Discussion:
Why do they say, "southern slave owners" instead of "Democrat slave owners?"
(too old to reply)
RichA
2020-07-05 00:33:13 UTC
Permalink
Most slave-owners ended-up in the south, but they used to be all over and the vast majority were Democrats.
suzeeq
2020-07-05 01:02:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by RichA
Most slave-owners ended-up in the south, but they used to be all over and the vast majority were Democrats.
The 19th century democratic party changed faces in the 1970s.
EGK
2020-07-05 01:07:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by suzeeq
Post by RichA
Most slave-owners ended-up in the south, but they used to be all over and the vast majority were Democrats.
The 19th century democratic party changed faces in the 1970s.
Tell that to Robert Byrd
trotsky
2020-07-05 13:29:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by EGK
Post by suzeeq
Post by RichA
Most slave-owners ended-up in the south, but they used to be all over and the vast majority were Democrats.
The 19th century democratic party changed faces in the 1970s.
Tell that to Robert Byrd
How?
Micky DuPree
2020-07-05 01:57:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by suzeeq
Post by RichA
Most slave-owners ended-up in the south, but they used to be all over
and the vast majority were Democrats.
The 19th century democratic party changed faces in the 1970s.
Actually started in the 1960s, when the Southern Dixiecrats defected to
the Republicans in the wake of Lyndon Johnson signing the civil rights
acts into law. Johnson correctly predicted the impact of this as
costing the Democrats the South for a generation, which seems like an
optimistic estimate to me. Most of the ex-Confederate states either
went for Nixon or for segregationist third-party candidate George
Wallace in 1968. (Yep, just checked the map. The only ex-Confederate
state that went for the 1968 Democratic nominee for president was
Texas.)

Anyone who pretends there's a simple continuity between the Democrats of
the early 1860s and the Democrats of the late 1960s is either horribly
ignorant or else willfully lying. Always hard to tell which with Rich.
When arch-segregationist Sen. Strom Thurmond decided to switch to the
Republican Party in the wake of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that was a
huge honking hint that a sea change was afoot. The party of Lincoln
became the party of Lincoln's assassins.

-Micky
FPP
2020-07-05 04:17:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by suzeeq
Post by RichA
Most slave-owners ended-up in the south, but they used to be all over
and the vast majority were Democrats.
The 19th century democratic party changed faces in the 1970s.
And maybe because there were slaves here well before the Democratic
party was founded in 1828?
--
Nuts that spent the last twenty years prepping their bunker to survive
indefinitely in a nuclear winter are giving up after wearing a thin
cloth mask for three weeks. LOL -Matt Haughey

"Leaders who have hidden in a bunker and gassed their own citizens
include Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler and Donald [Bunker Bitch] Trump." -
Ben Wexler
REAL PRESIDENTS LEAD. REALITY TV PRESIDENTS DON'T.

Trump: "No, I don't take responsibility at all." - 3/13/20
The Horny Goat
2020-07-05 07:59:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by suzeeq
Post by RichA
Most slave-owners ended-up in the south, but they used to be all over
and the vast majority were Democrats.
The 19th century democratic party changed faces in the 1970s.
And maybe because there were slaves here well before the Democratic
party was founded in 1828?
Rich never claimed the Democratic party invented slavery - he said
that the Democratic party was strongest in the former slave states
which was demonstrably true particularly after the advent of post 1865
Jim Crow voting laws which systematically disenfranchised a lot of
blacks for a very long time. Some would argue even today.

There was a time when most blacks were solid Republicans - and the GOP
basically kissed that support away.

There are doubtless people here who know their US electoral history
better than I but that's the 30000 foot view.
trotsky
2020-07-05 12:54:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by FPP
Post by suzeeq
Post by RichA
Most slave-owners ended-up in the south, but they used to be all over
and the vast majority were Democrats.
The 19th century democratic party changed faces in the 1970s.
And maybe because there were slaves here well before the Democratic
party was founded in 1828?
Weren't you the least bit tempted to ask about the "18th century
Democratic Party"?
RichA
2020-07-05 05:07:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by suzeeq
Post by RichA
Most slave-owners ended-up in the south, but they used to be all over and the vast majority were Democrats.
The 19th century democratic party changed faces in the 1970s.
Did they still have slaves in the 1970's?
suzeeq
2020-07-05 05:29:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by RichA
Post by suzeeq
Post by RichA
Most slave-owners ended-up in the south, but they used to be all over and the vast majority were Democrats.
The 19th century democratic party changed faces in the 1970s.
Did they still have slaves in the 1970's?
Of course not, but southern Democrats changed to the republican party
following the civil rights act of the mid 1960s.
The Horny Goat
2020-07-05 07:54:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by suzeeq
Post by RichA
Most slave-owners ended-up in the south, but they used to be all over and the vast majority were Democrats.
The 19th century democratic party changed faces in the 1970s.
Earlier than the 70s but your point is valid.
Roger Blake
2020-07-05 14:48:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by suzeeq
The 19th century democratic party changed faces in the 1970s.
Nonsense, that's just another lie the Party of Slavery, the Confederacy,
and Jim Crow likes to tell. A few 'rats defected but not near enough to
change the nature of the Republican party. In point of fact it was the
DemocRATs who tolerated an ex-Klansman in the senate well into the 21st
century.

In fact the DemocRATs are *still* the Party of Slavery. Chattel slavery
is not the only form that vile practice takes. As the Republican Lincoln
observed on the nature of slavery:

"'You toil and work and earn bread, and I'll eat it.' No matter in what
shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride
the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or
from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is
the same tyrannical principle."

The philosophy of (paraphrased) "You work and I eat" is at the heart of
the modern DemocRAT party. After all this time, still the Party of Slavery.

--
Adam H. Kerman
2020-07-05 20:12:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by suzeeq
Post by RichA
Most slave-owners ended-up in the south, but they used to be all over and the vast majority were Democrats.
The 19th century democratic party changed faces in the 1970s.
Only partially. There were any number of times in history in which
coalitions making up each party changed. 1964 was just one year in which
that happened.

Because the United States has a two-party system, which is largely
unintentional, the two major parties are broad coaltions. The coalitions
form and reform and reform again. The ex-Dixiecrats forming a coalition
with the Republicans wasn't the first major shift.

Black voters used to be Republicans. Labor used to be Republicans. With
Roosevelt's New Deal, there was a long-term shift over several decades,
even though the Democratic Party thwarted efforts at integration under
"modern" presidents like Woodrow Wilson (who reversed progress in
integration under Republicans McKinley, Roosevelt, and Taft), and FDR
gave mostly lip service to integration. It was Truman who forced
integration in both military and civilian federal jobs.

Under Eisenhower, the federal courts moved largely toward integration
and Eisenhower, of course, made five appointments to the Supreme Court
who were largely civil libertarians: Warren, Harlan, Brennan, Whittaker,
and Potter Stewart. The Eisenhower Supreme Court was famously accused of
being activist, including by Eisenhower himself at times.

I admit to having no memory of any important opinions written by
Whittaker. Someone will have to remind me.

Eisenhower himself had a mixed legacy on integration with respect to his
administration. He's most famous for (illegally) sending in federal
troops to force integration of Little Rock schools after Brown v Board
of Education ruling. This was the Little Rock Nine incident we all
learned about in elementary school. But there were other times in which
he didn't support integration and progress on civil rights.

Until the vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, you still had about half
of the black electorate voting Republican (which ignores the South given
disenfranchisement) and more Republicans in Congress supported civil
rights legislation than Democrats. But Goldwater, the Republican nominee
for president, voted against the legislation and thereafter, many fewer
blacks supported the Republican Party.

In the mid 1960s, it wasn't just former Dixiecrats joining the
Republican coalition, it was that black voters were no longer a swing
constituency.

Adam H. Kerman
2020-07-05 10:19:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by RichA
Most slave-owners ended-up in the south, but they used to be all over
and the vast majority were Democrats.
There were slaves in northern colonies before 1776 (and in a few cases
after), but you're completely wrong that recognizeable political parties
would have existed.

You think today's Republican Party would have supported Lincoln or
passed the civil rights legislation of the Reconstruction Era or
supported the mid-1960s civil rights legislation?

You're completely insane.

Note that today's Democrats wouldn't have either. Recostruction Era
civil rights legislation specifically implementing the 14th and 15th
Amendments tended to be racially neutral.
Loading...