The Most Racist Election in American History?

[Mechaman]

We've asked a bunch of other questions about elections yet I've never heard an all out discussion on what presidential election is the most racist election in history.  Depending on how liberal you use the term there are probably a dozen or so that could actually be qualified as "racist".  Here are a few that I think are top contenders:

(note: These are IN CONTEXT.  Otherwise some of the more modern "racist" elections wouldn't even come close)

Election of 1824: Andrew Jackson begins campaigning on "civilizing" the Injuns.
Election of 1844: MANIFEST DESTINY!  MANIFEST DESTINY! MIGHTY WHITEY! MIGHTY WHITEY!
Election of 1856: The Know Nothing Party.  Enough said.
Election of 1860: The Election over Slavery.
Election of 1868: The first Reconstruction Era Election.  Nice things were not said......
Election of 1876: The South is "Redeemed".
Election of 1920: While James Cox is busy visiting with nice young ladies Harding is busy eating watermelons with porch monkeys.  Or something to that effect.
Election of 1928: The First Republican Southern Strategy: kick the blacks out to prevent a Hibernian papist from becoming President.  This would've been the first election in which the Republicans were the Mo'Racist! party if it weren't for some Mississippi Good Ole Yella Doggie Boy spreading rumors that Hoover danced with black girls.
Election of 1948: Time to clean the swimming pool Strom.
Election of 1964: If Barry Goldwater is elected President the Ku Klux Klan will start holding their own Olympics!
Election of 1968: A journalist compared attending the 1968 American Independent Party Convention to a 1930's Berlin...............yeah.  Pretty heavy man.
Election of 2008: Beware the evil Kenyan born Muslim Atheist Marxist anti-whitey!

Honorable Mentions:

Election of 1800: The bitchfest over who was better: the French or the British?
Election of 1884: Proved that Republicans could *gasp* be racist as well.
Election of 1888: 1884 Part II.
Hell, any Election between 1860 and 1952: If we're going to cover all bases.
Election of 1900: Killing Browns is cool again thanks to William McKinley.
Election of 1960: I kind of feel obligated to include this one.  Personally, from what I've read over American society in 1960 not many people (besides a few staunch protestants) gave that much of a sh*t over Kennedy's Catholicism.  The fact that he was a tall Irishman was considered less "OMG!!!! HE'S STEALING OUR BOOZE!!!!" and more "OMG!!!! ME SO HONY!" by 1960.
Election of 1972: Debatable.  Many say that this is the election in which Nixon solidified his support amongst Southern Whites by campaigning on "moral order" or what not.  So like 1960 I included this more out of obligation than that I think it's racist.
Election of 1980: Reagan's Philadelphia, Mississippi speech over state's rights left an ugly taste in quite a few people's mouths.  Probably nowhere as near as racist as 1968, but still dude what the hell?
Election of 1988: Two words: Willie Horton
Election of 1992: Debatable.  There were a few debate moments when I felt like George HW Bush put his foot in his mouth and turned it sideways.  I might be amplifying the perception too much but what I hear from a few older black people I know Bush came across as not caring about them (kind of like his son Dubya).  This is probably the least racist Honorable Mention.

[Mechaman]

No honourable mention for 1988? It had the Willie Horton ad, after all.

D'oh!

Totally forgot that one.

[Mechaman]

WTF!!  1900?!  William McKinley killing browns?  You're a smart guy; what kind of crack pipe are you smoking!  We helped browns get their independence from white oppressors; if anything, we began affirmative action that year!

This is where views are supposed to respectfully diverge.
However, I see that they haven't and that you are viewing those with different views than you as being on the crackpipe.

True fact: the US was hardly better at ruling places like the Philippines than the Spanish were.  To quote William J. Bryan: "All we did was replace an oppressive Spanish regime with an oppressive American regime."

If McKinley government so cared about the Philippines, they would've granted them independence instead of viciously putting down a rebellion.

So much for getting rid of evil "white oppressors".

[Mechaman]

WTF!!  1900?!  William McKinley killing browns?  You're a smart guy; what kind of crack pipe are you smoking!  We helped browns get their independence from white oppressors; if anything, we began affirmative action that year!

This is where views are supposed to respectfully diverge.
However, I see that they haven't and that you are viewing those with different views than you as being on the crackpipe.

True fact: the US was hardly better at ruling places like the Philippines than the Spanish were.  To quote William J. Bryan: "All we did was replace an oppressive Spanish regime with an oppressive American regime."

If McKinley government so cared about the Philippines, they would've granted them independence instead of viciously putting down a rebellion.

So much for getting rid of evil "white oppressors".

Stability.  If they had been granted independence the Spaniards could've come back in right away all over again, (or some other empire) and they wouldn't ever get their independence.

Which gives us the right to Empire and to police the world?

Your logic sounds very much like the people who got us into Vietnam and into Iraq.