That's very true. Maybe some real statistics will come out now.

 

It's also unfortunate that the presentation of this whole issue is going to overshadow the important point that it presents about today's statistics.

 

I don't think there really are any statistics like that from the period. Marriage between slaves wasn't allowed nor recognized and I doubt slave-owners bothered keeping track of the biological family of their slaves, especially since they changed their names anyway.

 

I agree with the second part, but I also think anyone serious about having that discussion wouldn't present it the way it was in this pledge. Considering the content of the rest of the pledge about Muslims, gays, and low taxes, I don't think dialogue was their intention.

I don't think there really are any statistics like that from the period. Marriage between slaves wasn't allowed nor recognized and I doubt slave-owners bothered keeping track of the biological family of their slaves, especially since they changed their names anyway.

 

 

 

I agree with the second part, but I also think anyone serious about having that discussion wouldn't present it the way it was in this pledge. Considering the content of the rest of the pledge about Muslims, gays, and low taxes, I don't think dialogue was their intention.

 

Do you have a link to the full pledge? I'd like to read it.

It was the Democrats that supported slavery. The Republicans were against it.

 

The parties of Antebellum have nothing in common with their modern variants but their names. Anything else is coincidental. I'm not sure what your point is.

 

Do you have a link to the full pledge? I'd like to read it.

 

Here it is.

The parties of Antebellum have nothing in common with their modern variants but their names. Anything else is coincidental. I'm not sure what your point is.

All of the "Jim Crow" laws long after the war that prevented blacks from voting and kept them down were enacted by Democratic governors and Democratic legislatures. The Ku Klux Klan weren't predominantly Republican and any black (or white) who threatened the party's domination was liable to be beaten or lynched.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt had his first opportunity to name a member of the Supreme Court, he appointed a life member of the Ku Klux Klan, Sen. Hugo Black, Democrat of Alabama. In 1944, FDR chose as his vice president Harry Truman, who had joined the Ku Klux Klan in Kansas City in 1922. Throughout his presidency, Roosevelt resisted Republican efforts to pass a federal law against lynching, and he opposed integration of the armed forces. Another Ku Klux Klan member, Sen. Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 straight hours to keep it from passage.

All of the "Jim Crow" laws long after the war that prevented blacks from voting and kept them down were enacted by Democratic governors and Democratic legislatures. The Ku Klux Klan weren't predominantly Republican and any black (or white) who threatened the party's domination was liable to be beaten or lynched.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt had his first opportunity to name a member of the Supreme Court, he appointed a life member of the Ku Klux Klan, Sen. Hugo Black, Democrat of Alabama. In 1944, FDR chose as his vice president Harry Truman, who had joined the Ku Klux Klan in Kansas City in 1922. Throughout his presidency, Roosevelt resisted Republican efforts to pass a federal law against lynching, and he opposed integration of the armed forces. Another Ku Klux Klan member, Sen. Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 straight hours to keep it from passage.

 

No one denies this. Though, I notice that you left out the list of Republicans joining Byrd in filibustering the Civil Rights Act and their more heated opposition to the Voting Rights Act. Or that the Republican platform in the presidential election of that year was complete opposition to the Civil Rights Act. Again, I don't know what the point is. Should any act of racism or prejudice be tolerated because "the other side did it too"?

No one denies this. Though, I notice that you left out the list of Republicans joining Byrd in filibustering the Civil Rights Act and their more heated opposition to the Voting Rights Act. Or that the Republican platform in the presidential election of that year was complete opposition to the Civil Rights Act. Again, I don't know what the point is. Should any act of racism or prejudice be tolerated because "the other side did it too"?

No, it shouldn't. And no, I don't deny that there were quite a few Republicans that were every bit as bad. However, you can't deny that these days the Republicans get labeled as the racist party, wrongfully so in most cases, yet people seem to quickly dismiss the Democrats role in racism. I'm not saying you are, but many do. I'd venture to say there are as many racist Democrats in office as there are Republicans. Yet, these days, we seem to see the finger only pointed to one party.

Edited July 12, 201115 yr by Run To State
Changed is to in.

It was a Republican Senator Everett Dirksen who was the key to getting the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed. It is quite possible that without him it wouldn't have passed when it did. Also it was very important that other republicans voted for it.

It was a Republican Senator Everett Dirksen who was the key to getting the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed. It is quite possible that without him it wouldn't have passed when it did. Also it was very important that other republicans voted for it.

:thumb:

No, it shouldn't. And no, I don't deny that there were quite a few Republicans that were every bit as bad. However, you can't deny that these days the Republicans get labeled as the racist party, wrongfully so in most cases, yet people seem to quickly dismiss the Democrats role in racism. I'm not saying you are, but many do. I'd venture to say there are as many racist Democrats in office as there are Republicans. Yet, these days, we seem to see the finger only pointed to one party.

 

Well I don't believe there is a "racist" party today, though I do agree that's often how it's framed by the more vitriolic. But, I think the stigma of a racial tone deafness that the Republican party carries isn't because of the civil rights era (though I think that's where it began), but because Republicans often find themselves signing things like this pledge and its ham-fisted language about slavery and the first black president, or Rush Limbaugh and his ilk's excoriations that white people are oppressed, among other things. In short, I don't think Republicans have done much to win over the near ~90% of black voters who cast ballots for the other team, and I don't think it's because black people are being unfair to them. And that isn't to say that Democrats have been as pure as the wind-drive snow either.

It was the Democrats that supported slavery. The Republicans were against it.

 

This isn't a discussion about slavery but I hope you aren't trying to claim that Republicans didn't own slaves because they were against it. Am I to believe that even Republicans in the South were against slavery? I think when it comes to slavery there is enough blame to go around for both parties. I must say that you are the first person I have known to make slavery a partisan issue though.

This isn't a discussion about slavery but I hope you aren't trying to claim that Republicans didn't own slaves because they were against it. Am I to believe that even Republicans in the South were against slavery? I think when it comes to slavery there is enough blame to go around for both parties. I must say that you are the first person I have known to make slavery a partisan issue though.

Like it or not, it WAS the Democrats that were for slavery back then and the South were predominantly Democrats in that era. You can't just ignore history.

Do you have a link to the full pledge? I'd like to read it.

 

It's interesting but that's about it. Even more interesting is the paper by Dr. Blackman who I've actually had the pleasure to meet but had no idea she was this well known.

This isn't a discussion about slavery but I hope you aren't trying to claim that Republicans didn't own slaves because they were against it. Am I to believe that even Republicans in the South were against slavery? I think when it comes to slavery there is enough blame to go around for both parties. I must say that you are the first person I have known to make slavery a partisan issue though.

 

There were many Republicans in the south who were against slavery. I believe there was a 13 county area in Alabama who tried to stay with the North and provided much information to the North during the war.

Like it or not, it WAS the Democrats that were for slavery back then and the South were predominantly Democrats in that era. You can't just ignore history.

 

No one is ignoring history. I am simply pointing out a CURRENT presidential hopeful's pledge that states that black kids were better off as slaves than they are currently. Which is idiotic. Fine...Democrats invented racism and slavery. Care to address Bachmann's and apparently Santorum's idiotic beliefs now? If Obama said something similar about white kids you'd be comparing him to Louis Farrakhan so thank you for the history lesson. I had forgotten that 95% of white people in the 1800's were racist and that included some Democrats as well.

There were many Republicans in the south who were against slavery. I believe there was a 13 county area in Alabama who tried to stay with the North and provided much information to the North during the war.

 

Awesome.