Is it true that the Democrats were the Pro Slavery pro Racial Segregation and the Pro

[tradeunionsupporter]

Is it true that the Democrats were the Pro Slavery pro Racial Segregation and the Pro Ku Klux Klan KKK Political Party ?

[Bud Struggle]

Yea. A 150 years ago.

[Dimentio]

The Southern Democrats were. The Northern Democrats were pro-abolitionist, and largely supported President Lincoln's war efforts.

The Democrats are not one party. Their closest equivalent is the Liberal Group (ALDE) in the EU Parliament.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament

[Bud Struggle]

The Southern Democrats were. The Northern Democrats were pro-abolitionist, and largely supported President Lincoln's war efforts.

The Democrats are not one party. Their closest equivalent is the Liberal Group (ALDE) in the EU Parliament.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament

It really sucks when some guy from Sweden knows more about American history than 99% of Americans. :D

[Dimentio]

During the reconstruction era, northern Democrats were often tempted to win support for their legislation by for example pandering to their racist party compatriots in the Deep South. That is why Woodrow Wilson and F.D Roosevelt did not care about racism (though Wilson himself was a racist).

The reason why the Democrats lost the Deep South (which basically had been run for generations by pretty corrupt Democratic de-facto one-party regimes) was because they supported the Civil Rights movement.

The Southern Democrats were always more socially conservative.

This problem is existing in Europe as well, where liberal and social democratic parties could range from the very socially liberal to the very socially reactionary.

In Sweden, the Social Democrats are for multiculturalism and gay rights, whereas the Social Democrats in Slovakia are cooperating with anti-gay movements.

[The Douche]

Its because the democrats have largely been a populist organization through out their history, and the GOP is just starting to pander to populism. So thats why you can see such varried points of view within the democrats, even in the south, with people like governor wallace compared to people like huey long.

[Demogorgon]

American political parties aren't cohesive units like they are in most other liberal countries. The two key features of the American electoral system that have been the case for a very long time are an extremely rigid two party system and considerable intra-party competition. This means that different groups cannot form their own parties and hope for success so must compete within one of the parties (you do get other parties of course, but they haven't got a snowball's chance in hell).

The two parties are collections of factions and historically both had left wing, centrist and right wing factions. Now they are slightly less diverse, but not by much.

So baring that in mind try not to draw too many conclusions about where parties sat in the Nineteenth Century, however trying to simplify the Democrats were the more pro-slavery and then pro-segregation party.

Remember as well that for about a hundred years after the civil war the two party system didn't exist in the South because the Republican Party was more or less irrelevant, it was a one party system with all meaningful competition happening within the Democratic Party. It is not much of a stretch to say that elections were a mere formality with political offices actually being decided during the primaries. Racism prevailed in Southern Politics so racism prevailed in the Southern Democratic Party, it being the only vehicle to express it.

This meant in the federal Congress you could actually get absurd situations like the democrats roughly providing the left wing and right wing and the Republicans providing the centre. The situation ended after the Second World War when the Northern branch of the party became dominant and began supporting Civil Rights. The Southern Branch took umbrage at this and attempted various manouevers like forming their own "Dixiecrat" "State's Rights" parties and so forth. With Nixon and the "Southern Strategy" the Republicans moved to accomodate them allowing the party to finally prevail in the South and hence the switchover was finally complete.

[L.A.P.]

The Democratic Party was mainly made up of Jacksonian Democrats and Social Conservatives before the New Deal because they wanted to join the party opposite of the Republican Party which was was founded on an abolitionist platform made up of Jeffersonian Democrats and Progressives. The Democratic Party, as with all American political parties at that time, had a broad platform with classical liberalism being the only common ideology shared among all its members, so the Democratic Party was split. Once the Republican Party was founded, that's when pro-slavery politicians started to make up most of the Democratic Party since a lot of its progressive members went to the Republican Party. However, when the New Deal was passed by Franklin D. Roosevelt the parties took a complete 180 turn.

[Dimentio]

The Democratic Party was mainly made up of Jacksonian Democrats and Social Conservatives before the New Deal because they wanted to join the party opposite of the Republican Party which was was founded on an abolitionist platform made up of Jeffersonian Democrats and Progressives. The Democratic Party, as with all American political parties at that time, had a broad platform with classical liberalism being the only common ideology shared among all its members, so the Democratic Party was split. Once the Republican Party was founded, that's when pro-slavery politicians started to make up most of the Democratic Party since a lot of its progressive members went to the Republican Party. However, when the New Deal was passed by Franklin D. Roosevelt the parties took a complete 180 turn.

It was more gradual than that. As said, it was first with Nixon that the current structure emerged. For example Eisenhower accepted heavily progressive tax rates on 91% for the wealthiest, which Kennedy lowered to 77% (and if you earn 1 billion $ a year, 90 million would still buy you a mansion, a fountain, a yacht and a helicopter).

[RED DAVE]

The Northern Democrats were pro-abolitionist, and largely supported President Lincoln's war efforts.This is not quite true.

(1) To be antislavery was not necessarily to be pro-abolitionist. Abolitionism was the radical wing of the antislavery movement or antislavery opinion. Lincoln, for instance, was antislavery but by no means an abolitionist.

(2)There was widespread support for the war in the North, but much of this, especially at the beginning of the war, had to do with the issue of secession rather than the issue of slavery. Lincoln had to hold back on the Emancipation Proclamation because there was by no means universal support for it. And, of course, it permitted slavery in the slave-holding parts of the North.

(3) In fact the Northern Democrats contained within them large pro-slavery elements and a large element that wanted a negotiated peace with the South, called the Copperheads. McClellan contemplated running as the Democratic candidate in the election of 1864 on a plank of ending the war with a negotiated peace and preserving slavery.

RED DAVE

[Dimentio]

This is not quite true.

(1) To be antislavery was not necessarily to be pro-abolitionist. Abolitionism was the radical wing of the antislavery movement or antislavery opinion. Lincoln, for instance, was antislavery but by no means an abolitionist.

(2)There was widespread support for the war in the North, but much of this, especially at the beginning of the war, had to do with the issue of secession rather than the issue of slavery. Lincoln had to hold back on the Emancipation Proclamation because there was by no means universal support for it. And, of course, it permitted slavery in the slave-holding parts of the North.

(3) In fact the Northern Democrats contained within them large pro-slavery elements and a large element that wanted a negotiated peace with the South, called the Copperheads. McClellan contemplated running as the Democratic candidate in the election of 1864 on a plank of ending the war with a negotiated peace and preserving slavery.

RED DAVE

Lincoln was considered somewhat radical because he did not want slavery extended to the territories. It was first in the middle of the war he signed the Emancipation Act, and it had some effects on the defeat of the Confederacy. You are essentially right that secession was the bigger issue.

[al-Afghani]

What about the rise of the labor unions in the first half of the 20th century, and the Democrats' support for them? Didn't that have any affect on the political parties' "title switch" even before the Second World War? How did it come about that these were suddenly supported? Was it an idea Roosevelt came up with in a sudden moment of divine inspiration?

Sorry, I'm still reading European history, haven't gone under skin of American history yet further than Tocqueville.

[Dimentio]

In the USA, there was the progressive movement, which affected Northern Democrats and Republicans. Issues like prohibition, anti-trust laws and charity were the big thing. The Labour Unions also grew quite large, but never as powerful as in (parts of) Europe.

[RED DAVE]

Lincoln was considered somewhat radical because he did not want slavery extended to the territories.Lincoln was not a radical. His position for no expansion of slavery was the mainstream position in the Republican Party. Fremont was much more radical than Lincoln


It was first in the middle of the war he signed the Emancipation Act, and it had some effects on the defeat of the Confederacy. You are essentially right that secession was the bigger issue.Correct.

RED DAVE

[RATM-Eubie]

Yes that is correct. Back in the 50's and stuff...

[Gorilla]

The Southern Democrats were. The Northern Democrats were pro-abolitionist, and largely supported President Lincoln's war efforts.

Except in New York City!


The Democrats are not one party. Their closest equivalent is the Liberal Group (ALDE) in the EU Parliament.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament

ALDE is like the Spartacist League compared to the Democrats.

[Geiseric]

The way I remember it was that the current political parties switched tendencies and the progressive/conservative norm at FDR's presidency. In the WW2 era. Many socialists were in the north where the factories were, but also in the midwest where farmers were being oppressed and the railroad industry didn't treat their employees very well. The I.W.W. Had a huge presence in the midwest at I believe detroit. The railroaders, alot of farmers, and industrial centers usually had a large number of progressives or socialists in it.

[Dimentio]

Except in New York City!

ALDE is like the Spartacist League compared to the Democrats.

Yeah, but Europeans are generally somewhat more studying what politicians are doing and are not accepting shit to the same degree. Americans might be louder and more unbrushed, while Europeans are politer, but I seldom here of riots in the USA. The only parts of Europe where the population are accepting cuts without complaints are the Baltic States and Poland.

[al-Afghani]

Are there any books you knowledgeable minds would recommend to a novice on this particular era and issue of North American history?

[Dimentio]

Are there any books you knowledgeable minds would recommend to a novice on this particular era and issue of North American history?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era

Basically similar to other kinds of trends in European countries at that time, with growth of social movements with reformist strategies to curb the defiencies of 19th century industrialisation.

[RED DAVE]

Are there any books you knowledgeable minds would recommend to a novice on this particular era and issue of North American history?Free online:

A People's History of the United States (http://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html)

RED DAVE

[RGacky3]

The OP neads to learn about wikipedia.

[southernmissfan]

Free online:

A People's History of the United States (http://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html)

RED DAVE

I would also recommend History of the United States by Charles and Mary Beard:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/beard/history-us/index.htm

[Baseball]

Lincoln was considered somewhat radical because he did not want slavery extended to the territories. It was first in the middle of the war he signed the Emancipation Act, and it had some effects on the defeat of the Confederacy. You are essentially right that secession was the bigger issue.

Lincoln's opposition to slavery expansion to the territories was squarely mainstream-- its part of what the Republican Party was about.
Although certainly southerners saw him as radical (though Lincoln argued that the southerners were the true radicals).

The GOP arose from the ashes of the Whig Party, which collapsed due to its inability to come to terms with slavery.

[RGacky3]

Lincoln was very economically progressive (far left of modern democrats).

He instituted a progressive tax, and put a lot of federal controls on the financial industry.

"These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people"

"When I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."

"no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent."

[Nolan]

One funny thing is that Lincoln is for the most part considered holy in the national mythos but there is a very loud minority that still accuses him of "Marxism" or "tyranny" or whatever.

0HZsPZ_guyE

Also, Lincoln was more friendly to the "American System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_%28economics%29)" of economics rather than the laissez-faire thinking.

So yeah, both the Democrats and the Republicans are quite different from what they were then.

[Amphictyonis]

Is it true that the Democrats were the Pro Slavery pro Racial Segregation and the Pro Ku Klux Klan KKK Political Party ?

And much more....

AzULm4d8h8w

The Democrat party is the "graveyard of social movements". More of a detriment to our cause than Republicans in my opinion. The wolf in sheep's clothing. A giant political black hole where every effort we make disappears from the face of the Universe.

[Amphictyonis]

Lincoln was very economically progressive (far left of modern democrats).

He instituted a progressive tax, and put a lot of federal controls on the financial industry.

"These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people"

"When I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."

"no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent."

Moderate capitalist = assassination.

[southernmissfan]

One funny thing is that Lincoln is for the most part considered holy in the national mythos but there is a very loud minority that still accuses him of "Marxism" or "tyranny" or whatever.

Also, Lincoln was more friendly to the "American System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_%28economics%29)" of economics rather than the laissez-faire thinking.

So yeah, both the Democrats and the Republicans are quite different from what they were then.

Yeah among the libertarian/paleoconservative crowd there is opposition towards Lincoln, particularly his suspension of habeaus corpus, income tax, etc. It is a relatively minor group that often ends up being Confederate sympathizers upon closer examination.

The Republican Party's platform was built on Clay's "American System", which was in turn built on Hamilton's financial/economic plans.

I believe it has already been mentioned but Lincoln was a moderate in his party. He opposed the expansion of slavery. Personally, he opposed slavery but had no intention of interfering with it where it already existed. His ideal slave policy centered around gradual emancipation (with the government buying the freedom of the slaves) and colonization (sending freed slaves to Africa or elsewhere). He was not a radical abolitionist. Likewise, he was very clearly a white supremacist (though you would be hard pressed to find many Americans who weren't at the time), however from my basic understanding his racial views evolved and progressed throughout the war. One can only wonder where he would have ended up. Also, be clear that Lincoln was a moderate when it came to Reconstruction.

I'll post a relevant quote from James Loewen, author of Lies My Teacher Told Me:


Most textbook authors protect us from a racist Lincoln. By so doing, they diminish students' capacity to recognize racism as a force in American life. For if Lincoln could be racist, then so might the rest of us be. And if Lincoln could transcend racism, as he did on occasion, then so might the rest of us.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Nolan;2061506]One funny thing is that Lincoln is for the most part considered holy in the national mythos but there is a very loud minority that still accuses him of "Marxism" or "tyranny" or whatever.



Many of the founders of the GOP knew Marx personally (refugees from the 1848 revolts in Europe) or were aware of his writings. They influenced the thinking and direction of the early GOP. Marx's articles were published in a New York City daily which was considered a staunchly Republican newspaper.

[RGacky3]

I love the libertarian view of "freedom" Lincoln was anti-freedom, an authoritairan, and pinoche was pro-freedom.

[Revolution starts with U]

They DO argue that!!!!!!!!!!!!

Idiots who have gone bat shit crazy, I stick by my story.