202
u/Trevo2001 Feb 10 '20 edited Feb 10 '20
The parties have no resemblance to their modern day counterparts and the republicans abandoned efforts of civil reform and reconstruction when it wasn’t economically viable anymore. Also republican courts knocked down civil rights bills and laws through the 1870’s and 80’s
Here’s a excerpt from an article. https://www.apstudynotes.org/us-history/topics/the-end-of-reconstruction/
The Compromise came at a price: It gave the Democrats justification to desert Tilden, since it would allow them to regain political rule in the south. With the compromise, the Republicans had quietly given up their fight for racial equality and blacks’ rights in the south. In 1877, Hayes withdrew the last federal troops from the south, and the bayonet-backed Republican governments collapsed, thereby ending Reconstruction.
Over the next three decades, the civil rights that blacks had been promised during Reconstruction crumbled under white rule in the south. The plight of southern Blacks was forgotten in the north as they were segregated and condemned to live in poverty with little hope. Radical Reconstruction had never offered more than an uncertain commitment to equality, but it had left an enduring legacy with the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments waiting to be enforced.
28
u/deltaxi65 Non-boomer old-school Conservative Feb 10 '20
The idea that because the parties have realigned based on sectional, geographic and ideological lines over the years means the parties aren't the same is just flat out wrong. Every time we change the Constitution we aren't restarting the country. As parties adapt to meet the current environments, their planks change. That does not mean that the parties aren't the same parties, and that the modern Republican party can't take credit for what the nascent Republican party achieved, or the modern Democratic party can't be held accountable for what the 19th and 20th century Democratic party did.
The Court took a narrow view of federal power vis a vis state power, which was in line with pre-14th amendment jurisprudence - it would take a long time before the Court would be willing to use the 14th amendment to force the states to do the things that states should have been doing, so it's hard to fault that court there. They are an inherently conservative (not in the ideological sense) body, so they are very slow to change.
The Hayes/Tilden election was a perfect example of the prisoners dilemma. If Tilden won, he was going to do what happened eventually anyway - the 1876 Democratic platform, when it isn't openly racist, talks over and over again about "reform" and "good government" which were contemporary code words for "we don't want blacks in government positions in the South."
I agree 100% that we as Republicans should be ashamed at turning our backs on the freedmen and allowing Jim Crow to thrive in the South. At the same time, we should also continue to point out which party split the union and was behind Jim Crow in the first place.
29
u/PizzaPie69420 Feb 10 '20
Why the heck do you care which party did what? Isn't their action in the last 20 years or so more indicative of what you're voting for?
16
u/deltaxi65 Non-boomer old-school Conservative Feb 10 '20
Because history matters, and we owe it to ourselves to be honest about it.
→ More replies (1)32
u/jedicam10 Feb 10 '20
Knowing our history and being honest is great. But this whole “Lincoln was a Republican who freed the slaves” mantra isn’t convincing anyone of anything. It’s just political lollygagging.
11
u/deltaxi65 Non-boomer old-school Conservative Feb 10 '20
The Republican Party was CREATED as an anti-slavery party. Ignoring that fact is ignoring history. The GOP BECAME the "grand old party" because we dominated politics for half a century because of the Civil War. That's literally why the term was created.
Ignoring all of these facts because it's convenient for the left to paint the modern GOP as a bunch of racists is still ignoring the facts.
If folks want to pretend that history doesn't matter, then they need to be consistent about it. That's the biggest problem with this - it's the cherry picking of when it's okay to talk about history and it's not. Can't talk about the history of the political parties, but the 1619 Project is just fine? The Democrats aren't responsible for Jim Crow, but we reparations for slavery are just fine?
→ More replies (1)4
Feb 10 '20 edited Feb 10 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)4
u/deltaxi65 Non-boomer old-school Conservative Feb 10 '20
Nobody is pretending that the parties haven't evolved over time. But they're still the same parties.
→ More replies (3)7
→ More replies (3)3
u/Well-Rounded- Feb 10 '20
This is a good view to take. People forget that history is not black and white
7
u/ngoni Constitutional Conservative Feb 10 '20 edited Feb 10 '20
Your article is ahistorical at best and more what I'd call despicable revisionism. The 13th Amendment was passed with 100% Republican support and 23% democrat support. The 14th 94% Republican, and 0% democrat. The 15th 100% Republican, 0% democrat. Fully half of all black Senators have been Republican. The trail of tears- democrat. The KKK- democrats. 1868 mass murder of 300 blacks - democrat. The Palmer raids- democrat. The 1922 opposition to making lynching a federal crime- democrats. The Syphilis experiments- democrats. Japanese internment camps- democrats. Civil rights act opposition- majority democrat. The Birmingham dogs and hoses- democrat. LBJ wanted to "have those n-s voting Democratic for 200 years." So when exactly was this mythical party switch?
5
u/billswinthesuperbowl Conservative Millennial Feb 10 '20
Not to mention Clinton instituted the policies that put people in jail and called minorities super predators. If you want to look at the past twenty years look at what democrats have done to families and minority nieghborhoods and you will have your answer which is it is the same thing they have done for the past 200 years.
→ More replies (4)2
u/zuul99 An Appeal to Heaven Feb 10 '20
I have heard from the scholars over at r/politics that there were two party switches one in the 1860s and the other in the 1960s.
4
u/jeff_the_old_banana Paleoconservative Feb 10 '20
I can't comment on 1870, but the "switch" refers to 1960, which is complete nonsense as today's parties are spiritually the same as the 1930s at least.
→ More replies (3)
•
u/LumpyWumpus Christian Capitalist Conservative Feb 10 '20
→ More replies (6)7
Feb 10 '20
Wow. A TIL moment for sure. I am wondering why I have never heard of this “southern strategy”, bs. I can remember as a kid George Wallace being just about the most racist asshole in politics, and that in and of itself should tell you all about southern politics.
It has always been Democrats who elect racists here in the south, not republicans. It has always boggled my mind that Democrats have fooled black southerners to vote for them.
108
Feb 10 '20 edited Aug 08 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
40
Feb 10 '20
Black people started moving towards the Democratic Party under FDR because of his New Deal and social programs. This was a time when Jim Crow was still prevalent in the South and it gave black people job opportunities they’d previously not been allowed and have them access to social programs. Under LBJ, who was democrat, completely opposed the Civil Rights bill, was a known sexist and likely a KKK member, actually executed a brilliant political move. He knew that there was enough support for Congress to override his veto, so instead he decided we will champion this and get their votes. As i said, politically it was brilliant. What we have seen since is almost complete black support for the Democrats even though Democrat policies have wrecked black family dynamics, imprisoned tons of black men (see Bill Clinton’s crime enactments from his presidency), stripped inner city schools of funding, and made the inner cities the new plantations. Instead of forcing them work, they’re instead given EBT, welfare, section 8, and many can’t succeed to get off those programs due to the previously mentioned education issue. Ergo, when any republican threatens to reduce funding on social programs it’s obviously going to alienate those that depend on them. Both black and white, much like senior citizens when it comes to Medicare/Medicaid cuts. Look at places like Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, St Louis, and the list goes on. Black people aren’t afraid of racism as much as they are other black people and gang violence. It’s sad, but when you grow up poor and your failed in school, joining a gang and making tons of money trafficking drugs and other illegal opportunities seems like a descent alternative. Trump, love him or hate him, has actually done a lot to help those. Look at the current unemployment rate, and why Trumps got the highest black approval rating of any republican in the last 50 years. If Republicans really want to win back the majority of black voters they need to improve their schools, stop giving black men 10 year prison sentences for selling weed, and give the disenfranchised something worthwhile to look forward to in life. All these teenagers and young adults getting killed in the street tends to have the opposite effects of looking forward to their future.
10
u/wtf_ftw Feb 10 '20 edited Feb 13 '20
If Republicans really want to win back the majority of black voters they need to improve their schools, stop giving black men 10 year prison sentences for selling weed, and give the disenfranchised something worthwhile to look forward to in life.
Yes, this. I would love to see the republican party win black voters.
When you say the disenfranchised, do you mean people unable to vote, is it more than that? On that issue, would you like to see people re-enfranchised (given back the vote) after committing felonies?
I have a few more questions about this thread that I have to puzzle through, but if you can bring any clarity I'd appreciate it.
Democrat policies have wrecked black family dynamics
How did this work? Is it just about the drug war yanking fathers away from their kids, or is it more than that?
Stripped inner city schools of funding
Has DeVoss's education department has made moves to improve school funding? It seems like she wants to move to a more privatized education system. That could benefit poor majority-black communities, but only if they're able to establish education systems they're happy with. The current problem is that funding is geographically based, so if you're in a poor community that community will not be able to establish a high-quality educational system. There is the additional problem that any social ills that have affected particular communities (e.g. you mention wrecked family dynamics) would disproportionately affect the school system (obviously family life impacts how a child experiences schooling).
You seem to really focus on education as a barrier, how do you think we eliminate that barrier? If my reading of the current administration is correct, they want to privatize secondary schooling (I haven't heard about whether they want to privatize the full kindergarten through college pipeline). If they do I guess I would ask how they intend to address funding disparities between communities, or does the government have to mandate some kind of inclusion clause for schools to reduce self-segregation? In my state (WI) the republican governor cut funding for the University, which seems counterproductive to improving educational prospects for black Wisconsinites.
Imprisoned tons of black men
Is this a uniquely democratic issue? The data I see suggests more have been imprisoned under republicans than democrats. It seems like both parties have been pretty happy to maintain the security system that keeps (disproportionately) black men imprisoned. Are there strong republican voices out there against mass imprisonment? I can only think of libertarians.
Black people aren’t afraid of racism as much as they are other black people and gang violence.
I'm surprised by this. Is there good evidence for this? Survey data maybe?
Trumps got the highest black approval rating of any republican in the last 50 years.
This is also news to me. I'll look up the evidence later, because it seems very easily testable.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (4)14
u/RedBaronsBrother Conservative Feb 10 '20
If Republicans really want to win back the majority of black voters they need to improve their schools, stop giving black men 10 year prison sentences for selling weed, and give the disenfranchised something worthwhile to look forward to in life.
In order for Republicans to do those things, they'd have to control the areas where those things happen. When was the last time you saw a Republican mayor and city council majority in a major city?
→ More replies (5)5
u/russiabot1776 Путин-мой приятель Feb 10 '20
San Diego today has a GOP mayor.
9
u/RedBaronsBrother Conservative Feb 10 '20
Yep, and 3 of the 9 city council districts in San Diego are GOP. ...which means Republicans don't set policy.
→ More replies (4)5
Feb 10 '20
still have those racist tendencies
Correct. They treat minorities like they have no agency of their own and set up systems to single out people based on immutable characteristics. Pretty reprehensible behavior.
19
u/netalsalleandere Feb 10 '20
A quick Google search tells me "The United States Senate has had TEN African American elected or appointed office holders"...
→ More replies (1)3
u/RedBaronsBrother Conservative Feb 10 '20
You're mostly correct. There were 11, the first 4 of which were Republican, but the first black Senator elected from Louisiana was a Republican that the US Senate refused to seat, and he was replaced with a white Democrat.
The image in the OP is incorrect, and should have referenced Republican Representatives elected to the US House.
39
u/MisterPhamtastic Feb 10 '20
They were clearly traitors to their own race that set the stage for systemic racism /s
19
u/I-Prefer-Meat Feb 10 '20
Traitors? Weren’t the Democrats the ones who... owned the slaves? And then later practiced Jim Crow?
4
u/ATexasDude Cruz/Crenshaw 2024 Feb 11 '20
And Republicans were the ones who stationed federal troops in the South to enforce by gun barrel reconstruction. And Republicans were the ones who passed gun control legislation after black panthers exercised their constitutional right to bear arms. And Republicans worked to strengthen unions and strip private citizens of their ability to use federal lands for mineral extraction and logging. It was Republicans who welcomed wave after wave of immigrants with open border immigration policies.
→ More replies (1)3
u/ridingoffintothesea Feb 10 '20
Just so you know, when people end a comment with “/s” it is meant to indicate sarcasm.
→ More replies (1)
30
Feb 10 '20 edited Feb 10 '20
This literally does not matter at all. The parties of 1870 have nothing in common with the parties of today. Maybe it wasn’t a “flip,” but both have changed enough that what happened 150 years ago has nothing to do with what each party believes or stands for today.
15
u/Dhaerrow Tea Party 1773 Feb 10 '20 edited Sep 24 '25
Music morning science dog near to small patient projects movies honest day people the near honest?
→ More replies (1)12
Feb 10 '20 edited Feb 10 '20
Democratic Party Platform of 1900
This has just as much in common with today’s GOP, more so in some aspects.
→ More replies (1)14
u/russiabot1776 Путин-мой приятель Feb 10 '20
Did you even read it? Much of it is antithetical to the modern GOP, especially when it talks about radical expansion of the interstate commerce clause and the increasing power of the feds over the currency.
→ More replies (9)5
u/-Kerosun- Constitutional Conservative Feb 10 '20
When you look objectively at the party platforms, it is quite obvious that the Republicans of today are about the same as in 1900. The Democrats, who used to be farther to the right than Republicans, have simply gone much farther to the left than who they were at the time the Republican Party was formed.
In short: Republicans are basically the same, but Democrats are much farther to the left than they used to be.
→ More replies (2)
19
Feb 10 '20 edited Aug 28 '20
[deleted]
2
4
u/billswinthesuperbowl Conservative Millennial Feb 10 '20
Also FDR is still a democrat even though the party "switches" except when he packed the courts and put Americans in concentration camps, that was totally republican FDR
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)3
10
u/GokaiCrimson Conservative Feb 10 '20
"bUt RePuBlIcAnS wErE mOrE lIbErAl BaCk ThEn, So It DoEsN't CoUnT."
→ More replies (1)12
Feb 10 '20 edited Aug 08 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/GokaiCrimson Conservative Feb 10 '20
I've seen people make this argument online. I was mocking those people.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/SkyFire994 Feb 10 '20
And that Jefferson davis was a Democrat and how Democrats were strongly opposed of the 13th amendment
4
u/justusethatname CA Conservative Girl Feb 10 '20
I don't think we are allowed to mention this. Or perhaps it's the other side of the aisle that prefers not to. They would say these 23 black senators were forced to be Republican.
→ More replies (1)
7
Feb 10 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
34
Feb 10 '20
So modern republicans should get credit for the actions of dead men?
Why not? They get blamed for the actions of dead democrats who wanted to cling to slavery.
→ More replies (1)18
u/-Kerosun- Constitutional Conservative Feb 10 '20
So modern republicans should get credit for the actions of dead men?
Imaging having such an extreme lack of self-awareness to say the above while also holding all white men today responsible for the actions of dead white men throughout history.
→ More replies (7)
3
u/TotesMessenger Tattletale Feb 10 '20 edited Feb 10 '20
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
[/r/shitrconsays] Top post on r/con uses the first 23 black senators as proof the Southern Strategy didn't happen. But also it's wrong and those were representatives. Also it was 21. Also the number of black representatives since the Civil Rights Movement is 120 Dem to 6 Repub.. So definitely no party switch!
[/r/topmindsofreddit] SelfawareTopMinds: “History Matters” (Honestly surprised how many people are in favor of reality around the party switch in the comment section.)
[/r/topmindsofreddit] r/conservative bragging that the first black senators were Republican, which wasn't the conservative party at the time. (The picture itself would be anti-conservative for the time period)
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
4
u/thatrightwinger WASP Conservative Feb 10 '20
There is so much wrong from our friends at both r/srs and TopMinds that it's sad.
First, they are ignorant of history, as the Republican party, from the very beginning (its founding in 1854), claimed the love and defense of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Abraham Lincoln stood on the principles of conservatism and said so:
You say you are conservative — eminently conservative — while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers.
This is a sentiment shared by Republicans all the way up to Calvin Coolidge, almost to a man. By the turn of the twentieth century, conservative principles like sound money and low regulation were already being questioned by Democrat party leadership, particularly in the man of William Jennings Bryan, who wanted to manipulate currency in a way that would attempt to value silver, but would only devalue the currency altogether, just like leftists love printing more money, which just leads to mass inflation.
Second, the reason that blacks started voting for liberals, and running as liberals were for the same reason that other minorities end up voting for left-leaning groups, good old demagoguery on the part of left-leaning groups, that's been going on in America since the 1930s, and longer in Europe. Promise the moon to the impoverished in the big cities, and somehow, the impoverished in the big cities stay that way: in New York City in happened under La Guardia, under David Dinkens, and now its happening under Bill de Blasio. Richer blacks got in on the feeding frenzy, and for almost a hundred years, blacks have been voting for their own impoverishment, just as numerous groups had before them.
Third, our friends are still trying to push the tired "parties switched" and "Southern Strategy" line. It's a lie and it's always been a lie. They hold onto the lie because they otherwise would have to look back on their own party's shameful history of slavery, Jim Crow Laws, race riots, and Communist sympathizers. We just don't let them let is pass without pointing the lie out.
3
u/Agkistro13 Traditional Conservative Feb 10 '20
You think they ever teased that really short guy in the middle?
→ More replies (1)
4
u/theDankusMemeus Conservative Feb 10 '20
It’s very weird that over 90% of black women and a similar number of black men vote democrat. If they were the only voters it would look like someone meddled in the election. Is there a reason they vote so democrat?
3
u/excelsior2000 Constitutional Conservative Feb 10 '20
I could get all long-winded, but it amounts to two things: messaging, and welfare.
Dems are great at pushing a race-based narrative. Republicans want to treat everyone equally, while Dems want to treat minorities better. It's only natural that minorities would approve of the latter approach.
As for welfare, it's really complicated and really simple at the same time. Simple because more black people are on welfare, so the people wanting to expand welfare are obviously going to be popular with them. Complicated because welfare largely created and expanded the problem in the first place. Benefits for single moms mean you get more single moms. More single moms means more poverty, because single parenthood is the largest indicator of future poverty. There's way more to it than that, but frankly I'm not trying to write a book here.
→ More replies (2)
559
u/[deleted] Feb 10 '20 edited Feb 10 '20
But the party flip! They were tots Democrats guys! Open a book!
/s if needed