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.
Haven't you heard? Nathan Bedford had the best interests of the slaves at heart. He was just saving them from those meddlesome Yankees who so cruelly freed them before they were ready. (Sadly, I wish I weren't making the exact same argument that racists have made for the past 150 years. I find it sad that the OP, a black man, is falling for this claptrap.)
Rik, if you want to be a Republican -- great. I can see how it appeals to certain interests and people of certain inclinations. The truth is that the Republican Party of 2012 is trying very hard to bury its racist past. I am all for a Republican Party that reaches out to people of color, and I'm all for people of color having a choice of two or more parties. You can't rewrite history though.
We have always had those "types" among us Black people...
In this very long thread not one person has disagreed with you that once upon time the Republican Party was the party of racial progressiveness. However, that time ended -- rather blantantly -- in the early 1960s.
Actually it began in 1877 when the Republican party callously made a deal with the devil to end Reconstruction in order to win the presidency for Rutherford B. Hayes.
You are wrong about both. Although it was 1875 he was still the first hispanic governor and was a republican. The republicans are the prty that freed the slaves and created the civil right act. The democrats have tried to re write history. And you are trying to split hairs because you can not win the argument.
And it wasn't 1863, per your OP, was it?
I'm not trying to split hairs. I am being pedantic. I know this and I hate it. But you posted things aren't accurate or correct. I started a point by point rebuttal. Then Jadex came in and basically said I said something I didn't say, and essentially attacked my credibility. I've been tediously trying to defend my credibility.
You dismiss your mistakes like they're not noteworthy. But of course, it is noteworthy. Your errors show that you've failed to do any real research into the topic, but instead are cutting and pasting from sites that don't really care about accuracy either.
The winning argument here is that political parties evolve over time. The Republican Party of 1860 has changed dramatically over the past 150 years. And it has not been the party that advances social progressivism for many, many years. That fact is reflected in how the demographics of the membership has changed. Either party can point to a plethora of achievements in advancing equality and justice in our society, because our society itself has chosen to take that direction. But those advancements have also had costs, and members of our society have resisted those advancements. Right now, the advancement of equality demands that gays be accorded an equal status with heterosexuals in our society. And we can see that that advancement is resisted vehemently. The Republican Party's current alignment with conservatism pits them against progressivism in our current political climate. That doesn't mean that over time the Republican Party will not be more progressive, or that the Democratic Party won't become more conservative and reactionary. The two parties tend to be fluid, changing sides back and forth. And the issue isn't who is conservative and who is progressive. The issue is and always has been that we have, as a matter of design, a government that was always intended to move slowly on these issues, and that the political parties serve our society by hashing out these issues, making detailed, cogent arguments for both sides, so that the issues can be fully addressed. It's the best sort of democracy. The kind that works hard to educated the people about the issues and ramifications of the solutions to those issues.
Actually it began in 1877 when the Republican party callously made a deal with the devil to end Reconstruction in order to win the presidency for Rutherford B. Hayes.
In that period, there were the Lily Whites in the GOP and people who tried to help black people. No one was really sticking their neck out too far for full and equal civil rights, but those who were doing something were found in the GOP.
I'm not trying to split hairs. I am being pedantic. I know this and I hate it. But you posted things aren't accurate or correct. I started a point by point rebuttal. Then Jadex came in and basically said I said something I didn't say, and essentially attacked my credibility. I've been tediously trying to defend my credibility.
You dismiss your mistakes like they're not noteworthy. But of course, it is noteworthy. Your errors show that you've failed to do any real research into the topic, but instead are cutting and pasting from sites that don't really care about accuracy either.
The winning argument here is that political parties evolve over time. The Republican Party of 1860 has changed dramatically over the past 150 years. And it has not been the party that advances social progressivism for many, many years. That fact is reflected in how the demographics of the membership has changed. Either party can point to a plethora of achievements in advancing equality and justice in our society, because our society itself has chosen to take that direction. But those advancements have also had costs, and members of our society have resisted those advancements. Right now, the advancement of equality demands that gays be accorded an equal status with heterosexuals in our society. And we can see that that advancement is resisted vehemently. The Republican Party's current alignment with conservatism pits them against progressivism in our current political climate. That doesn't mean that over time the Republican Party will not be more progressive, or that the Democratic Party won't become more conservative and reactionary. The two parties tend to be fluid, changing sides back and forth. And the issue isn't who is conservative and who is progressive. The issue is and always has been that we have, as a matter of design, a government that was always intended to move slowly on these issues, and that the political parties serve our society by hashing out these issues, making detailed, cogent arguments for both sides, so that the issues can be fully addressed. It's the best sort of democracy. The kind that works hard to educated the people about the issues and ramifications of the solutions to those issues.
Great post, DC. I'm sure it will be wasted on the OP, who is far more interested in scoring some cheap political points than he is the truth. The truth is that given the absymal record of the Democratic Party to advance civil liberties for all Americans in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it's rather ironic that in the past few decades it has become the party of progressivism ... but it has.
I wish more Republicans would rediscover their roots and freshen up their platform by again advancing the rights of the individual to be free. I'd like to see TWO mainstream political parties fighting for the rights of gay Americans, and the cranks fighting against them to have to resort to founding some sort of bizarre third party like the Crank Constutionalist Citizens Council or something along those lines. For now though, the Grand Old Parody of Lincoln's party has proven it is more than willing to champion bigotry to win some votes.
Eddie, you're forgetting that the Republicans have done two things for minorities since then -- 1) they established this wonderful economy in which everyone, including minorities, can flourish and 2) humanitarians that they are, freed women from the evil clutches of the Taliban. Now a cynic would assume that second one was really about killing our enemies and had nothing to do with gender matters per se, but don't you believe it. That great gender warrior George W. Bush would have invaded Afghanistan and built those girls schools even if they weren't harboring Bin Laden.
I bet we could come up w/ a clearer list of what Republicans have done for minorities than any of these Neocons.
3) Improved minority & female standing in society by refocusing bigotry against immigrants & gays
I bet we could come up w/ a clearer list of what Republicans have done for minorities than any of these Neocons.
3) Improved minority & female standing in society by refocusing bigotry against immigrants & gays
LOL! True. I'll add that they've done a lot to end religious bigotry since the 1960s too. It used to be that good Americans hated Jews and Catholics. Now, all Christains and even Jews are embraced. It's those damn Muslims we have to worry about.
The Republican party of then, is not the Republican party of today.
Neither is the Democratic party. Both have been hijacked by their extreme ideological fringe. They've both become the party of the same end, only caring about what they can do for themselves to maintain their power, to redistribute wealth either to their corporate/banking friends or foreign powers that they are beholding to.
I'd rather vote for a party that at the very least makes hope for a smaller government possible, rather than a party that openly wants to become a socialist power. All I've seen in the last three years is a power grab with government control and a nanny state on the horizon. We are becoming a failure on a scale the world has never seen. It's the perfect storm leading to a one-world government and total domination by a ruling class.
One day people will say, "we didn't realize until it was too late," and it will be too late. So, all of you party line parrots (on both sides) can keep savoring that partisan rhetoric you love so much, while the rest of us (who know better) just shake our heads at the total lunacy of it all.
No one was really sticking their neck out too far for full and equal civil rights, but those who were doing something were found in the GOP.
Well that's not completely true, there were many who were wiling to stick their neck our and most were Republicans but the point is still valid. The defection of African Americans from the Republican Party did indeed begin as a result of the Second Corrupt Bargain of 1877. Not only did it result in the removal of troops to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments is resulted in the betrayal of African American's who had been elected to the House and Senate under the Republican banner and replaced by hook and by crook with reenstated former confederate Democrats.
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.
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.
(Sadly, I wish I weren't making the exact same argument that racists have made for the past 150 years. I find it sad that the OP, a black man, is falling for this claptrap.) 
