Republican nominations - Page 125

Did you know that the democrat party was created specifically to protect the institution of slavery (a break up of the Democrat Republicans) and one of the 'hallmarks' of the first and second democratic presidents was the trail of tears? (Jackson told all indians to leave south east US - georgia area, fillmore enacted policy to make it enforced by military). The republican party was created about 20 years later, and the first republican candidate, John C. Fremont, was a staunch abolitionist (as were all republicans, actually) ran under the motto "Free work, Free soil, Free men".

The republican party was actually an off-shoot of the Whig Party (just like the democrats were a break off in support of slavery) because they did not support slavery.

Antebellum north was 'republican', or very conservative as in supporting business and civil rights. Antebellum south was 'democrat' in that they supported government support for the large farms. This led to the north gaining a huge 'macro' advantage (hey its an SC forum) and winning the war, as we know it.

2 terms later, the first republican won election - Lincoln.

The KKK was founded also, as an anti-republican organization, not an anti-black organization. Back then, they were one and the same (this did not change until around the 1960's). They were ruled as a terrorist organization under I believe Grant, much like, say, the tamil tigers or alqaeda is listed as a terrorist organization today. 20 years later, further laws were put in place that to this day still makes the KKK actually an illegal organization (note that democrats david duke and robert byrd are KKK members).

For the next 80 or so years, black people were over 90% republican, and the republican party was seen as the big supporter of civil rights. Of course, they were also the party of economics/business as well (lincoln is known for creating a war-time income tax, that, as government goes, was never removed).

As referenced in above, the "southern strategy" along with a few 'oddball' democrats like Johnson and Kennedy who were pro-civil rights, despite what the majority of their party felt, swayed black people into becoming democrat. The extreme disillusionment of black people beginning with the harlem renaissance with the US and the support of 'extreme' politics with the rise of the black panthers and black celebrities like Louis Armstrong, whom were extremely anti-capitalist/US, or strongly marxist/communist (as Russia was seen as the 'opposite' of the US, which many blacks perceived not incorrectly as racist) also started the seeds within the black community that would drive them to the democrat party 30 years later. Republicans were, and still are, seen as 'nationalist', much more so than democrats, and democrats were more seen as 'communist' than the republican party, so many moderate blacks who were suspicious of the black panthers and pro-communist sympathies like what much of the Harlem Renaissance entailed, would go to the democrat party as well.

I am by no means saying the democrat party was communist, of course, everyone feared communists. But of the two parties, republicans embodied american nationalism/jingoism more thant he democrats did. Of course, it wouldn't be another 30 years until this translated into anything.

By catering to the religious conservatives of the south, the 'southern strategy' won the votes of the south and alienated the northern blacks, combined with pro-communist sentiments in the black community and the critical support of democrats lyndon johnson and JFK (who made policies much more republican in nature than democrat compared to his peers, personally i would say JFK is the best republican president we ever had) led to the black community shifting to democrats.

The dixiecrat party was a (popular) democrat offshoot in the 60s, remember, but this allowed civil rights supporting democrats take hold of their party and invite blacks in.

This didn't change the fact that republicans were still the party of civil rights, and a big thing to note
Of the 5 Civil Rights Acts (yes there was more than one boys and girls), Republicans voted in overwhelming support, over 90%, for all of them, and Democrats voted 90% against.

I've heard arguments that "oh, they magically switched parties" which makes no sense considering you have house members who stay in office for decades and wouldn't just switch en masse all of the sudden, but this supposed change must have happened after the 70's. Which is odd, blacks started switching before then, and the policies of Eisenhower and Calvin Coolidge are staunchly fiscally convserative and religiously conservative, and policies of FDR and Johnson were extremely liberal, so it makes no sense when people say such an asinine thing. Just in case anyone was going to say that...

People also seem to think amerca was 'based on slavery' or that the founding fathers supported slavery, which is outright wrong. It's sad when people fail to understand, for example, the 3/5'ths compromise, an integral part of the founding of this nation. The 3/5th's compromise, was not to say that black people had 3/5th a vote or were 3/5th a person as many (liberals) seem to believe, but it was to say that *slave holding states* would count the slave population as 3/5th a person, so when it comes to federal apportionment of funding and representation in the House, they would get less money and have less say in Congress. Slave holding states wanted slaves to count as a total person, so that way the people they systematically denied rights to, would count towards the census, and allow the states larger grants of money and more seats in the house. Free states wanted it so slaves counted not in the census, so to give incentive for states to turn free so that they would gain power through more funding and congressional representation.

It didn't work like that, and the slave holding states threatened secession and war even in 1787. Many, such as Franklin and Jefferson, knew that one day there would be civil war over this issue, but hoped that with the 3/5th's compromise, future states would decide to be free rather than slave states. It did work out this way, although not without a fight (ie bloody kansas, etc, and eventually the civil war).

In fact, the civil war was fought over slavery, and its ridiculous when anyone says otherwise. Southern states declared authority over themselves, and northern states said you must abide by the constitution. Indeed, even way before the civil war, we had black mayors and governors, and blacks had the right to vote (in many northern states, many blacks voted to ratify the constitution). Before the civil war, most of the northern states granted full rights to black people.

Anyways, it's just interesting that people think democrats are actually the support of civil rights, when it was Al Gore Sr who stood at the podium for over 24 hours in a filibuster, reading from a large text (i think it was the US code, could be the bible) to prevent one of many (republican) civil rights acts from being passed. Not some long ago politician, but al gore's father.

After the civil rights movement, blacks were largely enfranchised, even though there was a resurgence in the KKK in the south. However democrats won the image game, and are seen as the champions of civil rights, even though Abraham Lincol was a republican, the republican party was specifically founded by abolitionists, and the democrat party was founded solely to support slavery.

Also note, that the 14th and 15th amendments were stupid - in the sense that law already existed affirming rights to black people - the fucking US constitution. While northern states already honored such law, after the civil war Congress created these amendments to make crystal clear that black people have the same rights as anyone else. There would follow many repetitive civil rights acts afterwards to further make sure people didn't try to find legal loopholes.

Nowadays none of this really matters, racism is a non-issue in both parties. Things like affirmative action has nothing to do with giving rights to people that are denied them (even though it was put into place by a republican to get minorities representation in government contracting work when it really was necessary), but yet is spun as a civil rights issue.

So the more you know.