Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GtoRA2 on October 30, 2003, 01:22:33 PM
-
Are the states of the South traditionally Democrat?
I have a friend who said they where, cause the north was republican.
What's the scoop?
If they are not, where they ever?
What I want to know basically is are they still or where they ever?
I have another friend who is a hardcore dem, and when you say south he thinks "Racist" and can not believe that they are dem states or ever where.
Who is wrong?
I tried to google this and didn't find anything real useful.
-
The South was solidly "Democrat" until the late 1960's , when the South shed that anchor and shifted to becoming solidly Republican.
Quote:
"I have another friend who is a hardcore dem, and when you say south he thinks "Racist" and can not believe that they are dem states or ever where. "
Your "hardcore" Dem friend is either ignorant, or a moron. Or both.....
C.
-
Actually, in the early 60's, the most racist people on planet earth were both democrat, and from the south!
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Are the states of the South traditionally Democrat?
They were for a long time, the South was mad about Republican President Lincoln. Only when the Democratic party began embracing civil rights for blacks in the 1960s did they start losing their support in the 'Solid South'. See the recent Trent Lott/Strom Thurmond affair for a review of this.
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
They were for a long time, the South was mad about Republican President Lincoln. Only when the Democratic party began embracing civil rights for blacks in the 1960s did they start losing their support in the 'Solid South'. See the recent Trent Lott/Strom Thurmond affair for a review of this.
Don't leave out Byrd ;)
-
Take a look at the results from the last Presidential Elections and you will see the predominate voting within the South.
-
George Wallace was a proud democrat. :)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Actually, in the early 60's, the most racist people on planet earth were both democrat, and from the south!
Rip, it was pretty bad back then. But I wouldn't go quite that far. South Africa was quite a bit worse than the Southern States, and for much longer. Might I point out it was LBJ, a Southern Democrat, that pushed so hard for Civil Rights in his Great Society.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Rip, it was pretty bad back then. But I wouldn't go quite that far. South Africa was quite a bit worse than the Southern States, and for much longer. Might I point out it was LBJ, a Southern Democrat, that pushed so hard for Civil Rights in his Great Society.
And conservatives during the era thought that a Democrat pushing for Civil rights was quite a joke! After all, it was that party was wanted to keep segregation alive. At least Johnson did ONE good thing while in office.
-
google "dixiecrat".
It was Kennedy that broke the Democrat passion for segregation.
-
Originally posted by Reschke
Take a look at the results from the last Presidential Elections and you will see the predominate voting within the South.
I don't understand your point.
see results below.
red Republican won: Blue Democrat won
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_162_1066763620.jpg)
-
American political parties make little sense.
As Montezuma pointed out, it was because Lincoln was a Republican that the Southerners became Democrats. It hadnothing to do with being liberal or conservative. If you try to think about it in those terms you will be hopelessly confused.
LBJ, being a Southerner, was able to push for civil rights in a way that a northern president could not have. I agree with Rip that it is perhaps the only thing his administration accomplished.
MRPLUTO
-
Texas has been strongly Democratic from the time it joined the Union until the last election. The last election is the first time in the history of the state that we've had a Republic majority.
Now, I'm neither Republican nor Democrat. I am conservative. Iy galls me to no end that the Texas Democrats fled the state to avoid what was for them a bad situation and said that they were doing their duty by fleeing the state. We had to send Texas Rangers to go round them up not once but twice. But, that's probably more appropriate in another thread.
-
Originally posted by hblair
George Wallace was a proud democrat. :)
George Wallace was one of the best politicians there ever was. His opponents tried to trip him up many times with leading questions designed for that purpose. Wallace was too smart for that. While he was one of those politicans who would hold his finger to the breeze...I think he was governor of Alabama for something like 25 years or so, along with Lurleen. He did a 180 from standing in the schoolhouse door, to recognizing civil rights for blacks.
He had a good chance of being president if he had not been shot. That's sad because I think he would have been a great president. We'll never know now. Guess it wasn't meant to be.
Les
-
I don't think Wallace would have made a good president. Remember, when he ran for president and was injured in the assasination attempt he was still an unrepentent racist.
To his eternal credit, he changed his ways and did come to believe in equal rights and respect for non-whites.
*******
I'm from Virginia, and here in the early 60's, The State theater in Falls Church was segregated; blacks sat in the balcony (where it was warmer).
And until the late 60's it was illegal in Virginia to marry someone from a different race. I kid you not.
MRPLUTO
-
To his eternal credit MRPLUTO. George Wallace was the best politician there ever was.:)
Les
-
Traditionally the South was a Democrat area. Lincoln and other Republicans represented the industrial north while the agraian South was Democrat.
When the South as a region was a political stronghold for Democrats in the first half of the 20th century, it was said that a Southern voter would vote for a mangy yellow dog before he/she would vote for a Republican. So a “Yellow Dog Democrat” implies one fiercely loyal to the Democratic party, with a strong partisan profile. The expression achieved prominence in the 1928 presidential campaign when southern Democrats, reluctant to support their national party's nominee, Al Smith, voted for him anyway, out of loyalty to the party ticket. When the term is used today, it is meant as a compliment to one who remains a true Democrat, no matter what.
From C-Span
For a brief time it became known as "Dixiecrat":
The States' Rights Democratic Party, usually known as the Dixiecrat Party, was a short-lived splinter group that broke from the Democratic Party in 1948, when President Harry Truman announced that his platform would advocate the passage of civil rights laws. The Dixecrats were a group of Southern Democrats who opposed integration and wanted to retain Jim Crow laws and racial segregation.
- From Wikipedia
Now, the term Dixiecrat has become to mean someone who tends to be conservative in most beliefs, but also supports Democrats because of their voting records in regards to farm subsidies. They tend to vote for Republican presidents and Democrat congressmen. However these congressmen can often be found crossing the isle and voting with the Republicans. A good example of a modern Dixiecrat would be Zell Miller from Georgia and John Breaux from Louisiana.
-
MRPLUTO: ...when he ran for president and was injured in the assasination attempt he was still an unrepentent racist.
To his eternal credit, he changed his ways and did come to believe in equal rights and respect for non-whites.
It is a bit more complex than that.
First and foremost, he was a state rights proponent. He believed that if the population of a state (majority) wanted to do something that was not expressly prohibited by Constitution, the federal government had no right to interfere.
So a politician could be opposed to some issue within his state but once consensus was reached, as a governor it was his duty to protect it against interference from the central government.
Also, he was not so much a "racist" as an opponent of a forced integration. Separate but equal and all that. Of course that "equal" principle was often abused but which principles aren't?
The most harmfull racist anti-black laws at the time were laws adopted by northerners under the guise of union wage protection. Their only purpose was barring southern blacks from gaining employment in the north. This caused more harm to the blacks than any other discrimination except actual slavery.
miko
-
Miko,
I'm not sure how you can come to the conclusion that northern laws to prevent employment of blacks caused more harm than the discrimination in the South. The laws you speak of did exist, but blacks migrated north because despite these laws there was more opportunity and less discrimination than in the deep South.
About the states' rights argument...it's true that's what Wallace was, a state's rights advocate, but many racists hide behind that argument to legitimize discrimination.
MRPLUTO
-
MRPLUTO: ...it's true that's what Wallace was, a state's rights advocate, but many racists hide behind that argument to legitimize discrimination.
It's also true that many people standing for state's rights, adherence to Constitution, free market. etc. are accused of being rasists, exploiters, having nefarious ulterior motives and are called names.
I'm not sure how you can come to the conclusion that northern laws to prevent employment of blacks caused more harm than the discrimination in the South. The laws you speak of did exist, but blacks migrated north because despite these laws there was more opportunity and less discrimination than in the deep South.
I should have said "have caused".
What I ment was the damage they have caused up to this time - and going to cause in the future. Because those laws are still with us unlike the discrimination which is now mostly a thing of the past.
The unions used racist sentiments of some politicians to push through the pro-union legislation for their material benefit. While those politicians hid behind socialist pro-labor rhetoric to legitimize discrimination,
That raised the cost of labor, reduced the number of jobs and barred poor unqualified people from entering the job market and getting qualification.
Those limitations affected all workers but since blacks were predominantly poor and unqualified, it affected them the most.
The following governments preferred to throw balcks welfare handouts but keep the pro-labor legislation. Which resulted in blacks getting culturally and socially destroyed - they lost work culture, family, low illegitimacy, etc. - while jobs that could have gone to them left the country for good.
Quite a few peoples suffered discrimination/oppression for long periods of time that kept them poor, abused but not destroyed them socially and allowed them to rise when it was eliminated.
But an insidious discrimination masked as a concern for working people combined with fake concern for poor (welfare) proves to be more destructive.
Southern blacks were coming to the north as families looking for work. Now nothern blacks sit in gettoes, families destroyed, on public welfare - while blacks from the West Indies arrive here every day and prosper.
I view such destruction of a nation as greater harm - not least because it seems irreversible.
miko
-
Originally posted by JBA
I don't understand your point.
see results below.
red Republican won: Blue Democrat won
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_162_1066763620.jpg)
My point exactly the Republicans won the state of Alabama handily. The only real areas where there is still hard core Democratic Party support is the Black Belt region which is the band of blue that goes through the middle section of Alabama. Its also where the population is predominately American's of African descent and happens to be where my American of Anglo-Saxon descent self come from.
I don't have a political affiliation per se. For me it has become who is the lesser of two evils within the local and national governments.
-
Don't matter Reschke...they'e negroids. That's the new name for nigs.:D
Les