Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
 
Old 10-29-2016, 08:48 PM
 
Location: Free From The Oppressive State
30,110 posts, read 23,499,354 times
Reputation: 38340

Advertisements

This originally started out as a response to a poster on another thread who stated that the Civil War was about the south against the north, but it turned in to something more because I'm tired of hearing the same myths over and again. So I took my time to provide extensive links to prove all that has been stated. Please note, all links are provided at the bottom of the post.

The Dems have been on the wrong side of equal rights for hundreds of years, there was no switch, they are still wrong. I'm completely positive that some on here will pretend it doesn't exist, will not even read a single sentence before declaring it wrong, will read a few things they don't agree with and declare it wrong, will come back with statements that are false, etc. I expect that, and I'm not speaking to those people. This is for those who don't know the history. This is for those who are genuinely curious. It's not for liars.


The Claim: The Republicans and the Democrats switched, therefore, all of the things that the Democrats did in the past were actually the Republicans, and all of the great things that the Republicans did in the past were actually the Democrats.

Yes. Some people actually have the audacity to say that with a straight face. So let's do this....

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thomas Jefferson's party was the DemocratRepublican party which then split. The Democrat party was formed, and about 9 years later Andrew Jackson became president of the Dem party, 1829. Because of Jackson, who thought NDNs were lesser people and whites were the superior people, he stole their land, killed them, burned their homes, and then took that land and sold it to white people for votes. The Trail of Tears was all Jackson. A Democrat.

The Whig party, that had split from Jefferson's Democrat Republican party, fought Jackson. Jackson signed it in to law that the NDNs would have their land taken from them, put them on the Trail of Tears on to reservations, and made them dependent on the government.

Former Whig party member, Lincoln, formed the Republican party in 1854 for the SOLE PURPOSE of abolishing slavery. The Whig's had fought Jackson on slavery...Jackson who had hundreds of slaves, treated them cruelly, and was a member of the Democrat Party. In fact, the Dems were the ones who embraced slavery. Jackson's VP, John C. Calhoun, was to give a speech stating that slavery benefitted everyone, even the slaves. He had the nerve to actually state that slavery was good for the slaves.

The propaganda from the left is that the Civil War was about the nice dems in the north against the evil horrible Republicans in the south, but the reality is, it was about the racist, slave loving Dems against the Repubs who wanted to abolish slavery. To insinuate that only Dems lived in the north and only Repubs lived in the south is one of the most dishonest tales ever spun by the lying Dem party.

Before all of that happened, in 1854, Senator Charles Sumner, a Republican, got up and denounced slavery and was against the Kansas-Nebraska Act that would allow the territories to decide if they wanted to allow slavery. So, someone stated earlier that "allowing the states to decide was racist"....well, they weren't states, but if you want to say that, sure, that has been known to have happened in the past...allowing them to decide was racist...BUT NOW HOW THE LIBERAL WHO SAID THAT THINKS IT WAS, because it was the Dems, once again, allowing the racism to happen if those territories wanted to allow it. It was NOT the Republicans. Anyway, for his speech, Sumner was summarily beaten with a cane by Senator Preston Brooks, a Democrat from South Carolina...not a northern state, fyi.

So the Civil War took place. We all know how that ended. In the 1860s, at that time, the Repubs had already requested that the slaves be freed, be made citizens, and be allowed to vote. The 13th, the 14th, and the 15th Amendment were passed by the Republicans, NOT the Dems. The Dems vehemently opposed each of those Amendments that would allow blacks to be free, to vote, to become citizens.

So then the lie comes up that the Republican party from back then was actually the Democratic party of today which is a GD lie. There was no "switch". The fact remains, the Democratic party has been opposed to freedom for blacks, allowing women to vote, and continued to block black people from their civil rights right on up in to the 1960s when we had yet another Civil Rights movement. The only thing that the Dems did for that movement was to quit being such twits and allowing black people the rights that were already in the Constitution for them, created by the Republicans in the late 1800s.

In fact, after the war, the Republicans took the plantation owner's land, divied it up, and were going to give "40 acres and a mule" to all the free blacks. Now most will state, "Yah, it was a Union General who was going to do that....that was not Republicans, Union was not Republicans", but those people would be wrong. Everything was set to be shared with freed black people until the Dems, who were all pissy at Lincoln, decided to hire someone to kill him and elect Andrew Johnson as president. A Democrat, Andrew Johnson, put a stop to black people getting anything and gave the land back to the plantation owners.

Here's another thing liberals get wrong all the time. The Union simply meant the states under govern by Abraham Lincoln, a Republican. The Union had 23 free states and 5 border states. The Union, under the leadership of a Republican president, is the one who fought the Confederate Army from the south, the south that still believed in owning slaves. The Dems believed in owning slaves. The Republican party was created to abolish slavery.

So here we are, pretty damning evidence against the Democratic party who annihilated the NDNs and stole their land, who owned hundreds of slaves and treated them cruelly, who stated that slavery was "beneficial", who did not want it abolished, who beat people for being against it, who killed a President for trying to stop it, who went to war to try to keep their slaves, and then who refused to accept the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution.

Still pissed off, Dems created the Ku Klux Klan in 1865, in Pulaski, TN. Actually, it was Nathan Bedford Forrest, who was a TN delegate for the Dem Party in 1868. Why was the KKK created by this Dem and joined by other Dems? Because the butthurt Dems didn't want the government telling them that they couldn't have slaves. They were trying to prevent Reconstruction of the south. They did not want the black people to have any rights.

The presidential election that Forrest was a delegate to, the Dems that were running, were doing to to try to reverse all that had taken place. They even had nifty little flyers!

"Our ticket, Our Motto: This is a White Man's Country; Let White Men Rule." Campaign badge supporting Horatio Seymour and Francis Blair, Democratic candidates for President and Vice-President of the Unites States, 1868. - NYPL Digital Collections

http://www.enterstageright.com/archi...1866poster.jpg

https://i.redd.it/xf0d883zsmbx.jpg

Boy, those Dems look like some real jackholes don't they?

So what do liberals do? They try to rewrite history. Unfortunately, most people already know the history, so the liberals have to come up with a new narrative. The new narrative is that the Republicans of the 1800s were actually Democrats, and the Republicans of today are actually the Democrats of yesterday.

Just like them trying to tell you that the Civil War was against the free loving north and the evil hateful south, the fact remains, there were slaves still in the north, and there were free black people in the south. They would also like everyone to believe that the Dems all lived in the north and the evil Republicans lived in the south. As illustrated, that's not even close to the truth. Now their last lie, the "switch", is one that they will fight tooth and nail to pretend is real. The reality is, it's not real.

In the words of | National Review
Quote:
From abolition to Reconstruction to the anti-lynching laws, from the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to the Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, and 1964, there exists a line that is by no means perfectly straight or unwavering but that nonetheless connects the politics of Lincoln with those of Dwight D. Eisenhower. And from slavery and secession to remorseless opposition to everything from Reconstruction to the anti-lynching laws, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, and the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960, there exists a similarly identifiable line connecting John Calhoun and Lyndon Baines Johnson. Supporting civil-rights reform was not a radical turnaround for congressional Republicans in 1964, but it was a radical turnaround for Johnson and the Democrats.

...In Congress, Johnson had consistently and repeatedly voted against legislation to protect black Americans from lynching. As a leader in the Senate, Johnson did his best to cripple the Civil Rights Act of 1957; not having votes sufficient to stop it, he managed to reduce it to an act of mere symbolism by excising the enforcement provisions before sending it to the desk of President Eisenhower...

...If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so.
What did Johnson really think of black people?
Quote:
"These N*****, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again."
And everyone knows this one that he said:
Quote:
"I’ll have those n****** voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
The fact is, it was the Republicans who supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Dems were either against it or reluctant. In fact, Hillary's very own "mentor" Robert C Byrd voted "Nay" on the Act, along with many other Dems.

There was no switch. The Dems have long been the racist, hateful party. They have killed many starting with NDNs, and they continue to keep black people, and others, on the figurative plantation. They keep them dependent on the government, much like Jackson did with the NDNs. The Civil War was not against pure, innocent, giving liberals in the north and whip cracking, evil white Republicans in the south, it was a war of slave owning Dems against Republicans who said, "no more, let those people go free and become citizens who can vote". The Republicans wrote the 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments, the Dems blocked the black people from getting those rights. In the 1960s, again the Republicans pushed for black people to have their rights...only then did the Dems stop fighting it long enough to allow it to happen...but not before they devised a way to keep the black people under their thumbs without anyone figuring it out for decades.

Now people have figured it out, and the Dems have become increasingly violent, the lies are out of control, the corruption is out of control, and the pot is about to boil over. What the Dems don't realize is that they won't win that one, just like they didn't the last time. Let people be, stop using them as playing pieces, stop trying to control everyone, stop lying.

References below:


Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party splits in to Whig Party and Democratic Party of today:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Dem...publican-Party

Andrew Jackson elected president of Democratic Party:

http://www.biography.com/people/andrew-jackson-9350991

Trail of Tears and Jackson's brutal treatment of NDNs:

https://www.reference.com/history/ca...ffa2c60a630b00

The Trail of Tears — The Indian Removals [ushistory.org]

Republican Party Founded:

Republican Party founded - Mar 20, 1854 - HISTORY.com

Democrat VP Calhoun Says Slavery "Good":

According to John C. Calhoun's 1837 speech before the Senate, what were slavery's chief benefits for blacks? | eNotes

Slavery a Positive Good | Teaching American History

John C. Calhoun: He Started the Civil War | HistoryNet

Repub Sumner Beaten by Brooks, A Dem, For Being Against Slavery:

Massachusetts Sen. Charles Sumner denounces slavery in speech, May 19, 1856 - POLITICO

40 Acres And A Mule

General Sherman enacts "forty acres and a mule" | African American Registry

Nathan Bedford Forrest - KKK Founder - Dem Delegate in 1868:

Leaders of the Democratic Party

KOMMEMORATING THE KU KLUX KLAN - Lewis - 1999 - The Sociological Quarterly - Wiley Online Library

Why The KKK Was Formed:

KKK founded - Dec 24, 1865 - HISTORY.com

Yeah, You're Going To Have To Buy The Book To See Johnson's Racist Remarks:

https://www.amazon.com/Master-Senate.../dp/0394720954

Sometimes CNN Tells The Truth - How The Dems Didn't Want The Civil Rights Act Approved:

What you might not know about the 1964 Civil Rights Act - CNNPolitics.com

Fillibuster The Dems Did:

U.S. Senate: 1964: Civil Rights Filibuster Ended -- June 10, 1964

Oh Look, Hillary's "Mentor" Robert Byrd Voted Against It:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/s409
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-29-2016, 08:53 PM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,786,440 times
Reputation: 11259
When people go to the polls they tend to vote based on the last generation of actions at the most. Anything before Bill's second term is ancient history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2016, 10:38 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
46,011 posts, read 53,143,264 times
Reputation: 15174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow View Post
The fact is, it was the Republicans who supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Dems were either against it or reluctant. In fact, Hillary's very own "mentor" Robert C Byrd voted "Nay" on the Act, along with many other Dems.
Region, not party was the relevant divide. Almost no northern Democrats voted against the bill, a slightly higher portion of northern Republicans did. Hard to compare southern Republicans vs southern Democrats as there were so few southern Republicans at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_...rty_and_region

Barry Goldwater opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Quote:
The propaganda from the left is that the Civil War was about the nice dems in the north against the evil horrible Republicans in the south, but the reality is, it was about the racist, slave loving Dems against the Repubs who wanted to abolish slavery. To insinuate that only Dems lived in the north and only Repubs lived in the south is one of the most dishonest tales ever spun by the lying Dem party.
Who on the left claims the south voted Republican in the civil war era
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2016, 10:44 PM
 
Location: Oklahoma
17,606 posts, read 13,425,275 times
Reputation: 17518
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Region, not party was the relevant divide. Almost no northern Democrats voted against the bill, a slightly higher portion of northern Republicans did. Hard to compare southern Republicans vs southern Democrats as there were so few southern Republicans at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_...rty_and_region

Barry Goldwater opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act

You are exactly correct.

There were a handful of southern congressmen and senators who voted on the Civil Rights bill. All of them voted against it with the exception of a few border state republicans. There were actually about a dozen southern democrats who voted for the bill.

It was a north vs south battle that had hardly anything to do with party affiliation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-29-2016, 10:45 PM
 
Location: Free From The Oppressive State
30,110 posts, read 23,499,354 times
Reputation: 38340
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Region, not party was the relevant divide. Almost no northern Democrats voted against the bill, a slightly higher portion of northern Republicans did. Hard to compare southern Republicans vs southern Democrats as there were so few southern Republicans at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_...rty_and_region

Barry Goldwater opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act



Who on the left claims the south voted Republican in the civil war era
Wikipedia? Are you fricken kidding me? No. Try a legit source.

As for supporting or opposing the Civil Rights Act, the Republicans in the house voted 138 for and 34 against; Democrats voted 152 for and 96 against. In the Senate, the Republicans voted 27 for and 6 against; the Democrats voted 46 for and 21 against. Goldwater was against it NOT because he didn't believe blacks should have their rights, but because he didn't believe the federal government should have a part in Section II on public accommodations and Section VII on equal employment opportunity. He said he would vote for it if those were removed. Essentially, the very strict Constitutionalist was stating that you "can't legislate morality". And he's right. He was against the federal government telling people how they had to think.

It's like the liberals today trying to force people to accept and condone lesbians, gays, transgenders, etc. You cannot make people accept that. You cannot force people to think how you want them to think. It doesn't matter how much government you try to shove down people's throats, you cannot legislate their thoughts. Liberals trying to force people to make cakes for people they don't want to. Trying to force people to marry (as in be the preside over it) people they don't believe should be married, etc. Liberals too afraid to let the free market decide, always want to push big government in to it and try to force people to go against their beliefs. You all think Section VII did anything for anyone? Please. It's nothing but "feel good" legislation. "You're not the right fit" or "We went with someone else". All that was legislated with that garbage was lying. People will still not hire someone they don't want, no matter what legislation is passed, now they just lie about it. Whoopdedoo, Section VII really did wonders for anyone.

But of course, the liberals went and took that one 'no' vote and spun that in to some great theatrical "big switch" that NEVER happened. Especially when they say it happened. Black people were already voting Democrat long before that because they were promised a whole bunch of goodies back in the 1930s.

SOUND FAMILIAR? Just like today's lying Democrats.

By the way, forgot to add my sources, which are far more reliable than wikidumbia:

Here's the Civil Rights Act, feel free to read it:

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35...ights_act.html

Goldwater and why he voted 'no':

https://books.google.com/books?id=DF...n%20it&f=false

https://www.boundless.com/u-s-histor...hts-1250-2516/

Here's another, they get it, why can't you?

https://freedomsjournalinstitute.org...-rights/#_ftn3

Last edited by Three Wolves In Snow; 10-29-2016 at 11:45 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2017, 12:23 PM
 
18,039 posts, read 25,052,276 times
Reputation: 16721
2 of the 3 "Progressive Era" presidents were Republican = Liberal

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2017, 12:31 PM
 
1,431 posts, read 905,838 times
Reputation: 1316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dopo View Post
2 of the 3 "Progressive Era" presidents were Republican = Liberal
Hmmm. Funny how the most recent of the three in that picture was the Progressive Democrat. Didn't Wilson have the KKK over to the White House? To screen Birth of a Nation?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2017, 12:46 PM
 
13,359 posts, read 4,738,059 times
Reputation: 9377
I stopped reading at this strawman:

"The propaganda from the left is that the Civil War was about the nice dems in the north against the evil horrible Republicans in the south"

Nobody is claiming that. Everyone knows the anti-slavery Republican party in the North was opposed to the pro-slavery Southern Democrats. Everyone knows that Southern Democrats continued to maintain segregation for 100 years after the Civil War.
The "switch" that took place started in the 1960s, with white southerners leaving the Democratic Party and joining the Republican Party. You can't deny that. It's not so much about parties switching policies as it is people (racists) switching parties.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2017, 07:29 PM
 
18,039 posts, read 25,052,276 times
Reputation: 16721
Quote:
Originally Posted by veezybell View Post
Hmmm. Funny how the most recent of the three in that picture was the Progressive Democrat. Didn't Wilson have the KKK over to the White House? To screen Birth of a Nation?
I'm always amazed how conservatives don't miss a chance to use "the racist card"
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:52 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top