OMG! The Dems in 1868 were racist!

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Here's a little known historical tidbit about the two parties and the fight for civil rights from the 1868 Democratic Party platform:
"Instead of restoring the Union, it [the Republican Party] has, so far as in its power, dissolved it, and subjected ten States, in time of profound peace, to military despotism and negro supremacy." -http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29579
And yet Democrats still get away with smearing the Republican Party as racist.

[Zioneer]

Here's a little known historical tidbit about the two parties and the fight for civil rights from the 1868 Democratic Party platform:
"Instead of restoring the Union, it [the Republican Party] has, so far as in its power, dissolved it, and subjected ten States, in time of profound peace, to military despotism and negro supremacy." -http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29579
And yet Democrats still get away with smearing the Republican Party as racist.

Oh come on, you know full well that the words of Democrats in 1868 are completely different from the words of a Democrat in 2012. Haven't you ever heard of the "Southern strategy" that Republicans adopted?

[Mechaman]

I generally like to think that the History board would be free from hackery.  But apparently not.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Here's a little known historical tidbit about the two parties and the fight for civil rights from the 1868 Democratic Party platform:
"Instead of restoring the Union, it [the Republican Party] has, so far as in its power, dissolved it, and subjected ten States, in time of profound peace, to military despotism and negro supremacy." -http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29579
And yet Democrats still get away with smearing the Republican Party as racist.

Oh come on, you know full well that the words of Democrats in 1868 are completely different from the words of a Democrat in 2012. Haven't you ever heard of the "Southern strategy" that Republicans adopted?

Yes, I have, but it had nothing to do with race.  Pat Buchanan, who arguably created the Southern strategy,  has said that it was an effort to convince Southern moderates who supported civil rights reforms, many of whom had migrated from other parts of the country, to vote Republican as a protest against the segragationists in the Democratic Party.  Most of the segregationists NEVER became Republicans.  The only one who did was Strom Thurmond.  Meanwhile, Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, a former Kleagle in the KKK who filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and used the term "white n*****" three times in a 2001 interview, was praised as "the conscience of the Senate."  The last time I checked before he died, Senator Byrd was still a Democrat.  For more information on the real "Southern strategy," check out these articles:

http://www.freedomsjournal.net/2011/11/27/urban-legends-the-southern-strategy/#top

http://www.wnd.com/2002/12/16477/

I can also give you some more information that is not included in these articles if you would like.

PS: I'm not necessarily saying that the Dems of 1868 are the same as the Dems of today; I simply am saying that you can learn a lot about people (in this case, the Democratic Party), by looking into their history.

[Donerail]

Okay, I know this may shock you, and you may want to sit down, but you have to get used to the concept. Stuff can change over almost a century and a half. Now, I know that's a shocking thought, but it's the truth. Also, are you a birther/do you look at things through a 'biblical worldview'? Cause if you're not, you should probably know those are not reliable sources.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Yes. The Democrats were the racist party from the Jacksonian Days until the Roosevelt/Johnson Days. (Which one would be a better pick?)

[The Mikado]

Yes. The Democrats were the racist party from the Jacksonian Days until the Roosevelt/Johnson Days. (Which one would be a better pick?)

I wouldn't say "the" racist party, as the Republican Party gave up on Civil Rights completely in the late Grant Administration, with only some minor lip service under TR.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Yes. The Democrats were the racist party from the Jacksonian Days until the Roosevelt/Johnson Days. (Which one would be a better pick?)

I wouldn't say "the" racist party, as the Republican Party gave up on Civil Rights completely in the late Grant Administration, with only some minor lip service under TR.

Still though, the blacks that could vote voted Republican.

[Mechaman]

Yes. The Democrats were the racist party from the Jacksonian Days until the Roosevelt/Johnson Days. (Which one would be a better pick?)

I wouldn't say "the" racist party, as the Republican Party gave up on Civil Rights completely in the late Grant Administration, with only some minor lip service under TR.

Still though, the blacks that could vote voted Republican.

Yes and the Irish, Italian, and Polish immigrant masses that could vote voted Democratic.

I wonder why......

[Phony Moderate]

During his Presidency, Richard Nixon attempted to pass healthcare reform that was very similar to 'Obamacare'. So I'm glad to know that the Republicans have no problem with today's Supreme Court decision!

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

^ Off Topic.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Why are we surprised at 1868 Democrats being racist? Why is this an issue?

[Zioneer]

Why are we surprised at 1868 Democrats being racist? Why is this an issue?

Because Oldiesfreak is trying to portray 2012 Democrats as being the same as 1868 Democrats.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Why are we surprised at 1868 Democrats being racist? Why is this an issue?

Because Oldiesfreak is trying to portray 2012 Democrats as being the same as 1868 Democrats.

I'm asking him.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Republicans started to take the black vote for granted after a while, which was, along with the New Deal, a primary reason blacks started voting Democrat in the 1930s.  Republicans never gave up entirely on civil rights though: even in the 1940s Congressional Republicans were trying to pass antilynching laws.  And as recently as 1967, Democrats were filibustering against such antilynching laws (that's no typo: 1967!!!) The NAACP was founded in 1909 on the 100th birthday of President Abraham Lincoln by a group of black and white Republicans, including James Weldon Johnson, author of "Lift Every Voice and Sing", which is often referred to as the "black national anthem."  I don't think either party is "the racist party" today, but Democrats began paying lip servce to supporting civil rights as early as FDR and Truman.   Both Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, who were Senators during the Eisenhower Administration, voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act.  During the 1963 March on Washington (in which Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. gave the "I Have a Dream" speech), President Kennedy expressed concern that the protesters would "sh*t" on the Washington Monument.  In 1964, President Johnson was quoted as saying, "I'll have those nig**rs" voting Democrat for the next 200 years" for signing of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Some 80 percent of Congressional Republicans, led by Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL), voted for the 1964 CRA.  In comparison, only about 65 percent of Congressional Democrats did.  Aside from Strom Thurmond, nearly all the segregationists stayed with the Democratic Party and never became Republicans.  When David Duke ran as a Republican for the Senate and later Governor of Louisiana in the early 90s, the Republican Party actively campaigned against him in both races.  Simply put, if Democrats ever supported civil rights, it was only when it was popular, while you had some very brave Republicans who were being tortured and even killed fighting for civil rights when it wasn't popular.  I am NOT necessarily saying the Dems of 2012 are the same as the Dems of 1868.  I am simply saying that the Democratic Party, regardless of what they believe about racial issues now, has a long and well-documented history of racism and fighting against freedom for black Americans, and the Republican Party has a long history of fighting to make law the Founding Fathers' vision that "all men are created equal."  Both parties have indeed had their civil rights failings and civil rights triumphs, but this history is one of the most fundamental reasons that I am proud to call myself a Republican.  

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Blacks began voting Democrat for some very good reasons. One, they were on the lower part of the economic chain and the New Deal and later Great Society could be seen as aimed at helping that. Two, yes, Johnson passed some large Civil Rights Acts. (And if any of this is racist, please correct me.)

Let's flash back to 1960. Kennedy had positioned himself as the candidate of Northern Liberals (despite his bad civil rights record, choice of a southerner, etc. This entire coalition of minorities--Catholics, Jews, Immigrants, Blacks--was his design and previously FDR's. But whatever, moving on). There were some very large complaints within the GOP that Republicans weren't doing enough to court the black vote. These were expressed throughout the campaign, and sort of solidified with the whole MLK in jail thing. A couple days before the election, Nixon was given a choice as to where to end his campaign. He could have chosen a Northern location and worked to cater to urban African-Americans. Instead, as I recall, he chose South Carolina. Come 1961, John Tower is elected to replace LBJ. He is a conservative, pro-states rights former Democrat.

Previously, of course, Republicans had managed to take states like Texas and Virginia for the first time since 1968, and the first time before that since Reconstruction. Something was going on.

1962 rolls around. For the first time since Reconstruction, Republicans began heavily hitting the South. They almost unseat a big-name Democratic Senator in the Deep South by running a heavily pro-states rights, arch-Conservative type candidate against him. Come 1964, they nominate Goldwater. While Goldwater was no racist and had a good Civil Rights record, he still held his beliefs in things such as the constitution and viewed certain recent acts as unconstitutional. While people such as George Romney pushed for a bigger push on Civil Rights on the platform and on the ticket, Goldwaterites resisted such attempts. In the general election, Republicans lose every state but for Goldwater's Arizona and a few deep south states. This is something that would be utterly unimaginable a few years ago, and maps were much more likely to be of the opposite color.

Here we are at 1972. Nixon's already chosen Spiro T. Agnew, a moderate southerner from a middle state for VP four years before. Now, he's facing a quite liberal opponent in the form of George McGovern. His adminstration's already resisted de-segregation attempts. Now, not only are rich Texas oilmen contributing to his campaign (in the form of Democrats for Nixon), Southerners are defecting en masse as they have been for the past eight years. For the first time ever, Republicans win every single state in the South. Unbelievable only a few elections ago.

Of course, it took until the Reagan era for it to completely shift. After all, Carter for a short time reclaimed the South for the Democrats. But nevertheless, the GOP realized that southern conservatives (whom Taft had already teamed up with earlier against the New Deal) were being continually alienated by the Democrats' insistence on nominating Northern Liberals, saw that the could and would vote Republican if the really needed to (1964) and sought to permanently draw them into the folds. It didn't help either that the majority of blacks were already lost to the Democrats since the 30's, or that the South represented an entire region of electoral possibilities while Blacks were merely a demographic.

While I might have liked the GOP to consistently tread on the side of being "The Party of Lincoln", fact was liberal Democrats were more aggressive and ambitious, and the GOP saw what was a huge chance at making inroads into a previously impenetrable region and they took it.

As for the idea of Southern moderates instead of Southern conservatives, I can see where you're coming from with your mentions of Spiro T. Agnew (elected against a pro-segregation Democrat in 1966), but the fact still stands that the GOP reaped a treasure trove of possibilities from the South, and they were all too happy to take it.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Nixon actually sped up desegregation of public schools to a rate that had never been achieved by any of his predecessors.  If the South was moving toward Republicans because of race, then it would seem to me that the trend would have stopped after the civil rights issues were resolved.  But not only did it continue, it got stronger.  Nixon was a strong supporter of civil rights and he did carry several Southern states in 1960, but that was mostly because of fears over JFK's Catholicism.  Nixon carried a large number of Southern states in 1968 as well, but that was mostly because George Wallace split the Democratic vote.  If you combine Humphrey and Wallace's totals, they actually exceeded Nixon's totals in all of the Nixon states in the South.  And Humphrey actually beat Nixon for second in three of the five Wallace states (all in the South.)  I appreciate your information because it seems interesting and well-considered, and I would like to see some of your sources.  But I disagree with certain elements your theory.  And for the sake of it, I will recommend yet another article.  This one is by a liberal professor who appears to subscribe to the "left-wing revisonist history" on the "Southern strategy" but nonetheless debunks the myth that the GOP surged in the South because of race:

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.928/article_detail.asp

At the start of the 1968 campaign, this is where the three candidates stood in the polls:

Nixon- 42%
Humphrey- 29%
Wallace- 22%

On Election Day, this is what the final popular vote tally looked like:

Nixon- 43.4%
Humphrey- 42.7%
Wallace- 13.5%

Note that during the campaign, Wallace dropped 8.5%, and Humphrey rose 13.7%.  This suggests that the early Wallace supporters who changed their votes were voting for Hubert Humphrey.  Ike had carried or narrowly lost many Southern states in both his 1952 and 1956 victories, but he definitely wasn't pandering to bigots.  In Nixon's first inaugural address in 1969, he said the following about civil rights:

"We have given freedom new reach, and we have begun to make its promise real for black as well as white."

"No man can be fully free while his neighbor is not.  To go forward at all is to go forward together.  This means black and white together, as one nation, not two.  What remains is to give life to what is in the law: to ensure at last that as all are born equal in dignity before God, all are born equal in dignity before man."

Furthermore, Winthrop Rockefeller was elected Governor of Arkansas in 1966 as a pro-civil rights, pro-racial integration Republican, replacing the outgoing segregationist Democrat Orval Faubus.  The South actually started moving toward the Republicans as a result of anti-communism in the 1930s.  Most Southern states remained mostly Democratic at the statewide level until the 80s or 90s.  I would argue that religious conservatism was a large part of the shift as well, and especially when they coalesced around Ronald Reagan for president in 1980.  As president, Nixon established the Office of Minority Business Enterprise and the Philadelphia Plan (the first merits-based affirmative action program), doubled the federal budget for HBCUs (historically black colleges and universities), increased the civil rights enforcement budget by eight times, and appointed more blacks to federal positions than any of his predecessors, including Lyndon Johnson.  If you would like more information, I can give a LOT more of it.  I will recommend one more source: Bruce Bartlett's book Wrong On Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past.

[Insula Dei]

What's the point of this thread?

[Zioneer]

What's the point of this thread?

To allow Oldiesfreak to score some partisan points, even though he's clearly misrepresenting history.

[Mechaman]

What's the point of this thread?

To allow Oldiesfreak to score some partisan points, even though he's clearly misrepresenting history.

Yeah really.

For one, racism isn't merely black and white.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You're making a thread to point out that 19th century democrats were racists ?

...


...


...

LOL

[Hash]

Election season always brings out the hacks, idiots, tools, morons, cranks and blowhards out of the woodwork.

This world sucks.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

What's the point of this thread?

To allow Oldiesfreak to score some partisan points, even though he's clearly misrepresenting history.

I am not misreprsenting history.  I am telling the truth as I know it, based on evidence from primary sources.

[BritishDixie]

I think he's trying to debunk the overrated view that the white southern move to the Republicans was entireley based around race. The fact is the Dems had outstayed their welcome in the south for a variety of other reasons (Hubert Humphrey talking about "leading a mighty good riot" didn't help either).

[The Mikado]

I think he's trying to debunk the overrated view that the white southern move to the Republicans was entireley based around race. The fact is the Dems had outstayed their welcome in the south for a variety of other reasons (Hubert Humphrey talking about "leading a mighty good riot" didn't help either).

Considering that Democrats didn't even start to move towards Humphrey's position re: Civil Rights for a good 8 decades after the period the OP is discussing undermines that point, if that's indeed what he was going for.