The Democrat Party: Nothing Has Changed Except the Hood
The Ku Klux Klan was founded as the activist wing of the Democratic Party.
On September 28, 1868, a mob of Democrats massacred nearly 300 African-American Republicans in Opelousas, Louisiana. The savagery began when racist Democrats attacked a newspaper editor, a white Republican and schoolteacher for ex-slaves. Several African-Americans rushed to the assistance of their friend, and in response, Democrats went on a ?Negro hunt,? killing every African-American (all of whom were Republicans) in the area they could find. (Via Grand Old Partisan)
Democrats in hoods slaughtered hundreds of Republicans and blacks across the country. They beat and threatened and murdered Republicans for standing with the black man.
On April 20, 1871 the Republicans passed the anti-Ku Klux Klan Act outlawing Democratic terrorist groups.
The KKK has lost its popularity among Democrats the past few years but not its tactics.
Democrats still dress in masks and beat and abuse conservatives and Republicans. Today they?re called Antifa.
Actually, everything I've read has said that the White Supremacists won the day. Not Antifa.
BTW... the reason that the KKK has lost popularity with the Democrats is because the Democrats that used to support the KKK switched sides and are now Republicans. It's called the Southern Realignment.
The parties philosophies have flipped since the days of Lincoln (hell, since the beginning of the Red Scare in the 1950's really). So any comparison merely using the party names is disingenuous.
Today's Republican Party is NOT the Party of Lincoln. (and hasn't been since...well, since Lincoln was shot)
No, the party switch certainly is not a myth. SMDH.
Many studies have documented a secular partisan realignment in southern politics, particularly the movement of southern Democrats to the Republican Party. In fact, there are too many studies to list.
White Conservative Protestants, with the onset of hte New Deal and in particular the Civil Rights acts bailed on the Democratic party to become Republicans. Should I list them? Strom Thurmond is at the top of the list, Ronald Reagan is on it.
Today, the Republican Party enjoys a significant advantage in party identification among white southern voters when just sixty years ago, it was an extremist minority - an extremist minority that was COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from the GOP today.
Show me your masters in history and I'll show you mine.
The southern realignment was much more about liberal/conservative than Dem/Rep. Goldwater solidified that. Previously both parties were lib-cons. Remember, JFK was a conservative, and needed LBJ to win the South and keep the libs happy.
It's a fact perpetuated by historians both liberal and conservative. Once again Soupnado... I'll show you MY Masters in History (with a focus on military and politics) if you'll show me yours.
Let's not forget that the Klan, the Neo-Nazis, the American Nazi Party etc... yeah, they endorsed Trump.
But Soupnado is right, sorta, Thurmond was the only one to IMMEDIATELY switch sides, but just because individual politicians didn't switch sides, does not mean that change was not occurring. The other southern Dems stayed tacitly democratic primarily because the hatred for the LIBERAL Republicans of the North in the South was so strong that it was a difficult transition. It took many years and many elections for it to take effect. Let's not forget that Richard Nixon is the first REPUBLICAN to really take the south in an election with only Texas going Democratic. (Maryland had changed sides in 1948, but mainly because of an influx of out of staters who where mostly yankees and Eisenhower carried Louisiana in 1956, but the rest of the former Confederate states went Dem).
Nixon's Southern Strategy was ingenious, but it was REAGAN (with the help of Carter's bumbling presidency) that cemented the change in place. Anyone who was in any way Liberal was now drawn to the Democratic Party, a position held just 30 years before by the Republicans.
Simple fact of the matter is that the "party of Lincoln" ceased to exist even before Lincoln was out of office. Lincoln was NOT a conservative, but a radical liberal. The Democrats in the South were radical conservatives, resisting changing their "culture" and "way of life" away from a slave economy. The radical Liberals forced the view (no matter what your position on the Civil War is, that is fact).
What Soupnado has bought into is right-wing revisionism. It is not supported by history, not even a little bit.
sdanielmcev is right, prior to about 1950, there wasn't anywhere near as much polarization in the parties. Both sides had liberal and conservative wings and there was a lot more overlap.
For instance, the right wingers trying defend this argument about the Democrats and the KKK like to point out that not a single southern democrat voted for the civil rights act. That is true. BUT - and this is a big caveat - it is NOT the WHOLE TRUTH. The whole truth is that not a single Southern politician, Dem, Pub, or other voted for the CRA. Not one. But they don't like to mention that because it muddies their flummery (that's the opposite of dialectic btw).
So no, the view is simplistic. In the Jim Crow era, during reconstruction, Southern Democrats were largely conservative with very few liberals (actually, I can't think of ANY liberal S.D.s from the Civil Rights era). Northern Democrats were a broader spread. Republicans on the other hand were largely liberal, but with a growing and radical conservative movement led by neo-fascists! A fact recognized by politicians of the day; for instance:
"The Conservative movement is a fanatical neo-fascist political cult in the GOP, driven by a strange mixture of corrosive hatred and sickening fear, who are recklessly determined to either control our party, or destroy it." - Senator Thomas Kuchel, 1966. REPUBLICAN SENATOR Thomas Kuchel. He's far from the only Republican to recognize the danger. Henry Wallace saw it, General Smedley Butler definitely saw it.
But by the Reagan era, the parties had diverged in PHILOSOPHY and the polarization was complete. People like to say that their platforms had switched, but that's not overly accurate... their platforms had morphed to resemble their opposite from the previous era, but they had not perfectly flipped. Thus the structure of the two main parties today.
It is one of the main reason I think we need a viable third party of moderates. These would be people who see the need for government and the fact that there are certain things that GOVERNMENT does better than the private sector (utilities, infrastructure, military, etc.), but that there are certain things that government needs to keep its paws off (private decisions, social engineering, etc.)
But Soupnado is right, sorta, Thurmond was the only one to IMMEDIATELY switch sides, but just because individual politicians didn't switch sides, does not mean that change was not occurring. The other southern Dems stayed tacitly democratic primarily because the hatred for the LIBERAL Republicans of the North in the South was so strong that it was a difficult transition.
LOL........... So they just stayed as "closet Democrats" for another 20 plus years?