowner is a direct result of being a "Republican" or "Democrat" --- YOU are. In a gaffe that rivals your image of Wilson charging up Stone Mountain, you actually posted that slaveowning was "exclusively Democrat". Matter of fact you did the same thing again right in this post. Apparently expecting different results.

Moreover, the first time you posted these titles there were no links. Just red boldface.

I've already called out that Composition Fallacy for what it is, citing several examples of Whigs, Know Nothings, Constitutional Unionists, Democratic-Republicans and masses of slaveowners with no party at all, back to and including George Washington. Again I proved your specious claim to be bullshit and there's nothing you can do about it, except acknowledge you were wrong, which you apparently can't do.

""In the 1856 election, Grant cast his first presidential vote for Democrat James Buchanan, later saying he was really voting against Republican John C. Frémont over concern that his anti-slavery position would lead to southern secession and war.[88] Many considered Grant to be allied politically to his father-in-law, Frederick Dent, a prominent Missouri Democrat. Although Grant was not an abolitionist, neither was he considered a "slavery man", and could not bring himself to force slaves to do work. In 1859, Grant's suspected Democratic leanings cost him an appointment to become county engineer. By the 1860 election, Grant was openly Democratic, favoring Democrat Stephen A. Douglas over Abraham Lincoln, and Lincoln over the Southern Democrat, John C. Breckinridge. Lacking the residency requirements in Illinois at the time, he could not vote. After Lincoln was elected, Southern states seceded from the Union forming a Confederacy, seizing federal forts and institutions."

You were trying to prove that Republican Grant owned the slave. My reply to you was, he did not willingly own the slave, he inherited a slave from his father in law, and then he freed him. By the way, even if he was the slave owner for short period of time, that happened when he was Democrat. Got it? Yet?

Again --- see above.

NOR does it matter. Because again, 79th time now --- nobody needed a political party to own a slave.

I agree, nobody needed political party to own the slave. Without providing data, your guess is as good as mine. If you owned the slave, first you couldn't be Republican, and second, you would't relate or vote for someone who wants to abolish slavery. I suspect it's real challenge for you, but I'll ask anyways, if you were slave owner, who would you relate to?

Probably my crops and how much money they would make me that year.

Think I already mentioned this but you have to grow out of this childish binary mentality where the entire world is comprised of "Republicans" or "Democrats". This planet simply does not work that way. Never did. Perhaps that should be your starting point. Once you get past it you'll see the folly of these ridiculous posts about Grant and Composition/Generalization fallacies.

One more thing... I never edited or changed your posts. Every time I quoted parts of your posts that are relevant to my replies I provided links to your originals. It's obvious, so stop bitching.

Nor have I edited your posts. Perhaps Woody Wilson did it while taking a break charging up Stone Mountain.

 

[Pogo]

Who Am I?

(note -- this is a history quiz, not a real quote)

I was the first President of the 20th century to prosecute the Ku Klux Klan. When I was a young boy the Klan had threatened my father after he condemned the Klan publicly from his position in the state legislature. Upon receiving the threat he defiantly challenged the Klan to come to the house and carry out their threat to shoot him. I hid in a basement while my father, uncles and older cousins stayed up with shotguns all night. The cowards never showed up. After that my father always carried a gun, even to the state house. Decades later when I was in Congress the Klan burned a cross on my family property. I fought them all my life.​

Spoiler: Who am I?

Lyndon Johnson

 

[American_Jihad]

...