Anti-Segregationist Party

[zachman]

Why didn't an anti-segregationist party emerge as a third party? I think we could all agree it would have done very well from the 1876-1948. Were there any civil rights activists in the era of sharecropping?

[Gustaf]

Where would it have gotten votes, considering that blacks didn't get to vote in the South? Most of those people probably voted Republican.

[zachman]

The Liberty and Free Soil parties had huge success in New England, NY, and Wisconsin. The Equality Party, thats what I'll call it on this thread, would expose what was happening in the South and would do well with Northern Republicans.

[12th Doctor]

Why didn't an anti-segregationist party emerge as a third party? I think we could all agree it would have done very well from the 1876-1948. Were there any civil rights activists in the era of sharecropping?

The Republican Party WAS the anti-segregationist party.

[zachman]

It wasn't that strong. It doesn't make sense that this third party never emerged, particularly during the 20's and 30's.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

The Republican Party WAS the anti-segregationist party.

"Was" being the key word here.

[Siege40]

When did the Republicans stop being the left-leaning party of Lincoln and become the big business right-minded party of today?

Siege40

[Bandit3 the Worker]

When did the Republicans stop being the left-leaning party of Lincoln and become the big business right-minded party of today?

Probably under Taft.

[minionofmidas]

Under Grant.

No, seriously: It's always (well, at least until the New Deal) had both wings, and won elections because of this coalition.

[angus]

The Republican Party WAS the anti-segregationist party.

"Was" being the key word here.

yep, we're all a bunch of greedy amoral plutocratic elitists who don't want our children going to school with folks so inferior they have no chance of economic success.  Sometimes people forget these things so it's good we have thoughtful individuals like yourself to occassionally point that out.  That reminds me, I need to tell those mexican loafs who are building me a new wooden cross (since my old one was burned beyond repair) that break is over and they should get back to work!  No good bums.

[dazzleman]

The Republican Party WAS the anti-segregationist party.

"Was" being the key word here.

If the Democratic Party is truly the party of integration, then why are the most strongly Democratic states in the northeast also the states with the greatest degree of separation by race?

It turns out that the liberal northeast has the greatest degree of racial separation of any section of the country.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

If the Democratic Party is truly the party of integration, then why are the most strongly Democratic states in the northeast also the states with the greatest degree of separation by race?

They aren't.

[nclib]

The Republican Party WAS the anti-segregationist party.

"Was" being the key word here.

If the Democratic Party is truly the party of integration, then why are the most strongly Democratic states in the northeast also the states with the greatest degree of separation by race?

It turns out that the liberal northeast has the greatest degree of racial separation of any section of the country.

Do you have any statistics or a link regarding that?

If that is true, then why do northeastern states have a higher percentage of people claiming to be interracial?

[dazzleman]

I did an informal survey on city-data.com to confirm my empirical observations about the racial situation in the northeast, and to see how it may compare to the rest of the country.  This website contains profiles of individual towns under a listing for each state.

I focused mainly on Connecticut and New York, both states with a significant black population.  Yet in town after town that I looked at, the black population was in the range on 1%.  Then in selected towns and cities, generally poor, run-down, high-crime areas, it was much higher, indicating that blacks are generally warehoused in these less desirable places, and almost completely absent from the nicer towns.

I checked some states further south, and did not find such a strong racial divide among municipalities.

I know that the same situation exists in the "liberal" Chicago area as in the New York area.

[angus]

The Republican Party WAS the anti-segregationist party.

"Was" being the key word here.

If the Democratic Party is truly the party of integration, then why are the most strongly Democratic states in the northeast also the states with the greatest degree of separation by race?

It turns out that the liberal northeast has the greatest degree of racial separation of any section of the country.

Do you have any statistics or a link regarding that?

If that is true, then why do northeastern states have a higher percentage of people claiming to be interracial?

The united states census bureau does.  Your state, nclib, has an extremely high 'diversity index' as do all the states in that region.  CT has one of the lowest.  But it isn't exactly correct to say that all New England/Middle Atlantic has a low one.  The interior west has low ones too.  see www.census.gov you'll have to dig around a bit to find it.

[dazzleman]

My sense is that the interior west has low diversity ratings largely because there are very few blacks living there, while in the northeast, the low diversity ratings are largely because the significant numbers of blacks living here live in almost complete separation from white people.

I am at a total loss to identify a truly diverse neighborhood anywhere near where I live.  There are white neighborhoods with a few token blacks, if that, or there are black neighborhoods that white people here wouldn't move to if their lives depended on it.

It's a paradox to me that this situation exists in the most liberal section of the country.  I think it says something about the hypocrisy behind modern liberalism.

[ShapeShifter]

My sense is that the interior west has low diversity ratings largely because there are very few blacks living there, while in the northeast, the low diversity ratings are largely because the significant numbers of blacks living here live in almost complete separation from white people.

I am at a total loss to identify a truly diverse neighborhood anywhere near where I live.  There are white neighborhoods with a few token blacks, if that, or there are black neighborhoods that white people here wouldn't move to if their lives depended on it.

It's a paradox to me that this situation exists in the most liberal section of the country.  I think it says something about the hypocrisy behind modern liberalism.

I believe the action of racial clumping is a natural thing. Like attract Like kind of thing.

[dazzleman]

I believe the action of racial clumping is a natural thing. Like attract Like kind of thing.

I agree.  I think to a certain extent racial identity is in the mind, and to a certain extent it is imposed by society at large.

I know black people who grew up in white areas with mostly white friends.  One of two things seems to happen in these cases.  Either they grow up to think like white people, or they go completely the other way, embracing their black heritage in an exaggerated way, and rejecting the idea of living with whites.  I guess it depends on whether their experience was a happy or an unhappy one.

But really, the races are more alike than similar.  I generally find that blacks and whites of the same class think similarly in a lot of ways, and there's no reason there shouldn't be a higher level of integration between the two.

If you're talking about different classes, such as middle class vs. poor, then there will be vast differences in ways of thinking, even with the same race, plus economics will generally separate these two groups from each other.  This is particularly true up north, which is much more economically stratified than some other sections of the country.

I just wonder about the hypocrisy of some Democrats, who are always preaching the glories of indiscriminate integration, even if it's forced and crosses class lines, and yet the people most prone to vote for the Democrats are not practicing what they preach in their own lives.