Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

History Channel KKK Program a Fraud
Oregon Magazine ^ | August 13, 2006 | Larry Leonard

Posted on 08/13/2006 7:29:02 PM PDT by WaterDragon

It ran on the 12th of August in mid-afternoon. The program detailed the history of the Ku Klux Klan in every respect but one. This one manipulation tells you the purpose of those running the History Channel, and clearly proves the oft-made charge that said location on the television spectrum is when needed nothing more than a propaganda tool for the modern Democrat Party of America.

When it is repeated, watch Ku Klux Klan: A Secret History with the following point in mind.

During the first half listen for the political affiliations of Klan members in the North. In Indiana, as well as other locales, you will frequently hear the word "Republican." Then during the second half of this two hour ‘documentary,’ which features Klan activity in the South during the civil rights days of the Fifties, see if you can tell by the narrative which political party these Klansmen serve. Not even when they are marching in the streets of Birmingham, Alabama ("the city’s law enforcement was known for its working relationship with the Klan") carrying signs castigating "Martin Luther Coon," bombing black homes and businesses – and even churches – not during all of these references did I hear the program mention the politics of the Klan members and public and private supporters in the region during those days.

Know from this essay that they were Democrats...(snip)

(Excerpt) Read more at oregonmag.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abortion; channel; deception; democrats; dnctalkingpoints; fraud; history; kkk; liebyomission; mudd; pc; politicalcorrectness; politicallycorrect; politicalsmear; pravda; propaganda; whitewash

1 posted on 08/13/2006 7:29:03 PM PDT by WaterDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WaterDragon

Hey, wait a minute, you mean it wasn't racist Republicans? You mean that Robert Byrd didn't cross the aisle? Gosh...

Of course they wouldn't mention that they were Democrats. It just wouldn't fit with the modern assumptions. All Republicans have to be hateful racists, or the whole game falls apart.


2 posted on 08/13/2006 7:32:36 PM PDT by kingu (No, I don't use sarcasm tags - it confuses people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WaterDragon

As I explain in my book, Back to Basics for the Republican Party, the Reconstruction-era Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party. See http://www.republicanbasics.com for more information.


3 posted on 08/13/2006 7:34:56 PM PDT by since 1854
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingu

I guess there was no mention of KKK Byrd?


4 posted on 08/13/2006 7:37:16 PM PDT by Parley Baer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Parley Baer

They should ask him, he is a living expert on the Klan.


5 posted on 08/13/2006 7:39:37 PM PDT by U S Army EOD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kingu

My Mom grew up a Democrat in Indiana in the 20s & 30s. Her Dad was a member of the KKK, but her Mom refused to let him go to any meetings - said the day he did that, she would leave him.

In the 20s, it was illegal for a black man to stay overnight in the county. The north, in some ways, was worse than the south.

And it had nothing to do with political parties.


6 posted on 08/13/2006 7:40:56 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (I'm agnostic on evolution, but sit ups are from Hell!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kingu

you will hear democraps say that all those racist demcraps during the cival rights marches switched over to the republican party.Well if that were true most would be dead now.It was the republicans that got civil rights passed in this country but you would never know this.that is sad.


7 posted on 08/13/2006 7:41:43 PM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Defeat liberalism, its the right thing to do for America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WaterDragon
Orval Faubus, DEMOCRAT Governor of Arkansas from 1955-1967.
8 posted on 08/13/2006 7:43:36 PM PDT by Big Guy and Rusty 99 ("Conspiracy theories are the products of feeble minds." - A. Horvet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: since 1854

Yup. It was the Democrats who (in the shameful Ohio Compromise that put Grant into office) took over the south, annulled all the elections of blacks and set race relations in America back 100 years.


9 posted on 08/13/2006 7:44:37 PM PDT by Philistone (Turning lead into gold...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Parley Baer

No. No mention of Senator Byrd.


10 posted on 08/13/2006 7:46:09 PM PDT by WaterDragon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: WaterDragon

A few Reason articles a while back detailed how racism often went hand-in-hand with progressivism back in the early part of the 20th century. I don't think the History Channel can paper over how the power that the klan had over southern Democrats during segregation.


11 posted on 08/13/2006 8:05:34 PM PDT by dr_who_2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WaterDragon
Image hosted by Photobucket.com

do I really have to say it???
12 posted on 08/13/2006 8:10:39 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Philistone

Is your comment supposed to make sense?


13 posted on 08/13/2006 8:26:58 PM PDT by since 1854
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: since 1854
The U.S. presidential election of 1876 was perhaps the most disputed presidential election in American history. Samuel Tilden handily defeated Ohio's Rutherford Hayes in the popular vote, and had 184 electoral votes to Hayes' 165, with 20 votes yet uncounted. These 20 electoral votes were in dispute: in three states (Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina) each party reported its candidate had won the state, while in Oregon one elector was declared illegal (on account of being an “elected or appointed official”) and replaced. The votes were ultimately awarded to Hayes after a bitter electoral dispute.

Many historians believe that an informal deal was struck to resolve the dispute. In return for Southern acquiescence in Hayes' election, the Republicans agreed to withdraw federal troops from the South, effectively ending Reconstruction. This deal became known as the Compromise of 1877. The Compromise effectively pushed African-Americans out of power in the government; soon after the compromise, African-Americans were barred from voting by poll taxes and grandfather clauses.

Yes it was. I learned it in school (many moons ago) as "The Ohio Compromise". But then it wasn't a very good school.

14 posted on 08/13/2006 8:35:37 PM PDT by Philistone (Turning lead into gold...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: WaterDragon
I have watched that same special. Whoever or whatever group that did that special, have a total agenda. They are the ones that did the special on street gangs the previous hour and basically lauded them.

Although the KKK's influence in the Indiana GOP at the time should have been covered, the special should have also included the KKK's influence in the time.

To date, the only person in congress who was a member of the KKK is a democrat.

15 posted on 08/13/2006 8:47:07 PM PDT by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WaterDragon

Although the KKK's influence in the Indiana GOP at the time should have been covered, the special should have also included the KKK's influence in the time in places like Missouri and Oklahoma.


16 posted on 08/13/2006 8:47:47 PM PDT by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WaterDragon

Any mention of Hugo Black, Supreme Court Justice, Democrat, and KKK member?


17 posted on 08/13/2006 8:55:50 PM PDT by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WaterDragon

The narrator is actuall D. Paul Thomas, and the list who contributes is a bunch of liberals like Morris Dees. They also have contributed some other stuff to the HC as well.


18 posted on 08/13/2006 9:02:45 PM PDT by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WaterDragon

GOOD POST!!!


19 posted on 08/13/2006 9:52:18 PM PDT by GeronL (http://www.mises.org/story/1975 <--no such thing as a fairtax)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
2 things. First, as a result of Nixon's southern strategy, the south started becoming Republican. It is always implied and asumed that the southern racists who were resisting school integration were the ones who switched. Second, there was a huge migration of blacks out of the south to the north looking for work in the 40'w and 50's.

They went to DC looking for work in the federal government and to places like Detroit and Boston looking for jobs. Check out race relations in those cities to see if Dems have done well. Poison politics of race in Detroit, riots over bussing in Boston by whites, poverty, crime, and expensive bad schools in DC.

20 posted on 08/13/2006 10:37:09 PM PDT by ClaireSolt (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: since 1854

Your book sounds interesting. I just ordered it.

I am always amazed at how Leftists pretend to be so historically sensitive when it comes to the Confederate flag, yet when it comes to the Democratic Party, they couldn't care less about history -- or are just ignorant of its history. I'm not sure which is worse.

I remember seeing Wayne Perriman on CSPAN a few months ago delivering a similar message damning the Democratic Party. What do you think about him and his book?


21 posted on 08/13/2006 11:00:25 PM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator

The KKK actually assassinated a Republican U.S. Representative. Most histoy book,s but not mine, leave that out.


22 posted on 08/14/2006 2:47:52 AM PDT by since 1854
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Philistone

Yes, that is the spin by Democrat history professors, though the Compromise put Hayes in the White House, not Grant, as you usaid.

The truth is that by 1876, Reconstruction had been completely over and the Democrats were already completely in charge of 8 of 11 southern states for two years and more. Only in the three disputed states were there Republican governors. There were never more than a few thousand federal troops in the South, and in 1976 nearly all of them were in the three state capitals to keep the Republican Governors in power. The GOP agreed to allow those three Republican Governors to be removed by Democrat mobs in exchange for the presidency. Not a bad deal actually, consodering that it would have happened anyway had the Democrat become President. In those three states, the GOP actualy won the election, but Democrats prevented most blacjs (all Republicans, then) from voting. So, the reported margin was close, but the GOP clearly knew they had won fair and square.

For more information, read the book discussed at http://www.republicanbasics.com.


23 posted on 08/14/2006 2:55:36 AM PDT by since 1854
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Philistone

Yes, that is the spin by Democrat history professors, though the Compromise put Hayes in the White House, not Grant, as you usaid.

The truth is that by 1876, Reconstruction had been completely over and the Democrats were already completely in charge of 8 of 11 southern states for two years and more. Only in the three disputed states were there Republican governors. There were never more than a few thousand federal troops in the South, and in 1876 nearly all of them were in the three state capitals to keep the Republican Governors in power. The GOP agreed to allow those three Republican Governors to be removed by Democrat mobs in exchange for the presidency. Not a bad deal actually, consodering that it would have happened anyway had the Democrat become President. In those three states, the GOP actualy won the election, but Democrats prevented most blacks (all Republicans, then) from voting. So, the reported margin was close, but the GOP clearly knew they had won fair and square.

For more information, read the book discussed at http://www.republicanbasics.com.



24 posted on 08/14/2006 2:57:15 AM PDT by since 1854
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; ClaireSolt
The north, in some ways, was worse than the south.

Remember all those compassionate, liberal, progressive Bostonians during the court ordered school busing years?

After the Civil War, Illinois banned blacks from their state.

Schools were segregated in the midwest well into the 1960s. Detroit had white only lunch counters and restrooms into the 1960's as well.

25 posted on 08/14/2006 5:20:54 AM PDT by Jacquerie (Democrats soil institutions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

The "we want them freed, we just don't want them here" crowd.


26 posted on 08/14/2006 5:37:32 AM PDT by satchmodog9 (Most people stand on the tracks and never even hear the train coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: WaterDragon

The KKK was the terrorist wing of the democrat party.


27 posted on 08/14/2006 5:39:38 AM PDT by ChadGore (VISUALIZE 62,041,268 Bush fans. We Vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WaterDragon

I saw that program and noticed the same thing. They sure didn't want Democrats mentioned in the same line with the KKK.


28 posted on 08/14/2006 5:47:08 AM PDT by cibco (Xin Loi! Saddam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WaterDragon

If it is the one they aired in the 1990s, it omitted the detail that the original Klan was against Republicans as well as black people.

It also covered David Duke but neglected to mention that he was a Democrat and an Independent before becoming a Republican.

There is all sorts of bias in the "educational" shows on cable. Sometimes it is better to just pick up a book.


29 posted on 08/14/2006 6:15:31 AM PDT by weegee (Remember "Remember the Maine"? Well in the current war "Remember the Baby Milk Factory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: since 1854

Today they'd be called insurgents and the NY Times would be asking for negotiations with the Klan, saying that Lincoln's "Mission Accomplished" speech was too early.


30 posted on 08/14/2006 6:17:22 AM PDT by weegee (Remember "Remember the Maine"? Well in the current war "Remember the Baby Milk Factory")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: since 1854
It really didn't start as a terrorist organization. The Union troops in the South were not protecting the southern citizenry from rampant lawlessness. The Klan was formed more as a vigilate organization to protect southerners, both white and black, from roving criminals.

When they turned on the blacks is when Forrest got out.

31 posted on 08/14/2006 6:21:13 AM PDT by nonliberal (Graduate: Curtis E. LeMay School of International Relations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: weegee

Excellent point! As I point out in my book, ALL of the Confederate rebels were Democrats and there were legions of pro-rebel Democrats in the North.


32 posted on 08/14/2006 7:06:33 AM PDT by since 1854
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: nonliberal

Yes, that's true that the KKK did not start out as murderous, but my take on events is that its purpose was to keep the blacks subjugated. Forrest got out when it started turning into an insurgency, which he opposed.


33 posted on 08/14/2006 7:14:50 AM PDT by since 1854
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: weegee
Today they'd be called insurgents and the NY Times would be asking for negotiations with the Klan, saying that Lincoln's "Mission Accomplished" speech was too early.

very true
34 posted on 08/14/2006 7:41:58 PM PDT by cmurphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: WaterDragon

Interesting...just feeding the sheople their crapola...


35 posted on 08/14/2006 7:43:26 PM PDT by shield (A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand; but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson