collapse
Tools

As a result of unrelenting efforts by Democrats to shift their racist past onto the backs of Republicans, using the mantra: “the parties switched sides”, a lot of people have requested an article addressing this issue.

It does not make sense to believe that racist Democrats suddenly rushed into the Republican Party, especially after Republicans spent nearly 150 years fighting for black civil rights.  In fact, the racist Democrats declared they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.

From the time of its inception in 1854 as the anti-slavery party, the Republican Party has always been the party of freedom and equality for blacks.  As author Michael Scheuer wrote, the Democratic Party is the party of the four S’s:  slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism.  Democrats have been running black communities for the past 50+ years, and the socialist policies of the Democrats have turned those communities into economic and social wastelands.

An alarming view of what America will be like in a few years due to unbridled socialism being pushed by President Barack Obama and his Democratic Party cohorts, is contained in the article:  “Detroit: The Moral of the Story” by Kevin D. Williamson that is posted on the Internet.

Democrats first used brutality and discriminatory laws to stop blacks from voting for Republicans.  Democrats now use deception and government handouts to keep blacks from voting for Republicans.   In his book, “Dreams From My Father,” Obama described what he and other Democrats do to poor blacks as “plantation politics.”

The racist Democrats of the 1950’s and 1960’s that Republicans were fighting died Democrats.  One racist Democrat who survived until 2010 was US Senator Robert Byrd, a former recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan.  Notably, the Ku Klux Klan was started by Democrats in 1866 and became the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party for the purpose of terrorizing and lynching Republicans—black and white.   Byrd became a prominent leader in the Democrat-controlled Congress where he was honored by his fellow Democrats as the “conscience of the Senate.”

Byrd was a fierce opponent of desegregating the military and complained in one letter:  “I would rather die a thousand times and see old glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen of the wilds.”

Democrats denounced US Senator Trent Lott for his remarks about US Senator Strom Thurmond.  However, there was silence when Democrat US Senator Christopher Dodd praised Byrd as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment.”  Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and, after he became a Republican, Thurmond defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats.

While turning a blind eye to how the Democratic Party embraced Byrd until his death, Democrats regularly lambaste the Republican Party about David Duke, a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

Ignored are the facts that the Republican Party never embraced Duke and when he ran for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 1992, Republican Party officials tried to block his participation.  Hypocritical is the word for how Democrats also ignore Duke’s long participation in the Democratic Party with no efforts by Democrats to block him.  Below is Duke’s political history in Louisiana, which has an open primary system.

Duke ran for Louisiana State Senator as a Democrat in 1975.  He ran again for the Louisiana State Senate in 1979 as a Democrat.  In 1988, he made a bid for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.  Then, on election day in 1988, he had himself  listed on the presidential ballot as an “Independent Populist.”  After his unbroken string of losses as a Democrat and an Independent Populist, Duke decided to describe himself as a Republican, then ran the following races where he lost every time: in 1989 he ran for Louisiana State Representative; in 1990, he ran for US Senator; in 1991 he ran for Governor of Louisiana; in 1992 he ran for president; in 1996 he ran for US Senator; and in 1999 he ran for US Representative.

Contrary to popular belief, President Lyndon Johnson did not predict a racist exodus to the Republican Party from the Democratic Party because of Johnson’s support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Omitted from the Democrats’ rewritten history is what Johnson actually meant by his prediction.

Johnson feared that the racist Democrats would again form a third party, such as the short-lived States Rights Democratic Party. In fact, Alabama’s Democrat Governor George C. Wallace in 1968 started the American Independent Party that attracted other racist candidates, including Democrat Governor Lester Maddox.

Behind closed doors, Johnson said:  “These Negroes, they’re getting uppity these days.  That’s a problem for us, since they got something now they never had before.  The political pull to back up their upityness.  Now, we’ve got to do something about this.  We’ve got to give them a little something.  Just enough to quiet them down, but not enough to make a difference.  If we don’t move at all, their allies will line up against us.  And there’ll be no way to stop them.  It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.”

Little known by many today is the fact that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Johnson, who pushed through the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  In fact, Dirksen was instrumental to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968.  Dirksen wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.

Democrats condemn Republican President Richard Nixon for his so-called “Southern Strategy.”  These same Democrats expressed no concern when the racially segregated South voted solidly for Democrats for over 100 years, while deriding Republicans because of the thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party.

The "Southern Strategy” that began in the 1970’s was an effort by Nixon to get fair-minded people in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were discriminating against blacks.  Georgia did not switch until 2004, and Louisiana was controlled by Democrats until the election of Republican Bobby Jindal, a person of color, as governor in 2007.

As the co-architect of Nixon's "Southern Strategy", Pat Buchanan provided a first-hand account of the origin and intent of that strategy in a 2002 article posted on the Internet.  Buchanan wrote that Nixon declared that the Republican Party would be built on a foundation of states’ rights, human rights, small government and a strong national defense.  Nixon said he would leave it to the Democratic Party to squeeze the last ounce of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.

The Claremont Institute published an eye-opening article by Gerard Alexander entitled “The Myth of the Racist Republicans”, an analysis of the decades-long shift of the South from the racist Democratic Party to the racially tolerant Republican Party.  That article can be found on the Internet.

Another article on this subject by Mr. Alexander is entitled “Conservatism does not equal racism. So why do many liberals assume it does?” and is posted on the Internet.

More details about the history of civil rights can be found in the NBRA Civil Rights Newsletter that can be found on the Internet.

An excellent video about civil rights history entitled “A pebble in Your Shoe: Why I am a Republican” by Dr. James Taylor is posted on YouTube.

[Editor's note: This column was written by Frances Rice is a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel and Chairman of the National Black Republican Association.  She may be contacted at:  www.NBRA.info]


  • Damani

    I’ll look forward to your fact-filled refutation of what I have posted.

    Best of luck in November.

  • Eric M. Wallace

    First of all you need to stop patting yourself on the back. Your arrogance will get you off this site. I told you before that I don’t have time to go on and on with you. I am not trying to study to refute your stances.
    I don’t agree with Patrick John. He is not a historical scholar and many who are scholars disagree on Lincoln’s stance on slavery.
    I don’t mind having a discussion on points where we disagree. However I have no time for the one-upmanship you want to engage in.
    As far as I know I have not erased any comments unless they contained profanity, or attack another person.
    Thanks again for the conversation. May be in the near future, after the election in November, I’ll have time to address some of your comments.

  • Damani

    Mr. John also identified (in that same review) actions that portrayed or reflected responses to GOP actions in regard to Blacks:

    “…Herbert Hoover (Republican) was the first president to refuse to address the NAACP’s convention,

    - that Carter G. Woodson-the Founder of Black History Month-became so disappointed with the GOP that in the late 1920′s he publicly stated that Blacks should stop being blindly loyal to the GOP,

    - that soon after Reconstruction the GOP condoned the formation in the South of racially segregated GOP organizations, called the Lily Whites and the Black & Tans;

    - that beginning in the 1870′s Republican candidates lost elections in some Northern states because the Radical Republicans’ idea of perfect equality was not embraced by most Whites, not even by most Republicans;

    - that Lincoln was NOT a Radical Republican, he was a moderate who had ALWAYS discussed freeing the slaves ONLY in conjunction with deporting them to another country, for Lincoln openly declared that Blacks were inferior to Whites;”

    http://www DOT amazon DOT com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A3F812CD2YREC0/ref=cm_pdp_rev_more?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview#R2QNQ2I26XVJKR

    I look forward to your responses.

  • Damani

    First
    let me THANK YOU for NOT removing or CLOSING comments as was done on another
    page on this site (article by Crystal Wright) when she was challenged on her
    assertions.
    http://www DOT
    freedomsjournal DOT net/2012/01/27/eat-pray-love-and-be-black-but-don%E2%80%99t-be-a-republican/

    Dr. Wallace, while you are researching for facts to counter the facts that I have presented in THIS discussion, here are a few more that deal with the 1800′s – the period for which Republicans were the best alternative for Black voters (in areas where racist mostly Democrat officials successfully limited voting rights).

    The following is excerpted from a review of a book about the GOP written by a self-proclaimed Black Republican, Patrick John:

    “Beginning in the 1870′s, the GOP began taking the Black vote for granted precisely because the Democrats were such vicious racists. Mr. Zak’s book points out how the Democrats were at one point synonymous with the KKK, but he overlooks the obvious political implication for Black voters – if their only 2 choices were between the GOP and the Klan, it was an easy decision. Blacks voted for the GOP because they feared voting for the Democrats, this led to the GOP taking the
    Black vote for granted as the GOP moved further away from civil rights issues in order to attract more White voters, feeling confident that in doing so it would not lose Black voters. Today, it’s the Democrats who take the Black vote for granted, because most Black voters are afraid of the GOP-the tables have turned.

    As a Black Republican who is pro civil rights, I think what we need is a balanced review of history.”

    END OF PART ONE

  • Damani

    Dr. Wallace?

  • Damani

    Where do I start?

    NOW, after I have cornered you with fact upon fact, you say
    that we should “get away from the witch hunt”, BUT you are the one who published Col.Rice’s opinion piece which was a witch hunt, for sure. But disingenuous in what she did not say
    (e.g., Duke winning as a Repub).

    That you tell all your readers that I won’t change your mind
    is simply testimony that your mind is closed. However, changing your mind is not my
    objective. My initial comments were
    designed to give FACTUAL balance to Col. Rice’s opinion piece. Those facts speak for themselves and I say
    again you have not disputed any of them. None.

    You say, “Sure Republicans needed to increase their voting block and disaffected White voters in the South were a prime target. That does not make their appeal racist.”

    Correct!
    But TOP Republicans have told us EXACTLY how it was racist. Mehlman said Repubs exploited racial polarization, which Philips said was a key to the appeal for “Negrophobe”
    white Dems. Atwater explained how coded terms could be
    used to appeal to racists AND, he said, HURT BLACKS MORE!!! HURT BLACKS MORE, Atwater said.

    Those are the elements, Sir, that make the Southern Strategy racist. Substantiated and undenied statements.

    You say, “Racist politics was dying in the South. The Dixicrat failure proved that to be the case.” Let me make
    your statement more precise: “OVERT racist politics was dying.” That is precisely why Atwater spoke of how “coded” language was better.

    You accused me of over-simplifying the issues in elections (which I did not and addressed in an earlier comment by listing other issues that were at stake), but now you speak AS IF race was the only issue in the OUTCOMES of the Carter, Reagan
    and Clinton campaigns. Not to mention (when you allude to the South) that the demographics of the electorate had changed significantly from the early 60′s when many, many Blacks had been disenfranchised by segregationist, anti-democratic Dems through various techniques, which were NOT opposed by southern Repubs.

    Again, your straw man pops up to allege that I have labeled ALL Repubs “racist.” I have not. Fallacious arguments like that, in my experience, are resorted to, Sir,when a person does not have facts to make a counter argument. Quote me where I said that, if you can.

    Yes, we agree that the concept of States Rights had a constructive and critical role in the formation of the Republic and remains important today. However, you must admit that it was mightily sullied long before the Civil War by those who denied freedom, citizenship and voting rights to Black people. Therefore,…operationally, States Rights gave its southern advocates the results they desired so long as large percentages of residents (in many of those states) were denied their citizenship rights – mostly by Dems, but tolerated for a century by Repubs and initially acquiesced to by Repubs in the Tilden-Hayes Compromise, when Repubs abandoned
    southern Blacks. Had Blacks not been prevented from exercising their franchise and had been full participants in the body politic, the decisions of those states would have certainly been different, Right? And some other fig leaf would have had to be relied upon instead of States Rights to maintain white political supremacy in the South.

    Since you defended Goldwater re: his stance in 1964, consider the logical fallacy of him saying that those states should decide issues when he knew beyond all certainty that large percentages of the legal citizens of those very same
    states were de jure – or illegally through terrorism and intimidation – prevented from having their say in what those states would do WITH their state’s rights. Beyond a logical fallacy it was a craven capitulation to the segregationists – Dems and Repubs – in those states.

    No wonder, Goldwater later said that his stance on the 1964 Civil Rights Law was a mistake. And no wonder decades later he chastised Conservatives and told them NOT to associate him with what they were doing.

    A few years before his death (in 1998) he went so far as to
    address the right wing, “Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you’ve hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have.

    Dr. Wallace, that’s not from MSNBC, that’s from Conservapedia. http://www DOT conservapedia DOTcom/Barry_Goldwater.

    Asto States Rights itself, one of its biggest champions was US Vice President John Calhoun. He defended voting restrictions
    on Blacks since “the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does notpredominate numerically….”

    The very Conservative National Review quoted him without attribution in a 1957 editorial,

    “The central question that emerges — and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal — is whether the White community in the South is
    entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes — the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.”

    http://www DOT cato DOT org/publications/commentary/conservatives-civil-rights-then-now

    Sir, read ^that^ again, please and let it sink in.

    By the way, when you ask Buchanan about Phillips ask him about the memo HE WROTE:

    Nixon adviser Pat Buchanan wrote a memo in 1971,
    “Dividing the Democrats”.

    From George Packer’s summary:

    …the memo recommended
    exploiting racial tensions among Democrats. “Bumper stickers calling for black Presidential and especially Vice-Presidential candidates should be spread out in the ghettoes of the country,” Buchanan wrote. “We should do what is within
    our power to have a black nominated for Number Two, at least at the Democratic National Convention.” Such gambits, he added, could “cut the Democratic Party and country in half; my view is that we would have far the larger half.”

    The Republican effort to forge a new definition of “patriotism” born of “cutting the country in half” for political gain later found expression in Ronald Reagan’s tales of “welfare queens” and “strapping young bucks buying t-bone steaks with their food stamps.” Public expression of crude racism is, happily,
    largely a relic of the past, but the strategy of resentment endures.

    http://www DOT theamericanconservative
    DOTcom/the-problem-with-a-partisan-history-of-civil-rights/

    Here’s Packer’s article: http://www DOT newyorker DOT com/reporting/2008/05/26/080526fa_fact_packer?currentPage=all

    So, Dr. Wallace this begs the question:
    Which one of us is ignoring the facts that contradict our opinions?

  • Damani

    Show me where I DEFENDED Dems….

    Nope,…did NOT happen.

    Your Strawman argument that I have painted the GOP with a broad brush is not substantiated by ANYthing I have said. Rather than address the facts as I have presented them, you accuse me making generalized accusations. I have not.

    I also did not conflate Conservative with Segregationists. What I did was SHOW THEY WERE CO-LOCATED in Dems and Repubs in the South during a certain period.

    The problem you have, Dr. Wallace, is that you’ve tried:

    - to deny what Atwater clearly said

    - to claim confusion about why Mehlman said what he said

    But you have admitted that Phillips’ comments were problematical, but then talk about asking Buchanan what he thought about Phillips motives (You did not respond to my question re: how Phillips might have been motivated – as you implied – by the rush of Evangelicals when his comments pre-dated (I believe) that event.

    At least you have abandoned the denial and confusion.

    I am not sure what you think I believe, but what I have primarily done is provide you with facts, NONE of which you have demonstrated to be false or misleading. None.

    I’ve voted for Repubs, Dems, Statehood (DC) and Independent candidates, so I am not the person you can put down as being a promoter of Dems. However, unless I am terribly wrong, YOU are a promoter of the Republican Party.

    As to apologies, which are JUST WORDS, decades ago the Dems took pains and concrete steps to ensure that their Convention delegates, for example, reflected more closely the population. That followed, of course, the shameful and patronizing treatment of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party at the Dem Convention in Atlantic City(?) at which the lily-white delegation from the whites-only process were given credentials and HH Humphrey disgraced himself IMO by offering 2(?) “observer” seats to the duly elected MFDP delegates

    But the race-baiting of the segregationists – some of the longest living ones became Republicans – was taken over by Phillips, Atwater and others in more sophisticated, but no less obvious, style. THAT is what Mehlman was referencing and what he was apologizing for.

    And Phillips prediction – accurate as far as I can see – about “Negrophobe whites” leaving the Dems and going to the Repubs – is the flip side of the coin of Atwater’s clearly enunciated strategy.

    But you DO realize, right?, that you are condemning Dems for what some of them did up through the mid-60′s BEFORE the thrust of the Party started driving the segregationists away – either to third parties or the GOP. After all, BEFORE that period most Black folks voted Republican!!! Black voters got good sense!!!!

    But I am citing actions, events and comments AFTER that period. Things change, Dr. Wallace.

    That was reflected in my initial comments on the article by the Colonel in re: to David Duke. Lost in the Dem primary, but won in the Repub primary. How do YOU explain that?

    Another “current” fact for you to give substance to my contention that the GOP has absorbed many racists is found in the results of a survey of Mississippi Repubs and Dems:

    As compared to Dems, THREE TIMES the percentage of Repubs did not just oppose racial intermarriage (not a priority of mine, by the way), but they indicated that they favored a LAW AGAINST IT. Those, Dr. Wallace, IMO are SEGREGATIONISTS and racists. Perhaps you have another explanation for that kind of attitude. Other Black Conservatives with whom I’ve talked do not.

    Parse this, Sir:

    “Nearly half of Mississippi Republicans believe interracial marriage should be illegal, a new poll says. The survey comes at the same time Mississippi is leading the nation in the growth of mixed marriages.

    According to Public Policy Polling, 46 percent of Mississippi Republicans said marriages across racial lines should be illegal, compared to 40 percent who believe it should be legal. Fourteen percent were not sure.

    In a separate poll the firm did of Mississippi Democrats, 18 percent believed interracial marriages should be illegal, 68 percent believed they should be legal and 14 percent were not sure.”

    From 2011: http://www DOT clarionledger DOT com/article/20110410/NEWS/104100341/1001/RSS01

    [Sorry, but that complete article is now is their paid archive, but I have a longer excerpt if you are interested. Free]

    As to both Parties vying for the Black vote, WHAT’S STOPPING REPUBS FROM DOING SO?

    JC Watts said, after waiting 20 years for it, that in regard to a GOP outreach to Black voters, “I’ll believe it when I see it.” You already know that.

    Meanwhile, Black GOP candidates COMPLAIN about lack of support from the Party. I repeat “Black GOP candidates.” NOT MSNBC or me!

    “If you call getting no support, not even a phone call, not even a how are you doing kind of support, then I would have to say that is a pretty accurate assessment,” Alexander said.

    Alexander said that he has talked with the other 14 African-American Republican candidates’ campaigns, and each has similar complaints.

    “It’s been a bunch of guys grumbling that they are getting no support,” Alexander said of a slew of e-mails that were sent back and forth this week.”

    http://www DOT rollcall DOTcom/news/-50951-1.html

    But you knew that too, Right?

    Thanks for the discussion. I will be responding to your other comment.

 

    Fatal error: Call to undefined function getRecentComments() in /home/content/64/7277964/html/wallacemedia/blog/110files/themes/default/single.php on line 296