Oh my how times have changed...

[crockett]

This is a sample from an article from the July 1899 Popular Science Monthly.

It's a article talking about race issues and riots in NC & SC..

But to be more specific for all practical purposes, there are two political parties in the South?a black man's party and a white man's party. In saying this, I do not mean that all white men are Democrats, for there are some white men in the South of the highest character who are Republicans, and there are a few negroes in the South of the highest character who are Democrats. It is the general understanding that all white men are Democrats, or the equivalent, and that all black men are Republicans. So long as the color line is the dividing line in politics, so long will there be trouble.

I've often wondered why the Republican Party became so hateful of everyone that isn't white. It's actually pretty interesting to read a piece from that time period when when the Democrat party was known as the White man's party and the Republican Party was for the Black man. It's quite funny to see how much both parties have changed.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/45361...-h/45361-h.htm

Scroll down to : THE RACE PROBLEM IN THE UNITED STATES. For the full article. It was a interesting read, and a eyeball into the period 30 years or so after the civil war had ended.

I wonder what some of those far right pundits would think if they ever read a bit of history and learned the Republican Party used to be the black man's party..

It's also kinda funny that the Democrats used to be what the Republican Party is today..

[bl4h]

well I can tell ya this, im more right than I am left, and I would have stuck up for minorities in those conditions back then, and If I lived long enough to live to this point in time, have the same no hand holding policy right wingers have today. The situation changes not the politics really. theres context here.

democrats are still to this day racist and out of touch

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by crockett

I wonder what some of those far right pundits would think if they ever read a bit of history and learned the Republican Party used to be the black man's party..

This is high school American history, whatever you may think of them the Far Right pundits are well aware that Lincoln was a Republican and the 'Solid South' was total electoral domination by the Democrats across the segregated South. And remained that way until the national Democratic party took up the civil rights movement in 1948, which pissed off the segregationists enough to start a third party known as the Dixiecrats, Strom Thurmond was their candidate, who incredibly served as a US senator until his death in 2003 at age 100.

Interesting, as I read the Wikipedia entries, I see these Southern Democrats who are the ancestors of the Tea Party movement were against keeping the United States on the gold standard, today they rant and rave against the tyranny of our fiat currency system.

[kane]

I think this is a good example of how most political parties aren't really about defining their morals and principles then sticking to them and finding voters that agree with them. They are about getting elected and saying/doing what is needed to make that happen even if that is completely the opposite of what they used to believe.

One thing that did happen to the republicans is that Reagan heavily courted the religious right. After his election it became clear to many republicans that the way to win elections was to make them happy. Karl Rove is famous for saying that the key for a republican win was to heavily court the evangelicals, move just enough to the middle to pull in the right leaning independents then hope it rains on election day. The far right is organized and they vote so a low voter turnout benefits the republicans (hence many of the current voter suppression laws that they are trying to put into place). The problem with this is that the evangelicals the took control of the party so candidates were forced to bow to them or never win.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Mutt

This is high school American history, whatever you may think of them the Far Right pundits are well aware that Lincoln was a Republican and the 'Solid South' was total electoral domination by the Democrats across the segregated South. And remained that way until the national Democratic party took up the civil rights movement in 1948, which pissed off the segregationists enough to start a third party known as the Dixiecrats, Strom Thurmond was their candidate, who incredibly served as a US senator until his death in 2003 at age 100.

Interesting, as I read the Wikipedia entries, I see these Southern Democrats who are the ancestors of the Tea Party movement were against keeping the United States on the gold standard, today they rant and rave against the tyranny of our fiat currency system.

Oh, they may know about Lincoln but I could bet you they don't really understand that the Republican Party was once known as the black man's party. Most people in this country are pretty ignorant of actual history outside of the very basic stuff.

I just find it pretty interesting to read an article from that time, which still almost reads true today, with the exception that both parties have reversed their roles like some sort of bazaro world and that change took place in less than 100 years. In fact there are a small handful of people today, that were alive when this article was published.

[Matt 26z]

Originally Posted by crockett

I could bet you they don't really understand that the Republican Party was once known as the black man's party.

and I could bet you nobody gives a flying fuck what any party stood for 150 years ago.

[mineistaken]

Democrats went for leeching, welfare and "giving to the people" thus started attracting those who love handouts etc. Basically left wing shit.
Republicans are for the ideal that you must earn your money and not get handouts. Basically for productive society, encouraging hard working people, not punishing them.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by crockett

This is a sample from an article from the July 1899 Popular Science Monthly.

It's a article talking about race issues and riots in NC & SC..



I've often wondered why the Republican Party became so hateful of everyone that isn't white. It's actually pretty interesting to read a piece from that time period when when the Democrat party was known as the White man's party and the Republican Party was for the Black man. It's quite funny to see how much both parties have changed.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/45361...-h/45361-h.htm

Scroll down to : THE RACE PROBLEM IN THE UNITED STATES. For the full article. It was a interesting read, and a eyeball into the period 30 years or so after the civil war had ended.

I wonder what some of those far right pundits would think if they ever read a bit of history and learned the Republican Party used to be the black man's party..

It's also kinda funny that the Democrats used to be what the Republican Party is today..

WTF is wrong with you? everything in the world is not about black people

[deltav]

Originally Posted by mineistaken

Democrats went for leeching, welfare and "giving to the people" thus started attracting those who love handouts etc. Basically left wing shit.
Republicans are for the ideal that you must earn your money and not get handouts. Basically for productive society, encouraging hard working people, not punishing them.

[fpcgary]

Originally Posted by mineistaken

Democrats went for leeching, welfare and "giving to the people" thus started attracting those who love handouts etc. Basically left wing shit.
Republicans are for the ideal that you must earn your money and not get handouts. Basically for productive society, encouraging hard working people, not punishing them.

LOL

More like handouts for everyone versus handouts for the wealthy and corporations.

[mineistaken]

Originally Posted by fpcgary

LOL

More like handouts for everyone versus handouts for the wealthy and corporations.

How do they handout to wealthy? Wealthy guys pay way more taxes than poor guys. Not only in absolute numbers of course. This is how the system punishes hard working people. And that is particularly left wingers field of expertise.
That is why I am always surprised to see seemingly quality member of society voting for left wingers.

[deltav]

Originally Posted by mineistaken

How do they handout to wealthy? Wealthy guys pay way more taxes than poor guys. Not only in absolute numbers of course. This is how the system punishes hard working people. And that is particularly left wingers field of expertise.
That is why I am always surprised to see seemingly quality member of society voting for left wingers.

You obviously have about a 2nd grade level understanding of American politics and economics - and I'm being generous there - so it's not even worth explaining to you.

[mineistaken]

Originally Posted by deltav

You obviously have about a 2nd grade level understanding of American politics and economics - and I'm being generous there - so it's not even worth explaining to you.

This is not American specific, this is world specific when speaking about what left parties stands for (for "common folk" and punishing wealthy people and handing it out to "common people" in order to make people more "equal").

[mineistaken]

And here you go, US specific:
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democrat_vs_Republican
Economic Ideas section.
Or is it 2nd grader who made this as well?

Seriously, how can anyone not understand the core difference between left and right?
One is for losers, encourages slacking, taking wealthy and giving to slackers and one if for equal opportunity - you get what you deserve/earn.

[fpcgary]

Originally Posted by mineistaken

And here you go, US specific:
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democrat_vs_Republican
Economic Ideas section.
Or is it 2nd grader who made this as well?

Seriously, how can anyone not understand the core difference between left and right?
One is for losers and punishing wealthy and one if for equal opportunity.

Solid political insight right there.

[mineistaken]

Originally Posted by fpcgary

Solid political insight right there.

May not be solid insight, but we are talking about single core difference between left and right views. This is fact, I highly doubt this was news to you.
So if you are 47% you vote democrats, if you are quality member and hard working member of society you do not like to be punished for earning more, you vote republican.

[fpcgary]

If you respect people (or like to pretend you do) you vote democrat, if you secretly hate everyone different than you, anyone with a vagina or have a vagina yourself but hate yourself for it, then you vote republican. You cant boil everything down to economics. Hate plays a big factor as well.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by mineistaken

May not be solid insight, but we are talking about single core difference between left and right views. This is fact, I highly doubt this was news to you.
So if you are 47% you vote democrats, if you are quality member and hard working member of society you do not like to be punished for earning more, you vote republican.

You sound like a angry person, why so much hate an hostilitaly? You are right there is something that always sticks out about people from the right. They are always so angry and temperamental when you challenge their basic ideals. Is it this much of a shock to you that Republicans were once the negro party? Is that too hard for you to accept?

[GregE]

Originally Posted by kane

One thing that did happen to the republicans is that Reagan heavily courted the religious right. After his election it became clear to many republicans that the way to win elections was to make them happy. Karl Rove is famous for saying that the key for a republican win was to heavily court the evangelicals, move just enough to the middle to pull in the right leaning independents then hope it rains on election day. The far right is organized and they vote so a low voter turnout benefits the republicans (hence many of the current voter suppression laws that they are trying to put into place). The problem with this is that the evangelicals the took control of the party so candidates were forced to bow to them or never win.

The real change started in 1964 with Goldwater's Southern Strategy and intensified in 1968 with Nixon's version of the same. Prior to 1964, Republicans as a group and both Goldwater and (to a lesser degree) Nixon as individuals supported Civil Rights legislation.

By the time Reagan came around this metamorphosis was already a done deed. It is true however that Reagan succeeded in further strengthening the Republicans in the South by luring the region's religious yahoos their way as well.