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.
What does PARTY have to do with anything? BOTH parties have their own set of idiots, don't they?No. I don't recall you ever saying you wrote or edited any part of that article. Frankly, I don't care if Einstein wrote that article, Pogo. Of course for a time they were rooted in the Midwest, but to say they only affiliated themselves with democrats for expeditious means only is absurd. Your sarcasm doesn't go far in making your case either. The fact that they acted on disenfranchising blacks in the south should tell you they were involved with politics.
Democrats involved in politics:
David Duke, who before becoming a Republican in 1989 ran for the Democratic Presidential Nomination in 1988. He described himself as a "racial realist."
No shit. We can add Richard Shelby, Trent Lott, Jesse Helms and a bunch of others that followed Thurmond into the RP. Because Democrats today and Republicans tomorrow, they're still Southern Conservatives all the way. THAT is the point; it's a cultural phenomenon -- not a political one. You're confirming what I'm saying. Thank you.
Clifford Parker, the 64th governor of my state 1923 to 1927, revealed to have been a member of the Klan by the press at the time.
Clifford Mitchell Walker
George Washington Gordon, who served in Tennessee's 10th Congressional District in the 1860's, who happens to be one of it's inaugural if not founding members.
Bibb Graves, 38th Governor of Alabama, admitted he was a member of the Klan. Secretly endorsed by the Klan in 1922 during his gubernatorial campaign.
Supreme Court Justice Hugo Lafayette Black, served on the bench from 1937 to 1971. Joined the KKK for want of saving his political career.
Theodore G. Bilbo, served as the 39th and 42nd Governor of Mississippi (1916-20, 1928-32), as well as 11th Lieutenant Governor of same state (1912-16); elected to the Senate in 1930. Admitted his membership in the Klan on a radio show entitled "Meet the Press." He was quoted as saying "No man can leave the Klan. He takes an oath not to do that. Once a Ku Klux, always a Ku Klux."
Page 21 and 22 of this PDF - http://mdah.state.ms.us/pubs/bilbo.pdf
Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia Senator (1959-2010), recruited for the Ku Klux Klan in his 20's and 30's. Acquired the title Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops. He filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and voted against two black Supreme Court Nominees, Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas. He is quoted as saying in a letter to the Imperial Wizard "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia." He also Defended the Klan in his 1958 Senatorial Campaign.
And here you go digging yourself deeper, still insisting on pretending it's a political game.
James Eli Watson, Senator (R-IN)
Rice W. Means, Senator (R-CO)
Clarence Morley, Governor (R-CO)
David Duke -- Louisiana State Legislature, 81st Discrict (R) and party chairman for RP of St. Tammany Parish.
We already cited Governor Edward Jackson (R-IN)
And of the entire list both yours and mine -- the only one the KKK got behind with political support was Jackson. The rest happen to have been in office and happen to have been in the KKK. But the latter didn't actually make it happen.
Again -- it's whatever works in that time and place.... not a party ideology.
Btw the Hugo Black thing is hearsay. Undocumented.
DENIED.
Sorry, Pogo. That's history. They were founded as a wing of the Democratic Party. They sought to intimidate Republicans of that era through any means possible, including but not limited to threats, violence and murder. This led to a wave of insurgent paramilitary outfits such as the White League and the Red Shirts beginning 1874 through 1877, which then in turn led to the segregationist Democrats supplanting the Republican party as the dominant political force in the Southern States. It would be another 90 years before the party changed it's stances.
I know my history, Pogo. I'm no shill.
Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Didn't we do this before? I thought I told you, I myself wrote part of that Wiki entry. I happen to be sitting on a repository of research that my cousin (a writer) owned for his work, and I inherited.
Further, your quote above doesn't make your case. In a time when Republicans represented emancipation (remember those days? me neither), terrorizing Republicans would be what you'd expect a terrorist organization to be doing -- as well as blacks directly, Jews, Catholics and perceived loose women. But that no more makes them "Democrats" than it makes them Hitler or Henry the Eighth or God.
The KKK called themselves a "social" organization. The very little they dabbled in politics at all in terms of getting a candidate elected was a governor of Indiana (Edward Jackson) and a few members of the Anaheim City Council. ALL of them, for what it's worth, were Republicans.
Political parties are used for expediency -- not ideology.
No. I don't recall you ever saying you wrote or edited any part of that article. Frankly, I don't care if Einstein wrote that article, Pogo. Of course for a time they were rooted in the Midwest, which was heavily Republican, but to say they only affiliated themselves with Democrats for expeditious means only is absurd. Your sarcasm doesn't go far in making your case either. The fact that they acted on disenfranchising blacks in the south should tell you they were involved with politics.
Didn't we do this before? I thought I told you, I myself wrote part of that Wiki entry. I happen to be sitting on a repository of research that my cousin (a writer) owned for his work, and I inherited.
Further, your quote above doesn't make your case. In a time when Republicans represented emancipation (remember those days? me neither), terrorizing Republicans would be what you'd expect a terrorist organization to be doing -- as well as blacks directly, Jews, Catholics and perceived loose women. But that no more makes them "Democrats" than it makes them Hitler or Henry the Eighth or God.
The KKK called themselves a "social" organization. The very little they dabbled in politics at all in terms of getting a candidate elected was a governor of Indiana (Edward Jackson) and a few members of the Anaheim City Council. ALL of them, for what it's worth, were Republicans.
Political parties are used for expediency -- not ideology.
No. I don't recall you ever saying you wrote or edited any part of that article. Frankly, I don't care if Einstein wrote that article, Pogo. Of course for a time they were rooted in the Midwest, but to say they only affiliated themselves with democrats for expeditious means only is absurd. Your sarcasm doesn't go far in making your case either. The fact that they acted on disenfranchising blacks in the south should tell you they were involved with politics.
Democrats involved in politics:
David Duke, who before becoming a Republican in 1989 ran for the Democratic Presidential Nomination in 1988. He described himself as a "racial realist."
No shit. We can add Richard Shelby, Trent Lott, Jesse Helms and a bunch of others that followed Thurmond into the RP. Because Democrats today and Republicans tomorrow, they're still Southern Conservatives all the way. THAT is the point; it's a cultural phenomenon -- not a political one. You're confirming what I'm saying. Thank you.
Clifford Parker, the 64th governor of my state 1923 to 1927, revealed to have been a member of the Klan by the press at the time.
Walker drew criticism when he consulted with Ku Klux Klan members on issues regarding state policy. He was denounced by the press and revealed as being a member of the Klan in 1924.
Clifford Mitchell Walker
George Washington Gordon, who served in Tennessee's 10th Congressional District in the 1860's, who happens to be one of it's inaugural if not founding members.
Bibb Graves, 38th Governor of Alabama, admitted he was a member of the Klan. Secretly endorsed by the Klan in 1922 during his gubernatorial campaign.
Supreme Court Justice Hugo Lafayette Black, served on the bench from 1937 to 1971. Joined the KKK for want of saving his political career.
Theodore G. Bilbo, served as the 39th and 42nd Governor of Mississippi (1916-20, 1928-32), as well as 11th Lieutenant Governor of same state (1912-16); elected to the Senate in 1930. Admitted his membership in the Klan on a radio show entitled "Meet the Press." He was quoted as saying "No man can leave the Klan. He takes an oath not to do that. Once a Ku Klux, always a Ku Klux."
Page 21 and 22 of this PDF - http://mdah.state.ms.us/pubs/bilbo.pdf
Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia Senator (1959-2010), recruited for the Ku Klux Klan in his 20's and 30's. Acquired the title Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops. He filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and voted against two black Supreme Court Nominees, Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas. He is quoted as saying in a letter to the Imperial Wizard "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia." He also Defended the Klan in his 1958 Senatorial Campaign.
And here you go digging yourself deeper, still insisting on pretending it's a political game.
James Eli Watson, Senator (R-IN)
Rice W. Means, Senator (R-CO)
Clarence Morley, Governor (R-CO)
David Duke -- Louisiana State Legislature, 81st Discrict (R) and party chairman for RP of St. Tammany Parish.
We already cited Governor Edward Jackson (R-IN)
And of the entire list both yours and mine -- the only one the KKK got behind with political support was Jackson. The rest happen to have been in office and happen to have been in the KKK at some point. But the latter didn't actually make it happen.
Again -- it's whatever works in that time and place.... not a party ideology.
You don't have to explain who these people are. Again, I know the research; I wrote some of it. Btw the Hugo Black thing is hearsay. Undocumented.
Btw 2: for the record, Byrd didn't "defend" the Klan in 1958. That's a bad Wiki entry. Obviously I didn't write that one.
During his Senate campaign, he told a newspaper reporter that he personally felt the Klan had been incorrectly blamed for many acts committed by others.
I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.
Didn't we do this before? I thought I told you, I myself wrote part of that Wiki entry. I happen to be sitting on a repository of research that my cousin (a writer) owned for his work, and I inherited.
Further, your quote above doesn't make your case. In a time when Republicans represented emancipation (remember those days? me neither), terrorizing Republicans would be what you'd expect a terrorist organization to be doing -- as well as blacks directly, Jews, Catholics and perceived loose women. But that no more makes them "Democrats" than it makes them Hitler or Henry the Eighth or God.
The KKK called themselves a "social" organization. The very little they dabbled in politics at all in terms of getting a candidate elected was a governor of Indiana (Edward Jackson) and a few members of the Anaheim City Council. ALL of them, for what it's worth, were Republicans.
Political parties are used for expediency -- not ideology.
No. I don't recall you ever saying you wrote or edited any part of that article. Frankly, I don't care if Einstein wrote that article, Pogo. Of course for a time they were rooted in the Midwest, which was heavily Republican, but to say they only affiliated themselves with Democrats for expeditious means only is absurd. Your sarcasm doesn't go far in making your case either. The fact that they acted on disenfranchising blacks in the south should tell you they were involved with politics.
Actually that tells me they were involved in racism and a culture war. I thought we all knew that.
But no, it doesn't make the case that they dabbled in politics. Unless you think racism is political.
Btw the KKK wasn't "rooted in the Midwest". They made inroads there, particularly Indiana/Ohio, that "took" better than most places. But again, if Republicans were dominant in that area, then that's who they worked with, and in fact the only candidate they ever backed publicly was the Republican candidate for governor of Indiana.
I think my favorite oxymoron from this post was: "secretly endorsed"
So back to the original question, TK:
How do you guys figure you can just make shit up? I mean considering we have what we call "history books"?
No. I don't recall you ever saying you wrote or edited any part of that article. Frankly, I don't care if Einstein wrote that article, Pogo. Of course for a time they were rooted in the Midwest, but to say they only affiliated themselves with democrats for expeditious means only is absurd. Your sarcasm doesn't go far in making your case either. The fact that they acted on disenfranchising blacks in the south should tell you they were involved with politics.
Democrats involved in politics:
David Duke, who before becoming a Republican in 1989 ran for the Democratic Presidential Nomination in 1988. He described himself as a "racial realist."
No shit. We can add Richard Shelby, Trent Lott, Jesse Helms and a bunch of others that followed Thurmond into the RP. Because Democrats today and Republicans tomorrow, they're still Southern Conservatives all the way. THAT is the point; it's a cultural phenomenon -- not a political one. You're confirming what I'm saying. Thank you.
And here you go digging yourself deeper, still insisting on pretending it's a political game.
James Eli Watson, Senator (R-IN)
Rice W. Means, Senator (R-CO)
Clarence Morley, Governor (R-CO)
David Duke -- Louisiana State Legislature, 81st Discrict (R) and party chairman for RP of St. Tammany Parish.
We already cited Governor Edward Jackson (R-IN)
And of the entire list both yours and mine -- the only one the KKK got behind with political support was Jackson. The rest happen to have been in office and happen to have been in the KKK at some point. But the latter didn't actually make it happen.
Again -- it's whatever works in that time and place.... not a party ideology.
You don't have to explain who these people are. Again, I know the research; I wrote some of it. Btw the Hugo Black thing is hearsay. Undocumented.
Btw 2: for the record, Byrd didn't "defend" the Klan in 1958. That's a bad Wiki entry. Obviously I didn't write that one.
You proved my point for me, Pogo. But you explicitly denied that the KKK had no political involvement, and used political affiliations for expediency. You asked, I provided. And then you helped me make my case.
Byrd did defend the Klan in 1958, he made that clear in his book "A Senator's Shame"
During his Senate campaign, he told a newspaper reporter that he personally felt the Klan had been incorrectly blamed for many acts committed by others.
A Senator's Shame
More corroborating evidence as far as the list goes:
A letter written to Segregationist Theodore G. Bilbo in 1946:
I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.
While Democrats of this era have bear no responsibility for giving birth to the clan, their party bears that stain on it's history.
What does PARTY have to do with anything? BOTH parties have their own set of idiots, don't they?No shit. We can add Richard Shelby, Trent Lott, Jesse Helms and a bunch of others that followed Thurmond into the RP. Because Democrats today and Republicans tomorrow, they're still Southern Conservatives all the way. THAT is the point; it's a cultural phenomenon -- not a political one. You're confirming what I'm saying. Thank you.
And here you go digging yourself deeper, still insisting on pretending it's a political game.
James Eli Watson, Senator (R-IN)
Rice W. Means, Senator (R-CO)
Clarence Morley, Governor (R-CO)
David Duke -- Louisiana State Legislature, 81st Discrict (R) and party chairman for RP of St. Tammany Parish.
We already cited Governor Edward Jackson (R-IN)
And of the entire list both yours and mine -- the only one the KKK got behind with political support was Jackson. The rest happen to have been in office and happen to have been in the KKK. But the latter didn't actually make it happen.
Again -- it's whatever works in that time and place.... not a party ideology.
Btw the Hugo Black thing is hearsay. Undocumented.
DENIED.
You can 'deny' all you want -- it's not a request. It's history. You can like it or lump it, but what you can't do is rewrite it.
Weren't you supposed to be bringing me some documentation of Klan "INFLUENCE" on politicians in the "SOUTH"?
A dry well, is it?
There weren’t many Republicans in the South prior to 1964, but that doesn’t mean the birth of the souther GOP was tied to “white racism.” That said, I am sure there were and are white racist southern GOP. No one would deny that. But it was the southern Democrats who were the party of slavery and, later, segregation. It was George Wallace, not John Tower, who stood in the southern schoolhouse door to block desegregation! The vast majority of Congressional GOP voted FOR the Civil Rights of 1964-65. The vast majority of those opposed to those acts were southern Democrats. Southern Democrats led to infamous filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The confusion arises from GOP Barry Goldwater’s vote against the ’64 act. He had voted in favor or all earlier bills and had led the integration of the Arizona Air National Guard, but he didn’t like the “private property” aspects of the ’64 law. In other words, Goldwater believed people’s private businesses and private clubs were subject only to market forces, not government mandates (“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”His vote against the Civil Rights Act was because of that one provision was, to my mind, a principled mistake.
This stance is what won Goldwater the South in 1964, and no doubt many racists voted for Goldwater in the mistaken belief that he opposed Negro Civil Rights. But Goldwater was not a racist; he was a libertarian who favored both civil rights and property rights.
Switch to 1968.
Richard Nixon was also a proponent of Civil Rights; it was a CA colleague who urged Ike to appoint Warren to the Supreme Court; he was a supporter of Brown v. Board, and favored sending troops to integrate Little Rock High). Nixon saw he could develop a “Southern strategy” based on Goldwater’s inroads. He did, but Independent Democrat George Wallace carried most of the deep south in 68. By 1972, however, Wallace was shot and paralyzed, and Nixon began to tilt the south to the GOP. The old guard Democrats began to fade away while a new generation of Southern politicians became Republicans. True, Strom Thurmond switched to GOP, but most of the old timers (Fulbright, Gore, Wallace, Byrd etc etc) retired as Dems.
Why did a new generation white Southerners join the GOP? Not because they thought Republicans were racists who would return the South to segregation, but because the GOP was a “local government, small government” party in the old Jeffersonian tradition. Southerners wanted less government and the GOP was their natural home.
Jimmy Carter, a Civil Rights Democrat, briefly returned some states to the Democrat fold, but in 1980, Goldwater’s heir, Ronald Reagan, sealed this deal for the GOP. The new ”Solid South” was solid GOP.
BUT, and we must stress this: the new southern Republicans were *integrationist* Republicans who accepted the Civil Rights revolution and full integration while retaining their love of Jeffersonian limited government principles
And let's not forget the White Citizen's Councils, and blast from the recent past, when Haley Barbor, Ole Gov of Miss. who had visions of a 2012 run for R pres'dint, really put his White Supremacist foot in his mouth defending the Councils, and of course, we have that picture of Barbour with the Council of Conservative Citizens, the White Collar KKK. He d'int mean to be a speakin' to them. Really he didn't.Actually that tells me they were involved in racism and a culture war. I thought we all knew that.
But no, it doesn't make the case that they dabbled in politics. Unless you think racism is political.
Btw the KKK wasn't "rooted in the Midwest". They made inroads there, particularly Indiana/Ohio, that "took" better than most places. But again, if Republicans were dominant in that area, then that's who they worked with, and in fact the only candidate they ever backed publicly was the Republican candidate for governor of Indiana. Which would be a bizarre move for what's been floated as "a wing of the Democratic Party". Why would a DP wing work to get a Republican elected?
So back to the original question, TK:
How do you guys figure you can just make shit up? I mean considering we have what we call "history books"?
I think my favorite oxymoron from this post was: "secretly endorsed"
History News Network | The Real Story of the White Citizens' CouncilIn a recent interview with The Weekly Standard, Barbour, who is a favorite of the ultraconservative, race-baiting Council of Conservative Citizens, offered a startling new interpretation of this group's massive resistance-era antecedent, the arch-segregationist White Citizens' Council, whose title was subsequently deracinated to become the Citizens' Councils of America. When asked how his hometown of Yazoo City, Mississippi came to integrate its public schools relatively peacefully in 1970, Barbour responded:Because the business community wouldnt stand for it, he said. You heard of the Citizens Councils? Up north they think it was like the KKK. Where I come from it was an organization of town leaders. In Yazoo City they passed a resolution that said anybody who started a chapter of the Klan would get their ass run out of town. If you had a job, youd lose it. If you had a store, theyd see nobody shopped there. We didnt have a problem with the Klan in Yazoo City.The White Citizens Council was formed in July 1954 in Indianola, a little north of Yazoo City in the heart of the Mississippi Delta, by a World War II veteran and plantation manager, Robert B. Tut Patterson, and some local businessmen and politicos. The council organizers had been inspired by a speech by Judge Tom Brady, also a Mississippian, who called on Southern whites to mount an organized resistance campaign against the Supreme Courts integration decree. The Council spread across, and ultimately out of, Mississippi, generally attracting the white economic and political elites of the Deep Souths Black Belt counties but later making some inroads among blue-collar whites in the cities as well.
Pledged to maintain white supremacy, the councils foreswore violence but did their best to intimidate blacks who might think about challenging the status quo and to make painful examples of those who did. Perched atop the local economic pyramid, the councils white elites could seriously reduce, if not cut off entirely, the flow of commerce and credit, not to mention employment, to blacks who got out of line. Council leaders typically made it a point to see that the names of any black persons who had attempted to register to vote or signed petitions for school desegregation made their way to the local newspapers so that whites in the community would know which blacks to fire, turn off their tenant farms, or deny credit.
An Alabama council member summed up his groups aims quite candidly when he explained, We intend to make it difficult, if not impossible, for a Negro who advocates desegregation to find and hold a job, get credit, or renew a mortgage.
Council membership may have reached a region-wide total of 300,000 at one point, but the groups political influence varied considerably from state to state. It was strongest by far in Mississippi, where the Council propagandized about the horrors of racial amalgamation and publicized the NAACPs well-known ties to communism. The group also worked closely with the publicly funded State Sovereignty Commission to spy on, harass, and undermine not only those thought to favor integration but those whose attitudes toward it were simply unclear.
The pugnacious editor and publisher Hazel Brannon Smith, who would win a Pulitzer Prize in 1964 for her editorial assaults on the Citizens Council, described the atmosphere in Holmes County, Mississippi, when the groups power was at its peak:The councils said that if we buried our heads in the sand long enough, the problem would go away. It was the technique of the big lie, like Hitler: tell it often enough and everybody will believe it. It finally got to the point where bank presidents and leading physicians were afraid to speak their honest opinions, because of this monster among us.What is so striking about Gov. Barbour's description of how the Citizens Council supposedly kept Yazoo City Klan-free is that it actually describes how the Council operated at the local level to keep blacks from pursuing their civil rights.
No. I don't recall you ever saying you wrote or edited any part of that article. Frankly, I don't care if Einstein wrote that article, Pogo. Of course for a time they were rooted in the Midwest, which was heavily Republican, but to say they only affiliated themselves with Democrats for expeditious means only is absurd. Your sarcasm doesn't go far in making your case either. The fact that they acted on disenfranchising blacks in the south should tell you they were involved with politics.
Actually that tells me they were involved in racism and a culture war. I thought we all knew that.
But no, it doesn't make the case that they dabbled in politics. Unless you think racism is political.
Btw the KKK wasn't "rooted in the Midwest". They made inroads there, particularly Indiana/Ohio, that "took" better than most places. But again, if Republicans were dominant in that area, then that's who they worked with, and in fact the only candidate they ever backed publicly was the Republican candidate for governor of Indiana.
I think my favorite oxymoron from this post was: "secretly endorsed"
So back to the original question, TK:
How do you guys figure you can just make shit up? I mean considering we have what we call "history books"?
Given that you don't cite any of these "history books" how do I know what you're saying is accurate? Gee, you seem to think unsubstantiated knowledge trumps just about everything else.
Actually that tells me they were involved in racism and a culture war. I thought we all knew that.
But no, it doesn't make the case that they dabbled in politics. Unless you think racism is political.
Btw the KKK wasn't "rooted in the Midwest". They made inroads there, particularly Indiana/Ohio, that "took" better than most places. But again, if Republicans were dominant in that area, then that's who they worked with, and in fact the only candidate they ever backed publicly was the Republican candidate for governor of Indiana.
I think my favorite oxymoron from this post was: "secretly endorsed"
So back to the original question, TK:
How do you guys figure you can just make shit up? I mean considering we have what we call "history books"?
Given that you don't cite any of these "history books" how do I know what you're saying is accurate? Gee, you seem to think unsubstantiated knowledge trumps just about everything else.
I used your own Wiki link and interpreted what you claimed it said.
I have other stuff here; I could hold it up to my screen and turn the camera on
This one's especially interesting:
"The Present-Day Ku Klux Klan Movement"
Report by the Committee on Un-American Activities
House of Representatives
Ninetieth Congress
First Session
December 11, 1967
371 pages plus index, with detailed history.
It's not online anywhere. I've checked.
What does PARTY have to do with anything? BOTH parties have their own set of idiots, don't they?
DENIED.
You can 'deny' all you want -- it's not a request. It's history. You can like it or lump it, but what you can't do is rewrite it.
Weren't you supposed to be bringing me some documentation of Klan "INFLUENCE" on politicians in the "SOUTH"?
A dry well, is it?
Actually, since you chose to look past this little tidbit, their actions in the South led to a Democratic takeover there for the better part of a century. Segregationists ruled the political arena in that part of the country until they and their cause were broken by the signage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964.
Also, the only concrete defection of a segregationist Democrat to the Republican Party was Strom Thurmond. Your whole premise is "Since Strom Thurmond joined, they all joined, and thus they became the GOP" guess again, Pogo.
There werent many Republicans in the South prior to 1964, but that doesnt mean the birth of the souther GOP was tied to white racism. That said, I am sure there were and are white racist southern GOP. No one would deny that. But it was the southern Democrats who were the party of slavery and, later, segregation. It was George Wallace, not John Tower, who stood in the southern schoolhouse door to block desegregation! The vast majority of Congressional GOP voted FOR the Civil Rights of 1964-65. The vast majority of those opposed to those acts were southern Democrats. Southern Democrats led to infamous filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The confusion arises from GOP Barry Goldwaters vote against the 64 act. He had voted in favor or all earlier bills and had led the integration of the Arizona Air National Guard, but he didnt like the private property aspects of the 64 law. In other words, Goldwater believed peoples private businesses and private clubs were subject only to market forces, not government mandates (We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.) His vote against the Civil Rights Act was because of that one provision was, to my mind, a principled mistake.
This stance is what won Goldwater the South in 1964, and no doubt many racists voted for Goldwater in the mistaken belief that he opposed Negro Civil Rights. But Goldwater was not a racist; he was a libertarian who favored both civil rights and property rights.
Switch to 1968.
Richard Nixon was also a proponent of Civil Rights; it was a CA colleague who urged Ike to appoint Warren to the Supreme Court; he was a supporter of Brown v. Board, and favored sending troops to integrate Little Rock High). Nixon saw he could develop a Southern strategy based on Goldwaters inroads. He did, but Independent Democrat George Wallace carried most of the deep south in 68. By 1972, however, Wallace was shot and paralyzed, and Nixon began to tilt the south to the GOP. The old guard Democrats began to fade away while a new generation of Southern politicians became Republicans. True, Strom Thurmond switched to GOP, but most of the old timers (Fulbright, Gore, Wallace, Byrd etc etc) retired as Dems.
Why did a new generation white Southerners join the GOP? Not because they thought Republicans were racists who would return the South to segregation, but because the GOP was a local government, small government party in the old Jeffersonian tradition. Southerners wanted less government and the GOP was their natural home.
Jimmy Carter, a Civil Rights Democrat, briefly returned some states to the Democrat fold, but in 1980, Goldwaters heir, Ronald Reagan, sealed this deal for the GOP. The new Solid South was solid GOP.
BUT, and we must stress this: the new southern Republicans were *integrationist* Republicans who accepted the Civil Rights revolution and full integration while retaining their love of Jeffersonian limited government principles
- Mike Allen, Professor of History at the University of Washington, Tacoma
At the time of Ulysses S. Grant's election to the presidency, white supremacists were conducting a reign of terror throughout the South. In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power.
The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1865. Originally founded as a social club for former Confederate soldiers, the Klan evolved into a terrorist organization. It would be responsible for thousands of deaths, and would help to weaken the political power of Southern blacks and Republicans.
Given that you don't cite any of these "history books" how do I know what you're saying is accurate? Gee, you seem to think unsubstantiated knowledge trumps just about everything else.
I used your own Wiki link and interpreted what you claimed it said.
I have other stuff here; I could hold it up to my screen and turn the camera on
This one's especially interesting:
"The Present-Day Ku Klux Klan Movement"
Report by the Committee on Un-American Activities
House of Representatives
Ninetieth Congress
First Session
December 11, 1967
371 pages plus index, with detailed history.
It's not online anywhere. I've checked.
Key word "interpreted" what I said. This leaves your argument open to flaws. Namely you being a self proclaimed authority on the Ku Klux Klan. Since you helped write that wiki article, how do I know it isn't tainted with injections of your bias?
You say that report isn't online? Perhaps you could look a little bit harder.
https://ia601201.us.archive.org/17/...ntReportNinetiethCongressFirst/HUAC1_text.pdf
https://ia601201.us.archive.org/17/...ovementReportNinetiethCongressFirst/HUAC1.pdf
There is both a Text PDF version and a photocopied PDF version at archive.org.
At the time of Ulysses S. Grant's election to the presidency, white supremacists were conducting a reign of terror throughout the South. In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power.
The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1865. Originally founded as a social club for former Confederate soldiers, the Klan evolved into a terrorist organization. It would be responsible for thousands of deaths, and would help to weaken the political power of Southern blacks and Republicans.
Rise of the Ku Klux Klan . U.S. Grant: Warrior . WGBH American Experience | PBS
You can 'deny' all you want -- it's not a request. It's history. You can like it or lump it, but what you can't do is rewrite it.
Weren't you supposed to be bringing me some documentation of Klan "INFLUENCE" on politicians in the "SOUTH"?
A dry well, is it?
Actually, since you chose to look past this little tidbit, their actions in the South led to a Democratic takeover there for the better part of a century. Segregationists ruled the political arena in that part of the country until they and their cause were broken by the signage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964.
Also, the only concrete defection of a segregationist Democrat to the Republican Party was Strom Thurmond. Your whole premise is "Since Strom Thurmond joined, they all joined, and thus they became the GOP" guess again, Pogo.
There weren’t many Republicans in the South prior to 1964, but that doesn’t mean the birth of the souther GOP was tied to “white racism.” That said, I am sure there were and are white racist southern GOP. No one would deny that. But it was the southern Democrats who were the party of slavery and, later, segregation. It was George Wallace, not John Tower, who stood in the southern schoolhouse door to block desegregation! The vast majority of Congressional GOP voted FOR the Civil Rights of 1964-65. The vast majority of those opposed to those acts were southern Democrats. Southern Democrats led to infamous filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The confusion arises from GOP Barry Goldwater’s vote against the ’64 act. He had voted in favor or all earlier bills and had led the integration of the Arizona Air National Guard, but he didn’t like the “private property” aspects of the ’64 law. In other words, Goldwater believed people’s private businesses and private clubs were subject only to market forces, not government mandates (“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”
This stance is what won Goldwater the South in 1964, and no doubt many racists voted for Goldwater in the mistaken belief that he opposed Negro Civil Rights. But Goldwater was not a racist; he was a libertarian who favored both civil rights and property rights.
Switch to 1968.
Richard Nixon was also a proponent of Civil Rights; it was a CA colleague who urged Ike to appoint Warren to the Supreme Court; he was a supporter of Brown v. Board, and favored sending troops to integrate Little Rock High). Nixon saw he could develop a “Southern strategy” based on Goldwater’s inroads. He did, but Independent Democrat George Wallace carried most of the deep south in 68. By 1972, however, Wallace was shot and paralyzed, and Nixon began to tilt the south to the GOP. The old guard Democrats began to fade away while a new generation of Southern politicians became Republicans. True, Strom Thurmond switched to GOP, but most of the old timers (Fulbright, Gore, Wallace, Byrd etc etc) retired as Dems.
Why did a new generation white Southerners join the GOP? Not because they thought Republicans were racists who would return the South to segregation, but because the GOP was a “local government, small government” party in the old Jeffersonian tradition. Southerners wanted less government and the GOP was their natural home.
Jimmy Carter, a Civil Rights Democrat, briefly returned some states to the Democrat fold, but in 1980, Goldwater’s heir, Ronald Reagan, sealed this deal for the GOP. The new ”Solid South” was solid GOP.
BUT, and we must stress this: the new southern Republicans were *integrationist* Republicans who accepted the Civil Rights revolution and full integration while retaining their love of Jeffersonian limited government principles
- Mike Allen, Professor of History at the University of Washington, Tacoma
The question was for "The T", who abandoned it and ran away, but you didn't prove the case. All you did was reassert the assertion without a basis. Again sorry, but saying so doesn't make it so.
As for the actual Southern Strategy and the morphing of the South from blue to red, that's already been covered earlier here.
Don't discount the importance of the backlash to the Civil Rights Act. LBJ himself noted of it, though he underestimated the time frame, "we (the DP) have lost the South for a generation". He knew the exodus from blue to red would inevitably result. For Thurmond, it took all of two months.
At the time of Ulysses S. Grant's election to the presidency, white supremacists were conducting a reign of terror throughout the South. In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power.
The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1865. Originally founded as a social club for former Confederate soldiers, the Klan evolved into a terrorist organization. It would be responsible for thousands of deaths, and would help to weaken the political power of Southern blacks and Republicans.
Rise of the Ku Klux Klan . U.S. Grant: Warrior . WGBH American Experience | PBS
Thank you. So you concede and I can go to bed?
Actually, since you chose to look past this little tidbit, their actions in the South led to a Democratic takeover there for the better part of a century. Segregationists ruled the political arena in that part of the country until they and their cause were broken by the signage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964.
Also, the only concrete defection of a segregationist Democrat to the Republican Party was Strom Thurmond. Your whole premise is "Since Strom Thurmond joined, they all joined, and thus they became the GOP" guess again, Pogo.
- Mike Allen, Professor of History at the University of Washington, Tacoma
The question was for "The T", who abandoned it and ran away, but you didn't prove the case. All you did was reassert the assertion without a basis. Again sorry, but saying so doesn't make it so.
As for the actual Southern Strategy and the morphing of the South from blue to red, that's already been covered earlier here.
Don't discount the importance of the backlash to the Civil Rights Act. LBJ himself noted of it, though he underestimated the time frame, "we (the DP) have lost the South for a generation". He knew the exodus from blue to red would inevitably result. For Thurmond, it took all of two months.
Maybe three people from Thurmond's party ever switched. They retired not soon after. As for the Southern Strategy, it failed. It served it's purpose during Nixon's campaign, in 1964 and 1970; but it didn't hold much weight in 1976 as the entire south voted Democratic in electing Jimmy Carter. In 1980 they all voted for Reagan, Democrat and Republican alike, 1984 was the same way, and so was 1988. In 1992, Bush and Clinton carried the South equally, as well as again with Clinton and Dole carrying 6 states apiece. And by 2000 and 2004 Republicans had regained control of most state legislatures in the south for the first time in history. Suffice it to say, the Southern Strategy had a negligible impact on politics post Nixon.
And actually, I was responding to the question. As you may already know, the Klan was revived in Atlanta, in 1915. To say they didn't have political influence in the south is preposterous. There were people like Arkansas Congressman James M. Hinds, who was assassinated by the Klan in October of 1868. Then the Klan subsequently they murdered close to 1,300 Republican voters that year, all of this which resulted in a Democratic landslide in Columbia County, Georgia during the gubernatorial election. While it may have only been a social group for a year or so, it sudden became a paramilitary organization with political aims and goals, helping Democrats, hurting Republicans. They knew which side to join, and they stuck with them in the South.
The Political Influence of the Ku Klux Klan in Georgia, 1915-1925 by Clement Charlton Moseley - JSTOR
Thank you. So you concede and I can go to bed?
No. Given your penchant for selective reading, we could be up all night if nature allowed it. Read the sentence below it:
"It would be responsible for thousands of deaths, and would help to weaken the political power of Southern blacks and Republicans."
Now, we can continue this debate later on if you wish. The impact the KKK had on the Democratic party in the century after it's creation is undeniable. Especially in the South.
The question was for "The T", who abandoned it and ran away, but you didn't prove the case. All you did was reassert the assertion without a basis. Again sorry, but saying so doesn't make it so.
As for the actual Southern Strategy and the morphing of the South from blue to red, that's already been covered earlier here.
Don't discount the importance of the backlash to the Civil Rights Act. LBJ himself noted of it, though he underestimated the time frame, "we (the DP) have lost the South for a generation". He knew the exodus from blue to red would inevitably result. For Thurmond, it took all of two months.
Maybe three people from Thurmond's party ever switched. They retired not soon after. As for the Southern Strategy, it failed. It served it's purpose during Nixon's campaign, in 1964 and 1970; but it didn't hold much weight in 1976 as the entire south voted Democratic in electing Jimmy Carter. In 1980 they all voted for Reagan, Democrat and Republican alike, 1984 was the same way, and so was 1988. In 1992, Bush and Clinton carried the South equally, as well as again with Clinton and Dole carrying 6 states apiece. And by 2000 and 2004 Republicans had regained control of most state legislatures in the south for the first time in history. Suffice it to say, the Southern Strategy had a negligible impact on politics post Nixon.
And actually, I was responding to the question. As you may already know, the Klan was revived in Atlanta, in 1915. To say they didn't have political influence in the south is preposterous. There were people like Arkansas Congressman James M. Hinds, who was assassinated by the Klan in October of 1868. Then the Klan subsequently they murdered close to 1,300 Republican voters that year, all of this which resulted in a Democratic landslide in Columbia County, Georgia during the gubernatorial election. While it may have only been a social group for a year or so, it sudden became a paramilitary organization with political aims and goals, helping Democrats, hurting Republicans. They knew which side to join, and they stuck with them in the South.
The Political Influence of the Ku Klux Klan in Georgia, 1915-1925 by Clement Charlton Moseley - JSTOR
You're still pedaling this false equivalence bicycle. There's no doubt the KKK persecuted Republicans, but they didn't do so because they were Republicans or because they represented some Conservative ideology; far from it. They did so because those Republicans (at the time) represented change to the social order that the KKK sought to preserve. That is in fact how the Klan saw itself.
Before the Southern Strategy, being a Democrat was simply the established entrenched custom. The first Republican President had vanquished the South in a Civil War and it was bitter about it; there wasn't a whole lot of chance that President's party was going to gain a foothold. So for the foreseeable future, the Democratic Party (the only one that had really existed before the War and still did) was "it". If you were a racist asshole KKK member who wanted to run for Senate, you ran as a Democrat. If you were a kindly old soul who wanted to run for Dogcatcher, again you ran as a Democrat. Neither of those makes the DP the party of either racist asshole Klan members or kindly old animal lovers.
Although the rural areas have morphed like a Christmas color wheel after the CRA, in some places the pattern continues to hold even in recent time. One particular self-absorbed asshole wanted to be mayor of a large city -- even though he was a lifelong Republican, he ran as a Democrat to get the job. His name is Ray Nagin. But again, his changing his party overnight doesn't make him have a different political philosophy. It makes him either an opportunist or a pragmatist, depending on how sympathetically you want to view him. But it didn't make him an ideological Democrat.
Political parties are tools, the means to an end, the end being power. They like to assume certain political leanings as a mission, that's true. But that doesn't make them some kind of religion that pervades everything any member does or says. It isn't.
And if the Klan were to re-rise today (it's happened before) they would be persecuting Democrats -- for exactly the same reasons they formerly persecuted Republicans. Which just demonstrates how not about a party it is.
