When did the parties switch platforms? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 16, 2024, 09:05:10 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  When did the parties switch platforms? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: When did the parties switch platforms?  (Read 25584 times)
BenBurch
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 481
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.74, S: 7.22

« on: April 13, 2018, 04:51:11 PM »

The Dems were always the party of the poorer, and the Reps the party of the richer.  Their parties stances depended on what their base wanted.  The poor (whites) in the 1800-early 1900's wanted Jim Crow.  So the Dems pandered to that.  See James Cox, the Dem presidential nominee in 1924.  He was a real racist POS.
Logged
BenBurch
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 481
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.74, S: 7.22

« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2018, 07:19:44 AM »

The Dems were always the party of the poorer, and the Reps the party of the richer.  Their parties stances depended on what their base wanted.  The poor (whites) in the 1800-early 1900's wanted Jim Crow.  So the Dems pandered to that.  See James Cox, the Dem presidential nominee in 1924.  He was a real racist POS.


This is an important point, though Cox was the nominee in 1920.

The Democrats were also more populist owing to their position as a classically liberal party and thus they were also very majoritarian in their view.

This is emphasized in the debates between Lincoln and Douglas were Douglas essentially relegates whether or not you can enslave follow human beings to "popular sovereignty" even if the Supreme Court ruled contrary, which was a term promoted by Lewis Cass before him as well.

This was also a similar basis behind the Trail of Tears. The Democrats ignored the court and pursued what they wanted anyway.

The poor whites enfranchised by the Democrats, were very racists, especially again those ones living in the black belt, in the cities and along the rivers of the South. The ones in the mountains were more passively racist, but were so disconnected from this economic circle, that they voted differently, feeling excluded by the Democrats. They thus voted against secession as well, since they didn't benefit from the slave economy, they weren't going to vote to secede to preserve it.

Yeah, I don't know why I said 1924.  Anyway, I'm not just talking about down South, I'm talking about the factory workers in the North, the Working Class.  They were also racist.  I've seen pictures of lynchings, and race riots from Chicago and the Iron Ring in AP US History.  Those weren't done by Southerners. 
Logged
BenBurch
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 481
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.74, S: 7.22

« Reply #2 on: April 14, 2018, 03:39:03 PM »

The Dems were always the party of the poorer, and the Reps the party of the richer.  Their parties stances depended on what their base wanted.  The poor (whites) in the 1800-early 1900's wanted Jim Crow.  So the Dems pandered to that.  See James Cox, the Dem presidential nominee in 1924.  He was a real racist POS.


This is an important point, though Cox was the nominee in 1920.

The Democrats were also more populist owing to their position as a classically liberal party and thus they were also very majoritarian in their view.

This is emphasized in the debates between Lincoln and Douglas were Douglas essentially relegates whether or not you can enslave follow human beings to "popular sovereignty" even if the Supreme Court ruled contrary, which was a term promoted by Lewis Cass before him as well.

This was also a similar basis behind the Trail of Tears. The Democrats ignored the court and pursued what they wanted anyway.

The poor whites enfranchised by the Democrats, were very racists, especially again those ones living in the black belt, in the cities and along the rivers of the South. The ones in the mountains were more passively racist, but were so disconnected from this economic circle, that they voted differently, feeling excluded by the Democrats. They thus voted against secession as well, since they didn't benefit from the slave economy, they weren't going to vote to secede to preserve it.

Yeah, I don't know why I said 1924.  Anyway, I'm not just talking about down South, I'm talking about the factory workers in the North, the Working Class.  They were also racist.  I've seen pictures of lynchings, and race riots from Chicago and the Iron Ring in AP US History.  Those weren't done by Southerners. 

Well obviously, but there is only so much you can fit in one post. Tongue

You had the dynamic of competition for jobs, and this brewed racist sentiments and even pro-slavery ones among Irish backed Democrats in the North. For instance you had the draft riots in NYC, and copperhead activity espoused by some of those "Non-Yankee" white rural in places I talk about and Irish immigrants in the mines of like OH and PA.

These sentiments typically helped the Democrats but by 1860, the combination of the South going too far (Dred Scott), and Lincoln's moderation "Keep slavery to where it is now" basically, enabled them to flip the script and take some of these voters. This is how he narrowly carried IN , PA and ILL and won the election.

You had a second wave of this kind of working class racism, during the early 20th century during the Great Migration because you had African Americans moving from the rural South to the urban North to work in the factories.

I see your point.  Thanks for putting a lot of effort into your answer! 
Logged
Pages: [1]  
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 0.031 seconds with 12 queries.