The KKK was crucial to building GOP strength in the South

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The rhetoric of prohibition was progressive to win support, bt the core support was from Calvinistic Protestantism in both the South and the North. Prohibition is more an indication of enduring Conservatism within the GOP as opposed to Progressivism. Perhaps that stems from the understanding of the word Progressivism. Everyone wanted to advance their society, but in their own image and that is the key thing. Aside from slavery, The Republicans were a Party that wanted to take away the Irish and German's whiskey and beer, force those of whom were Catholic amongst them to read the good King James Bible in their progressive schools built to "progress society", and prevent their relatives from joining them in America. It was more a way to impose their social views through the gov't on unwilling people, hardly a progressive approach as we would understand it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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).

The greater irony is that McAdoo was a Progressive like Wilson was a Progressive. And Al Smith later broke with FDR over the New Deal. The economically progressive wing of the Democratic Party always had a firmer base in the South then the North until the time of FDR.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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).

The greater irony is that McAdoo was a Progressive like Wilson was a Progressive. And Al Smith later broke with FDR over the New Deal. The economically progressive wing of the Democratic Party always had a firmer base in the South then the North until the time of FDR.

Indeed. Obviously, McAdoo was in better position to appeal to said party wing in 1924, given his Southern roots and, well, having Smith as opponent.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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).

The greater irony is that McAdoo was a Progressive like Wilson was a Progressive. And Al Smith later broke with FDR over the New Deal. The economically progressive wing of the Democratic Party always had a firmer base in the South then the North until the time of FDR.

Indeed. Obviously, McAdoo was in better position to appeal to said party wing in 1924, given his Southern roots and, well, having Smith as opponent.

That is true, but from Bryan to Wilson to McAdoo, the Populist/Progressive wing of the Democratic Party is largely a Southern and Western based movement. THis doesn't change until the one two punch of FDR's appeal to second generation of the wave of immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th century, and the break up of Tammany Hall and similar Irish dominated Democratic machines.

McAdoo's exit from the stage was just as ironic. If I remember correctly, he was defeated in his 1938 Senate primary by Upton Sinclair's ticket mate who then turned around and forged an alliance with big oil and became a Conservative Democrat in the Senate for the next twelve years. His defeat was one of the many primary reversals (one of the few where his guy was the incumbent) for FDR in 1938.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The rhetoric of prohibition was progressive to win support, bt the core support was from Calvinistic Protestantism in both the South and the North. Prohibition is more an indication of enduring Conservatism within the GOP as opposed to Progressivism. Perhaps that stems from the understanding of the word Progressivism. Everyone wanted to advance their society, but in their own image and that is the key thing. Aside from slavery, The Republicans were a Party that wanted to take away the Irish and German's whiskey and beer, force those of whom were Catholic amongst them to read the good King James Bible in their progressive schools built to "progress society", and prevent their relatives from joining them in America. It was more a way to impose their social views through the gov't on unwilling people, hardly a progressive approach as we would understand it.

To the extent that is the case it is because of the movements toward greater social autonomy that have associated their cause with the ideas and terminology of progress. The New Left did carry on in some sense earlier views of progress as involving expression in opposition to social control, but the politically dominant expression of Progressivism in the early 20th century tended toward a more actively reforming and remolding of society.  There's no reason to not identify efforts at social control as "progressive" movements, so long as we do not laden that term with a particular moral affirmation of our own values. 
Prohibition cannot be identified solely with Progressivism, and their were anti-Prohibition Progressives, particularly of German or Catholic extraction and those who allied with them. Yet it's hard to deny the strong and crucial links between Prohibition and other elements of Progressive movement such as first wave Feminism. 

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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).

The greater irony is that McAdoo was a Progressive like Wilson was a Progressive. And Al Smith later broke with FDR over the New Deal. The economically progressive wing of the Democratic Party always had a firmer base in the South then the North until the time of FDR.

Indeed. Obviously, McAdoo was in better position to appeal to said party wing in 1924, given his Southern roots and, well, having Smith as opponent.

That is true, but from Bryan to Wilson to McAdoo, the Populist/Progressive wing of the Democratic Party is largely a Southern and Western based movement. THis doesn't change until the one two punch of FDR's appeal to second generation of the wave of immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th century, and the break up of Tammany Hall and similar Irish dominated Democratic machines.

McAdoo's exit from the stage was just as ironic. If I remember correctly, he was defeated in his 1938 Senate primary by Upton Sinclair's ticket mate who then turned around and forged an alliance with big oil and became a Conservative Democrat in the Senate for the next twelve years. His defeat was one of the many primary reversals (one of the few where his guy was the incumbent) for FDR in 1938.

There was a huge personal resentment Smith felt towards FDR since at least 1932 nomination contest.

Roosevelt was reputed to say: "I don't understand what his problem is. We are doing exactly the same he would do if he were President".

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

I don't think Paul is trying to win them by reminding them of obvious history. He is trying to open the front door with the history so that he can then win them on issues where they are mistrustfull of gov't on (ending the war on drugs, prison reform, restoring voting rights to felons) as well as an economic pitch on the opportunity zones that he is pushing.
 

[Maistre]

"crucial"?

No.