If only Atlas existed...

[Oldiesfreak1854]

1866

Antonio V: This is perfect!  We Democrats start the Ku Klux Klan to get rid of all those Republicans, and then, 150 years from now, we pretend that Republicans did all these things!

[Oldiesfreak1854]

1856

Oldiesfreak:  I think I like this new Republican party and I am planning to vote for them.  I am not sure what to think of Mr. Fremont as he appears to be quite the radical, while I am a true conservative, but I deeply believe in the end of slavery.

1864

Oldiesfreak:  I am not sure why President Lincoln would choose a Democrat, and a Southern one at that as his running mate.  I must admit I deeply hate the Democratic party.  They are without a doubt the party of slavery and I will believe that for as long as I live.

1876

Oldiesfreak:  It sickens me that so many of my brothers would vote for the party of slavery, but thankfully Mr. Hayes was able to prevail due to the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and the electoral college.

1884

Oldiesfreak:  The end of the Union as we know it.  I cannot believe how quickly my brothers have forgotten that the party of slavery once divided this great nation into two.

1944
Oldiesfreak:  Four more years of the party of slavery?  That's it.  I'm moving to Vermont, the last bastion of Republicanism!

1948
HTMLDon:  Our party is dead.  Horrible candidates, horrible ideas and horrible campaigns.  If we can't win now, I don't think we will ever win.  In 1952 there will be no Republican party.

1952
Oldiesfreak (R-VT): As a conservative Republican I remain loyal to Senator Taft, but I think we need both conservatives and liberals in our party.  I think this is our time.  The reign of the party of slavery is over.

1964
Oldiesfreak (R-VT):  I cannot believe how naive people can be.  Whether you like it or not Lief, the Democrats remain the party of slavery.

1970
Oldiesfreak (R-VT):  This southern strategy that you speak of Lief is actually a brilliant idea.  The country is changing and despite my deep hatred for anything Southern, I will gladly accept them to the GOP (please don't call us the GOP party!).  I believe those of you who accuse us of racism are misled.  The Democrats remain the party of slavery and that will never change.

Landslide Lyndon:  umm... there's this thing called the Civil Rights Act.  And then we have the southern strategy.  Sometimes I feel I'm surrounded by idiots.

1982
Keystone Phil: Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssssss!!!!!!!!!1

Lief:  Uhhh no

2008

Oldiesfreak:  Sorry Democrats.  You're still the party of slavery.

Sorry, but you can't change history.  If Democrats were the party of slavery when it existed (which they were), then they will always be the party of slavery.  And I probably would have been a liberal or moderate up until the Reagan years.  I most likely would have supported Eisenhower over Taft in 1952.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

November 5, 2008
Jones: I can't believe that in this colorblind society that just elected the first black president, that Republicans would go from being tortured and killed fighting for civil rights to burning crosses and black churches in just a few short decades.  What?  That makes no sense?  It makes perfect sense!!!

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Oldiesfreak: Tralfamadorian. So it goes.

Explain?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

An entity has no soul. It is merely a product of the people in it. Therefore, it would stand to reason that regardless of the stance the Democrats took 150 years ago is irrelevant. One can as well easily observe the direction the Democrats took in transforming from a party of agrarians, Catholics, and Southerners, to a party of Northern liberals. Ironically, it would be a Catholic who assisted in this transformation. No conservative should believe in collective sin. That's for the affirmative action folks. Fact is, all the supporters of slavery are long, long dead. Many segregationists are dead or out of office.

True, but that doesn't really matter.  What matters is that they were Democrats.  It makes no difference whether it was five years ago, 50 years ago, or 500 years ago.  It still happened.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

An entity has no soul. It is merely a product of the people in it. Therefore, it would stand to reason that regardless of the stance the Democrats took 150 years ago is irrelevant. One can as well easily observe the direction the Democrats took in transforming from a party of agrarians, Catholics, and Southerners, to a party of Northern liberals. Ironically, it would be a Catholic who assisted in this transformation. No conservative should believe in collective sin. That's for the affirmative action folks. Fact is, all the supporters of slavery are long, long dead. Many segregationists are dead or out of office.

True, but that doesn't really matter.  What matters is that they were Democrats.  It makes no difference whether it was five years ago, 50 years ago, or 500 years ago.  It still happened.

I think we're all aware of this. Nobody's claiming KKK was founded by Republicans or that Lincoln was a Democrat.
It happened, but it doesn't say anything about present day Democratc, as much as about present day Republicans. There is no hereditary guilt and there is no hereditary credit.

Plenty of high-profile Democrats have tried to make that claim, though few have ever come out and actually said those things.  I'm not claiming that it says anything about the two parties now, I'm just stating facts, and I certainly think a party's history matters as much as their policies now. 

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I hope you're not a Christian, oldiesfreak. (Actually I hope you are, for the hypocrisy lulz!)

Yes, I am a Christian, but how would that make me a hypocrite?  The things that Christians have done in the name of Christ (the Crusades, the Salem witch trials, etc.) are not true Christian behavior.  Jesus called us to love one another and I can guarantee you that He would not approve of the aforementioned actions carried out in His name.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Well sure, that's what Christians say these days. But the Christians of Salem, for instance, sure had no problem murdering suspected witches. Once a pro-innocent woman burning religion, always a pro-innocent woman burning religion.

The "witches" were hanged, not burned.

Oldies, this has turned into a thread trying to get you to keep an open mind to the democratic party. We are not the party of slavery, I would be a republican if we held those values, but we no longer want racial segregation etc. We pioneered many current day reforms for racial equality, please keep an open mind.

True, both parties have had civil rights failures and successes, but Republicans pioneered more measures for racial equality than Democrats.  And I've never accused Democrats of today of being racist.  But doesn't it matter to you that they were racist at one point?

[citation needed]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiHWwl-8pco
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/02/us/the-1998-campaign-the-overview-clinton-and-gingrich-press-cases.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

[Oldiesfreak1854]

After this, can we please get back to the topic at hand?

Missouri Democratic Party Radio Ad, 1998

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/05/15/house-democrats-planning-make-race-issue-2012

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Oldies, there are a plethora of reasons the Republican Party is today more worthy of your vote than the Democratic Party.

Not only is 'the Democrats supported slavery in the 1860s' not one of them, that's actually really stupid. Because organizations that have been around for centuries change with the times.

The example that you are Christian but disapprove of the Crusades was brought up. You answered that that's OK, because Christ would have disapproved of the Crusades too.

Lincoln wanted to deport black people to Central America. However, this is not a valid reason to oppose the Republican Party today. Why? Because everybody who was part of the organization back then is dead. Therefore, they no longer matter. You have to judge an organization by what it does now, or what it's done in the comparatively recent past (within the memberships of the majority of it's current members is how I would define this) to decide whether you approve or disapprove of it. The 1860s can't decide your vote in 2012.

Lincoln wanted to establish a voluntary colonization program, and that was actually a very common position among abolitionists.  I'm not simply a Republican because of the history, and I realize that those guys are dead, but that is what doesn't matter.  What matters is that the suppprters of slavery were Democrats, and I don't think anybody who knows that would want to associate themselves with the Democrats because of that.  I realize that it was a long time ago, but it's part of the history.  Does the Democrats' past support of slavery make you want to support them, no matter how long ago it was?  And remember that many places voted a certain way for over a century because of the Civil War.  As I said, I have plenty of other reasons that I'm a Republican; the civil rights history is simply one of those.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

People do know that the Democrats supported slavery way back when. However, they're still willing to be part of that party in today's society because they prioritize current policy over past policy. If someone is pro-choice, supports a national healthcare system, etc. having them vote GOP because of a 150 year old war is pointless & likely a disservice to them.

Most people probably don't know it, since Democrats and the mainstream media have done such a good job of hiding it and pretending that Republicans were the ones who supported slavery and segregation.  That's why Democrats can get away with saying that Republicans want to bring back Jim Crow laws and poll taxes, or that voting Republican would result in cross-burnings and church bombings.

Can we take this somewhere else and leave this thread alone?

My feelings exactly.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The fact that the Democratic Party supported slavery at the time (and remember there were some abolitionist Democrats and Republicans who were on the fence about the 13th amendment) is true. However, it does not influence my vote today (well, once I can vote in 2014/16). The parties are just names, and have each represented differing policies in the past.

It is also true that Southern Democrats supported segregation in the post-Civil War era. In the present day, however, you can't deny that, of relevant politicians, it is universally Tea Partiers like Mike Lee and Ron Paul who have implied opposition to the CRA. If you remove the 11 former Confederate states (and remember that all 10 House Republicans from those states voted against the CRA), a higher percentage of Democrats voted for the bill than Republicans.

Also remember that Republicans were arguably just as racist as Democrats in the post-ACW time period, just not against the same targets. It was a Republican-led effort promoting nativism and sentiments against Irish, Italian, and Eastern European immigrants. In the mid to late 1800's, Irish Catholics in America voted Democratic at the same levels as blacks do today, if not higher, because of the perception that the GOP was the party of nativist Protestants.

Yeah, but most of those immigrants were white, so it wasn't technically racism.  And are you so pathetic that you have to get rid of the Old Confederacy to make you party look like they were the heroes of civil rights when they weren't?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The fact that the Democratic Party supported slavery at the time (and remember there were some abolitionist Democrats and Republicans who were on the fence about the 13th amendment) is true. However, it does not influence my vote today (well, once I can vote in 2014/16). The parties are just names, and have each represented differing policies in the past.

It is also true that Southern Democrats supported segregation in the post-Civil War era. In the present day, however, you can't deny that, of relevant politicians, it is universally Tea Partiers like Mike Lee and Ron Paul who have implied opposition to the CRA. If you remove the 11 former Confederate states (and remember that all 10 House Republicans from those states voted against the CRA), a higher percentage of Democrats voted for the bill than Republicans.

Also remember that Republicans were arguably just as racist as Democrats in the post-ACW time period, just not against the same targets. It was a Republican-led effort promoting nativism and sentiments against Irish, Italian, and Eastern European immigrants. In the mid to late 1800's, Irish Catholics in America voted Democratic at the same levels as blacks do today, if not higher, because of the perception that the GOP was the party of nativist Protestants.

Yeah, but most of those immigrants were white, so it wasn't technically racism.  I realize they weren't considered white, but they were by just about any objective standard.

I have a problem with this. If it wasn't racism, what was it? And regardless of its name, was it in any way right?

It was nativism.

I guess it's cool to hate the micks then (as long as you white).

No.  I certainly do not excuse the nativism that was prevalent in many GOP circles for so many years.  I myself am about half Irish by ancestry (and proud of it).

[Oldiesfreak1854]

The fact that the Democratic Party supported slavery at the time (and remember there were some abolitionist Democrats and Republicans who were on the fence about the 13th amendment) is true. However, it does not influence my vote today (well, once I can vote in 2014/16). The parties are just names, and have each represented differing policies in the past.

It is also true that Southern Democrats supported segregation in the post-Civil War era. In the present day, however, you can't deny that, of relevant politicians, it is universally Tea Partiers like Mike Lee and Ron Paul who have implied opposition to the CRA. If you remove the 11 former Confederate states (and remember that all 10 House Republicans from those states voted against the CRA), a higher percentage of Democrats voted for the bill than Republicans.

Also remember that Republicans were arguably just as racist as Democrats in the post-ACW time period, just not against the same targets. It was a Republican-led effort promoting nativism and sentiments against Irish, Italian, and Eastern European immigrants. In the mid to late 1800's, Irish Catholics in America voted Democratic at the same levels as blacks do today, if not higher, because of the perception that the GOP was the party of nativist Protestants.

Don't forget Indian policy. Republican administrations were guilty of some right atrocities in that area.

And I certainly don't excuse that.