Quick History lesson

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Not "undeniable"... what is the word... "mythological".

That's why I keep asking for some kind of documentation of this causal relationship. And why I keep not getting any.

1924 Democratic National Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Iceman]

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?

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.

So the KKK should have just laid down and let Blacks and Carpetbaggers take over the South?

 

[Pogo]

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.

Then why were they actively opposing the Republican government at the time? Surely something drove them to it.

I just told you why at the beginning of that post.

Why would the Klan work to elect a Republican governor of Indiana if it was an arm of the Democratic Party? You never did answer that.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Not "undeniable"... what is the word... "mythological".

That's why I keep asking for some kind of documentation of this causal relationship. And why I keep not getting any.

1924 Democratic National Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A national political convention has to do with more than the South. It's kind of the whole country.

Nevertheless your link disproves your point of a common ideology, here:
>> its (the KKK) participation was unwelcome by many DNC delegates, such as Catholics from the major cities of the Northeast and Midwest. The tension between pro- and anti-Klan delegates produced an intense and sometimes violent showdown between convention attendees from the states of Colorado and Missouri. Klan delegates opposed the nomination of New York Governor Al Smith because Smith was a Roman Catholic. Smith campaigned against William Gibbs McAdoo, who had the support of most Klan delegates. <<

Obviously this is an outside group trying to muscle influence on a party whose philosophy isn't compatible. A Catholic - the horror!

Kind of like David Duke running for office as a Republican. Same shit, different party.

Anyway you'll notice, for an "arm of the Democratic Party", the Klan didn't get its way then either. You'd think an "arm of the Democratic Party" would have some pull in the party's own convention.

Unless maybe.... it wasn't "an arm of the Democratic Party" after all...

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

So the KKK should have just laid down and let Blacks and Carpetbaggers take over the South?

Excuse me?

 

[Iceman]

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.

So the KKK should have just laid down and let Blacks and Carpetbaggers take over the South?

Excuse me?

You heard me. Do I need to repeat myself?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Then why were they actively opposing the Republican government at the time? Surely something drove them to it.

I just told you why at the beginning of that post.

Why would the Klan work to elect a Republican governor of Indiana if it was an arm of the Democratic Party? You never did answer that.

Oh, because the time frame is different. I'm talking about the days of Ulysses Grant here. You are referring to the Second Klan, not the First. Until the Klan dissipated they were strictly attack dogs for Democrats in the South. They did everything to terrorize them into voting for people who held more sympathetic views towards their causes. Namely Democrats. I'm talking 1860's here, not 1920's. During Grant's tenure, they actively opposed him and the Republicans, which led to him/them introducing the Force Acts (1870-75). He obliterated them. They were one of the original arms of the Democratic Party. In the book by David Barton entitled Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black and White,"The Klan terrorized black Americans through murders and public floggings; relief was granted only if individuals promised not to vote for Republican tickets, and violation of this oath was punishable by death," he said. "Since the Klan targeted Republicans in general, it did not limit its violence simply to black Republicans; white Republicans were also included." It also says in that book that Democrats worked hand in glove with the KKK and endorsed their behavior.

I will quote the testimony of Carolina Democrat E.W. Seibels, who testified before a Congressional inquiry, saying in part that "they (the Ku Klux Klan) belong to the reform part &#8211; (that is, to) our party, the Democratic Party.&#8221; Essentially, what that means was they were a reformist wing of the Democratic party, much like the Tea Party is for the Republicans. And no, I'm not comparing the two ideologically.

Multiple Congressional investigations bear out what I'm saying here. Especially the one done in 1872, thirteen volumes worth. Specifically in page 97 during E.W. Seibels testimony to either Chairman from the House, Luke P. Poland or the Chairman from the Senate, John Scott:

(Chairman) Question. So far as your information goes, are the persons who commit these outrages, these young men, let them be organized or not, all of one political party?

(Seibels) Answer. Yes, sir; I should say that they are all of one party; and I will tell you why I say so. It is a sweeping remark, it is true, but almost nine hundred and ninety-nine out of every thousand of the decent people of South Carolina belong to the demo cratic party, or to the reform party. And when anything of that sort is done, I take it for granted that they belong to the reform party, or our party, the democratic party. In South Carolina the republican party is composed entirely of the colored people.

(Chairman) Question. Do you include in the nine hundred and ninety-nine out of every thousand the men who commit these outrages?

(Seibels) Answer. Yes, sir; I suppose they belong to our party, or the democratic party.

Report of the joint select committee appointed to inquire into the condition of affairs in the late insurrectionary states, 1871, page 97


Furthermore, it says right in your own rendition of the Wiki article that the Force Acts led to "segregationist white Democrats regaining power in all the Southern states by 1877." However, in 1915, Pogo, the Klan re-emerged in Atlanta. The Second Klan was far different from the first. Instead of just attacking Republicans, it branched out, gaining millions of members this time. It adopted a new philosophy. White good, black bad. But there was no doubt about the first klan. Even so, they continued working closely and allying themselves with southern Democrats from 1915 onwards. Instead of just Democrats, they wanted the entire country. They would do it by any means possible. Perhaps you are right about the second incarnation of the KKK, but not the first.

Look. I'm a quick study, Pogo. I delve into archives regularly. I'm hoping to apply this talent in college one day, but sadly it is confined to political forums for now.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So the KKK should have just laid down and let Blacks and Carpetbaggers take over the South?

Excuse me?

You heard me. Do I need to repeat myself?

Your question is patently outrageous! How dare you ask me such a thing?! Are you suggesting that we are supposed to eradicate or otherwise remove them from the South?

What is wrong with you? Yes! They should have let both white and black have equal dominion in the South. Guess what the 14th Amendment is for, hotshot?

 

[elektra]

wasn't the KKK a response to carpet baggers and organizations from the north who were agitating the blacks into committing crime.

I believe the KKK kind of originated by a group of southerners dressing in sheets as costumes, as masquerade balls were the rage of the time, hence they dressed as the could, serenaded thier sweethearts, and on the way home, riding thier horses in white sheets, they inadvertently scared the blacks who were a bit superstitious and prone to child-like fears.

Anyhow, I believe that is mostly accurate, not sure if this is in earlier posts

 

[TemplarKormac]

wasn't the KKK a response to carpet baggers and organizations from the north who were agitating the blacks into committing crime.

I believe the KKK kind of originated by a group of southerners dressing in sheets as costumes, as masquerade balls were the rage of the time, hence they dressed as the could, serenaded thier sweethearts, and on the way home, riding thier horses in white sheets, they inadvertently scared the blacks who were a bit superstitious and prone to child-like fears.

Anyhow, I believe that is mostly accurate, not sure if this is in earlier posts

What?

 

[ron4342]

If the republican party is so strongly for minorities why are they NOT pushing for the immigration bill proposed by the Democrats? Currently boehner is sitting on it in the House. Where is republican concern for the Hispanics?

 

[TemplarKormac]

If the republican party is so strongly for minorities why are they NOT pushing for the immigration bill proposed by the Democrats? Currently boehner is sitting on it in the House. Where is republican concern for the Hispanics?

Currently, people losing their insurance due to Obamacare and a busted website has taken center stage. Immigration reform is a diversionary tactic, ron. Get that out of here. Take you talking points with you. Your argument is a non sequitur.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If the republican party is so strongly for minorities why are they NOT pushing for the immigration bill proposed by the Democrats? Currently boehner is sitting on it in the House. Where is republican concern for the Hispanics?

Currently, people losing their insurance due to Obamacare and a busted website has taken center stage. Immigration reform is a diversionary tactic, ron. Get that out of here. Take you talking points with you. Your argument is a non sequitur.

In a discussion about politics and minorities, a person brings up a policy that effects minorities.....and you tell him he is off topic. As evidence of his being off topic, you cite the fact that Obamacare is the news grabber of the moment.

That makes perfect sense.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If the republican party is so strongly for minorities why are they NOT pushing for the immigration bill proposed by the Democrats? Currently boehner is sitting on it in the House. Where is republican concern for the Hispanics?

Currently, people losing their insurance due to Obamacare and a busted website has taken center stage. Immigration reform is a diversionary tactic, ron. Get that out of here. Take you talking points with you. Your argument is a non sequitur.

In a discussion about politics and minorities, a person brings up a policy that effects minorities.....and you tell him he is off topic. As evidence of his being off topic, you cite the fact that Obamacare is the news grabber of the moment.

That makes perfect sense.

Yes it does, LL. Why is it Obama suddenly pivots to immigration reform in the midst of the Obamacare disaster? I'd say that makes it a news grabber, and a topic Obama and Democrats wish to avoid.

Anything else from you this morning?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Currently, people losing their insurance due to Obamacare and a busted website has taken center stage. Immigration reform is a diversionary tactic, ron. Get that out of here. Take you talking points with you. Your argument is a non sequitur.

In a discussion about politics and minorities, a person brings up a policy that effects minorities.....and you tell him he is off topic. As evidence of his being off topic, you cite the fact that Obamacare is the news grabber of the moment.

That makes perfect sense.

Yes it does, LL. Why is it Obama suddenly pivots to immigration reform in the midst of the Obamacare disaster? I'd say that makes it a news grabber, and a topic Obama and Democrats wish to avoid.

Anything else from you this morning?

Probably. Go ahead and post something else that is stupid.

Why not agree that Ron was on topic and you are not? Be a man and admit your fuck-up.

 

[TemplarKormac]

In a discussion about politics and minorities, a person brings up a policy that effects minorities.....and you tell him he is off topic. As evidence of his being off topic, you cite the fact that Obamacare is the news grabber of the moment.

That makes perfect sense.

Yes it does, LL. Why is it Obama suddenly pivots to immigration reform in the midst of the Obamacare disaster? I'd say that makes it a news grabber, and a topic Obama and Democrats wish to avoid.

Anything else from you this morning?

Probably. Go ahead and post something else that is stupid.

Why not agree that Ron was on topic and you are not? Be a man and admit your fuck-up.

Coming from you that's hilarious. Did you come here to pick a fight or actually talk about the topic? Furthermore the OP discusses the 13th Amendment (abolition of slavery), the 14th Amendment (equal protection and citizenship for slaves), and 15th Amendment (voting rights for slaves). I'd say slavery, racism and the KKK all go hand in hand here. Oh and it mentions Obamacare. So, who was it that didn't read the OP? We aren't talking about Hispanics. Deal with it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yes it does, LL. Why is it Obama suddenly pivots to immigration reform in the midst of the Obamacare disaster? I'd say that makes it a news grabber, and a topic Obama and Democrats wish to avoid.

Anything else from you this morning?

Probably. Go ahead and post something else that is stupid.

Why not agree that Ron was on topic and you are not? Be a man and admit your fuck-up.

Coming from you that's hilarious. Did you come here to pick a fight or actually talk about the topic? Furthermore the OP discusses the 13th Amendment (abolition of slavery), the 14th Amendment (equal protection and citizenship for slaves), and 15th Amendment (voting rights for slaves). I'd say slavery, racism and the KKK all go hand in hand here. Oh and it mentions Obamacare. So, who was it that didn't read the OP? We aren't talking about Hispanics. Deal with it.

I contributed to this dopey thread yesterday......long before it was made dopier by your input.

The premise that the OP presents is false. The GOP is not a party that demonstrates concern for the issues that minorities face in this country.

Ron introduced the question of why the GOP is blocking legislation that is obviously of great concern to minorities. He did so as a direct response to the OP. Then, you decided that he was off topic......instead of arguing his point.

What do you have to say about this? Do you agree that the GOP lags far behind the DNC on this issue? Will you concede that the Democratic Party has the support of minorities....including Hispanics......because of the policies that it has introduced over the past 40 years?

 

[JoeB131]

13th amendment: abolished slavery
100% republican support, 23% democrat support

14th amendment: gave citizenship to freed slaves
94% republican support, 0% democrat support

15th amendment: right to vote for all
100% republican support, 0% democrat support

Obamacare
0% republican support
100% democrat support


Need I say more?

Not sure what you are saying at all, guy.

obviously, both parties were VERY DIFFERENT 150 years ago.

The GOP was more of a populist, Urban party and the Democrats were more of an elitist, Rural party.

And they've effectively switched places.

It's the most recent history that probably concerns minorities. That the GOP has opposed every civil rights act since the 1960's. That they've used inflametory racist rhetoric like "Welfare Queens" and "Willie Horton" to try to keep white people scared and voting against their own economic interests.

And now, when they can't win elections, they are saying, "Oh, hey, remember that time Lincoln Freed the Slaves?"

 

[paperview]

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, less than ten years old when the war began, 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. Just as today, if you want a shot at Senator from Alabama, you'd better run as a Republican, regardless what your own politics are. If you want a chance at getting elected anyway.

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.

Excellent post.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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, less than ten years old when the war began, 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. Just as today, if you want a shot at Senator from Alabama, you'd better run as a Republican, regardless what your own politics are. If you want a chance at getting elected anyway.

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.

Excellent post.

And you are nothing but a cheerleader.