|           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 30, 2020, 09:18:41 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderators: Torie, ON Progressive)
  When did the parties switch platforms?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Print
Author Topic: When did the parties switch platforms?  (Read 18675 times)
darklordoftech
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,311
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #125 on: April 10, 2018, 01:13:33 pm »

My history teacher in 9th and 12th grade said similar things lol. He was an ultra-conservative Republican who said that both parties essentially had the same platforms since the 1800s.

Well, no one not stupid says any of that.  It takes a seriously ignorant person to think political parties stay the same over centuries or that our two parties "switched" platform or ideologies, even gradually.
I'm afraid you underestimate how many stupid people there are.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #126 on: April 10, 2018, 03:21:21 pm »

My history teacher in 9th and 12th grade said similar things lol. He was an ultra-conservative Republican who said that both parties essentially had the same platforms since the 1800s.

Well, no one not stupid says any of that.  It takes a seriously ignorant person to think political parties stay the same over centuries or that our two parties "switched" platform or ideologies, even gradually.
I'm afraid you underestimate how many stupid people there are.

I don't think I commented on the number of stupid people in existence. Smiley
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,098
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #127 on: April 11, 2018, 03:12:30 am »

Dinesh D'Souza says those things, as do comments and forum arguments whenever the argument of the parties switching comes up.

We are operating on the basis of extremes here. Parties evolve over time, but the Republicans have been a conservative party since at least 1873 (once all the radicals and others who only joined to oppose Slavery had left) and the Democrats have been the "Liberal" Party since the 1830's. In the 1830's, liberalism was about being able to vote without owning property, separation of Church and state and free trade. Now it is about the right to vote, separation of church and state and increasingly again free trade. Tongue

In the 1830's being a conservative meant landed and money elites opposing the right to vote for everyone else, protestant moralism and protectionism.

The more things "change" the more they stay the same. Tongue
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,098
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #128 on: April 11, 2018, 03:15:03 am »

One thing that has changed is that elites have become more liberal and thus populists are more often than not found on the right and Conservatism in general has taken on a more populist flair. You see this in the attempts to impeach justices in PA for instance.
Logged
darklordoftech
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,311
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #129 on: April 11, 2018, 06:35:09 am »
« Edited: April 11, 2018, 06:43:21 am by darklordoftech »

Dinesh D'Souza says those things, as do comments and forum arguments whenever the argument of the parties switching comes up.

We are operating on the basis of extremes here. Parties evolve over time, but the Republicans have been a conservative party since at least 1873 (once all the radicals and others who only joined to oppose Slavery had left) and the Democrats have been the "Liberal" Party since the 1830's. In the 1830's, liberalism was about being able to vote without owning property, separation of Church and state and free trade. Now it is about the right to vote, separation of church and state and increasingly again free trade. Tongue

In the 1830's being a conservative meant landed and money elites opposing the right to vote for everyone else, protestant moralism and protectionism.

The more things "change" the more they stay the same. Tongue

I was talking about when people try to equate Obamacare to slavery and repealing Obamacare to the 13th amendment, try to argue that present-day Democrats are ashamed of their party's past, etc.
Logged
Cath
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,633
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #130 on: April 11, 2018, 12:51:31 pm »

One thing that has changed is that elites have become more liberal and thus populists are more often than not found on the right and Conservatism in general has taken on a more populist flair. You see this in the attempts to impeach justices in PA for instance.

The correct term may be “plebeian” (as opposed to “proletarian”).
Logged
darklordoftech
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,311
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #131 on: April 11, 2018, 06:38:11 pm »

Another obnoxious argument is the idea that the Democrats trick blacks into voting for them so that they can bring back slavery/segregation/KKK.
Logged
darthpi
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,732
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.42, S: -5.91

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #132 on: April 11, 2018, 07:49:57 pm »

Hard to pinpoint exactly, but if I had to I would say it started in 1896 with the Democratic nomination of William Jennings Bryan, alienating the Bourbon Democrats, and finished in 1964 passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Republican nomination of Goldwater.
Logged
RoboWop
AMB1996
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,739
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: 5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #133 on: April 11, 2018, 08:15:38 pm »

One thing that has changed is that elites have become more liberal and thus populists are more often than not found on the right and Conservatism in general has taken on a more populist flair. You see this in the attempts to impeach justices in PA for instance.

Do you have a history/philosophy doctorate? I honestly think you should write a book; I would buy it.
Logged
darklordoftech
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,311
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #134 on: April 11, 2018, 08:26:54 pm »

Hard to pinpoint exactly, but if I had to I would say it started in 1896 with the Democratic nomination of William Jennings Bryan, alienating the Bourbon Democrats, and finished in 1964 passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Republican nomination of Goldwater.
Also, at some point the Democrats became moralizers like the Republicans were in 1854-1932, with New York introducing the first laws to require wearing seatbelts, Frank Lautenberg introducing the National Drinking Age, and Tipper Gore founding the Parents Music Resource Center.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,098
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #135 on: April 12, 2018, 04:26:16 am »

Hard to pinpoint exactly, but if I had to I would say it started in 1896 with the Democratic nomination of William Jennings Bryan, alienating the Bourbon Democrats, and finished in 1964 passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Republican nomination of Goldwater.
Also, at some point the Democrats became moralizers like the Republicans were in 1854-1932, with New York introducing the first laws to require wearing seatbelts, Frank Lautenberg introducing the National Drinking Age, and Tipper Gore founding the Parents Music Resource Center.

I can explain this away too.

Statism is not the same as moralizing. And not all moralizing is religious in basis.

Republicans have a long history of pushing "Protestant Moralism" in varius forms since 1854.

Liberals long ago embraced empowering the state to equalize opportunity. Over time, particularly as elites became defined by liberalism, you begin to get "liberal elitist statism", ei controlling people's behavior for their own good as determined by us mentality. It is the same mentality that produces the complaining about "WV not voting based on their interests".

Then you get moralizing for "the betterment of society" this encompasses a range of things, and often leads to statist actions like those described above and there are overlaps.

Progressivism is an amalgamation of the big gov't economics of the Populist/Progressive movement (largely on the Democratic side) and also a distilled version of the Republican Reformers of the 19th century). So basically a grab bag from several different political traditions, but the idea that Progressives are the heirs to people who wanted to educate Catholics out of being Catholic is just as outrageous as saying Obama would have been in the KKK.

And economic progressivism, cannot in any way escape the fact that they owe their existence within the Democratic party to William Jennings Bryan and Woodrow Wilson. The former they would consider a religious zealot and the latter a militant racist.

At its root thought anying saying that Obama would have been a KKK member is violating one of the first rules of historical analysis. They are inserting present figures and understandings into a past context where neither existed and where such could not have existed.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,098
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #136 on: April 12, 2018, 04:28:48 am »

One thing that has changed is that elites have become more liberal and thus populists are more often than not found on the right and Conservatism in general has taken on a more populist flair. You see this in the attempts to impeach justices in PA for instance.

Do you have a history/philosophy doctorate? I honestly think you should write a book; I would buy it.

Unfortunately no. I have considered writing a book, or several about all this but I doubt it would sell without some kind of credentials or experience that makes people take notice and listen.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #137 on: April 12, 2018, 09:06:12 am »

Hard to pinpoint exactly, but if I had to I would say it started in 1896 with the Democratic nomination of William Jennings Bryan, alienating the Bourbon Democrats, and finished in 1964 passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Republican nomination of Goldwater.

Every new responder to this topic should have to read every single word of NC Yankee's posts in this thread.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,411


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #138 on: April 12, 2018, 11:15:56 am »

Hard to pinpoint exactly, but if I had to I would say it started in 1896 with the Democratic nomination of William Jennings Bryan, alienating the Bourbon Democrats, and finished in 1964 passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Republican nomination of Goldwater.

Every new responder to this topic should have to read every single word of NC Yankee's posts in this thread.
My opinion is democrats became a truly liberal party(neither party was   before 1896) with William Jennings Bryan taking over the party and with exception of Alton Parker , John Davis , and Bill Clinton the have not had a nominee since then who wasn’t a solid liberal
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,401
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #139 on: April 12, 2018, 11:49:21 am »

Hard to pinpoint exactly, but if I had to I would say it started in 1896 with the Democratic nomination of William Jennings Bryan, alienating the Bourbon Democrats, and finished in 1964 passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Republican nomination of Goldwater.

Every new responder to this topic should have to read every single word of NC Yankee's posts in this thread.
My opinion is democrats became a truly liberal party(neither party was   before 1896) with William Jennings Bryan taking over the party and with exception of Alton Parker , John Davis , and Bill Clinton the have not had a nominee since then who wasn’t a solid liberal

But a "switch" implies a time when the Republican Party was decidedly to the "left" of the Democrats, and given that we can't just place simplistic things like "states' rights" or "racism" on some simplified political spectrum that transcends hundreds of years and several eras (the way we can, arguably, do with class issues, immigration and moralism), this is an assertion that I flatly reject and contend that you have to be - at best - very misinformed to accept.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,411


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #140 on: April 12, 2018, 12:10:27 pm »

Hard to pinpoint exactly, but if I had to I would say it started in 1896 with the Democratic nomination of William Jennings Bryan, alienating the Bourbon Democrats, and finished in 1964 passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Republican nomination of Goldwater.

Every new responder to this topic should have to read every single word of NC Yankee's posts in this thread.
My opinion is democrats became a truly liberal party(neither party was   before 1896) with William Jennings Bryan taking over the party and with exception of Alton Parker , John Davis , and Bill Clinton the have not had a nominee since then who wasn’t a solid liberal

But a "switch" implies a time when the Republican Party was decidedly to the "left" of the Democrats, and given that we can't just place simplistic things like "states' rights" or "racism" on some simplified political spectrum that transcends hundreds of years and several eras (the way we can, arguably, do with class issues, immigration and moralism), this is an assertion that I flatly reject and contend that you have to be - at best - very misinformed to accept.

Yah both parties did not flip (your right about that)


What I think happened was that the Republican party has always been the party of Business and Industry and for the first part of the Industrial Revolution(until say around the mid 1870s) being the party of Industry was considered more "liberal" because the Democratic party was dominated by agrarians which was considered more conservative.

Basically, after that system collapsed the Democrats spent 20 years basically being Republican lite(1876-1896) then Labor and Populists in 1896 decided to basically give up on trying to take over the GOP and move to take over the Dems and they were successful because the dems really didnt have anything strong enough to prevent that from happening(since the agrarians long had been gone by that point).


That basically made the democrats the more leftist party and have been since then.


The GOP though has basically stayed constant the whole time(in their core base)
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,098
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #141 on: April 12, 2018, 08:37:10 pm »

How is a group of people born of an elitist conservative tradition, count as being "Liberal".

Also I would point out that WJB was by every definition of the word pro-agrarian and he was leading the revolution against the business dominated bourbon Democrats. The Populists were agrarians. You see this is what happens when you try to postulate a flip, even in 1896. It doesn't work because it fails to understand tradition, shifting of interests and yet historical consistency within the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party believed in several core principles.
1. Expanding voting beyond landed and wealthy classes to all white males
2. Religious Freedom
3. Freedom of Trade
4. Pro-Agriculture
5. Anti-Establishment and Business/Banker Elite

This was Andrew Jackson's Democratic Party, and it is firmly within the confines of a 19th century Liberal party.

In the 1880's the party began to split because the middle class and business oriented groups who joined the party (either because they wanted free trade, or were Southerners and hated Yankees, or what have you), were following the proscribes of Jefferson and Jackson on limited government, and enterprise freed from the restriction of elite monopolies. Cleveland was also very much in line with this tradition.

However, William Jennings Bryan was also an heir to this tradition, running against policies that benefited the wealthy and supporting those that would help farmers and miners instead. He is just as agrarian as Jefferson and Jackson were, but he is rallying the same types of voters in the same basic places as they did, against the same group of people (NE Business elites).

WJB was thus a reaffirmation of the tradition of Jeffersonian and Jacksonian politics, even as he was embracing and indeed paving the way for a tradition towards utilizing government action to advance their cause, rather than seeing government as merely a way to facilitate and entrench elite monopolies.

1796
Adams: Conservative
Jefferson: Liberal

1832
Clay: Conservative
Jackson: Liberal

1896
McKinley: Conservative
WJB: Liberal

There are a number of similarities in terms of support, policies and traditions that link the Federalist, Whig and Republican candidates listed here. All of them were protectionists to verying degrees. All of them were tied to wealthy business people in the NE. All of them were Protestant Moralists (McKinley is not as well known but he is compared to Bush 43 in his religiosity). All of them supported industry over agriculture. Yet suddenly in 1896, McKinley finds himself as the first Conservative to run against as liberal on the Democratic side?
Logged
Cath
Cathcon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,633
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #142 on: April 12, 2018, 08:52:15 pm »
« Edited: April 12, 2018, 09:08:42 pm by Cath »

It should probably be noted that the "urbanism" of the pre-New Deal GOP is probably over-stated. They no doubt wanted an industrial, capitalist society and clung to some idea of "progress", but I have little doubt that at every step of the way they probably "tut-tutted" the morally ruinous aspects of urban life. As early as the Civil War you had Republicans in professional positions that were a class and a world apart from the unwashed masses of the urban proletariat that their desired system necessitated and created.

_ _ _

The below is senseless rambling.

As regards the early--let's use the working term "liberalism"--of the GOP, this probably requires some creative analysis. Prior to the civil war, you had two classes of elites--industrialists of the North and planters of the South; both were "conservative" of some sort owing to their class disposition. They nevertheless had opposing interests. Slaveowners of the South, separated from finance and industry, formulated a populist program to rally the masses in opposition to their rivals in the North. This was at one time led by true ideologues like Jefferson who likely bought what they sold, but, we might speculate, became more and more simple "window dressing" on a more and more plainly parasitic and unjust system. The North, to its credit, eventually--not immediately--found its business interests to contradict the business interests of the South. This was combined with moral rhetoric--the two perhaps developed independently, but in reaction to the same phenomenon. But in any case, as industry grew, by necessity it was the rising or ascendant force. The Civil War thus marked in some sense a second "bourgeois revolution" for the country. The Republican Party included not only these industrialists, but obvious reform elements--Puritans, liberals, even socialists. Nevertheless, as Northern industry and the Bloody Flag consolidated in the 1870's, the GOP continued its tradition that it inherited from the Whigs and the Federalists. In some alternate universe, we might be now discussing the quasi-socialist revolution that occurred, wherein a worker's ascendancy quickly followed a liberal ascendancy. That said, for whatever reason--call them historical preconditions--God and Capital were well situated to continue their reign in the coalition of the North, rather than give way to a labor movement.
Logged
Old School Republican
Computer89
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,411


Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -0.10

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #143 on: April 12, 2018, 09:10:02 pm »

How is a group of people born of an elitist conservative tradition, count as being "Liberal".

Also I would point out that WJB was by every definition of the word pro-agrarian and he was leading the revolution against the business dominated bourbon Democrats. The Populists were agrarians. You see this is what happens when you try to postulate a flip, even in 1896. It doesn't work because it fails to understand tradition, shifting of interests and yet historical consistency within the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party believed in several core principles.
1. Expanding voting beyond landed and wealthy classes to all white males
2. Religious Freedom
3. Freedom of Trade
4. Pro-Agriculture
5. Anti-Establishment and Business/Banker Elite

This was Andrew Jackson's Democratic Party, and it is firmly within the confines of a 19th century Liberal party.

In the 1880's the party began to split because the middle class and business oriented groups who joined the party (either because they wanted free trade, or were Southerners and hated Yankees, or what have you), were following the proscribes of Jefferson and Jackson on limited government, and enterprise freed from the restriction of elite monopolies. Cleveland was also very much in line with this tradition.

However, William Jennings Bryan was also an heir to this tradition, running against policies that benefited the wealthy and supporting those that would help farmers and miners instead. He is just as agrarian as Jefferson and Jackson were, but he is rallying the same types of voters in the same basic places as they did, against the same group of people (NE Business elites).

WJB was thus a reaffirmation of the tradition of Jeffersonian and Jacksonian politics, even as he was embracing and indeed paving the way for a tradition towards utilizing government action to advance their cause, rather than seeing government as merely a way to facilitate and entrench elite monopolies.

1796
Adams: Conservative
Jefferson: Liberal

1832
Clay: Conservative
Jackson: Liberal

1896
McKinley: Conservative
WJB: Liberal

There are a number of similarities in terms of support, policies and traditions that link the Federalist, Whig and Republican candidates listed here. All of them were protectionists to verying degrees. All of them were tied to wealthy business people in the NE. All of them were Protestant Moralists (McKinley is not as well known but he is compared to Bush 43 in his religiosity). All of them supported industry over agriculture. Yet suddenly in 1896, McKinley finds himself as the first Conservative to run against as liberal on the Democratic side?


Well The Federalists , Whigs, and Republicans were always the pro buisness party that’s true .


And yes while the Democratic Republicans were more liberal than the Fedralists and Democrats more liberal than the Whigs , that Democratic Party was totally different than the Democrats of the third party system (which was when the Republican Party was created).


The Democrats of the first half third party system had become a totally different party and due to that  reactionary  (their support of slavery and trying to keep the agrarian dominated economy from being replaced by an industrial economy). They really didn’t stand for anything in that period other than that . The Republicans originally were basically comprised of Pro Buisness groups and people who opposed the 1850s Democratic Party (and it was made up of both Conservatives and Liberals who used to be Democrats pre 1850s).


It was really in 1876 they moved away from that(after spending the whole 1852-1876 period being a reactionary party) but they morphed into becoming a Republican lite party(Borbon Democrats) .Then in 1896 Labor took over the party and they once again became the solidly Liberal party . While yes Bryan was an agrarian he IMO was a totally different type of one because in my opinion he was that because he was one because by then the agricultural sector was no longer the dominant economic sector and Big Buisness abuse of power was hurting them too . So I think it was more Labor and Agrarians were aligned for a temporary moment because of that .



In my opinion these are the phases the Democrats have gone through :

1824-1848 : Classical Liberal Party who supported the things you mentioned above
1848-1852: A transition phase
1852-1872: A southern reactionary party
1872-1876 : Transition Phase
1876-1896: Bourbon Democrats
1896 convention : Transition Phase
1896 - 1984 : A Modern Liberal Party dominated by pro labor politics
1984- 1992 : Transition Phase
1992- Present: Neo Liberal Party

Logged
Canis
canis
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,504


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -7.13

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #144 on: April 12, 2018, 09:42:18 pm »


I believe the switch on race started when Kennedy won the nomination with his moderate to liberal feelings on race relations and then the democrats signed the civil rights act with the support of many republicans.Goldwater won the south because he opposed the civil rights act. The south was essentially a swing area depending on which candidate was more socially conservative or local from 1964-92. The social conservative democrats weren't completely gone until the 2010 midterms where they were wiped out in a republican wave though some survive I.E Dan Lipinski Henry Cuellar etc.  It is to my knowledge that the southern democrats while very socially conservative and some racist were fiscally liberal. So I'd say a good answer for your topic is they never fully switched simply changed views on race.
Logged
darklordoftech
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,311
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #145 on: April 13, 2018, 12:28:21 am »

Isn't slaveowners calling businesses elitist an example of the pot calling the kettle black?
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,098
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #146 on: April 13, 2018, 12:46:16 am »

Isn't slaveowners calling businesses elitist an example of the pot calling the kettle black?

Do you think hypocrisy is anything knew to American politics?


Also, Slave owners said a lot of things based on what benefited them. They were for state's rights when it benefited them, then trampled on it to get their slaves back from that escaped (Fugitive Slave Law). They claimed to demand freedom to live their lives as they saw fit, and yet denied it not only to the slaves but suppressed, Freedom of Speech, Assembly and Religion whenever it seemed to threatened or criticize slavery.

The South's political mindset was always dictated by a sense of living on top of a volcano. We have seen time and again in election results, that white Southerners are more racist proportionally with number of and closeness too African-Americans. This is why black belt and city whites stuck with Smith in 1928, and they were the ones who led the drive for secession in the lead up to the Civil War.

The thing is there is nothing conservative about pro-slavery politics save for the preserving of the object itself, because there is no internal consistency on anything, everything is dictated based on survival be it avoiding a slave revolt, or preserving the profits of slavery. If that means trampling the constitution (Secession), usurping the courts (Dred-Scott and other contemporary rulings differ from rulings in the 1830's and before), or violating freedom of speech (restrictions on abolitionists others who threatened the system) or running roughshod over northerner's state's rights (Fugitive Slave Law), they were only too happy to do so if it helped secure slavery. Remember, for all of Lincoln's war time actions, I recall reading that Jefferson Davis never even appointed Justices to the Confederate Supreme Court.

Hypocrisy and inconsistency were and are defining hallmarks of Southern politics and politicians.
Logged
darklordoftech
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 6,311
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #147 on: April 13, 2018, 07:20:24 am »

Isn't slaveowners calling businesses elitist an example of the pot calling the kettle black?

Do you think hypocrisy is anything knew to American politics?


Also, Slave owners said a lot of things based on what benefited them. They were for state's rights when it benefited them, then trampled on it to get their slaves back from that escaped (Fugitive Slave Law). They claimed to demand freedom to live their lives as they saw fit, and yet denied it not only to the slaves but suppressed, Freedom of Speech, Assembly and Religion whenever it seemed to threatened or criticize slavery.

The South's political mindset was always dictated by a sense of living on top of a volcano. We have seen time and again in election results, that white Southerners are more racist proportionally with number of and closeness too African-Americans. This is why black belt and city whites stuck with Smith in 1928, and they were the ones who led the drive for secession in the lead up to the Civil War.

The thing is there is nothing conservative about pro-slavery politics save for the preserving of the object itself, because there is no internal consistency on anything, everything is dictated based on survival be it avoiding a slave revolt, or preserving the profits of slavery. If that means trampling the constitution (Secession), usurping the courts (Dred-Scott and other contemporary rulings differ from rulings in the 1830's and before), or violating freedom of speech (restrictions on abolitionists others who threatened the system) or running roughshod over northerner's state's rights (Fugitive Slave Law), they were only too happy to do so if it helped secure slavery. Remember, for all of Lincoln's war time actions, I recall reading that Jefferson Davis never even appointed Justices to the Confederate Supreme Court.

Hypocrisy and inconsistency were and are defining hallmarks of Southern politics and politicians.
All very accurate.
Logged
BenBurch
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 479
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.10, S: 7.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #148 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
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,098
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #149 on: April 14, 2018, 01:15:21 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.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines