Ku Klux Klan

[Josie]

I'm admitting that there was an ideology behind it. Not partisanship. There's a difference. Look at the description I gave. What political party does that describe, today? Are they racist? No. It's their ideology. That's the link along with sectionsism. The racism comes first, THEN the political party. That's why it's incidental.

States rights and small government doesn't describe Democrats OR Republicans today.

I agree that it's their ideology. And most people with the same ideology group themselves together under the same party title.

So now, if I'm not mistaken, you're not saying it was North v. South, but one ideology v. another.

 

[Josie]

I would need to read about the people themselves. Racism is never a partisan issue... that's my entire point. It is individual, it is sectional, but not partisan. I mentioned Goldwater before. His voting reflected his political ideology on the Constitution, NOT racism. I want to understand motivations, not just how they voted.

It ISN'T sectional. Not all Northerns were anti-slavery and not all Southerners were for slavery. You're right. They vote (most of the time) with their political ideology. And it just so happened that most Democrats then were pro-slavery. That's my whole point! LOL!

 

[Hatuey]

It ISN'T sectional. Not all Northerns were anti-slavery and not all Southerners were for slavery. You're right. They vote (most of the time) with their political ideology. And it just so happened that most Democrats then were pro-slavery. That's my whole point! LOL!

The pro-segregation Democratic South became the modern day Republican South so don't laugh too hard. It's called the Southern Strategy. In the 1960s Nixon needed a way to make the pro-segregation whites that Democrats had "betrayed" into Republicans. He did so by rallying them behind the call of 'states rights'. Many old Republicans of today were the Dixiecrats of yesteryear. How else can we explain George Wallace, Storm Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and the American Independent Party? The South use to be a Democrat stronghold in presidential elections for most the 1800s. It was only after the Democratic party was pushed squarely to the left that it lost appeal to the South.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

States rights and small government doesn't describe Democrats OR Republicans today.

Describes Republicans... at least their talking points.

I agree that it's their ideology. And most people with the same ideology group themselves together under the same party title.

Which isn't the issue. The ideology is. However, this is a small part of the issue we are discussing. The main part is still the sectional piece of North vs, South.

So now, if I'm not mistaken, you're not saying it was North v. South, but one ideology v. another.

No, you are mistaken. I am saying that it was North vs, South. I am saying that ideology played a minor role in it, especially in the North, alone, but that this was a sectional issue.

 

[Josie]

The pro-segregation Democratic South became the modern day Republican South so don't laugh too hard.

I thought we weren't comparing back then to today...........................

 

[Hatuey]

I thought we weren't comparing back then to today...........................

Who is we? I am explaining to you a very simple concept. What comparison am I making? I simply stated that one thing became another. The anti-slavery pro-desegregation Republican North is the modern day Democratic North. Does this mean that a bunch of Southern Democrats decided to move up north? No. It simply means that as one party became more representative of leftist ideas and another became more conservatives the labels switched. That is not comparing. But then again I've read through the thread and I've realized that your goal was never to be informed about the history of race relations or the KKK. It was simply to say 'Haha Democrats started the KKK'.

 

[Josie]

Who is we? I am explaining to you a very simple concept. What comparison am I making? I simply stated that one thing became another. The anti-slavery pro-desegregation Republican North is the modern day Democratic North. Does this mean that a bunch of Southern Democrats decided to move up north? No. It simply means that as one party became more representative of leftist ideas and another became more conservatives the labels switched. That is not comparing. But then again I've read through the thread and I've realized that your goal was never to be informed about the history of race relations or the KKK. It was simply to say 'Haha Democrats started the KKK'.

No, that wasn't my intention. Although many assumed it since they seem to not want to admit that it was Democrats who started it, continued it and didn't vote for early civil rights. I enjoy history and I enjoy getting it right. I didn't know how the KKK was began until I started reading more about it. I never knew that Democrats voted against civil rights bills. Actually I always thought "civil rights" was a 1960s thing. I didn't realize it started after the Civil War. Call it poor education or poor memory. Not sure which one.

That being said, the political right-wing in this country is now all about states' rights and less government. That doesn't mean the Republican Party is since they're clearly for big government, massive spending and more taxes. However, I think they're now moving back to what they are meant to be after much protest from conservatives.

Now, none of this means that modern Democrats are racists or modern conservatives are racist. It was HISTORY. History shows us who were the racists THEN. And I found it highly interesting since I didn't realize it was all politically motivated.

 

[deltabtry]

Hang on. I have a good link on this somewhere. Their origins are not necessarily what one would think.

Your right, and i believe the orginal founder by in the 1860;s left the organization because it became violent.

 

[Josie]

Your right, and i believe the orginal founder by in the 1860;s left the organization because it became violent.

I don't know if he left, but I did read that it was just meant to be pranks and trying to scare people for the fun of it. It's kinda sick how it evolved into something so violent.

 

[deltabtry]

I don't know if he left, but I did read that it was just meant to be pranks and trying to scare people for the fun of it. It's kinda sick how it evolved into something so violent.

I would tend to agree although I am not sure. I glanced over some of it's history a while back and read a paragraph or two in this regard , so I am far from being knowledgeable on this subject.

 

[samsmart]

No, that wasn't my intention. Although many assumed it since they seem to not want to admit that it was Democrats who started it, continued it and didn't vote for early civil rights. I enjoy history and I enjoy getting it right. I didn't know how the KKK was began until I started reading more about it. I never knew that Democrats voted against civil rights bills. Actually I always thought "civil rights" was a 1960s thing. I didn't realize it started after the Civil War. Call it poor education or poor memory. Not sure which one.

Well, I don't know what level of education you've had, but don't fret - most people don't have a thorough education regarding history. After all, there's a lot of revisionism from all sides, and there's only a certain level of details and nuance that people are interested in. The important thing is that you're looking to educate yourself, and you've got people here to point you to some sources.

That being said, the political right-wing in this country is now all about states' rights and less government. That doesn't mean the Republican Party is since they're clearly for big government, massive spending and more taxes. However, I think they're now moving back to what they are meant to be after much protest from conservatives.

Well... The right-wing is about a lot of things in this country. There is the "states' rights" and "less government" libertarian/minarchist faction of the GOP. But you also have the Christian Dominionists who want to use the government to attain their agenda on social issues, such as the resistance to gay marriage and Creationism in public schools. Another faction of the Republican Party is their pro-business interests who are opposed to such things as unionized labor, environmental safeguards, and the like. These pro-business interests give campaign contributions to Republicans and pro-business Democrats in returns for those politicians' votes for government contracts, especially no-bid contracts.

Why do we have minarchists, Christian dominionists, and business interests together in the same Republican Party despite disparate ideologies? Well, that's because of our two-party system, and the reason why we have a two-party system is because of Duverger's Law that states this tends to happen in a "winner-take-all" election system.

Duverger's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, none of this means that modern Democrats are racists or modern conservatives are racist. It was HISTORY. History shows us who were the racists THEN. And I found it highly interesting since I didn't realize it was all politically motivated.

Well, here's the thing. Modern conservatives are supporters of "states' rights." But modern liberals believe that "states' rights" is merely a code-word for conservatives to deny certain demographics of their rights. In the past, "states' rights" was used to legitimize segregation laws and laws against African-Americans. In the current day, liberals believe that "states' rights" is being used to deny the rights of gays.

So what happens when state governments oppress a people? Modern liberals believe that it is the duty of the federal government to intercede on behalf of the people.

The federal government issuing the Emancipation Proclamation is one example. Another is when Harry Truman issued an executive order as Commander-in-Chief to desegregate the military, rather than wait for Congress to pass a law allowing it, which threatened to be compromised by Southern Senators who sought to allow servicemen to choose whether they would serve in segregated units or desegregated units.

Another example of the federal government protecting the rights of minorities from state governments who would oppose them was during the "Freedom Summer" of 1964. During the summer of that year, there was a voter registration drive by civil rights activists to encourage blacks to register to vote in Mississippi, which at that time had the lowest number of registered voters. This was likely due to intimidation and threats against black voters.

During that summer, three civil rights activists, one a black from Mississippi and the other two Jews from New York City, disappeared. The uproar against their disappearance was so much that President Johnson had to force J. Edgar Hoover to send the FBI to investigate the disappearance. Their investigation led them to discover the bodies buried in an earthen dam. They were beaten before being shot to death.

The investigation into their deaths by the FBI caused them to file charges against 18 people, among them two local sheriffs and a minister. At that time, murder was a state crime, not a federal crime, and no state judge would put them on trial. So the federal government had to try them in federal court for a federal crime: depriving the victims of their civil rights.

Of the 18 men, 7 were found guilty, 8 were acquitted, and 3 had no verdict returned by the jury. Those who were guilty were sentenced to 3-10 years in jail. None served more than 6 years.

This is an example of the federal government protecting the rights of citizens from the tyranny of state governments and shows the fundamental flaw in "states' rights" advocates - that state governments are just as prone to corruption as a federal government.

So just as state governments can protect the people from the federal government, the federal government can protect the people from state governments.

 

[Hatuey]

That's something I don't understand either. Republicans were CLEARLY the leaders of the civil rights movement (which didn't begin in the 1960s, it began after the Civil War). Was it around FDR maybe when it kinda shifted and blacks became more Democratic and Southerners more Republican?

This is so ridiculously inaccurate it's not even funny. The civil rights movement couldn't have begun after the Civil War because the period after the Civil War is called 'Reconstruction'. If you learned anything in those history courses you must surely have taken in order to become a teacher, you'd know that during Reconstruction, Republicans weren't so much focused on passing civil rights laws as they were in passing what were referred to as 'vengeance' laws against the South. The civil rights movement was led BY blacks from the start. Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. Du Bois etc were the 'leaders' of the original Civil Rights Movement and they only came to prominence during the first decades of the 20th century. Your revisionism is astounding.

 

[Jetboogieman]

This is so ridiculously inaccurate it's not even funny. The civil rights movement couldn't have begun after the Civil War because the period after the Civil War is called 'Reconstruction'. If you learned anything in those history courses you must surely have taken in order to become a teacher, you'd know that during Reconstruction, Republicans weren't so much focused on passing civil rights laws as they were in passing what were referred to as 'vengeance' laws against the South. The civil rights movement was led BY blacks from the start. Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. Du Bois etc were the 'leaders' of the original Civil Rights Movement and they only came to prominence during the first decades of the 20th century. Your revisionism is astounding.

You know... I don't think it was deliberate...

 

[samsmart]

This is so ridiculously inaccurate it's not even funny. The civil rights movement couldn't have begun after the Civil War because the period after the Civil War is called 'Reconstruction'. If you learned anything in those history courses you must surely have taken in order to become a teacher, you'd know that during Reconstruction, Republicans weren't so much focused on passing civil rights laws as they were in passing what were referred to as 'vengeance' laws against the South. The civil rights movement was led BY blacks from the start. Booker T. Washington, W.E.B. Du Bois etc were the 'leaders' of the original Civil Rights Movement and they only came to prominence during the first decades of the 20th century. Your revisionism is astounding.

Actually, she's more right than you are.

It is supremely ignorant to think that just because an era is called "Reconstruction" means that that was the only thing that happened back then and there were no civil rights movement. It's like calling the 60's and 70's the Civil Rights Era and saying that we couldn't have had the Space Race during that era.

In fact, it could be argued that Reconstruction itself was an event in the Civil Rights Movement. During Reconstruction, the federal government enforced equality through the use of federal troops. Federal troops protected newly freed slaves from the Southern vigilantes who continued terror tactics against blacks.

Also during this time was the Freedmen's Bureau, a government agency designed to provide emergency aid to ex-slaves and help them adjust to freedom.

An argument could also be made that the abolition movement prior to the Civil War was, in and of itself, a civil rights movement.

Things don't occur once. They usually occur in waves. History is ongoing and it never stops. So you can't really pin movements to one place and time or individual. Movements are constant. They may surge and they may ebb, but they are constant.

 

[Hatuey]

Actually, she's more right than you are.

It is supremely ignorant to think that just because an era is called "Reconstruction" means that that was the only thing that happened back then and there were no civil rights movement. It's like calling the 60's and 70's the Civil Rights Era and saying that we couldn't have had the Space Race during that era.

That's not what I'm stating. What I'm stating is that because of the events in the Reconstruction era, the Civil Rights Movement could not have possibly begun during that period. If anything, the opposite could be argued.

In fact, it could be argued that Reconstruction itself was an event in the Civil Rights Movement. During Reconstruction, the federal government enforced equality through the use of federal troops. Federal troops protected newly freed slaves from the Southern vigilantes who continued terror tactics against blacks.

Your ignorance or revisionism of history is astounding. The federal government REMOVED troops from the South during much of the Reconstruction period. It's called the Compromise of 1877. This would allow the Democratic Party to take political control of the South and essentially left the black demographic in the South at the mercy of one party.

Also during this time was the Freedmen's Bureau, a government agency designed to provide emergency aid to ex-slaves and help them adjust to freedom.

An argument could also be made that the abolition movement prior to the Civil War was, in and of itself, a civil rights movement.

Things don't occur once. They usually occur in waves. History is ongoing and it never stops. So you can't really pin movements to one place and time or individual. Movements are constant. They may surge and they may ebb, but they are constant.

More revisionism. Once again, the civil rights movement could not have started during the Civil War OR during Reconstruction because - gasp - there were NO CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS OF ANY REAL SIGNIFICANCE BEING PASSED. If anything the period right after the Civil War was a step back from what had been accomplished. Only 30 years after the Civil War Pless v. Fergusson was passed. Add to that the compromise of 1877, an agreement which allowed the Democratic party to politically dominate the South, and it's simply dishonest to claim that the period after the Civil Rights Movement was led by Republicans in the postbellum period. The US Federal government removed federal troops from the South in exchange for political support from Southern Democrats. This isn't 'spin' it's called a fact.

Compromise of 1877 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seriously, this belief that it was 'Republicans' who led the charge for the civil rights of blacks is absurd in nature. Why? Because Republicans in the North couldn't have cared about the civil rights of blacks as much as they cared about cementing their power in Washington. If you want to put it all in the context of a 100 years, it could be said that the betrayal felt by Southern whites because of the Democratic renaissance of the 1960s would allow the Republicans to grab a political foothold in the South. If Republicans had taken an active role of any kind in passing civil rights laws during Reconstruction, this would have been simply impossible.

 

[Tashah]

Seriously, this belief that it was 'Republicans' who led the charge for the civil rights of blacks is absurd in nature. Why? Because Republicans in the North couldn't have cared about the civil rights of blacks as much as they cared about cementing their power in Washington. If you want to put it all in the context of a 100 years, it could be said that the betrayal felt by Southern whites because of the Democratic renaissance of the 1960s would allow the Republicans to grab a political foothold in the South. If Republicans had taken an active role of any kind in passing civil rights laws during Reconstruction, this would have been simply impossible.

For a thorough understanding of the civil/social rights positions of all the major players during the period 1858-1865, this book is unmatched...

The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery
Eric Foner / WW Norton / 2010 / 426pp

An excellent earlier book by the same author focuses exclusively on Republicans...

Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War

 

[samsmart]

That's not what I'm stating. What I'm stating is that because of the events in the Reconstruction era, the Civil Rights Movement could not have possibly begun during that period. If anything, the opposite could be argued.



Your ignorance or revisionism of history is astounding. The federal government REMOVED troops from the South during much of the Reconstruction period. It's called the Compromise of 1877. This would allow the Democratic Party to take political control of the South and essentially left the black demographic in the South at the mercy of one party.



More revisionism. Once again, the civil rights movement could not have started during the Civil War OR during Reconstruction because - gasp - there were NO CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS OF ANY REAL SIGNIFICANCE BEING PASSED. If anything the period right after the Civil War was a step back from what had been accomplished. Only 30 years after the Civil War Pless v. Fergusson was passed. Add to that the compromise of 1877, an agreement which allowed the Democratic party to politically dominate the South, and it's simply dishonest to claim that the period after the Civil Rights Movement was led by Republicans in the postbellum period. The US Federal government removed federal troops from the South in exchange for political support from Southern Democrats. This isn't 'spin' it's called a fact.

Compromise of 1877 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seriously, this belief that it was 'Republicans' who led the charge for the civil rights of blacks is absurd in nature. Why? Because Republicans in the North couldn't have cared about the civil rights of blacks as much as they cared about cementing their power in Washington. If you want to put it all in the context of a 100 years, it could be said that the betrayal felt by Southern whites because of the Democratic renaissance of the 1960s would allow the Republicans to grab a political foothold in the South. If Republicans had taken an active role of any kind in passing civil rights laws during Reconstruction, this would have been simply impossible.

If the Civil War ended in 1865 and 1877 was Reconstruction, then what was that 12-year period between?

Oh, wait, I know - it's because you're wrong about 1877 being within the era of Reconstruction.

You see, the Civil war ended at 1865, and the period immediately after that was Reconstruction, which was from 1865-77. During this era, federal troops continued to occupy the South and protect freed blacks from vengeful Southerners. Also, blacks got the right to vote, but ex-Confederates did not. This was why the Republicans were able to get voted into elected offices in the South - because those who would oppose them weren't allowed to vote.

The Compromise of 1877 is what ended Reconstruction. It caused Southern Democrats in the House to give Republican Rutherford B. Hayes the Presidency and in exchange he would remove federal troops that protected freed blacks and the Republican state governments from the South.

So the era following Reconstruction after 1877 is known as "Jim Crow" as the "Redeemer" Democrat politicians in the South started passing racist laws, such as segregation, poll taxes, and reading tests for voting. These laws were designed to keep African-Americans from exercising their rights.

So during Reconstruction the freed slaves were able to enjoy and utilize their civil rights protected by the Republican politicians and the federal troops. It was after Reconstruction, of which the end was brought about by the Compromise of 1877, that caused the Southern politicians to pass laws infringing on the rights of African-Americans until the next wave of the civil rights movement came about.

So please do some more reading on Wikipedia before you lecture others erroneously.

Redeemers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jim Crow laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[cpgrad08]

Seriously, this belief that it was 'Republicans' who led the charge for the civil rights of blacks is absurd in nature. Why? Because Republicans in the North couldn't have cared about the civil rights of blacks as much as they cared about cementing their power in Washington. If you want to put it all in the context of a 100 years, it could be said that the betrayal felt by Southern whites because of the Democratic renaissance of the 1960s would allow the Republicans to grab a political foothold in the South. If Republicans had taken an active role of any kind in passing civil rights laws during Reconstruction, this would have been simply impossible.

Here is a list of Republicans taking a active role in Civil Rights
Emancipation Proclamation (1863)- Freed Slaves in the Rebeling Southern States
13th amendment(1865)- Premantly ended Slavery in the U.S.
14th amendment(1868)- Gave the Freed slaves there U.S. Citizenship
15th amendment(1870)- Procted everyone's voting rights

These were all done during the civil war though the Reconstruction area. The Republicans did take an active role in making and passing civil right laws. They also protected the civil rights of the freed Slaves during this time. Only after the end of Reconstruction did the Southern Democrats start infringing on the Civil rights of the Blacks. This period in time and along with the abolitionism movement before that. These events in history laid the groundwork for the modern Civil Rights movement.

 

[celticwar17]

LOL! Oy. That's what they THINK is being done which is why they refuse to accept the historical facts. I've said it a couple times. NO ONE is comparing this to today. That would be silly since all this happened 150 years ago.

Yea its funny how they don't realize how defensive they are being. Stating that the political parties were irrelevant to the issue just shows that they were insecure about how the discussion might lead to comparing to today. Even though that was not where your point was leading whatsoever.

They were the first to suggest the comparison by saying it was irrelevant.