Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Learn something:

Some members of the Left claim that two catalysts were the “Dixiecrats” — the short-lived segregationist party that had splintered off from the Democratic Party in 1948 and Republican President Richard Nixon’s purported “Southern Strategy” (despite the fact that Nixon was a staunch supporter of Civil Rights).

A certain contingent assert that it was Republicans’ “Southern Strategy” under Nixon that turned the tide. According to liberals, this strategy was a method employed by Nixon to garner the white vote in Southern states by pandering to its residents’ primary concern: Desegregation. He allegedly did so by using “dog whistle” (this is where the term originates) terminology and “code speak” to signal that Republicans would not stand in the way of ”states rights” to oppose integration.

The alleged coup de grace occurred when Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thus, the liberal narrative goes that racist Southern Democrats became Republican.

Now for the Southern Strategy theory to hold water, one would have to point to statistical data that showed Blacks migrated to the Democratic party directly following Nixon’s campaign. The trouble is that there was a marked flux in the number of Black Americans who voted Democrat from as early as the 1913 to 1921 presidency of Woodrow Wilson, a man often dubbed a “virulent racist.”

This trend followed suit with election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932. FDR garnered 71 percent of the Black vote during his first presidential bid and fared similarly in his subsequent elections. Yet, FDR opposed anti-lynching laws and appointed two members of the Ku Klux Klan to positions of great authority. First, Harry Truman as his vice president and then another Klansman as his Supreme Court appointee. Likewise, it has been argued that FDR himself harbored prejudice against Blacks.

Even more confounding, is that Harry Truman — a Klansman himself — garnered 77 percent of the Black vote in 1948. While he was credited with desegregating the U.S. Armed Forces, Truman vehemently opposed Civil Rights legislation leading up to and during his presidency.

Read the rest here:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/09/07/why-did-the-black-community-leave-the-gop-for-the-democratic-party/

I'm sorry but copying and pasting from the Blaze is not a substitute for a working knowledge of your civil rights history. For example, there is no trouble with the "marked flux" during Wilson. He made campaign promises to take action on civl rights, big action. He got the endorsement of W.E.B. DuBois, who spoke in the most favorable terms about him because of his civil rights promises. No wonder he got their vote. But then he completely reversed on this once in office, and within six months he had earned the anger of DuBois and his black supporters.

If you want to hear it in DuBois' own words, here it is unedited:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/open-letter-to-woodrow-wilson/
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/another-open-letter-to-woodrow-wilson/

So what happened to the black vote in 1916? It went back to the Republicans.

Did the Blaze tell you this? Of course not, because they don't care that you know the truth, and because it blows their narrative. If there is any shocking revelation in this bit of history, it is that Wilson, son of a confederate who owned slaves, even briefly convinced blacks that he would support them.

Do you see how you are being manipulated by someone with an agenda, and because you know so little of your own history you buy it hook, line, and sinker? You can't just copy and paste from somebody else and treat it as a substitute for an education.

Sorry to be tough on you, but that pompous "Learn Something" as though you actually "know something" about this period in history just threw it over the top.

You accuse me of being manipulated by someone with an agenda and your article comes from progressive sites? Really?

I didn't give you an "article". I gave you the historical documents written by W.E.B. DuBois to Woodrow Wilson, moron!

Anonymous wrote:And why is there barely any media coverage on this? Seems to me if someone posts that they hate white people and then go and kills a random white person for no reason, that is a hate crime. If someone posted they hated gay people or black people, and then went and killed a random gay guy or African-American woman for the thrill of it, that would constitute a hate crime, no? Just wondering cause it seems like we should be outraged by hate crimes on the whole. And even white males can be subject of that but no one wants to talk about it. Why?

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/21/black-teen-who-murdered-australian-jogger-posted-racist-tweets/#ixzz2chtAj4cJ

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Learn something:

Some members of the Left claim that two catalysts were the “Dixiecrats” — the short-lived segregationist party that had splintered off from the Democratic Party in 1948 and Republican President Richard Nixon’s purported “Southern Strategy” (despite the fact that Nixon was a staunch supporter of Civil Rights).

A certain contingent assert that it was Republicans’ “Southern Strategy” under Nixon that turned the tide. According to liberals, this strategy was a method employed by Nixon to garner the white vote in Southern states by pandering to its residents’ primary concern: Desegregation. He allegedly did so by using “dog whistle” (this is where the term originates) terminology and “code speak” to signal that Republicans would not stand in the way of ”states rights” to oppose integration.

The alleged coup de grace occurred when Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thus, the liberal narrative goes that racist Southern Democrats became Republican.

Now for the Southern Strategy theory to hold water, one would have to point to statistical data that showed Blacks migrated to the Democratic party directly following Nixon’s campaign. The trouble is that there was a marked flux in the number of Black Americans who voted Democrat from as early as the 1913 to 1921 presidency of Woodrow Wilson, a man often dubbed a “virulent racist.”

This trend followed suit with election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932. FDR garnered 71 percent of the Black vote during his first presidential bid and fared similarly in his subsequent elections. Yet, FDR opposed anti-lynching laws and appointed two members of the Ku Klux Klan to positions of great authority. First, Harry Truman as his vice president and then another Klansman as his Supreme Court appointee. Likewise, it has been argued that FDR himself harbored prejudice against Blacks.

Even more confounding, is that Harry Truman — a Klansman himself — garnered 77 percent of the Black vote in 1948. While he was credited with desegregating the U.S. Armed Forces, Truman vehemently opposed Civil Rights legislation leading up to and during his presidency.

Read the rest here:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/09/07/why-did-the-black-community-leave-the-gop-for-the-democratic-party/

I'm sorry but copying and pasting from the Blaze is not a substitute for a working knowledge of your civil rights history. For example, there is no trouble with the "marked flux" during Wilson. He made campaign promises to take action on civl rights, big action. He got the endorsement of W.E.B. DuBois, who spoke in the most favorable terms about him because of his civil rights promises. No wonder he got their vote. But then he completely reversed on this once in office, and within six months he had earned the anger of DuBois and his black supporters.

If you want to hear it in DuBois' own words, here it is unedited:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/open-letter-to-woodrow-wilson/
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/another-open-letter-to-woodrow-wilson/

So what happened to the black vote in 1916? It went back to the Republicans.

Did the Blaze tell you this? Of course not, because they don't care that you know the truth, and because it blows their narrative. If there is any shocking revelation in this bit of history, it is that Wilson, son of a confederate who owned slaves, even briefly convinced blacks that he would support them.

Do you see how you are being manipulated by someone with an agenda, and because you know so little of your own history you buy it hook, line, and sinker? You can't just copy and paste from somebody else and treat it as a substitute for an education.

Sorry to be tough on you, but that pompous "Learn Something" as though you actually "know something" about this period in history just threw it over the top.

You accuse me of being manipulated by someone with an agenda and your article comes from progressive sites? Really?

Anonymous wrote:Wilson is typical of lots of liberals--talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Learn something:

Some members of the Left claim that two catalysts were the “Dixiecrats” — the short-lived segregationist party that had splintered off from the Democratic Party in 1948 and Republican President Richard Nixon’s purported “Southern Strategy” (despite the fact that Nixon was a staunch supporter of Civil Rights).

A certain contingent assert that it was Republicans’ “Southern Strategy” under Nixon that turned the tide. According to liberals, this strategy was a method employed by Nixon to garner the white vote in Southern states by pandering to its residents’ primary concern: Desegregation. He allegedly did so by using “dog whistle” (this is where the term originates) terminology and “code speak” to signal that Republicans would not stand in the way of ”states rights” to oppose integration.

The alleged coup de grace occurred when Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thus, the liberal narrative goes that racist Southern Democrats became Republican.

Now for the Southern Strategy theory to hold water, one would have to point to statistical data that showed Blacks migrated to the Democratic party directly following Nixon’s campaign. The trouble is that there was a marked flux in the number of Black Americans who voted Democrat from as early as the 1913 to 1921 presidency of Woodrow Wilson, a man often dubbed a “virulent racist.”

This trend followed suit with election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932. FDR garnered 71 percent of the Black vote during his first presidential bid and fared similarly in his subsequent elections. Yet, FDR opposed anti-lynching laws and appointed two members of the Ku Klux Klan to positions of great authority. First, Harry Truman as his vice president and then another Klansman as his Supreme Court appointee. Likewise, it has been argued that FDR himself harbored prejudice against Blacks.

Even more confounding, is that Harry Truman — a Klansman himself — garnered 77 percent of the Black vote in 1948. While he was credited with desegregating the U.S. Armed Forces, Truman vehemently opposed Civil Rights legislation leading up to and during his presidency.

Read the rest here:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/09/07/why-did-the-black-community-leave-the-gop-for-the-democratic-party/

I'm sorry but copying and pasting from the Blaze is not a substitute for a working knowledge of your civil rights history. For example, there is no trouble with the "marked flux" during Wilson. He made campaign promises to take action on civl rights, big action. He got the endorsement of W.E.B. DuBois, who spoke in the most favorable terms about him because of his civil rights promises. No wonder he got their vote. But then he completely reversed on this once in office, and within six months he had earned the anger of DuBois and his black supporters.

If you want to hear it in DuBois' own words, here it is unedited:
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/open-letter-to-woodrow-wilson/
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/another-open-letter-to-woodrow-wilson/

So what happened to the black vote in 1916? It went back to the Republicans.

Did the Blaze tell you this? Of course not, because they don't care that you know the truth, and because it blows their narrative. If there is any shocking revelation in this bit of history, it is that Wilson, son of a confederate who owned slaves, even briefly convinced blacks that he would support them.

Do you see how you are being manipulated by someone with an agenda, and because you know so little of your own history you buy it hook, line, and sinker? You can't just copy and paste from somebody else and treat it as a substitute for an education.

Sorry to be tough on you, but that pompous "Learn Something" as though you actually "know something" about this period in history just threw it over the top.

Anonymous wrote:Learn something:

Some members of the Left claim that two catalysts were the “Dixiecrats” — the short-lived segregationist party that had splintered off from the Democratic Party in 1948 and Republican President Richard Nixon’s purported “Southern Strategy” (despite the fact that Nixon was a staunch supporter of Civil Rights).

A certain contingent assert that it was Republicans’ “Southern Strategy” under Nixon that turned the tide. According to liberals, this strategy was a method employed by Nixon to garner the white vote in Southern states by pandering to its residents’ primary concern: Desegregation. He allegedly did so by using “dog whistle” (this is where the term originates) terminology and “code speak” to signal that Republicans would not stand in the way of ”states rights” to oppose integration.

The alleged coup de grace occurred when Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thus, the liberal narrative goes that racist Southern Democrats became Republican.

Now for the Southern Strategy theory to hold water, one would have to point to statistical data that showed Blacks migrated to the Democratic party directly following Nixon’s campaign. The trouble is that there was a marked flux in the number of Black Americans who voted Democrat from as early as the 1913 to 1921 presidency of Woodrow Wilson, a man often dubbed a “virulent racist.”

This trend followed suit with election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932. FDR garnered 71 percent of the Black vote during his first presidential bid and fared similarly in his subsequent elections. Yet, FDR opposed anti-lynching laws and appointed two members of the Ku Klux Klan to positions of great authority. First, Harry Truman as his vice president and then another Klansman as his Supreme Court appointee. Likewise, it has been argued that FDR himself harbored prejudice against Blacks.

Even more confounding, is that Harry Truman — a Klansman himself — garnered 77 percent of the Black vote in 1948. While he was credited with desegregating the U.S. Armed Forces, Truman vehemently opposed Civil Rights legislation leading up to and during his presidency.

Read the rest here:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/09/07/why-did-the-black-community-leave-the-gop-for-the-democratic-party/

Anonymous wrote:Learn something:

Some members of the Left claim that two catalysts were the “Dixiecrats” — the short-lived segregationist party that had splintered off from the Democratic Party in 1948 and Republican President Richard Nixon’s purported “Southern Strategy” (despite the fact that Nixon was a staunch supporter of Civil Rights).

A certain contingent assert that it was Republicans’ “Southern Strategy” under Nixon that turned the tide. According to liberals, this strategy was a method employed by Nixon to garner the white vote in Southern states by pandering to its residents’ primary concern: Desegregation. He allegedly did so by using “dog whistle” (this is where the term originates) terminology and “code speak” to signal that Republicans would not stand in the way of ”states rights” to oppose integration.

The alleged coup de grace occurred when Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thus, the liberal narrative goes that racist Southern Democrats became Republican.

Now for the Southern Strategy theory to hold water, one would have to point to statistical data that showed Blacks migrated to the Democratic party directly following Nixon’s campaign. The trouble is that there was a marked flux in the number of Black Americans who voted Democrat from as early as the 1913 to 1921 presidency of Woodrow Wilson, a man often dubbed a “virulent racist.”

This trend followed suit with election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932. FDR garnered 71 percent of the Black vote during his first presidential bid and fared similarly in his subsequent elections. Yet, FDR opposed anti-lynching laws and appointed two members of the Ku Klux Klan to positions of great authority. First, Harry Truman as his vice president and then another Klansman as his Supreme Court appointee. Likewise, it has been argued that FDR himself harbored prejudice against Blacks.

Even more confounding, is that Harry Truman — a Klansman himself — garnered 77 percent of the Black vote in 1948. While he was credited with desegregating the U.S. Armed Forces, Truman vehemently opposed Civil Rights legislation leading up to and during his presidency.

Read the rest here:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/09/07/why-did-the-black-community-leave-the-gop-for-the-democratic-party/

Anonymous wrote:Some of these posts are sickeningly glib about horrible suffering inflicted on human beings simply because another human being has felt like it. Who cares what races or cultures are involved? Nobody should ever have to suffer because someone else thinks they don't deserve to live unharmed or else because they think it would be amusing to hurt or kill them. Absolutely nobody. End of story.