Slavery and the Roles of Democrat and Republican Parties in America

Discussion in 'History' started by wellwisher, Aug 19, 2014.

  1. wellwisher Banned Banned

    I was doing some research on the topic and discovered that the Republican Party has historically been the party that supported the blacks in America against slavery and discrimination. Yet the revisionists history tends to create the impression the Democrats were the great defenders.

    The interesting part are the black seem unaware of the truth but seem to gravitate toward the Democratic party. Could this be due to a type of historical Stockholm syndrome? The war of poverty, waged by the democrats spent 7 trillion over 50 years with the same poverty rates then as now. If the goal had been to keep the blacks from moving up, they did a good job. The black rights movement got stalled by siding with the party that historically never wanted them to leave the plantation or once they left never wanted them to rise above. Yet they still vote for the party of slaves masters, when all their needs are provided for, and all then needed to do was do what the master tells them; vote democrat no matter how incompetent or corrupt.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. mathman Valued Senior Member

    A little political history.
    Until WW II, the Democratic party had two wings, Southern - racist and conservative, rest of country - not so racist and liberal. In the 1948 convention the anti-racists got control and many southerners left to form the Dixiecrat party. This split got wider as time went on - George Wallace candidacy.

    The Republican party had two wings, moderate and conservative, with moderates dominating nationally from WW II till around 1960, when the conservatives nominated Nixon, Goldwater, Nixon. Under Nixon the Republicans adopted the "southern strategy" to get as many white (especially racist) southerners to join the Republicans. It worked! Meanwhile moderate Republicans have disappeared.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. wellwisher Banned Banned

    The USA has 50 states and your history book says a half dozen southern states dictates for all the 50?

    What Nixon did was point out that the southern democrats had more in common with republican conservative values, like family instead of democrat values like divorce and abortion. For hard work and self reliance, instead of dependency on government, etc., He pointed out why are they voting based on the one issue of hatred that has been a democratic party stable for 100 years. They had more in common with the republicans on many other levels. The south changed party but the south is steeped in civil war tradition that date back to glory days of the democratic party and slavery. They are a hybrid that is still holding onto their democratic party heritage of slavery and social class divisions. But they also apply the conservative value of family and church. They did not learn racism from republicans. It is no different from an immigrant becomes a citizen of a new country but retain their ethnicity. The hate is democratic in origin with rebel flag from an era where the democrats wore the hoods.

    The way I look at it, the blacks were moving upward, as a group, under the republicans, since the time of Lincoln through Eisenhower and forward of that. The NAACP and the black colleges were designed to help the blacks. The republican principles were connected to the church; Martin Luther King, had strong family ties, self reliance, etc.

    Once thee blacks sided with the democrats, in more recent times, they have stagnated, as a group, with the war on poverty keeping the blacks at the same spot. It was not designed to help. This is because the democrats don't wish them to leave a state of dependency. Even quota laws assume a lower level human that needs a handicap so they can compete. If two people have the same skills, the normal assumption is both use the same rules. Handicap is a traditional Democrat party assumption based on seeing whites and blacks as two separate classes.

    The way the trick the works is the democrats provide social programs and aid, to help, but not enough to become independent like someone who works a good job and can call all their own shots in life. The master gives you a place to stay but not enough to leave and settle elsewhere. That is the source of discontent; unused human potential. The democratic party is like having a mother who tends to your needs but the price you pay is you can never become independent of her since you need and owe her. The blacks who become republican are way ahead as a group in almost all categories like education, income, stable families, etc. The democrats call these uncle toms because they are not prejudice. They are not happy for their success.

    I mentioned the Stockholm syndrome where hostages in captivity begin to form an attachment to their captors and become suspicious of the very people who have been trying to help them since the beginning of the struggle. The problem with the democratic party is they can lie and not suffer any consequences. How can you trust those who don't internally police themselves to be honest?
  8. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Yes, the southern states were responsible for the switch in party platforms. Everyone basically changed sides. It wasn't about divorce (higher in Republican states). It was about segregation. No one cares what the parties supported 100 years ago.

    I see the problem being high wage jobs that used to support large communities in Detroit and other industrial areas. Which party supports free trade and the dissolution of unions? Which party has no problem with China replacing domestic manufacturing?
  9. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    You must not be an American. We all know that the Republican Party was formed around the time of the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln was the first president from that party. It was the Republicans who were opposed to slavery and the Democrats who wanted to keep it.

    Even after Emancipation, it was the Democrats who enacted the "Jim Crow" laws that (effectively) kept the Afro-Americans from having all the rights of citizenship. They were restricted to separate schools and parks (which were not well funded), were not allowed in the "best" stores and restaurants, had to ride in the back of the bus, and when a black man was killed by a white man the white man was never prosecuted.

    It was always the Republicans who tried to make headway against this trend. This continued right up through World War II, when black veterans came home to considerably less gratitude, celebration and opportunity than their white comrades.

    However, there were signs of change. President Harry Truman, a Democrat from a Border State (Missouri did not secede during the civil war, but they kept slaves), de-segregated the U.S. armed forces.

    Nonetheless, a few years later, it was Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican president, who began to integrate the schools. He sent the National Guard to Little Rock, forcing the local government to allow black children into white schools in Arkansas (a former slave state and member of the Confederacy).

    But in the 1960s, this all began to turn around. Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat from Texas, the first president after the Civil War from a former Confederate state, pushed massive legislation through Congress to improve the lot of black Americans. He knew what he was doing: he told his advisors that from that point on, the Democratic Party was going to lose the South.

    And they did. The party of Abe Lincoln is now the stronghold of Southern racists, and it's the Democrats who are fighting for equality and civil rights.

    Perhaps you have noticed that America's first black President is a Democrat? It's now been 50 years since the two parties swapped ideologies.

    Both parties are incompetent and corrupt. George W. Bush was the stupidest man to ever occupy the White House. Now that he's out of power doctors are lining up to tell us that he had "pre-senile dementia," but no one dared depose him because then Cheney would have been President! He started a war against the wrong country because his family is in the petroleum business and he didn't dare bomb Saudi Arabia, his daddy's friends--even though 9/11 was a Saudi operation. He changed the course of history in the Middle East, and we'll all be paying for that arrogant mistake for the next 50 years.

    And he sat quietly and watched the subprime mortgage disaster unfold, when it was his job to make sure that the bank examiners didn't allow U.S. banks to write mortgages to people who would never be able to pay them back.

    I haven't voted for a Democrat or a Republican since 1968. The third parties have better candidates, and if they get enough votes, even though they have no chance of winning, it scares the major parties into being a tiny bit more responsible.

    The Communist Party won a few elections for city councils, school boards, etc., in the 1920s. This scared the Democrats and the Republicans, so they simply adopted the Communist Party platform. Eisenhower completed the process when he established the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Doesn't that sound like some institution in the USSR?
  10. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    That's what often happens in politics. The party that's a little bit behind only needs a handful of votes to get a little bit ahead, so they court a minority in the other party. To attract ducks, you make a noise like a duck. To attract racists, you make a noise like a racist - and you hope you don't alienate too many of the votes you already have.

Share This Page