START A RANT
SIGN UP / SIGN IN
GET PAID TO POST
FOLLOW ON TWITTER
START A RAVE
MY PROFILE
CONTACT US
ABOUT US
News & Politics

Rant

The Democrat Party's Long and Shameful H

Posted 34 months ago|23 comments|410 views
Written by
Plug the title into google and you will find the website. I thought that it was interesting and while i know that there is racism on both the democrat and republican sides of politics i do think that its unfair that republicans keep getting the worst of it. I am actually a registered democrat and i think that i may actually be more of an independant because i think that both sides make good points, i tell you that because i want people to know that i am not one of these hardcore republicans that think they can do no wrong. Everyone has their faults. Let me tell you what i feel,i feel that racism in this country while still around is not has bad as it once was. i dont think that you can ever get rid of racism, its like good and evil, all you can do is educate yourself properly and in doing so you will see less racism. I think that people no matter what color you are have more oppurtunity than ever and if they say they dont or that someone is holding them back--thats a lie. What we need to do is quite being so touchy, everyone seems to want to blame someone or call someone out..they seem to be waiting for something bad to happen, we need to unify. I thought that having Onama as president was going to help things even more, i thought it meant a change in America..i think i was wrong. I think people are more touchy now than ever and are pulling the race card even more. i was going to write a list of democrats here that have been associated with racist ties and no they are not all white either, but im not going to do it..go here and educate yourself--http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/democratrecord.html
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
34 months ago: This is very interesting. Anyone with a few minutes should look at the site linked to. There are many sources sited for the information and it seems to be well documented. I also feel we should be informed about the persons leading this country, good, bad or ugly their past are indicators of their future direction in many cases. And though I do not expect a sterling clean history for all our leaders I also have little respect for hypocrisy which it seems many elected officials have a tendency to engage in. Nice post, thanks for the info.
34 months ago: A couple of points. First, pathetically short list for a "history" of the Democratic party. Second, a reminder that prior to the civil rights movement, both parties were a lot more heterogeneous than they are now. Third, it was the Republican party to which the Dixiecrat faction of the Democrats fled after they lost on civil rights, while the remaining liberal Republicans fled their apparently maddened party and became Democrats. Those remaining Dixiecrats, such as those that appear on the list, renounced their racist ways and became champions of desegregation.

I find it notable that most of the racism appearing on this list occurred more than 50 years ago, at a time when most of the country was racist. The remaining "reverse racist" people on this list, such as favorite punching bag Al Sharpton, belong to the party's fringe, not its roster of elected officials.

Here are some unavoidable facts the list carefully glosses over:
* The Democratic party had large majorities in both houses. With the party itself divided into Northern Democrats and Southern Dixiecrats, of course there was division in the vote.
* Even so, while 21 Dixiecrat Senators opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 46 Democrats voted for it (including 7 Southerners!)
* In the House, Northern Democrats voted 145-9 for it (94%-6%)
* Again in the House, Northern Republicans voted 138-24 for it (85%-15%)
* There were 10 Southern Republicans in the House at the time. Not one voted for it. There was 1 Southern Republican in the Senate. He didn't vote for it.
* President Lyndon Baines Johnson (D) signed it into law, well aware that it would result in abandonment of the Democratic party by the Dixiecrats. And he was right.

I'm sorry, but no matter how you try to spin it, the fact remains that the Republican party of today is the party of cast-off Dixiecrats.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
34 months ago: There is more than one way to skin a cat. If you can't keep people oppressed openly, keep them oppressed subversively, by claiming you are on their side, and give them just enough to survive on, so they can continue to keep you in power.
Then shout loudly how much you want to help them, so you can garner support, (because you don't want to actually have to pay them off yourself).
When the tides began to turn in the Civil Rights era, these people, who are not fools, saw a way to actually expand their power, rather than relinquish it, by appealing to the inherent goodness in human nature and exploiting it to their own ends.
They need the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons to keep the pot bubbling, and, for a fee, JJ and Al are happy to oblige.
34 months ago: OOTB, that's a lot of paranoid claptrap. And, no doubt unintentionally, you're insinuating that black people are too stupid to realize they're being oppressed.

Again, no matter how you spin it, Democrats passed and signed into law the Civil Rights Act and ended segregation. And they continue to acknowledge the presence of systemic racism in this country, while Republicans stick their fingers in their ears and go, "La-la-la, I can't hear you" every time someone points out that racism in their presence. Only Republicans could argue that, for instance, Sonya Sotomayor's race is a career advantage when 106 out of 110 Supreme Court Justices have been white.
JAK Gladney
JAK Gladney
Saint Albans, WV
34 months ago: Wow...what an awful, grossly-slanted website. And the graphic--pure racist buffoonery. The site is so over-the-top, it's almost cartoonish. Full of the diminutive "Democrat"...I honestly don't know where to begin, only that this is a polemic, and you can't truth squad a polemic because the facts are less important than their usefulness in furthering a particular agenda. This website accomplishes just that: if you took this as an objective history, and not a brazen polemic, then you'd have a pretty negative (or "balanced") view of the "Democrat" party.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
34 months ago: On April 9th in *****1866******, the Republican-majority 39th Congress overrode a veto by the Democrat president, Andrew Johnson, to enact the 1866 Civil Rights Act. Every Democrat in Congress voted against it.

The purpose of the ****1866***** Civil Rights Act was to defend African-Americans from their Democrat oppressors in the post-Civil War South. There, Democrats had enacted black codes to impose near-slavery on African-Americans who had just been emancipated by the Republican Party’s 13th Amendment. Senator Lyman Trumbull (R-IL) wrote the !!!!!1866!!!!!!Civil Rights Act, which conferred U.S. citizenship on former slaves and other African-Americans. The law guaranteed African-Americans “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens.
This was the first time that Congress overrode a veto of a significant bill. Also, the 1866 Civil Rights Act contradicted the notorious Dred Scott decision, in which the seven Democrat Justices on the Supreme Court had decreed that black people did not have constitutional rights. To prevent Democrats from someday repealing the Act, Republicans later enshrined its provisions as Article I of the 14th Amendment.

Sadly, Democrats defied the 1866 Civil Rights Act and other Republican reforms. Democrat oppression of African-Americans would not be overcome until the 1960’s civil rights movement.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
34 months ago: And Noni, again you jump to an assumption, based on your own perceptions. The oppressed I was referring to are the poor, and the gullible, and the defenseless. As you will notice, I said "people", not "black people".
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
34 months ago: The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of southern Senators led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[5]

After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL), Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican votes to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation.[6]

On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed an address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Until then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 57 working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, the bill's manager, concluded he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate and end the filibuster. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
34 months ago: Civil Rights Bill of 1964 Vote totals:

By party Yea-nay

The original House version:
* Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:

* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
34 months ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
34 months ago: See also Dwight D Esenhower, Republican President

Eisenhower supported the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka U.S. Supreme Court decision, in which segregated ("separate but equal") schools were ruled to be unconstitutional. The very next day he told District of Columbia officials to make Washington a model for the rest of the country in integrating black and white public school children.[49][50] He proposed to Congress the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 and signed those acts into law. Although both Acts were weaker than subsequent civil rights legislation, they constituted the first significant civil rights acts since the 1870s. The "Little Rock Nine" incident of 1957 involved the refusal by Arkansas to honor a Federal court order to integrate the schools. Under Executive Order 10730, Eisenhower placed the Arkansas National Guard under Federal control and sent Army troops to escort nine black students into an all-white public school.

The goal of the 1957 Civil Rights Act was to ensure that all African Americans could exercise their right to vote. By 1957, only about 20% of African Americans had registered to vote. The Democratic Senate leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson, realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party made up of anti-civil rights and pro-civil rights members. Johnson sent the bill to the judiciary committee led by Senator James Eastland, an anti-civil rights senator from Mississippi. Eastland changed and altered the bill almost beyond recognition after the very public outburst by Senator Richard Russell from Georgia who claimed that it was an example of the Federal government wanting to impose its laws on states. Johnson sought recognition from the civil rights advocates for passing the bill while also receiving recognition from the mostly southern anti-civil rights Democrats for "killing the bill."

34 months ago: OK, one thing at a time...

Yes, I know the Democratic party voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1866 en masse. The Democrats and Republicans of the time were largely reversed from their stances now, and it's ludicrous to compare them to their modern counterparts. Democrats in the 1860s were for all the things Republicans are for now -- small government, states' rights, etc. If you had been alive then, you would probably be a Democrat.

I, on the other hand, would have proudly called myself a Republican, and sided with the Yankees over the Confederates in the American civil war.

Get this straight: This was and continues to be a North/South divide. As it happens, since the 1960s, it's also been a Democratic/Republican divide, but you don't get to lay claim to the advances of a party you wouldn't have been a member of at the time. The Republicans were way, way too liberal for Southerners back then.

Your third and fourth posts continue to prove my point about the North/South divide, too, demonstrating pretty conclusively that the Dixiecrats voted strongly against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Guess which party they migrated to after the much larger Northern bloc voted for it? No, wait, I'll just tell you: The Southern Democrats joined the Republican party in the South. The influx of crazies drove the remaining liberal Northern Republicans into the Democratic party, and we got the party lines that match the physical divide that we have today.

Finally, I want to answer your second post. Don't give me that line of bull-pucky. You were talking about black people. You haven't mentioned "the poor, and the gullible, and the defenseless" once until now. We've been talking about race this entire thread. You can't just backtrack on that now: You think the Democratic party is fooling black people. Man up and admit it.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
34 months ago: No, Boss, we'uns wasn't talkin' 'bout no race, we was talkin' bout racists, expanding their power base.
You've got a lot of nerve, my man, to sit in judgement and deliver your half-baked, misinformed accusations.

You claim I prove your point, but your point was, and I will quote:
"Again, no matter how you spin it, Democrats passed and signed into law the Civil Rights Act and ended segregation." If you can do math through your delirium, notice that 163 Republicans yea and 41 nay
199 Democrats yea and 112 nay
Dwight D. Eisenhower, (R) laid the groundwork for modern desegregation. John f. Kennedy followed, and Johnson carried on after him.

On a personal note, what do you know about me to call me a racist? Do you know that my business partner and best friend is black? Do you know that 90 percent of my closest friends and associates are black? Do you know that they introduce me as their cousin, or brother, or boyfriend (in the case of the ladies, only) Do you know that when they take me to their friends' houses, they say, "He just looks white, he's really one of us."?
And do you know that my democrat black friends are beginning to see the democratic party as what it really is, a bunch of liars and self-deceivers. I even get to use the forbidden word, they insist on it, in conjunction with "rigged", "piled", "please", they think it's funny how uncomfortable it makes me.
So take yourself off your pedestal and examine your own motives.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
34 months ago: Do you want to know the true meaning of white supremacist?

It's someone who thinks a minority can't make it without some benevolent white guys always standing up for them and their rights.
34 months ago: Content Removed by RantRave Admin
34 months ago: The whites lost their rights cuz they stoped fighting for them. Where are the White Americans? They are ashamed and have no pride! So they hide...

I dare the rantrave admin remove this ture statment. There is little freedom of speach here.
34 months ago: hey rantman, think your comment should be here..freedom of speech is great. I am however trying to figure what the H you are talking about. Please fill us in on what rights you are saying the whites lost and what they stopped fighting for. I hope you fill us in in the intellectual way that you have been :).



The whites lost their rights cuz they stoped fighting for them. Where are the White Americans? They are ashamed and have no pride! So they hide...

I dare the rantrave admin remove this ture statment. There is little freedom of speach here. Posted 1 Hour Ago
Rantman



34 months ago: Rantman, I don't feel anyone here at RR questions your right to freedom of speech. I think it boils down to a matter of tactics. For example, you can paint graffiti on the side of a building and call it freedom of speech but not everyone will consider it the best way to get your idea across.
34 months ago: OOTB: "Do you want to know the true meaning of white supremacist?"

No, do tell. Please be as patronizing and as disrespectful of the history of black people in the United States as you can. If at all possible, completely disregard lynchers, cross-burners, segregationists, skinheads, and other modern perpetrators of violence and hatred against black people.

"It's someone who thinks a minority can't make it without some benevolent white guys always standing up for them and their rights."

Thank you, I knew you could.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
34 months ago: Noni, your quote in defense of the democrats accused of racism:

'I find it notable that most of the racism appearing on this list occurred more than 50 years ago, at a time when most of the country was racist.'

As for the skinheads, they are usually in gangs, and at war with racist black , latino, and oriental gangs.

I stand by my statements.

By continuously reminding everyone there are racists, you are promoting racism.

Whether you like it or not, as long as there are different races of people, there will always be racism.

And whether you like it or not, you offend black people by insinuating they need you for anything. They are as free to make their own way as you are. You can believe that.

How do I know? Because my black brothers tell me so.
34 months ago: Yes, and I stand by that defense. It's not a defense of racist Southern Democrats, because my whole point -- a point you seem to be intentionally ignoring -- is that the parties were a lot more mixed back then, and largely divided by region. Of course there were racist Southern Democrats at the time. Today, those who are still alive, with notable exceptions like Robert Byrd, belong to the Republican party.

In any event, sorry for the sarcastic tone in my last post. (And, weirdly, the "no" at the beginning of my response, which should have been a "yes.") I meant to respond as well to your comments about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but your "definition" of white supremacy in this country just took my breath away.

In any event, let's get ALL the numbers out, so neither of us can be accused of trying to spin them anymore. (See my next post, in a few minutes).
34 months ago: (Heh... I apparently like the phrase "in any event.")

The original House version passed 290-130 (69%-31%). For the math-impaired, that's 420 voting house members. Of that total, there were 248 Democrats and 172 Republicans (59%-41%). Obviously, the Democrats held a solid majority, though as you will see in a moment, that includes the Dixiecrats.

The voting broke down like this, per party:

* Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

But that's not the whole story, as I've been trying to point out. As you can see below, most of the Republicans in the House at the time were from the North, a state of affairs it's hard to imagine happening today. Here is how the Democrats and Republicans in the House voted, broken down by region:

* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

So, we seem to have solid North/South voting blocs, not Democratic/Republican voting blocs. In the North, Democrats voted almost entirely for the Civil Rights Act, with a paltry 9 siding with the Dixiecrats. The Republicans had a similar -- albeit not quite as wide -- spread in favor of Civil Rights.

In the South, as you can see, there was a grand total of 10 House Republicans. The South was absolutely dominated by the Dixiecrats at the time, and the Republicans who could win did so by being MORE segregationist, MORE socially conservative than their Dixiecrat opponents. While there were only 10 Republican House members in the South, *all* of them voted against the Civil Rights Act. You can't even say that of the Southern Democrats, 7 of whom managed to find the moral fortitude to vote for it.

When the Senate passed its version, the House voted for it with only slight variance on the numbers above, so I won't delve into that vote here. Instead, I'll move on to how the Senate voted. (Next post)
34 months ago: If anything, the Democrats and Dixiecrats had a stronger hold on the Senate than the House, with 67%. Here is how that vote broke down by party:

* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

But again, look at it per region. First, the South:

* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)

Yes, there was exactly 1 Republican Senator from a Southern state at the time. He voted with the Dixiecrats, obviously.

So if you're starting to get the idea that the Dixiecrats were basically their own party, and way out of step with liberal Northern Democrats and Republicans, you're right. They even called themselves the "States Rights Democratic Party" instead of the "Democratic Party." Now let's look at the North:

* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)

So again in the North, we have strong majorities for Civil Rights, albeit not as strong with the Republicans.

There, that's all of the numbers. No spin possible, because this is just raw data; who voted, and which part of the country they were from.

The Dixiecrats could easily read the writing on the wall. Their coalition with Northern Democrats couldn't last. The Northern Republicans, while not exactly hospitable, seemed somewhat friendlier with their less extreme majorities for Civil Rights. So what did the Dixiecrats do? They jumped ship. For example, Strom Thurmond switched his party affiliation from Democratic to Republican in response to the Civil Rights Act in 1964. He remained there, never renouncing his segregationist views, until his death in 2003. Contrast that with Robert Byrd, a former Dixiecrat himself and the man who tried to filibuster the Act, who renounced his racism and even earns high ratings from the NAACP now. He has spent the remainder of his life trying to make up for his past, while Strom Thurmond never even figured out he'd been wrong.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.
All Categories | Arts & Entertainment  |  Culture & Lifestyle  |  Economy  |  Food  |  Health  |  News & Politics  |  Offbeat  |  People  |  Products  |  Science & Technology  |  Sports  |  Travel

Frequently Asked Questions  |  Community Guidelines  |  Editorial Reviews  |  Get Paid to Post  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  Contact Us  |  Sitemap  |  Report Spam/Abuse

©2012 RantRave