Republicans..The real allies of African Americans

[Dragon]

Wrong.. But take this opportunity to prove your opinion, if not that's all it is, not based on fact.

Which opinion, that Republicans haven't always been conservative, or that all of your examples of Republican support for civil rights came before the 1960s? For the second, it's on record on this thread. For the first, I give you:

Abraham Lincoln, champion of big government and opponent of states' rights
Theodore Roosevelt, champion of workers' rights, advocate of socialized medicine, and opponent of big business

That's just the two most striking examples. Oh, and let's not forget the so-called "Radical Republicans" of Reconstruction, who wanted to institute full racial equality by force of law in the 1870s. Or the fact that the first anti-trust laws and the first protections for the rights of working people were put in place under Republican administrations by Republican Congresses.

If you consider yourself a Republican, you might want to explore the history of your party, but prepare yourself for a shock. From its founding in the 1850s until at least the 1920s, the GOP was clearly America's liberal/progressive party, not its conservative party, while the Democrats, who were you may recall the party behind secession and the attempt to preserve slavery, were the conservatives.

The process by which this changed was long and complicated. (And so this will be a long post, but you did ask for facts.) It started in 1912. Prior to that year, a wave of public demand for reform was answered by Republicans (as was proper for the liberal/progressive party) under Theodore Roosevelt and W.H. Taft. But in 1912, TR decided to run for the presidency again after having been out of office for a term. He won most of the GOP primaries, but the Republican machine managed to steer the nomination to Taft anyway. Roosevelt stomped out of the convention, formed a third party and ran on that ticket, so there was a three-way race. Taking advantage of this opportunity, Democrat Woodrow Wilson adopted his own progressive agenda (because that was the tenor of the times) and won the election. So for the first time since Andrew Jackson, a Democrat in the White House governed as a liberal/progressive. This re-introduced the idea that Democrats could be liberals, which in the distant past they had been (the Democratic Party being older than the GOP).

The second part of the transformation came in the 1920s and 1930s. The public mood swung back to the right in the '20s, and a laissez-faire Republican was elected and, when he died in office, was followed by another pro-business Republican (Harding and Coolidge). He was followed in turn by a progressive Republican (Hoover). But this progressive-conservative back-and-forth was only in regard to business and workers' rights; on race and civil rights the GOP remained the progressive party and the Democrats the conservative one all through this period.

Hoover intended to move the GOP back towards the progressive side of the equation, but the Great Depression upset his plans and created an opportunity for TR's cousin running as a Democrat. Franklin Roosevelt's four-term electoral success cemented in place the association of the Democrats with progressivism on economic issues, but even so the GOP remained the progressive party on racial issues because the Dems had to deal with the influence of their own Southern pols where the Democrats commanded a huge majority.

The next part of the switch occurred in the 1960s. At that time, responding to civil rights agitation, LBJ and the non-Southern Democrats, together with many Republicans in Congress, passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. In fact, go here: Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and you can see that in both houses of Congress, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 received the votes of more than 80% of Republicans, while receiving the votes of only 60+% of the Democrats. So at this point, on civil rights, the Republicans were still very much the liberal party, as they always had been since Lincoln's time.

When he signed the Civil Rights Act, Lyndon Johnson is said to have said, "I just gave the South to the Republicans for a generation." It was at this point that the final transformation of the GOP from a liberal to a conservative party began. Southern whites became disenchanted with the Democrats and an opportunity existed for Republicans to court them, which they began to do. In order to do this, the GOP had to soften its traditional sharply liberal stance on civil rights, which it did. Since that time, or at any rate since the end of the Nixon administration (the transformation was ongoing then), it has been the Democrats rather than the Republicans who were the champions of civil rights -- quite a role reversal considering the parties' histories.

There have been several further steps in the transformation, including the Reagan years, the rise of the religious right, and the Tea Party, but those were the principle stages.

So your suggestion that the Republicans have "always been about liberty" is, well, empty rhetoric devoid of fact -- precisely what you are accusing me of using. The GOP does not today stand for the same things it did originally. It is a radically changed party. And as I said, "conservative" and "Republican" do not mean the same thing, and were at one time even opposites.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are correct in that you are wrong, Jroc. The GOP has slipped (yet again) on this issue. Classical liberals who are conservatives are about liberty. You are not one, therefore, you are merely ideologuing.

Jake (c'est moi) asked you for the evidence to support your opinion. You have not done that, but you want others to refute your nonsense opinion with evidence.

Get to it, silly one, and start researching.

 

[Jroc]

Which opinion, that Republicans haven't always been conservative, or that all of your examples of Republican support for civil rights came before the 1960s? For the second, it's on record on this thread. For the first, I give you:

Abraham Lincoln, champion of big government and opponent of states' rights
Theodore Roosevelt, champion of workers' rights, advocate of socialized medicine, and opponent of big business

I don't have time to go through all that right now most of this I've already covered in this thread, but here are a couple of things for you to think about before you post more of you liberal wikipedia bullshit..


Is the Supreme court part of the federal government? did the Fugitive slave act and the Dread Scott decision infrindge on states rights?

Abraham Lincoln’s firm and unyielding opposition to slavery grew out of his dedication to the principles of our Founding Fathers, principles which have been under assault by the Left for decades. The Left seeks to reinterpret Lincoln as the father of the centralized administrative state that was actually created by early Progressives such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Croly, and John Dewey (among others).

Those who actually study Lincoln’s thoughts and speeches know that, in his words, he “never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.” He loved and admired “the sentiments of those old-time men,” our Founding Fathers. He was dedicated to their principles – equal rights under the law, economic liberty, and a fidelity to the Constitution, our fundamental law.

Lincoln was, in short, a statesman who was guided by the principles of our Founding, and therefore he is a model of conservative leadership today. He believed in natural rights, not the expansive definition of positive rights, without any grounding in nature, advanced by today’s Left. He believed in equality before the law, but he also noted that the Declaration of Independence “does not declare that all men are equal in their attainments or social position.” He respected and followed the text of the Constitution, rather than interpreting it as a “living” and evolving document or simply scrapping it altogether.

He believed in economic freedom, particularly the opportunity to work for a wage. He did not think that the market economy took advantage of those who worked for wages, but rather believed that economic freedom was a ticket to upward mobility for the individual and prosperity for society. He was fond of saying that, in a country with economic freedom, those who begin “poor, as most do in the race of life, free society is such that he knows he can better his condition.” In a free society, a citizen can “look forward and hope to be a hired laborer this year and the next, work for himself afterward, and finally to hire men to work for him! That is the true system.”

Are these the words of a Progressive? Do Progressives defend the principles of natural rights, equality before the law, constitutionalism, and economic freedom? A quick examination of the news cycle suffices to demonstrate otherwise. Lincoln would be at the forefront of the fight against the encroaching power of the national government, were he with us today. We honor his memory by fighting for the same conservative principles that he worked so diligently to pass along to us.

Lincoln

 

[Dragon]

I don't have time to go through all that right now most of this I've already covered in this thread

The point is that you used it it irrationally to make a false argument, because you didn't recognize that the Republican Party that did those things was a very different party than the GOP today, and (consistently on the issue of civil rights, less so on other issues) must be called LIBERAL.

Is the Supreme court part of the federal government? did the Fugitive slave act and the Dread Scott decision infrindge on states rights?

Which states? Both upheld the rights of some states and their citizens against those of other states and their citizens. Essentially, they protected the property of citizens of states that allowed slavery against confiscation by the governments of states that did not. The controversy was over whether the "property" in question should properly have been considered property.

Opposition to slavery was, at that time, a liberal position, while defense of slavery was a conservative position. Opposition to slavery was also a Republican position. The Republican Party, at that time, was therefore a liberal party.

Those who actually study Lincoln’s thoughts and speeches know that, in his words, he “never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.”

The Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson, who was also a liberal (to some, a radical). Its language is definitely liberal and progressive overall, especially in the high-flying early part that is most often quoted.

He believed in economic freedom, particularly the opportunity to work for a wage.

Well, not quite. He believed that most people should and in the end would end up owning their own small farms or small businesses, and that working for a wage was only a waystation in life. (Certainly he believed in the opportunity to work for a wage as opposed to being a slave, but that's another subject.) The dispute between capital and labor would become important only after Lincoln's time, but here is what he said on the subject, somewhat prophetically:

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

This idea would be put into practice by later Republicans, particularly Theodore Roosevelt, and is further evidence that in its early days the GOP was a progressive/liberal party.

Do Progressives defend the principles of natural rights, equality before the law, constitutionalism, and economic freedom?

Yes, actually. Every one of those is a progressive position. Now, it's true that the last of them is sometimes perverted into a conservative argument by equating the economic privileges of the rich with "economic freedom" and totally forgetting the economic freedom of those they oppress, but in origin, economic liberty is certainly a liberal cause.

 

[rightwinger]

LMAO

Thanks for the laugh. This post was so ridiculous it made my night.

Yeah! The man oppressin again! Conspiracy! etc! blah!

lol

I just love the compassion conservatives show for black babies........until they are born

More empty statements from the empty head.

Not empty, reality

Show me programs propsed by republicans that will provide care for 13 million black babies. Then we can talk about conservative compassion

 

[Jroc]

I don't have time to go through all that right now most of this I've already covered in this thread

The point is that you used it it irrationally to make a false argument, because you didn't recognize that the Republican Party that did those things was a very different party than the GOP today, and (consistently on the issue of civil rights, less so on other issues) must be called LIBERAL.

Exactly Classic liberal

Is the Supreme court part of the federal government? did the Fugitive slave act and the Dread Scott decision infrindge on states rights?

Which states? Both upheld the rights of some states and their citizens against those of other states and their citizens. Essentially, they protected the property of citizens of states that allowed slavery against confiscation by the governments of states that did not. The controversy was over whether the "property" in question should properly have been considered property.

Those acts would essentually legalized slavery in all the states, and it would have also allowed slavery in the new states

Opposition to slavery was, at that time, a liberal position, while defense of slavery was a conservative position. Opposition to slavery was also a Republican position. The Republican Party, at that time, was therefore a liberal party.

Yep "classic liberal" they weren't called conservative at that time

The Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson, who was also a liberal (to some, a radical). Its language is definitely liberal and progressive overall, especially in the high-flying early part that is most often quoted

.

Yeah really as long as you think so but post evidence

He believed in economic freedom, particularly the opportunity to work for a wage.

Well, not quite. He believed that most people should and in the end would end up owning their own small farms or small businesses, and that working for a wage was only a waystation in life. (Certainly he believed in the opportunity to work for a wage as opposed to being a slave, but that's another subject.) The dispute between capital and labor would become important only after Lincoln's time, but here is what he said on the subject, somewhat prophetically:



"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

This idea would be put into practice by later Republicans, particularly Theodore Roosevelt, and is further evidence that in its early days the GOP was a progressive/liberal party

.

Yeah? he also said this, one of my favorites

“You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.”
― Abraham Lincoln

Do Progressives defend the principles of natural rights, equality before the law, constitutionalism, and economic freedom?


Yes, actually. Every one of those is a progressive position. Now, it's true that the last of them is sometimes perverted into a conservative argument by equating the economic privileges of the rich with "economic freedom" and totally forgetting the economic freedom of those they oppress, but in origin, economic liberty is certainly a liberal cause.

Umm.. wrong liberals seem to want to tell people how much is enough unless it is them of course.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0JkyZx1LdQ]Obama: You've Made Enough Money - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Unkotare]

Historically Significant Black Experiences

Historical Points of Interest

1. One of the primary reasons the Republican Party came into existence was because of its opposition to the Democrat Party’s support and promoting of The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the Anti-Slavery Missouri Compromise Law. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to halt the spread of slavery beyond a certain point in the Louisiana Territory.

2. In 1854 at Jackson, Michigan a group of men met to form a new political party and one of the primary things that they agreed on, was their opposition to slavery and in particular the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. So while the Democratic Party was feverishly fighting to preserve slavery, the Republicans were meeting in Jackson, Michigan to destroy it.

3. The first candidate the Republican selected was Col. John C. Fremont who ran against pro-slavery candidate, Democrat James Buchanan. Even though Fremont loss it is interesting to know that he was the Republicans first anti-slavery presidential candidate.

4. In 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it.

5. Lincoln is quoted as saying in 1858 the following, “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.” And it was with this attitude that Lincoln became the Republicans first elected president, in 1860.
6. Republican President Lincoln is quoted as saying the following to an Indiana Regiment: “Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.”

7. After experiencing repeated defeats during the Civil War, Lincoln declared, “On many a defeated field there was a voice louder than the thundering of a cannon. It was the voice God, crying, “Let My People go.” We…came to believe it as a great and solemn command.

8. In response to what Lincoln believed to be a divine mandate on January 1, 1863, he issued an edict we commonly call, The Emancipation Proclamation. And even though this act did not free all slaves or solves the slave problem, it led to change for the slave population in this country. (It is said that Lincoln before his death said, “The central act of my administration, and the greatest even of the nineteenth century was the Emancipation Proclamation…
”
9. Two of the greatest fighters for the freedom of the slaves were two Republicans by the name of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. Lerone Bennett, Jr. the historian said this regarding these two men. “Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens educated Lincoln, and the country, to a policy of Black Emancipation.” To them, as much as to conservative Lincoln, black people owe their freedom.

10. Republicans Sumner and Stevens were responsible for three (3) amendments to the Constitution which freed black people from slavery, made them citizens with all the rights of all Americans and the right to vote. They did this even though the Democrats fought to prevent them from bringing these laws to pass.

11. Thaddeus Stevens also fought to give every freed slave forty acres of land and a mule, so that slaves could take care of their families

12. The dream of forty acres and a mule was destroyed when Lincoln was killed and his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat replaced Lincoln and said of Black people, “Black people were inferior to whites and unready for equal rights. So he worked to destroy much of what Republicans had worked and fought so hard for.

13. One of the greatest periods of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America was between 1867 and 1877. The Republican Party was responsible for this period of time, and many positive changes took place for Blacks during the time of the enforcement of a series of measures called, Reconstruction Acts. W.E. B. Dubois called this period the, “Mystic Years.”

14. Here are but a few things that happen during the Reconstruction period. A. Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican) became the first Black in congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator B. Republican Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina became the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives C. In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi was elected to U.S. Senate, the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1871, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.


15. During the Republican supported period called, Reconstruction, blacks held state offices throughout the South, they were superintendents of education. Black and White children went to school together, interracial marriages were common and we didn’t ride on the back of the bus. Black colleges like Howard, Fisk and Morehouse came into being.

16. The Democrats never accepted the Reconstruction Period, as the last word and they went about to take all these advancements back, through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Most klans men were Democrats. Lerone Bennett, Jr. says this about how the Democrats went about destroying the Reconstruction period. “By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and mamings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mothers arms, the slaying of the husband at his wife’s feet, the raping of the wife before her husbands’ eves. By fear….In every state, Democrats attempted to control the votes of their late slaves…and the Democrats succeeded in destroying the greatest time of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America.”


17. The great Black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this to say about the Democratic Party, “…Sir, it is evident that there is in this country a purely slavery party- a party which exists for no other earthly purpose than to promote the interests of slavery….For the present, the best representative of the slavery party in politics is the Democratic party.”

18. During the rebirth of the Civil Rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s the overwhelming number of governors who stood in their respective school doors to block blacks from attending their schools were Democrats such as, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door, Georgia Democratic Governor Lester Maddox stood in his restaurant door with a pistol on his hip and men with ax handles stood behind him to block blacks from coming into his business, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett declared he would stand against federal laws regarding integration, and then there is Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who sent his national guard to prevent black children from entering Arkansas schools.

19. On September 25, 1957, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a record breaking time of a little over three weeks sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the safety of black children who were integrating Arkansas schools.

20. The passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong cohesive support of the Republican. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Al Gore, Sr. though President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat he couldn’t get enough votes from his own party to pass civil rights laws, he needed the help of a willing Republican majority.

21. It is reported that over 4000 Ku Klux Klan killings took place during the terrible time of their reign of terror, but a better plan has been developed which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.

Black History

That was an excellent post. You could go one step further and note that Republicans are better friends of African-Africans as well.

 

[Jroc]

Historically Significant Black Experiences

Historical Points of Interest

1. One of the primary reasons the Republican Party came into existence was because of its opposition to the Democrat Party’s support and promoting of The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. This act repealed the Anti-Slavery Missouri Compromise Law. The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to halt the spread of slavery beyond a certain point in the Louisiana Territory.

2. In 1854 at Jackson, Michigan a group of men met to form a new political party and one of the primary things that they agreed on, was their opposition to slavery and in particular the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. So while the Democratic Party was feverishly fighting to preserve slavery, the Republicans were meeting in Jackson, Michigan to destroy it.

3. The first candidate the Republican selected was Col. John C. Fremont who ran against pro-slavery candidate, Democrat James Buchanan. Even though Fremont loss it is interesting to know that he was the Republicans first anti-slavery presidential candidate.

4. In 1858, Republican Abraham Lincoln faced Democrat Stephen Douglas in a race for U.S. Senate in Illinois. That campaign became famous for the Lincoln-Douglas debates, with Democrat Stephen Douglas defending slavery and Republican Abraham Lincoln opposing it.

5. Lincoln is quoted as saying in 1858 the following, “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe the government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.” And it was with this attitude that Lincoln became the Republicans first elected president, in 1860.
6. Republican President Lincoln is quoted as saying the following to an Indiana Regiment: “Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally.”

7. After experiencing repeated defeats during the Civil War, Lincoln declared, “On many a defeated field there was a voice louder than the thundering of a cannon. It was the voice God, crying, “Let My People go.” We…came to believe it as a great and solemn command.

8. In response to what Lincoln believed to be a divine mandate on January 1, 1863, he issued an edict we commonly call, The Emancipation Proclamation. And even though this act did not free all slaves or solves the slave problem, it led to change for the slave population in this country. (It is said that Lincoln before his death said, “The central act of my administration, and the greatest even of the nineteenth century was the Emancipation Proclamation…
”
9. Two of the greatest fighters for the freedom of the slaves were two Republicans by the name of Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens. Lerone Bennett, Jr. the historian said this regarding these two men. “Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stevens educated Lincoln, and the country, to a policy of Black Emancipation.” To them, as much as to conservative Lincoln, black people owe their freedom.

10. Republicans Sumner and Stevens were responsible for three (3) amendments to the Constitution which freed black people from slavery, made them citizens with all the rights of all Americans and the right to vote. They did this even though the Democrats fought to prevent them from bringing these laws to pass.

11. Thaddeus Stevens also fought to give every freed slave forty acres of land and a mule, so that slaves could take care of their families

12. The dream of forty acres and a mule was destroyed when Lincoln was killed and his vice president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat replaced Lincoln and said of Black people, “Black people were inferior to whites and unready for equal rights. So he worked to destroy much of what Republicans had worked and fought so hard for.

13. One of the greatest periods of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America was between 1867 and 1877. The Republican Party was responsible for this period of time, and many positive changes took place for Blacks during the time of the enforcement of a series of measures called, Reconstruction Acts. W.E. B. Dubois called this period the, “Mystic Years.”

14. Here are but a few things that happen during the Reconstruction period. A. Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican) became the first Black in congress, holding the position of U.S. Senator B. Republican Joseph H. Rainey from South Carolina became the first member of the U.S. House of Representatives C. In 1875, Blanche Kelso Bruce of Mississippi was elected to U.S. Senate, the first black to serve a full term in the Senate. In 1871, he was appointed by Republican President James A. Garfield as Registrar of the U.S. Treasury.


15. During the Republican supported period called, Reconstruction, blacks held state offices throughout the South, they were superintendents of education. Black and White children went to school together, interracial marriages were common and we didn’t ride on the back of the bus. Black colleges like Howard, Fisk and Morehouse came into being.

16. The Democrats never accepted the Reconstruction Period, as the last word and they went about to take all these advancements back, through groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. Most klans men were Democrats. Lerone Bennett, Jr. says this about how the Democrats went about destroying the Reconstruction period. “By stealth and murder, by economic intimidation and political assassinations, by whippings and mamings, cuttings and shootings, by the knife, by the rope, by the whip. By the political use of terror, by the braining of the baby in its mothers arms, the slaying of the husband at his wife’s feet, the raping of the wife before her husbands’ eves. By fear….In every state, Democrats attempted to control the votes of their late slaves…and the Democrats succeeded in destroying the greatest time of freedom Blacks ever enjoyed in America.”


17. The great Black Republican abolitionist Frederick Douglass had this to say about the Democratic Party, “…Sir, it is evident that there is in this country a purely slavery party- a party which exists for no other earthly purpose than to promote the interests of slavery….For the present, the best representative of the slavery party in politics is the Democratic party.”

18. During the rebirth of the Civil Rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s the overwhelming number of governors who stood in their respective school doors to block blacks from attending their schools were Democrats such as, Alabama Democratic Governor George Wallace, who stood in the schoolhouse door, Georgia Democratic Governor Lester Maddox stood in his restaurant door with a pistol on his hip and men with ax handles stood behind him to block blacks from coming into his business, Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett declared he would stand against federal laws regarding integration, and then there is Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus who sent his national guard to prevent black children from entering Arkansas schools.

19. On September 25, 1957, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower in a record breaking time of a little over three weeks sent federal troops to Arkansas to ensure the safety of black children who were integrating Arkansas schools.

20. The passage of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would not have been possible without the strong cohesive support of the Republican. In fact, all Southern Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act, including Al Gore, Sr. though President Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat he couldn’t get enough votes from his own party to pass civil rights laws, he needed the help of a willing Republican majority.

21. It is reported that over 4000 Ku Klux Klan killings took place during the terrible time of their reign of terror, but a better plan has been developed which eliminates over 400,000 black people every year, this plan has been so effective until Hispanics now out number Blacks in America. This effective gift of genocide comes from the Democratic Party supported practice called, Abortion.

Black History

That was an excellent post. You could go one step further and note that Republicans are better friends of African-Africans as well.

In this thread I did mention that the liberals are responsible for the Banning of DDT, which has resulted in 10s of millions of needless deaths of children in Africa...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHwqandRTSQ]John Stossel - DDT - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Unkotare]

And a certain Republican president initiated a program that has saved many millions upon millions of lives throughout Africa.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Which opinion, that Republicans haven't always been conservative, or that all of your examples of Republican support for civil rights came before the 1960s? For the second, it's on record on this thread. For the first, I give you:

Abraham Lincoln, champion of big government and opponent of states' rights
Theodore Roosevelt, champion of workers' rights, advocate of socialized medicine, and opponent of big business

I don't have time to go through all that right now most of this I've already covered in this thread, but here are a couple of things for you to think about before you post more of you liberal wikipedia bullshit..


Is the Supreme court part of the federal government? did the Fugitive slave act and the Dread Scott decision infrindge on states rights?

Abraham Lincoln’s firm and unyielding opposition to slavery grew out of his dedication to the principles of our Founding Fathers, principles which have been under assault by the Left for decades. The Left seeks to reinterpret Lincoln as the father of the centralized administrative state that was actually created by early Progressives such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Croly, and John Dewey (among others).

Those who actually study Lincoln’s thoughts and speeches know that, in his words, he “never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence.” He loved and admired “the sentiments of those old-time men,” our Founding Fathers. He was dedicated to their principles – equal rights under the law, economic liberty, and a fidelity to the Constitution, our fundamental law.

Lincoln was, in short, a statesman who was guided by the principles of our Founding, and therefore he is a model of conservative leadership today. He believed in natural rights, not the expansive definition of positive rights, without any grounding in nature, advanced by today’s Left. He believed in equality before the law, but he also noted that the Declaration of Independence “does not declare that all men are equal in their attainments or social position.” He respected and followed the text of the Constitution, rather than interpreting it as a “living” and evolving document or simply scrapping it altogether.

He believed in economic freedom, particularly the opportunity to work for a wage. He did not think that the market economy took advantage of those who worked for wages, but rather believed that economic freedom was a ticket to upward mobility for the individual and prosperity for society. He was fond of saying that, in a country with economic freedom, those who begin “poor, as most do in the race of life, free society is such that he knows he can better his condition.” In a free society, a citizen can “look forward and hope to be a hired laborer this year and the next, work for himself afterward, and finally to hire men to work for him! That is the true system.”

Are these the words of a Progressive? Do Progressives defend the principles of natural rights, equality before the law, constitutionalism, and economic freedom? A quick examination of the news cycle suffices to demonstrate otherwise. Lincoln would be at the forefront of the fight against the encroaching power of the national government, were he with us today. We honor his memory by fighting for the same conservative principles that he worked so diligently to pass along to us.

Lincoln

Yes, Lincoln the statist was a progressive, quite willing to use expanded powers of government to defend natural rights, equality before the law, and economic freedom. Lincoln and Roosevelt were liberals by your interpretation, and there is nothing you can do about the natural intepretation and evidence that defends those facts. Ukotare and Jroc mistake the classical liberalism of Lincoln (a true liberal in his day) for the depraved philosophy some on the Hard Right call conservatism today.

I am sending this one over to my friends at the U to use in their classes for the students to deconstruct.

They will learn that progressivism comes in both left and right leaning wings, and to be careful that they understand exactly what progressivism means: it is a political process of reform that effects society, economics, culture, and government. The process can be either liberal or conservative.

 

[Dragon]

Exactly Classic liberal

The distinction between "classical" and modern liberalism is a false one, and the claim that classical liberalism the same as modern conservatism even more false. The deception or error (depending on whether or not the falsehood is deliberate) comes from a confusion of means and ends.

The ends of liberalism, classical or modern, are constant: the liberty of the common man, and political and social and economic equality. At times, liberals have (and still do) pursue limitations on government as a means to this end. We still do. Ask any liberal what he thinks of the USA Patriot Act, for example, or of Obama's failure to close Guantanamo, or of government giving hand-outs to oil companies. At other times, though, liberals do (and always have) use government as a tool to restrain private power, which can also be a danger to the liberty of the common person. We always did. That's why the slave trade was outlawed during Jefferson's term of office.

Such changes as did exist between so-called "classical" and modern liberalism are explained by the differences in the societies where such liberals lived and spoke, which required somewhat different approaches. These differences are actually fairly trivial. Transport a classical liberal, such as Jefferson or Adam Smith, to the modern world and he would become a modern liberal, or even a socialist, once he had recovered from culture shock.

Those acts would essentually legalized slavery in all the states, and it would have also allowed slavery in the new states

Not really. They just protected the rights of slaveowners where slavery was legal to their property, even when they traveled with their property to areas where slavery was not legal. If a slave-owner came to, say, Massachusetts with a slave, that slave could not legally be set free by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and if the slave escaped, the Massachusetts was legally bound to return the slave to his owner. It would still be illegal to buy a slave in Massachusetts, and the slave owner could not become a Massachusetts resident and continue to own slaves there.

Is there some reason why we're discussing these things? What do they have to do with the Republican Party, which opposed them? My personal opinion is that Dred Scott was a legally sound decision even though I consider its effect abhorrent, and the Fugitive Slave Act was certainly within the authorized powers of Congress even though, again, I consider it and the entire institution of slavery a national disgrace. If I had lived back then, I would have been a Republican.

The Lincoln quote you presented shows the danger of taking things out of context. In Lincoln's day, we were still an agrarian nation in the early stages of industrializing. Most people were neither wage owners nor wage payers. The conflict between capital and labor would not become a major national issue until after the Civil War and Reconstruction were over, and so any comments that Lincoln made on the subject were not on the issues he confronted. On the issues he did confront (e.g. slavery) he was a liberal, although not as liberal as some other Republicans of the time. A famous Republican leader who did confront capital-labor issues was Theodore Roosevelt. Here are some of the things he had to say on the subject:

Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today.

I am a strong individualist by personal habit, inheritance, and conviction; but it is a mere matter of common sense to recognize that the State, the community, the citizens acting together, can do a number of things better than if they were left to individual action.

It tires me to talk to rich men. You expect a man of millions, the head of a great industry, to be a man worth hearing; but as a rule they don't know anything outside their own business.

The death-knell of the republic had rung as soon as the active power became lodged in the hands of those who sought, not to do justice to all citizens, rich and poor alike, but to stand for one special class and for its interests as opposed to the interests of others.

The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown.

Please note that when Roosevelt was denied that Republican nomination in 1912, he called the new party he founded the "Progressive" party, although it has come to be known more commonly by its "Bull Moose" nickname. You might want to check out the platform of that party, on which he ran for president that year:

Minor/Third Party Platforms: Progressive Party Platform of 1912

The party advocated campaign finance reform, women's suffrage, banning child labor and other labor rights legislation, etc. It was a progressive platform for the time, as the party name implies. And let's take a look at the Republican platform of the same year while we're at it:

Republican Party Platforms: Republican Party Platform of 1912

Although somewhat more cautious about it than the Progressives, the Republicans also called for campaign finance reform and for strengthening anti-trust laws.

The Republican Party in its inception was a liberal party, and I mean a modern liberal party because it began in modern times. Today, it is not. Although the Republican Party today and that of the time of Lincoln or Roosevelt bear the same name, they are not the same party.

 

[Unkotare]

Ask any liberal what he thinks of the USA Patriot Act, for example, .

Any liberal? Even the ones who voted for it?

 

[Dragon]

Any liberal? Even the ones who voted for it?

There are no liberals who voted for it. Just as Republican and conservative are not synonyms, neither are Democrat and liberal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Any liberal? Even the ones who voted for it?

There are no liberals who voted for it. Just as Republican and conservative are not synonyms, neither are Democrat and liberal.

The Hard Right and the Hard Left will deny this.

 

[Unkotare]

So of all the democrats in the House and Senate who voted (some more than once) for the Patriot Act, none of them are liberal because of that vote on that one issue? Is that your position? Is this like the "a terrorist cannot really be a Muslim" argument?

Or is it your position that a liberal cannot be concerned with national security?

 

[Dragon]

So of all the democrats in the House and Senate who voted (some more than once) for the Patriot Act, none of them are liberal because of that vote on that one issue?

None of them were liberals ON that one issue. Whether none of them were liberals on other issues I cannot say without more research than I to perform merely to refute an essentially irrelevant gotcha game.

Or is it your position that a liberal cannot be concerned with national security?

It's my position that a liberal cannot condone violations of due process and civil liberties. Or, to be more precise, it's my position that violation of due process and of civil liberties is illiberal, even in the name of national security.

 

[Unkotare]

So of all the democrats in the House and Senate who voted (some more than once) for the Patriot Act, none of them are liberal because of that vote on that one issue?

None of them were liberals ON that one issue. .

Oh, now it's "on that one issue"? How narrowly do you think you'll need to qualify your declaration to hold on to it?


Do you consider Barbara Boxer liberal?

 

[rightwinger]

So of all the democrats in the House and Senate who voted (some more than once) for the Patriot Act, none of them are liberal because of that vote on that one issue? Is that your position? Is this like the "a terrorist cannot really be a Muslim" argument?

Or is it your position that a liberal cannot be concerned with national security?

The Dems who voted for the Patriot act were spineless pussies. In Post 9-11 America, they did not want to be labeled "unpatriotic". Republicans made it clear they would brand you as for the terrorists if you did not vote for it

 

[Unkotare]

[

It's my position that a liberal cannot condone violations of due process and civil liberties..

Well, it's no problem then because the Patriot Act does not do that.

 

[Unkotare]

So of all the democrats in the House and Senate who voted (some more than once) for the Patriot Act, none of them are liberal because of that vote on that one issue? Is that your position? Is this like the "a terrorist cannot really be a Muslim" argument?

Or is it your position that a liberal cannot be concerned with national security?

The Dems who voted for the Patriot act were spineless pussies. In Post 9-11 America, they did not want to be labeled "unpatriotic".

Or maybe in post-9/11 America even they realized their responsibility to uphold the oath they had taken when sworn into office.