Historical continuity of Democrats and Republicans

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

seemed to confirm this image of a corrupt circle of Northern financiers draining the poor farmers of the South and West for their personal enrichment.

This was a staple of DR/Dem rhetoric from Madison and Jefferson down to LBJ.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Was the South always religious or did they become more religious at some point?

I think they generally caught up with the rest of the county by the mid to late 19th century but then over time became the most religious over the 20th century as the other regions saw their religiosity decline.

As late as the 1880's, there was still Southern originated attacks against New England politicians that referenced the Salem Witch trials. So the concept of the pious New England puritan still existed in the minds of people even if not quite as much in reality even at that point.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We definitely see continuity in the ideals of Eugene Talmedge with modern liberalism and the modern democratic party

I know you are trying to be difficulty, but I am going to bite.

Southern politics and politicians would necessarily present a distorted image of the party, for the simple reason that it was a one party region. You had a lot of rich plantation and business owners supporting the same party as poor farmers, because as I said in the post a couple of days ago (Civil War Legacy, and the concept of being an outsider nationally even while being elite locally). As even the quickest glance at the period's history would illustrate, there was often vicious primary battles between the "Bourbons" and the Populists and Progressives. Since Bourbons would not have much to offer poor farmers for obvious reasons, they would whip up race hysteria to get votes and win primaries that they likely had no business winning. This was Pat Harrison's model in Mississippi. Depending on the state, people like Wallace and Bilbo responded (being from the other faction) by going even more hardcore racist. Other populist/progressive Southern Dems like Huey Long and Estes Kefauver generally managed to avoid this, at least somewhat.

I have mentioned this dozens of times now, none of it detracts from the main points that Truman and myself have made.

[darklordoftech]

I wonder how blacks and hispanics tended to feel about Prohibition.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

We definitely see continuity in the ideals of Eugene Talmedge with modern liberalism and the modern democratic party

I know you are trying to be difficulty, but I am going to bite.

Southern politics and politicians would necessarily present a distorted image of the party, for the simple reason that it was a one party region. You had a lot of rich plantation and business owners supporting the same party as poor farmers, because as I said in the post a couple of days ago (Civil War Legacy, and the concept of being an outsider nationally even while being elite locally). As even the quickest glance at the period's history would illustrate, there was often vicious primary battles between the "Bourbons" and the Populists and Progressives. Since Bourbons would not have much to offer poor farmers for obvious reasons, they would whip up race hysteria to get votes and win primaries that they likely had no business winning. This was Pat Harrison's model in Mississippi. Depending on the state, people like Wallace and Bilbo responded (being from the other faction) by going even more hardcore racist. Other populist/progressive Southern Dems like Huey Long and Estes Kefauver generally managed to avoid this, at least somewhat.

I have mentioned this dozens of times now, none of it detracts from the main points that Truman and myself have made.

Literally just last night I was reading an interview of Gaylon Babcock, who knew the Trumans growing up in Jackson County, Missouri at the turn of the century. He explained that while his family were registered Republicans, his father would vote the Democratic ticket at the state and local level, because in his words "so seldom a capable man ran on the Republican ticket in our area because there was so little chance of being elected, he couldn't afford to give too much time to that."

[TransfemmeGoreVidal]

We definitely see continuity in the ideals of Eugene Talmedge with modern liberalism and the modern democratic party

I know you are trying to be difficulty, but I am going to bite.

Southern politics and politicians would necessarily present a distorted image of the party, for the simple reason that it was a one party region. You had a lot of rich plantation and business owners supporting the same party as poor farmers, because as I said in the post a couple of days ago (Civil War Legacy, and the concept of being an outsider nationally even while being elite locally). As even the quickest glance at the period's history would illustrate, there was often vicious primary battles between the "Bourbons" and the Populists and Progressives. Since Bourbons would not have much to offer poor farmers for obvious reasons, they would whip up race hysteria to get votes and win primaries that they likely had no business winning. This was Pat Harrison's model in Mississippi. Depending on the state, people like Wallace and Bilbo responded (being from the other faction) by going even more hardcore racist. Other populist/progressive Southern Dems like Huey Long and Estes Kefauver generally managed to avoid this, at least somewhat.

I have mentioned this dozens of times now, none of it detracts from the main points that Truman and myself have made.

Literally just last night I was reading an interview of Gaylon Babcock, who knew the Trumans growing up in Jackson County, Missouri at the turn of the century. He explained that while his family were registered Republicans, his father would vote the Democratic ticket at the state and local level, because in his words "so seldom a capable man ran on the Republican ticket in our area because there was so little chance of being elected, he couldn't afford to give too much time to that."

Kind of a tangent but I think it's still the case today that in many one party regions you have that sort of crossover. I lived in Brooklyn for a while and noticed that many nominal conservatives were registered Democrat just so that they could vote in primaries because in many districts the Brooklyn GOP was virtually non-existent.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

I wonder how blacks and hispanics tended to feel about Prohibition.

There were black prohibitionists and black bootleggers.  I have no idea which side was more popular.  Hispanics were probably overwhelmingly opposed because they were mostly Catholic.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We definitely see continuity in the ideals of Eugene Talmedge with modern liberalism and the modern democratic party

I know you are trying to be difficulty, but I am going to bite.

Southern politics and politicians would necessarily present a distorted image of the party, for the simple reason that it was a one party region. You had a lot of rich plantation and business owners supporting the same party as poor farmers, because as I said in the post a couple of days ago (Civil War Legacy, and the concept of being an outsider nationally even while being elite locally). As even the quickest glance at the period's history would illustrate, there was often vicious primary battles between the "Bourbons" and the Populists and Progressives. Since Bourbons would not have much to offer poor farmers for obvious reasons, they would whip up race hysteria to get votes and win primaries that they likely had no business winning. This was Pat Harrison's model in Mississippi. Depending on the state, people like Wallace and Bilbo responded (being from the other faction) by going even more hardcore racist. Other populist/progressive Southern Dems like Huey Long and Estes Kefauver generally managed to avoid this, at least somewhat.

I have mentioned this dozens of times now, none of it detracts from the main points that Truman and myself have made.

Literally just last night I was reading an interview of Gaylon Babcock, who knew the Trumans growing up in Jackson County, Missouri at the turn of the century. He explained that while his family were registered Republicans, his father would vote the Democratic ticket at the state and local level, because in his words "so seldom a capable man ran on the Republican ticket in our area because there was so little chance of being elected, he couldn't afford to give too much time to that."

Kind of a tangent but I think it's still the case today that in many one party regions you have that sort of crossover. I lived in Brooklyn for a while and noticed that many nominal conservatives were registered Democrat just so that they could vote in primaries because in many districts the Brooklyn GOP was virtually non-existent.

Very much so, you see it in scattered pockets, but it is nothing like it was in the Jim Crow South.

Power tends to attract money, which tends to corrupt. If you are the only game in town...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I haven't read this whole thread, but the "short answer" that I always give to this is that, even if nothing else, the Democratic Party has always been the natural political home of immigrants and not-fully-assimilated populations, whereas the Republican Party has always been more comfortable providing overtly moral or religious justifications for its policies.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I haven't read this whole thread, but the "short answer" that I always give to this is that, even if nothing else, the Democratic Party has always been the natural political home of immigrants and not-fully-assimilated populations, whereas the Republican Party has always been more comfortable providing overtly moral or religious justifications for its policies.

Thats pretty decent though a generalized reference to the whole "monopolies/trusts/business aspect. Even though it took different forms over the years, there was a generally hostility to business cartels and speculating on the Dem side and greater tolerance for them on the Federalist/Whig/Republican side.

[darklordoftech]

I would argue that the slaveowners were elites and were conservative, even if their interests differed from that of northern business elites. They were probably more Hamiltonian than Jeffersonian when it came to voting rights and immigration, but their economy depended on selling cash crops overseas and therefore they feared tariffs more than they feared Jeffersonian liberty or Tammany Hall, and the de-polarization of tariffs after the Great Depression and WWII allowed them to “come home” and join their fellow elites in the GOP.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I would argue that the slaveowners were elites and were conservative, even if their interests differed from that of northern business elites. They were probably more Hamiltonian than Jeffersonian when it came to voting rights and immigration, but their economy depended on selling cash crops overseas and therefore they feared tariffs more than they feared Jeffersonian liberty or Tammany Hall, and the de-polarization of tariffs after the Great Depression and WWII allowed them to “come home” and join their fellow elites in the GOP.

Broadly speaking, yes, but it depends on which group of slaveholders you're referring to. Planters in Kentucky and Mississippi tended to favor the Whigs, for instance, because their access to foreign markets was via the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers —hence their support for internal improvements and the tariffs that paid for them —and because the profits to be had from slavery in those states came in large part from the internal slave trade —which further incentivized support for a strong central government that could regulate markets and, more importantly, prevent the importation of new slaves who would drive down the value of those already here.

(It's also worthwhile to note that "conservative" can mean several different things —in this case it alludes to the feudal relationship between the gentry and the disenfranchised lower classes of Antebellum Southern society, i.e. poor whites, slaves, and the small population of freedmen, and not to the modern ideology of conservatism.)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would argue that the slaveowners were elites and were conservative, even if their interests differed from that of northern business elites. They were probably more Hamiltonian than Jeffersonian when it came to voting rights and immigration, but their economy depended on selling cash crops overseas and therefore they feared tariffs more than they feared Jeffersonian liberty or Tammany Hall, and the de-polarization of tariffs after the Great Depression and WWII allowed them to “come home” and join their fellow elites in the GOP.

As Truman notes, their is a feudalistic conservatism to the planter elite of the South and taken in isolation could be used to label them as such. You could also make the same determination based on their feud with poor farmers and others who tended to bake more populist and later progressive economically speaking candidates.

However, there are some errors that lead to misunderstandings here. There were certainly Coastal planters in the Federalist Party and others in the Whigs (KY, TN etc) and it is correct to say that the Civil War alignment kept them isolated from their counterparts in the North. However, it is mistake to take things in isolation from the context in which they exist or especially to hand wave off the economics. It must be remembered that for all the talk of fears of slave revolt prior to the Civil War, nothing was ever done to reduce the slave populations in the South. On the contrary, the number of slaves increased and their were even extremist calls to reintroduce the slave trade across the Atlantic. This of course runs contrary to racial rhetoric, but it must be remembered that most all of the actions of the planter class were dictated by money first, second and always. Everything else was about achieving their objectives to further that end. The racial rhetoric as I illustrated before, enabled elites to keep power when otherwise they had little to offer the poor farmers and yes in some states, they restricted the voting even of those poor farmers, so that is accurate to some extent.

However, they were not against immigration of "cheap labor" of various kinds because of racial animus (some probably), in fact the introduction of imported labor by Southern elites in agricultural, construction and such forth to maximize profit margins has been a standard operating procedure since 1619. Worth noting that they largely stuck with Smith though not fond of their Catholicism, because the nature of by that point Jim Crow, required the Dem machine to not crack in the South. Whereas the people most opposed to immigration would be the ones who defected to Hoover, anti-Catholic up country whites. Though the Klan had presence with both groups, over time it came to be substantially more down market and less educated (In 1991, David Duke lost St. Tammany Parish and Bossier Parish, two of the most Republican Parishes and also more upscale suburban in the state.)

That being said what is the benefit of singling out one group of rich people, doing rich people things to stay rich (typically involving some form of abuse or crime). Is not the bulk of Silicon Valley Tech execs today, engaging in all manner of corrupt business practices, abuse of immigration laws and their workers generally, on the left and supportive of the Democratic Party today? Does that mean that they are just "conservatives" waiting for the GOP to drop its alienating factors? They are liberals because their social values and monetary interests align with the Democratic platform.

Just like planters were liberals because "according to what defined liberal values at the time on a national scale", they lined up with them generally speaking. Planters also had no love for NE banking interests either, typically they owed them money obviously. There is still the trade matter as noted. Their was also religious issues as Planter elites being Cavaliers (or at least of that mindset) didn't want pious Cromwellians taking away their Christmas, their booze and their wild social scenes (exaggerated but you get the point). This is seen as another reason why they stuck with the wet Smith, while those favorable to dry cause were more keen on defecting to Hoover.

[Wikipedia delenda est]

^You've made some good points in this thread Yankee, and have somewhat convinced me of your "continuously conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats" theory. However, I think that once you start calling plantation owners "liberals", the term basically loses all meaning. Owning other human beings as property is antithetical to all of liberalism's principles and everything it stands for. But since you don't seem to view the racial issues of the 19th century in a liberal/conservative lens, I'll get away from the obviously illiberal racial stuff to focus on other things. Namely, that plantation owners were fabulously wealthy individuals who believed in all sorts of hierarchies, not just for blacks but also for poor whites. If wealthy and privileged individuals who strongly believed in hierarchy and keeping the poor and oppressed classes down aren't conservatives, then I don't know who is.

Oh, but I guess that's not "what defined conservative values at the time on the national scale." It doesn't matter if you're a rich and powerful landowner who despised the working poor; to be a conservative you have to be a Northern Republican nativist or a New England banker, because Yankee says so! Why? Because Republicans are always more conservative, Democrats always more liberal, that's just the way it is. It doesn't matter what the members of the party actually believe, as a Democrat is by definition a liberal, and a Republican a conservative. Besides, trying to apply modern ideological definitions onto 19th century political parties isn't historically accurate, even if there are certain principles, like the defense of hierarchy and order, that are definitionally conservative. No matter if Democrats were often at least as strong believers in hierarchy as Republicans; the only 19th century issues that can truly be viewed through a liberal/conservative prism are ones that Democrats and Republicans disagreed on, like immigration and free trade. Because the Democrats were liberals on all the issues and the Republicans conservatives, obviously.

[darklordoftech]

^You've made some good points in this thread Yankee, and have somewhat convinced me of your "continuously conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats" theory. However, I think that once you start calling plantation owners "liberals", the term basically loses all meaning. Owning other human beings as property is antithetical to all of liberalism's principles and everything it stands for. But since you don't seem to view the racial issues of the 19th century in a liberal/conservative lens, I'll get away from the obviously illiberal racial stuff to focus on other things. Namely, that plantation owners were fabulously wealthy individuals who believed in all sorts of hierarchies, not just for blacks but also for poor whites. If wealthy and privileged individuals who strongly believed in hierarchy and keeping the poor and and oppressed classes down aren't conservatives, then I don't know who is.

Oh, but I guess that's not "what defined conservative values at the time on the national scale." It doesn't matter if you're a rich and powerful landowner who despised the working poor; to be a conservative you have to be a Northern Republican nativist or a New England banker, because Yankee says so! Why? Because Republicans are always more conservative, Democrats always more liberal, that's just the way it is. It doesn't matter what the members of the party actually believe, as a Democrat is by definition a liberal, and a Republican a conservative. Besides, trying to apply modern ideological definitions onto 19th century political parties isn't historically accurate, even if there are certain principles, like the defense of hierarchy and order, that are definitionally conservative. No matter if Democrats were often at least as strong believers in hierarchy as Republicans; the only 19th century issues that can truly be viewed through a liberal/conservative prism are ones that Democrats and Republicans disagreed on, like immigration and free trade. Because the Democrats were liberals on all the issues and the Republicans conservatives, obviously.

Also, “you were born this way, therefore your rights should be limited” is a conservative way of thinking and the UK’s Conservative Party supported the Confederacy while the UK’s Liberal Party supported the Union.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

^You've made some good points in this thread Yankee, and have somewhat convinced me of your "continuously conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats" theory. However, I think that once you start calling plantation owners "liberals", the term basically loses all meaning. Owning other human beings as property is antithetical to all of liberalism's principles and everything it stands for. But since you don't seem to view the racial issues of the 19th century in a liberal/conservative lens, I'll get away from the obviously illiberal racial stuff to focus on other things. Namely, that plantation owners were fabulously wealthy individuals who believed in all sorts of hierarchies, not just for blacks but also for poor whites. If wealthy and privileged individuals who strongly believed in hierarchy and keeping the poor and and oppressed classes down aren't conservatives, then I don't know who is.

Oh, but I guess that's not "what defined conservative values at the time on the national scale." It doesn't matter if you're a rich and powerful landowner who despised the working poor; to be a conservative you have to be a Northern Republican nativist or a New England banker, because Yankee says so! Why? Because Republicans are always more conservative, Democrats always more liberal, that's just the way it is. It doesn't matter what the members of the party actually believe, as a Democrat is by definition a liberal, and a Republican a conservative. Besides, trying to apply modern ideological definitions onto 19th century political parties isn't historically accurate, even if there are certain principles, like the defense of hierarchy and order, that are definitionally conservative. No matter if Democrats were often at least as strong believers in hierarchy as Republicans; the only 19th century issues that can truly be viewed through a liberal/conservative prism are ones that Democrats and Republicans disagreed on, like immigration and free trade. Because the Democrats were liberals on all the issues and the Republicans conservatives, obviously.

Also, “you were born this way, therefore your rights should be limited” is a conservative way of thinking and the UK’s Conservative Party supported the Confederacy while the UK’s Liberal Party supported the Union.

The ruling Liberal Party elite were pro Confederacy. I am not ab expert on exactly which British officials had which positiobs but there was a degree of favorability to the South in Palmerstons govt and this was in Britain's interest as a divided US would less likely to be a threat to Canada. Now the liberal party base was very much pro Union and antislavery and it was the unions agents desire to use this to pressure the Liberal party govt to oppose the South or at least not recognize them.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

^You've made some good points in this thread Yankee, and have somewhat convinced me of your "continuously conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats" theory. However, I think that once you start calling plantation owners "liberals", the term basically loses all meaning. Owning other human beings as property is antithetical to all of liberalism's principles and everything it stands for. But since you don't seem to view the racial issues of the 19th century in a liberal/conservative lens, I'll get away from the obviously illiberal racial stuff to focus on other things. Namely, that plantation owners were fabulously wealthy individuals who believed in all sorts of hierarchies, not just for blacks but also for poor whites. If wealthy and privileged individuals who strongly believed in hierarchy and keeping the poor and and oppressed classes down aren't conservatives, then I don't know who is.

Oh, but I guess that's not "what defined conservative values at the time on the national scale." It doesn't matter if you're a rich and powerful landowner who despised the working poor; to be a conservative you have to be a Northern Republican nativist or a New England banker, because Yankee says so! Why? Because Republicans are always more conservative, Democrats always more liberal, that's just the way it is. It doesn't matter what the members of the party actually believe, as a Democrat is by definition a liberal, and a Republican a conservative. Besides, trying to apply modern ideological definitions onto 19th century political parties isn't historically accurate, even if there are certain principles, like the defense of hierarchy and order, that are definitionally conservative. No matter if Democrats were often at least as strong believers in hierarchy as Republicans; the only 19th century issues that can truly be viewed through a liberal/conservative prism are ones that Democrats and Republicans disagreed on, like immigration and free trade. Because the Democrats were liberals on all the issues and the Republicans conservatives, obviously.

"As Truman notes, there is a feudalistic conservatism to the Southern planter elite..."

That is literally how I started my post prior to yours. Also included among that planter elite was the egalitarian Jefferson himself, though I should quickly point out most of my post prior to yours concerned the post civil war period so the "owning others" hot take is out of place in reference to that post. But let's consider that for a moment anyone. The whole point is about liberalism in the context of the time, a time in which everything is colored by race to the point that such obvious hypocrisy to us is hand waved in their times. Jefferson was a big time slave owner but you cannot with a straight face call him a feudalist conservative, the guy who embraced the French Revolution, pushed separation of church and state and favored rule by small farmer republic as opposed to a financial aristocracy.

If you lose the plot to the point that owning of slaves is enough to counterpoint the argument about 19th century liberalism, then Truman and I have wasted our time.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

^You've made some good points in this thread Yankee, and have somewhat convinced me of your "continuously conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats" theory. However, I think that once you start calling plantation owners "liberals", the term basically loses all meaning. Owning other human beings as property is antithetical to all of liberalism's principles and everything it stands for. But since you don't seem to view the racial issues of the 19th century in a liberal/conservative lens, I'll get away from the obviously illiberal racial stuff to focus on other things. Namely, that plantation owners were fabulously wealthy individuals who believed in all sorts of hierarchies, not just for blacks but also for poor whites. If wealthy and privileged individuals who strongly believed in hierarchy and keeping the poor and and oppressed classes down aren't conservatives, then I don't know who is.

Oh, but I guess that's not "what defined conservative values at the time on the national scale." It doesn't matter if you're a rich and powerful landowner who despised the working poor; to be a conservative you have to be a Northern Republican nativist or a New England banker, because Yankee says so! Why? Because Republicans are always more conservative, Democrats always more liberal, that's just the way it is. It doesn't matter what the members of the party actually believe, as a Democrat is by definition a liberal, and a Republican a conservative. Besides, trying to apply modern ideological definitions onto 19th century political parties isn't historically accurate, even if there are certain principles, like the defense of hierarchy and order, that are definitionally conservative. No matter if Democrats were often at least as strong believers in hierarchy as Republicans; the only 19th century issues that can truly be viewed through a liberal/conservative prism are ones that Democrats and Republicans disagreed on, like immigration and free trade. Because the Democrats were liberals on all the issues and the Republicans conservatives, obviously.

I have talked about race many times but the reason why I don't use it to divide liberals versus conservatism, is because few back then cared enough to do anything with a few exceptions, especially after 1876, which is again what most of the last few posts had been focused on 1876 to 1896, as the period where continuity is most challenged. Plantations still existed post 1876 and while conservatives in intraparty squabbles, while conservatives within their societal dynamic, they aligned with the Democrats for 3 main reasons, race consciousness, economic and anti puritanism. Nothing I said here, or previously is wrong factually.

[TDAS04]

As to which party was more conservative, is it completely incorrect to state that it was a bit unclear during the first half of the Third Party System?  Obviously, the parties never switched platforms, and it’s more accurate to state the opposite—that Democrats have always been to the left of Federalists/Whigs/Republicans—exceptions are arguable, especially the period of 1856-1876.  Completely linking the Radical Republicans and Lincoln with modern conservatives is not without its problems, and I think they could have been Democrats today (granted, even the early GOP had people who were clearly more conservative).

[RINO Tom]

As to which party was more conservative, is it completely incorrect to state that it was a bit unclear during the first half of the Third Party System?  Obviously, the parties never switched platforms, and it’s more accurate to state the opposite—that Democrats have always been to the left of Federalists/Whigs/Republicans—exceptions are arguable, especially the period of 1856-1876.  Completely linking the Radical Republicans and Lincoln with modern conservatives is not without its problems, and I think they could have been Democrats today (granted, even the early GOP had people who were clearly more conservative).

I think why you get responses like NC's is that the burden of "proof" for a change in ideology (much less a FLIP, lol) should be on the people SUGGESTING it; it should not be the assumption, as it is for most politically - err - "simple" people.   I don't think anyone here is suggesting that there is this perfect link between Thaddeus Stevens and Donald Trump, but they are suggesting that the most "backed up" explanation is conservatism and liberalism evolving in surprising and interesting ways, possibly leaving past "conservatives" uncomfortable in the "new GOP" and vice versa for the Democrats.  Whether or not that makes those who are now out of place "not conservative" or "not liberal" anymore is certainly where the debate lies.

It's largely acknowledged that there was some real ideological diversity within the parties during the mid- to late 1800s, and this is only natural when a non-ideological issue (IMO) like a civil war or abolition of slavery is involved.  However, from the primary sources I have been lucky enough to stumble across and the reading I have done, I will indeed maintain that there has always been a fundamental difference between a "liberal/progressive" Republican and a "liberal/progressive" Democrat ... kind of one of those "you know it when you see it" things, and it is reinforced by the way the two talked about each other in campaign ads and newspaper quotes.  A good example is Teddy Roosevelt and William Jennings Bryan.  They literally hated each other, IIRC, and both are remembered as progressive heroes - neither distinction without merit.  However, I think if you got both in a room and got them both drunk (come on, Bryan!), you would start to see that their underpinnings are different, with Roosevelt's being more "to the right" (however slightly) and Bryan's more "to the left."  From what I can see, this distinction (with obvious exceptions) rings true throughout the parties' histories, at least to the point of the overall makeup of each and distinction of "more conservative" and "more liberal" as whole paries.

[darklordoftech]

Can we all agree that “Democrats are still the party of the KKK. They trick blacks into voting for them by promising them welfare” is a nonsensical claim?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Can we all agree that “Democrats are still the party of the KKK. They trick blacks into voting for them by promising them welfare” is a nonsensical claim?

I don't believe anyone in this thread has every suggested otherwise —and yes, obviously, this is an absurdly stupid claim, fundamentally just as ignorant as the "party switch" theory if not more so. Dinesh D'souza is a propagandist, not a historian.

[darklordoftech]

Can we all agree that “Democrats are still the party of the KKK. They trick blacks into voting for them by promising them welfare” is a nonsensical claim?

I don't believe anyone in this thread has every suggested otherwise —and yes, obviously, this is an absurdly stupid claim, fundamentally just as ignorant as the "party switch" theory if not more so. Dinesh D'souza is a propagandist, not a historian.

I’m attributing this claim to anyone in this thread. I’m talking about D’Souza and the people who retweet him.

[Skill and Chance]

A political movement advocating a quasi-feudalist economy, like the 19th-early 20th century Southern elite has to be considered conservative, but conservative in an anti-enlightenment way, not conservative in the pro-business, hands off kind of way.  We've never had an explicitly anti-Enlightenment movement win statewide elections in modern times, so the whole concept feels foreign, as indeed it should because the US was explicitly founded on Enlightenment principles. However, you can see a much stronger strain of this form of conservatism in UK politics- lords and ladies and inherited titles, social class as something fixed for life, heavily restricting who can vote and hold office, etc.  The Southern founding fathers clearly expected the Southern neo-feudal system to die a natural death much faster than it did, as the anti-Enlightenment strain of Puritan New England had collapsed by their time.  Anti-Enlightenment movements in modern politics are pretty fringe, but you do see a strain of it on the integralist right and the eco-left, and also with anti-vaxxers.

Wealthy Southerners prior to WWII weren't particularly religious either, so they don't really fit in with modern pro-church conservatism either.  Indeed, the people they were oppressing were usually more devout than they were.  There is more of a straight line from the poor family farmers of the Upland South to modern Christian conservatism, but those were the people in the South who were most likely to consider voting Republican 100+ years ago.   

[Karpatsky]

Lincoln won a majority in all but three of his states.

I hadn't realized how incredibly efficient Lincoln's EC coalition was. Even had all his opponents been combined, he still would have been elected with less than 40% of the popular vote!