U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-08-2019, 07:44 PM
 
1,740 posts, read 593,588 times
Reputation: 1336

Advertisements

The antebellum Democrat party of slavery was decisively defeated in the Civil War, never to rise again.

After that, there were two Democrat parties, a northern version and a rump southern version. The southern version was a continuation of the Jefferson-Jackson party, while the northern version was something entirely new: the party of people who had immigrated to the US after independence.

From 1860 to 1928, Democrats only won 4 presidential elections, with 2 apiece going to Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson.

Cleveland was a northern Democrat from Buffalo who was squeaky clean during a venal time in American politics. Largely a protest vote against the Gilded Age corruption.

Wilson is more interesting. He was a dyed-in-the-wool racist southern Democrat who also happened to be highly educated, the president of Princeton who brought graduate school to American shores. He was a bridge between the two Democrat parties, a racist and a reformer, whose political advisor was a northern Irishman named Tumulty.

Wilson was only elected because TR split the Republican vote. He was the last of the old southern Democrat party. The old Democrats would try again with progressive technocrats in James Cox and John Davis, who both lost spectacularly.

Then the new Democrat party took control, and nominated northern Irish Catholic Al Smith. He also lost spectacularly, but FDR would go on to complete the metamorphosis of the Democrats from the party of southern farmers to the party of urban immigrants. The rest is history. The southern Democrat party well and truly died in the 2014 midterm election, when Republicans swept southern Senate seats and statewide offices.

So when people go on to say that, "Democrats are the party of slavery", it's just wrong. The party of slavery is dead, and hasn't been more than a regional force for 100 years. There were two Democrat parties for 150 years, who shared little more than a name and would only sometimes unite to be effective. The Democrat party of today is the party of urban immigrants and the North.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-08-2019, 07:46 PM
 
3,559 posts, read 1,368,509 times
Reputation: 6981
i remember Democrat sheriffs turning Democrat dogs onto the MLK marchers. Solid South meant Democrat.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2019, 07:50 PM
 
1,740 posts, read 593,588 times
Reputation: 1336
Quote:
Originally Posted by turkeydance View Post
i remember Democrat sheriffs turning Democrat dogs onto the MLK marchers. Solid South meant Democrat.
Yes, that was the dying gasp of the old Democrat party.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2019, 07:57 PM
 
766 posts, read 252,546 times
Reputation: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avondalist View Post
The antebellum Democrat party of slavery was decisively defeated in the Civil War, never to rise again.

After that, there were two Democrat parties, a northern version and a rump southern version. The southern version was a continuation of the Jefferson-Jackson party, while the northern version was something entirely new: the party of people who had immigrated to the US after independence.

From 1860 to 1928, Democrats only won 4 presidential elections, with 2 apiece going to Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson.

Cleveland was a northern Democrat from Buffalo who was squeaky clean during a venal time in American politics. Largely a protest vote against the Gilded Age corruption.

Wilson is more interesting. He was a dyed-in-the-wool racist southern Democrat who also happened to be highly educated, the president of Princeton who brought graduate school to American shores. He was a bridge between the two Democrat parties, a racist and a reformer, whose political advisor was a northern Irishman named Tumulty.

Wilson was only elected because TR split the Republican vote. He was the last of the old southern Democrat party. The old Democrats would try again with progressive technocrats in James Cox and John Davis, who both lost spectacularly.

Then the new Democrat party took control, and nominated northern Irish Catholic Al Smith. He also lost spectacularly, but FDR would go on to complete the metamorphosis of the Democrats from the party of southern farmers to the party of urban immigrants. The rest is history. The southern Democrat party well and truly died in the 2014 midterm election, when Republicans swept southern Senate seats and statewide offices.

So when people go on to say that, "Democrats are the party of slavery", it's just wrong. The party of slavery is dead, and hasn't been more than a regional force for 100 years. There were two Democrat parties for 150 years, who shared little more than a name and would only sometimes unite to be effective. The Democrat party of today is the party of urban immigrants and the North.
you forgot to mention that Lincoln was a republican and no way would they be part of the anti-slavery party lol and held the grudge a long time
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2019, 08:02 PM
 
17,787 posts, read 19,805,586 times
Reputation: 7442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avondalist View Post
The antebellum Democrat party of slavery was decisively defeated in the Civil War, never to rise again.

After that, there were two Democrat parties, a northern version and a rump southern version. The southern version was a continuation of the Jefferson-Jackson party, while the northern version was something entirely new: the party of people who had immigrated to the US after independence.

From 1860 to 1928, Democrats only won 4 presidential elections, with 2 apiece going to Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson.

Cleveland was a northern Democrat from Buffalo who was squeaky clean during a venal time in American politics. Largely a protest vote against the Gilded Age corruption.

Wilson is more interesting. He was a dyed-in-the-wool racist southern Democrat who also happened to be highly educated, the president of Princeton who brought graduate school to American shores. He was a bridge between the two Democrat parties, a racist and a reformer, whose political advisor was a northern Irishman named Tumulty.

Wilson was only elected because TR split the Republican vote. He was the last of the old southern Democrat party. The old Democrats would try again with progressive technocrats in James Cox and John Davis, who both lost spectacularly.

Then the new Democrat party took control, and nominated northern Irish Catholic Al Smith. He also lost spectacularly, but FDR would go on to complete the metamorphosis of the Democrats from the party of southern farmers to the party of urban immigrants. The rest is history. The southern Democrat party well and truly died in the 2014 midterm election, when Republicans swept southern Senate seats and statewide offices.

So when people go on to say that, "Democrats are the party of slavery", it's just wrong. The party of slavery is dead, and hasn't been more than a regional force for 100 years. There were two Democrat parties for 150 years, who shared little more than a name and would only sometimes unite to be effective. The Democrat party of today is the party of urban immigrants and the North.
I wouldn't say there was two different parties but one part of the party was diverging from the main racist Democrat party... Ironically you can see that today in the current Democratic party with one part going Socialist from the main party.... I laugh when I see Democrats denying their racist heritage, it only proves they are still racists...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2019, 08:04 PM
 
18,857 posts, read 9,629,862 times
Reputation: 5293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avondalist View Post
The antebellum Democrat party of slavery was decisively defeated in the Civil War, never to rise again.

After that, there were two Democrat parties, a northern version and a rump southern version. The southern version was a continuation of the Jefferson-Jackson party, while the northern version was something entirely new: the party of people who had immigrated to the US after independence.

From 1860 to 1928, Democrats only won 4 presidential elections, with 2 apiece going to Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson.

Cleveland was a northern Democrat from Buffalo who was squeaky clean during a venal time in American politics. Largely a protest vote against the Gilded Age corruption.

Wilson is more interesting. He was a dyed-in-the-wool racist southern Democrat who also happened to be highly educated, the president of Princeton who brought graduate school to American shores. He was a bridge between the two Democrat parties, a racist and a reformer, whose political advisor was a northern Irishman named Tumulty.

Wilson was only elected because TR split the Republican vote. He was the last of the old southern Democrat party. The old Democrats would try again with progressive technocrats in James Cox and John Davis, who both lost spectacularly.

Then the new Democrat party took control, and nominated northern Irish Catholic Al Smith. He also lost spectacularly, but FDR would go on to complete the metamorphosis of the Democrats from the party of southern farmers to the party of urban immigrants. The rest is history. The southern Democrat party well and truly died in the 2014 midterm election, when Republicans swept southern Senate seats and statewide offices.

So when people go on to say that, "Democrats are the party of slavery", it's just wrong. The party of slavery is dead, and hasn't been more than a regional force for 100 years. There were two Democrat parties for 150 years, who shared little more than a name and would only sometimes unite to be effective. The Democrat party of today is the party of urban immigrants and the North.

LOL. Like two sides of the same coin.

Democrats then: you work, I eat.
Democrats today: I eat, you work.

Same difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2019, 08:05 PM
 
1,740 posts, read 593,588 times
Reputation: 1336
Quote:
Originally Posted by elvis44102 View Post
you forgot to mention that Lincoln was a republican and no way would they be part of the anti-slavery party lol and held the grudge a long time
The Republicans ended slavery and helped pass civil rights.

The "southern strategy" invoked by liberals to claim that the Republicans are now the party of slavery is an ahistorical bogeyman.

There is no more party of slavery.

Both parties contain racists of all races, but on balance because of the southern strategy the Republicans now have the most white racists.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2019, 08:08 PM
 
5,608 posts, read 3,665,509 times
Reputation: 5427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avondalist View Post
The Republicans ended slavery and helped pass civil rights.

The "southern strategy" invoked by liberals to claim that the Republicans are now the party of slavery is an ahistorical bogeyman.

There is no more party of slavery.

Both parties contain racists of all races, but on balance because of the southern strategy the Republicans now have the most white racists.
Not the Republicans of today.

Look at the people, not the parties. Parties change, the north vs south has not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2019, 08:09 PM
 
18,857 posts, read 9,629,862 times
Reputation: 5293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avondalist View Post
The Republicans ended slavery and helped pass civil rights.

The "southern strategy" invoked by liberals to claim that the Republicans are now the party of slavery is an ahistorical bogeyman.

There is no more party of slavery.

Both parties contain racists of all races, but on balance because of the southern strategy the Republicans now have the most white racists.
Not true.

Democrats love racism in their own party. What do you think identity politics is?

Republicans universally denounce racism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2019, 08:12 PM
 
2,785 posts, read 1,138,197 times
Reputation: 2650
This thread is about to go up in flames, can already feel it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top