Black Americans are coming home to the GOP

[Teallaura]

So the disenfranchisement of black citizens wasn't really about racism! It was just the means to the ends, a route to political power.

I note that here you acknowledge multiple and concurrent forces. But elsewhere, the common rejoinder is "but the Dems", as if the electorate did not support the policies of their elected representatives.

If one cannot look at Wallace and not apply the label of racist, then nothing is racist.

This is why I call you stupid - elitists in power leveraged racial tension to remain in power. That's a short sentence about a very complex set of political forces that took decades to play out.

And you notice wrong - I literally haven't mentioned party other than disputing Jim's 'they were really Republicans' nonsense. The truth is that political division in the South then was intraparty - the primary, not the general, mattered most. This is still true in the black districts which are still Democrat, and not quite as bad but getting there in white Republican districts. So no, just as everywhere else, a given representative's platform wouldn't be completely representative of the electorate.

Then maybe you need a better brush, one that doesn't brush so broadly that you can't see reality.

[Teallaura]

Your apologia for Wallace and the reaction to civil rights reads like a neo Confederate propaganda piece.

Wallace stood in the schoolhouse door and realized that the hand he chose was not a winner, Kennedy usurped his authority and federalized the Alabama National Guard. The famous stand in the schoolhouse door occurred June of 63, almost a year after the violent confrontation at the integration of Ole Miss.

Your attempt at painting Wallace a skilled politician navigating between extremes (who was not really racist, as Rouge inferred with the authority of "some historians") is based on a bizarre interpretation of events.

Kennedy (via the US Attorney General) presented the implied threat of disbarment, and the obstruction of justice. The events of the previous several years presented justice, southern style, in an unfavorable light across the globe.

Wallace, in contrast to Kennedy, saw justice and self determination for Alabamans meant excluding negroes from full citizenship and dignity. And Wallace represented the very Christian population of Alabama in the Bible Belt.

But then again, since I am likely just plain stupid, we ought to let you, and your ilk, write the history textbooks.

Southern heritage is not about hate?

You are stupid - and a bigot. You can't accept that Wallace might not be what you were taught in your hate filled prejudiced elitist schooling so you attack the messenger instead of even considering that you might possibly be wrong.

Kennedy was dragged kicking and screaming into the Civil Rights fight - he hated it and thought it was destroying his presidency. Kennedy didn't give a damn about blacks other than how they voted. Why the devil do you think he had LBJ as a running mate and was in Texas trying to mend fences? Kennedy's most notable speech concerned the space race - not Civil Rights.

LBJ was possibly the most effective president in the modern era - notice that Kennedy got none of the landmark legislation done (couldn't and probably wasn't that eager) - and nobody thinks he wasn't a racist. But Kennedy chose him as his running mate so how important was this nobility of sentiment to Kennedy really?

Wallace said nasty things, just like LBJ, but did things that genuinely benefited blacks. Not a saint, but he produced better fruit than he's given credit for.

At least by bigots like yourself.

[simplicio]

This is why I call you stupid - elitists in power leveraged racial tension to remain in power. That's a short sentence about a very complex set of political forces that took decades to play out.

And you notice wrong - I literally haven't mentioned party other than disputing Jim's 'they were really Republicans' nonsense. The truth is that political division in the South then was intraparty - the primary, not the general, mattered most. This is still true in the black districts which are still Democrat, and not quite as bad but getting there in white Republican districts. So no, just as everywhere else, a given representative's platform wouldn't be completely representative of the electorate.

Then maybe you need a better brush, one that doesn't brush so broadly that you can't see reality.

The one point, the reality, which you and other posters are avoiding is that the electorate favored segregation. Wallaces speeches were wildly popular, his ideas were accepted.

Freedom Summer may have concentrated in Mississippi, but other states experienced the "outside agitation" of,the various groups. I think it unlikely that any black voter was unaware of the positions of Goldwater and Johnson; even more unlikely that they then cast their vote for Goldwater. If you have a source (other than League of the South) for the Idea that black voters went for Goldwater, I'd be interested.

I haven't ignored the collapsed economy of the south following the Civil War, I haven't really addressed that period. I haven't proposed race as any solution, I am arguing something different.

You aren't really arguing that educational achievement was better under segregation are you?

The meth and opioid epidemic in Alabama was recent, and targeted whites disproportionately. Might need to reassess your view.

The collapse of the black middle class, education, etc, were not due to desegregation.

The split away from the Dem Solid South started in 48, and centered on race, resistance to the federally mandated segregation. From then on, there was a slow and gradual shift, by 62, the Republicans mounted a surprisingly strong challenge to the entrenched Sen Lister Hill. Goldwater made a strong showing, a landslide in Alabama, except for the Northern counties. From then on, the vote went to the Republican presidential candidate (Carter and Clinton were southern). The southe supplied the last of the Dem conservative senators and congressman. With the rise of the modern evangelical political movement, and the role Bob Jones played, the Bible Belt become fused with republicanism and populism.

[simplicio]

You are stupid - and a bigot. You can't accept that Wallace might not be what you were taught in your hate filled prejudiced elitist schooling so you attack the messenger instead of even considering that you might possibly be wrong.

Kennedy was dragged kicking and screaming into the Civil Rights fight - he hated it and thought it was destroying his presidency. Kennedy didn't give a damn about blacks other than how they voted. Why the devil do you think he had LBJ as a running mate and was in Texas trying to mend fences? Kennedy's most notable speech concerned the space race - not Civil Rights.

LBJ was possibly the most effective president in the modern era - notice that Kennedy got none of the landmark legislation done (couldn't and probably wasn't that eager) - and nobody thinks he wasn't a racist. But Kennedy chose him as his running mate so how important was this nobility of sentiment to Kennedy really?

Wallace said nasty things, just like LBJ, but did things that genuinely benefited blacks. Not a saint, but he produced better fruit than he's given credit for.

At least by bigots like yourself.

So recognition of Wallace as a racist means one is a stupid, hate filled, prejudiced, elitist? Only if you accept segregation as acceptable for the non racist!

Kennedy was recognized as sympathetic to the movement, which is why groups like the NAACP got behind him. Kennedy disliked the focus on civil rights, because the main news events were negative, and overshadowed his other initiatives.

Kennedy gave a very famous speech a few months before he died, a speech on civil rights. He proposed sweeping civil rights legislation. It was passed the next year.

Johnson was a new deal Democrat, early in his career sided with other politicians in the south and bashed Truman's civil rights initiatives. A few years later, he backed civil rights bills, pushing through the 57 legislation.

Five years after Johnson pushed the first major civil rights bill since reconstruction, Wallace gave his famous Stand in the Door speech. Blacks suffered terribly under segregation, and Wallace was the face of opposition to civil rights.

Blacks fared poorly under Wallace's leadership.

[Teallaura]

The one point, the reality, which you and other posters are avoiding is that the electorate favored segregation. Wallaces speeches were wildly popular, his ideas were accepted.

Doesn't refute or address what was argued - so there's no need. Don't need to discuss prunes, either for the same reason.

Freedom Summer may have concentrated in Mississippi, but other states experienced the "outside agitation" of,the various groups. I think it unlikely that any black voter was unaware of the positions of Goldwater and Johnson; even more unlikely that they then cast their vote for Goldwater. If you have a source (other than League of the South) for the Idea that black voters went for Goldwater, I'd be interested.

I didn't say that - I said the blacks that did vote weren't representative for freaking obvious reasons and we don't know how they voted - but assuming you do know is racist, FYI.

And yes, I caught that nasty little implication. Stupid.

Look, EVERY TIME you call Alabama racist you are EXPLICITLY calling over 1,000,000,000 blacks racists. That's one quarter of the state's population you think are too stupid to move - or did you forget you told me to visit Alabama, implying that the state hasn't changed at all in fifty plus years? You who have NEVER set foot in the South and only know what Wiki tells you - and you got part of that wrong, too!

...

The collapse of the black middle class, education, etc, were not due to desegregation.

Most certainly were.

The split away from the Dem Solid South started in 48, and centered on race, resistance to the federally mandated segregation. From then on, there was a slow and gradual shift, by 62, the Republicans mounted a surprisingly strong challenge to the entrenched Sen Lister Hill. Goldwater made a strong showing, a landslide in Alabama, except for the Northern counties. From then on, the vote went to the Republican presidential candidate (Carter and Clinton were southern). The southe supplied the last of the Dem conservative senators and congressman. With the rise of the modern evangelical political movement, and the role Bob Jones played, the Bible Belt become fused with republicanism and populism.

The Wiki, and the wrong, are strong with this one.

STILL doesn't refute the point.

Heck with it - welcome to ignore.

[JimL]

When liberals claim milk and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are racist, they have jumped the shark.

And they don't, they simply point out racism when they see it and right now, for some reason, the bigots and the racists seem to have found a home in your republican party. It's the republican party's immoral southern strategy of the sixties coming home to roost I think.

[simplicio]

Doesn't refute or address what was argued - so there's no need. Don't need to discuss prunes, either for the same reason.




I didn't say that - I said the blacks that did vote weren't representative for freaking obvious reasons and we don't know how they voted - but assuming you do know is racist, FYI.

And yes, I caught that nasty little implication. Stupid.

Look, EVERY TIME you call Alabama racist you are EXPLICITLY calling over 1,000,000,000 blacks racists. That's one quarter of the state's population you think are too stupid to move - or did you forget you told me to visit Alabama, implying that the state hasn't changed at all in fifty plus years? You who have NEVER set foot in the South and only know what Wiki tells you - and you got part of that wrong, too!



Most certainly were.

The Wiki, and the wrong, are strong with this one.

STILL doesn't refute the point.

Heck with it - welcome to ignore.

But you did argue that blacks voted for Goldwater, for instance in post #75. Which is ludicrous if you have any knowledge of what was happening across the nation (and south) in the late fifties and early sixties, and how various constituencies responded.

We can examine what people said and did during that time period, and draw practical and rational conclusions. Without being racist. At the time when black voters were hoping for federal legislation on civil rights (proposed by Kennedy in June 63, I did check the wiki page), the time when Klan activity turn violent, at a time when there were drives to enroll black voters, at a time when schools were desegregating and the massive resistance took hold in Virginia, do you think black citizens were unaware or unsympathetic to the civil rights cause?

[Sparko]

And they don't, they simply point out racism when they see it and right now, for some reason, the bigots and the racists seem to have found a home in your republican party. It's the republican party's immoral southern strategy of the sixties coming home to roost I think.

They do and have. They call the most ridiculous and trivial things "racist" - when they do that, then "racist" loses all real meaning.

Ref:

Milk is Racist

Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are racist

White people selling burritos is racist

Math is racist

[rogue06]

They do and have. They call the most ridiculous and trivial things "racist" - when they do that, then "racist" loses all real meaning.

Ref:

Milk is Racist

Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are racist

White people selling burritos is racist

Math is racist

Look at how the MSM and the other Democrats characterized virtually every adjective used to describe Obama. We were told that things like skinny, elitist and professor were suddenly racist. Even the word "Obamacare" was called racist blithely ignoring the fact that it was used on the White House web site and that the Obamessiah would also use it.

[Cow Poke]

And they don't, they simply point out racism when they see it and right now, for some reason, the bigots and the racists seem to have found a home in your republican party. It's the republican party's immoral southern strategy of the sixties coming home to roost I think.

You do make me smile from time to time.

[JimL]

They do and have. They call the most ridiculous and trivial things "racist" - when they do that, then "racist" loses all real meaning.

Ref:

Milk is Racist

Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are racist

White people selling burritos is racist

Math is racist

Silly. The charge is that those things are either used by some symbolically, or as with math, can be used to promote racism, not that a peanut butter and jelly sandwich itself is racist.

[Sparko]

Silly. The charge is that those things are either used by some symbolically, or as with math, can be used to promote racism, not that a peanut butter and jelly sandwich itself is racist.

Right, Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwiches are used to promote racism. That's just as dumb. As is Math.

You are implying that certain races are too stupid to do math. You racist.

[simplicio]

The party of Lincoln, or the party of backlash against civil rights?

[lilpixieofterror]

The party of Lincoln, or the party of backlash against civil rights?

Republicans were far more in favor of civil rights than democrats were, just saying.

[simplicio]

Republicans were far more in favor of civil rights than democrats were, just saying.

A very good point . However, the question referred to the time since most of the major civil rights legislation was passed such as today.


Is there a backlash to civil rights in the Republican Party today?