The KKK was crucial to building GOP strength in the South
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 10:57:35 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  The KKK was crucial to building GOP strength in the South
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: The KKK was crucial to building GOP strength in the South  (Read 7222 times)
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,042
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 09, 2014, 01:22:30 AM »

Look away, Oldiesfreak!  Shocked


Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 09, 2014, 07:33:16 AM »

Busted!
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,464
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 09, 2014, 12:08:26 PM »

The Klan also worked against the Democratic presidential nominee in 1928, the Catholic Al Smith.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 09, 2014, 02:19:55 PM »

So the South always hated blacks (and still do), but without the cohesion of the KKK to bring them together they couldn't be a GOP stronghold?
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 09, 2014, 03:16:44 PM »

So the South always hated blacks (and still do), but without the cohesion of the KKK to bring them together they couldn't be a GOP stronghold?

Yeah, hardly crucial. The study suggests it was a couple of points at the margins - the sort of effect that might make a difference in Reagan winning a few Southern states in 1980 but would have been relatively irrelevant in 1984.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 09, 2014, 03:19:21 PM »

Republicans were fighting back in the 1860's for the liberation of the slaves while the Democrats were fighting to keep the slaves in chains every step of the way.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 09, 2014, 03:52:11 PM »

Republicans were fighting back in the 1860's for the liberation of the slaves while the Democrats were fighting to keep the slaves in chains every step of the way.

Yep.

Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 09, 2014, 04:48:12 PM »

The Klan was also big nationwide in the 1920s, and they weren't all Southerners or Democrats then either.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 09, 2014, 06:19:43 PM »

You mean Democrat strength during Reconstruction?
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 09, 2014, 06:55:35 PM »

You mean Democrat strength during Reconstruction?

No, we mean GOP strength in the modern era.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 10, 2014, 11:55:28 AM »

Republicans were fighting back in the 1860's for the liberation of the slaves while the Democrats were fighting to keep the slaves in chains every step of the way.

Yep.



Thank you for completely and unequivocally endorsing and supporting my statement.

It is so nice to see someone who understands and appreciates real and true historic facts for a change.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 10, 2014, 12:32:19 PM »

Republicans were fighting back in the 1860's for the liberation of the slaves while the Democrats were fighting to keep the slaves in chains every step of the way.

Yep.



Thank you for completely and unequivocally endorsing and supporting my statement.

It is so nice to see someone who understands and appreciates real and true historic facts for a change.

We all know Republicans fought the slavery years ago.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 10, 2014, 01:11:45 PM »

Republicans were fighting back in the 1860's for the liberation of the slaves while the Democrats were fighting to keep the slaves in chains every step of the way.

Yep.



Thank you for completely and unequivocally endorsing and supporting my statement.

It is so nice to see someone who understands and appreciates real and true historic facts for a change.

We all know Republicans fought the slavery years ago.

Well, actually, not everyone knows that or appreciates that, but I am pleased to see you do.

Let me as well point out that Republican President Ulysses S Grant instituted The Enforcement Act of 1871 , also known as the Civil Rights Act of 1871, empowering the President to suspend the writ of habeas corpus to combat the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and other white supremacy organizations during the Reconstruction Era.
Logged
justfollowingtheelections
unempprof
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,766


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 10, 2014, 01:53:16 PM »

Winfield Republican no offense but you remind me of Rand Paul who went to Howard University and asked the students if they knew it was the Republicans that ended slavery.  The students who of course knew began laughing at Paul and he felt like a complete idiot.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 10, 2014, 03:46:12 PM »

Winfield: you are misinterpreting what everyone here is saying. The argument is that the GOP stopped being the party of Civil Rights in 1876 when Reconstruction ended and after the 1964-65 period when northern Democrats became unequivocally tied to civil rights, southern Democrats deserted to the GOP. Everyone here knows that from its founding in 1854 until 1876 the GOP was by far the more supportive of African-American rights and that, really, up until FDR at the earliest the Democrats were actively hostile to civil rights.
Logged
Türkisblau
H_Wallace
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,402
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 10, 2014, 03:51:47 PM »

Keep in mind that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have never passed without Republican support, although they by no means were unanimous in that support.

This is really all part of the highly successful tactic of Southern Strategy started by Nixon. I just hate it when people say things like "But the Democrats supported slavery and the Republicans ended it!" because it shows such an ignorance of basic history and political realignments. There's a reason why 90% of blacks vote Democratic and it's not because Democrats are the real racists.
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 10, 2014, 06:09:15 PM »

Yes, it's dumb of modern Republicans (read: Paul) to think we can win Black votes by reminding them of our proud history, a history they're well aware of.  However, it's equally simplistic and ignorant of history to keep pushing this meme that the CRA (which, as has been mentioned, had extremely high Republican support) was this magical turning point in which Southern Democrats just became Republicans with the snap of a finger.  That's just false.

FWIW, Blacks largely backed Wilson in 1916 (an open segregationist) and backed FDR in all of his re-election bids (conveniently ignoring his vetoing of anti-lynching legislation drafted by Republicans).  If you were at an unfair disadvantage economically compared to Whites (who'd had generations of advantages that kept Blacks unequal), and both parties seemed equally ambivalent ('40s and '50s) or equally supportive ('60s) of civil rights, wouldn't you vote your economic interest?
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 10, 2014, 06:30:46 PM »

I am fully aware of the historical context of civil rights in America, both in the 19th and 20th centuries.

I do believe, however, that there are many who do not give due credit to Republicans in this historic struggle.

I simply want to ensure that all are aware of the facts.

And thank you all for your invaluable input.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,190
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 10, 2014, 08:29:24 PM »

Winfield, I'm pretty sure most of the Democrats are fully happy to voice support for Ulysses S. Grant and Lincoln. Heck, the red avatars here vastly inflate Grant's ranking compared to the very serious people who make "official" Presidential rankings.

tbh I think this argument is overplayed. We all know that the "transition" of the Deep South was multifaceted and nuanced, so why do people on both sides pretend their opponents are being partisan morons?

Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,042
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 10, 2014, 11:22:00 PM »

I am fully aware of the historical context of civil rights in America, both in the 19th and 20th centuries.

I do believe, however, that there are many who do not give due credit to Republicans in this historic struggle.

I simply want to ensure that all are aware of the facts.

And thank you all for your invaluable input.

You remind me of a Christian missionary anywhere today in the Western world.

"Excuse me sir, have you ever heard of Jesus Christ?"
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: December 11, 2014, 03:05:29 AM »

I'd be surprised if you found many posters here with red avatars who would not have been proud Republicans in roughly the 20 years between 1855 and 1875. Any decent person would have been.
Logged
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: December 11, 2014, 10:52:16 AM »

I am fully aware of the historical context of civil rights in America, both in the 19th and 20th centuries.

I do believe, however, that there are many who do not give due credit to Republicans in this historic struggle.

I simply want to ensure that all are aware of the facts.

And thank you all for your invaluable input.

No you don't. You just wanted to introduce a red herring to detract from the issue in the OP.

Logged
Rockefeller GOP
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,936
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: December 11, 2014, 11:22:12 AM »

I'd be surprised if you found many posters here with red avatars who would not have been proud Republicans in roughly the 20 years between 1855 and 1875. Any decent person would have been.

While that's true (at least I hope so), the annoying part is when said avatars make the following conclusion: I am a liberal now --> I would have been a Republican then --> the Republican Party was a strictly liberal party then.  Needless to say, this is comically simplistic, but it also ignores things like early Republicans trying restrict voting rights of poor Whites in the North, support for prohibition and sin taxes and clear pro-business tendencies.
Logged
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: December 11, 2014, 11:39:31 AM »

I'd be surprised if you found many posters here with red avatars who would not have been proud Republicans in roughly the 20 years between 1855 and 1875. Any decent person would have been.

While that's true (at least I hope so), the annoying part is when said avatars make the following conclusion: I am a liberal now --> I would have been a Republican then --> the Republican Party was a strictly liberal party then.  Needless to say, this is comically simplistic, but it also ignores things like early Republicans trying restrict voting rights of poor Whites in the North, support for prohibition and sin taxes and clear pro-business tendencies.

An important point. Republicans always represented banking and industrial interests. Regarding prohibition and sin taxes: They were a progressive element in that era (trying to prevent the destruction of family life in working class families and improve living conditions, especially for women and children). Cheap alcohol was a curse in that type of society. Prohibition proved to be a disaster, but it was to a large extent a progressive cause.
Logged
MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!
Kalwejt
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,380


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: December 12, 2014, 03:33:14 PM »

I'd be surprised if you found many posters here with red avatars who would not have been proud Republicans in roughly the 20 years between 1855 and 1875. Any decent person would have been.

While that's true (at least I hope so), the annoying part is when said avatars make the following conclusion: I am a liberal now --> I would have been a Republican then --> the Republican Party was a strictly liberal party then.  Needless to say, this is comically simplistic, but it also ignores things like early Republicans trying restrict voting rights of poor Whites in the North, support for prohibition and sin taxes and clear pro-business tendencies.

An important point. Republicans always represented banking and industrial interests. Regarding prohibition and sin taxes: They were a progressive element in that era (trying to prevent the destruction of family life in working class families and improve living conditions, especially for women and children). Cheap alcohol was a curse in that type of society. Prohibition proved to be a disaster, but it was to a large extent a progressive cause.

Interestingly, though, the fight for the 1924 Democratic nomination was between a "dry" candidate, supported by conservative and reactionary forces, including the KKK (McAdoo), and a "wet" progressive (Smith).
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.052 seconds with 12 queries.