Skip to comments.KKK's 1st targets were Republicans
Posted on 10/25/2007 11:42:36 PM PDT by RussP
The original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats.
An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.
The documentation has been assembled by David Barton of Wallbuilders and published in his book "Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White," which reveals that not only did the Democrats work hand-in-glove with the Ku Klux Klan for generations, they started the KKK and endorsed its mayhem.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
We must always remind people that the reason that the Democrat Party was founded was to distribute the political spoils system and to extend slavery into the 19th century US territories, and that the GOP was founded to OPPOSE slavery. The 13th amendment forbids the RATS from physically enslaving us, so contempory RATS tax us to death and chip away at our legitimate constitutional liberties as incrementally as they can, while providing a bulwark and safe haven for Cultural Marxists.
I am a black man who regularly engages in discourse with people in my community as to why the DemocRAT Party is the worst political, social, cultural and historical disaster EVER to befall the black community ouside slavery itself. Even after I get them to acknowledge this essential truth, they remain committed to voting RAT.
The staggering level of political cognitive dissonance amongst my people is frightning.
I can’t top that.
The statement that those lynching numbers are all attributable to the KKK may have come from the author of the article on the book rather than the actual author of the book itself.
In any case, I am not as interested in exact numbers as I am in the big picture. Too many people (myself included, until fairly recently) have the impression that the Republican opposition to slavery is a historical footnote. Not so. For well over a *century*, the Republicans were clearly on the side of African Americans while the Democrats were clearly against them.
Shortly after the Civil War, the Republicans tried to give blacks the rights they finally got nearly a century later, but they were routinely stymied by Democrats.
Had Lincoln not been shot and replaced by Andrew Johnson, the history of race relations in this country would be very different. By the way, if I am not mistaken, Johnson was actually a Democrat (or former Democrat) who Lincoln chose as a sort of compromise to attract some of the Democrat vote. How’s that for a colossal blunder?
How many know that the so-called “Radical Republicans” back in the days of the Civil War were called “radical” because they wanted to give blacks full citizenship and full civil rights? Yes, that was a “radical” idea back then.
“I dislike both the title and tenor of this article. It somehow implies that now the KKK and Republican interests coincided at some point and the last time I looked that is as far from the truth now as it was then.”
Apparently I missed that part. Are you sure you didn’t just imagine it?
“Every time I point that out, the answer I get from libs is that those democrats are now the republicans.”
And I’ll bet those libs also think that opposition to Affirmative Action is equivalent to “racism.”
What is it about these folks that they cannot comprehend the simple fact that “reverse” racism is still racism?
Martin Luther King’s dream of a color-blind society apparently sailed right over their heads.
“Distorting history for the sake of promoting the conservative cause is no better than the PC rewriting of history performed by liberals in academia or the entertainment business.”
In your estimation, what percentage of support for the KKK came from Democrats and what percentage came from Republicans? Given what I know, I suspect the Democratic support dwarfed the Republican support. I haven’t studied the matter in any detail, however, and I could be wrong.
“A person wrote this because they felt the need to point out that the KKK used to go after Republicans at the behest of Democrats. By process of elimination that means that today they go after Democrats at the urgings of Republicans.”
I probably shouldn’t even reply to such obvious baloney, but here I go. If I say that a man used to beat his wife, does that mean by “process of elimination” that today his wife beats him?
I’m just going to have to operate on the idea that you didn’t actually read the article you posted.
I talked to a young fellow (yes, he is a lefty) about this a few years ago and explained to him that the KKK was formed as the enforcement arm of the Democrat party in served in that role up into the 1960s. In fact, I told him that in the Reconstruction years, the KKK killed more white males (Republicans in the South) than blacks. He didn't believe me so show I showed him the history. It was a major disconnect for him because he had been taught that the KKK were somehow Republicans. He brought up David Duke and I told him the Republicans tossed his sorry ass out of the party and then I printed out Sheets Byrd's history for him and pointed out that he's never even been criticized by the Rats.
He used to initiate 'political' discussions with me (mostly anti-Bush rants) but after I showed him that what he had learned was simply not true, he pretty much steers clear now. I think his ego was so bruised by that last encounter that he does not want to experience it again.
Baloney. Most of them remained in the Democratic fold.
“Im just going to have to operate on the idea that you didnt actually read the article you posted.”
I read the entire article before I posted it. But you got me wondering if I forgot something, so I just read it again, from start to finish.
I could not find one hint of a suggestion that the KKK and the Republicans are now or ever were somehow in harmony. You either imagined it or you just made it up out of wholecloth.
If I am wrong, please quote the relevant section of the article for me. Otherwise, quit wasting my time and obfuscating the issue.
“The second Klan that was founded in 1915 and reached its peak of popularity in the early 1920s was at least as strong in Republican leaning Northern and Western states as it was in the South.”
And what is your evidence for that conclusion?
I hear you. Lots of cognitive dissonance out there. Feminists who ignore Islam's abuse of women--Liberal Jews actively supporting anti-Israel candidacies--
I'm old enough to remember Jesse Jackson's early "Black is Beautiful" speech--how I admired him, at least for a little while. That speech still rings in my ears, and ought to have been as important as "I Have a Dream." Remember it? He mocked the condescension of white liberals, saying that if black children could jump higher and run faster while living under poverty and discrimination, then they could succeed in school and at life despite the disadvantages.
How soon that changed--now the Race Pimp is unrecognizable.
The popularity of the Klan in then rural Long Island was not an isolated event. Pennsylvania had 200,000 Klansmen and Ohio 300,000 at the peak of the second Klan's strength (source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/flood/peopleevents/e_klan.html). In Indiana, where one estimate claimed that as many as 25% of the native born white men in the state were Klansmen, both the governor and the mayor of Indianapolis were Klan sympathizers, per Wikipedia. While estimates of its membership at its peak vary from three million to eight million, there is no doubt that many of its members lived outside the Southern or Border states. There are rumors that President Warren Harding was a member, although there is no solid evidence proving such.
In any case, at least with respect to the second Ku Klux Klan, there is abundant evidence that Republican voters and elected officials in the Northern and Western states supported it, like it or not (and I don't).
That is BS too, and I have some 'family history' that demonstrates that is BS.
The second Klan got it's kick start from Woodrow Wilson's praise for the D.W. Griffth silent film, "Birth of a Nation" which glorified the reconstruction era Klan. What drew the Klan and the Northern Democrats at the time was the migration of millions of southerners, both blacks and whites, into northern cities to work in factories during WWI. Both the Klan and the Democrat party saw the opportunity for not only new recruits but as a way to break the hold that the Republicans had on many large midwestern cities since the Civil War by stroking resentments against the blacks moving into their cities. Much of their target audience were white southerners who also had moved north for the same jobs the blacks moved for but also working class whites who didn't want black competition.
The Klan started to hold large cross-burning rallies and I had an uncle who was a young teenager who attended one. According to my father who told me the story, his father, who was a rock ribbed Republican, found out about my uncle being there and not only smacked him around a little but forced him to make amends. My uncle was an excellent baseball player and my grandfather made him volunteer to coach an all black little league team. Turned out it was a great experience for him and he stayed at it for many years even into adulthood.
Bottom line, it wasn't Republicans who supported the Klan in the north. It was the Democrats doing what they have always done --- play the race card.
for AM read
The Klan supporters in the Northern and Western states were overwhelmingly descendants of British, German, and Dutch descendants, most of whom had lived in the North since colonial times. The ministers who supported the Klan in the Northern states were mostly members of Northern denominations, such as the Northern Presbyterians, the Northern Methodists, and the Reformed Church in America. In the Northeast, the Democratic Party had become dominated by white Catholics, especially Irish Americans, and the old Jacksonian Democrats of colonial origins in that region aligned with the GOP in the late 19th Century. In much of the North, except for the Scandinavian settled areas of the Upper Midwest and the Virginia, Kentucky, and North Carolina settled areas in the southern one third of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, most white, native born Protestants voted Republican by 1900. Except for the elections of 1912 and 1964, the GOP carried both Nassau and Suffolk Counties (the two Long Island counties not in New York City) in presidential elections from 1900 to 1988. From 1864 until the 1930s, Pennsylvania was almost as one sidedly Republican as the Deep South was Democrat, due to the power of the political machine first established in the 1860s by Simon Cameron. Yet the Klan thrived in both Long Island and Pennsylvania, as well as in the rural Midwest, including those areas settled from New York, Pennsylvania, and New England.
There is no historical evidence to support your contention that Northern Republicans entirely shunned the Klan in the 1920s. Many obviously did, as you indicated from your anecdote. However, it is also true that Southern Democrats opposed the Klan. In Texas, for instance, the hooded order was defeated by Democrats such as Dan Moody and Ma Ferguson. The organization imploded in the mid 1920s due to its massive corruption and increased public revulsion against its violent, terroristic tactics. In that era, BTW, Catholics, Jews, and the foreign born, not blacks, were the main targets of Klan violence.
There is no need to fabricate or rewrite history to hide Republican blemishes. What happened in the past cannot be changed; we are responsible for our time and not the days of Reconstruction or the Roaring '20s.
This just in... Kent Brockman reporting--
Senator Robert Byrd... had called this a damn lie!
Film... at 11!
Get lost flamer
You complain that a historian “lives in the past,” and you expect to be taken seriously?
Debating with people like you is like shooting fish in a barrel.
You’re not worth the time, buddy.
Catholics were their targets too.
OK, but, one should not be fooled into believing that it is a sincere support. It is merely another tactic to accomplish the same thing. Control of the slaves and their votes.
You complain when a historian brings up the history of the close relationship between the early KKK and the Democratic Party.
That’s the same Democratic Party that wants to force corporations today to “apologize” for their history of racism!
Surely you aren’t naive enough to think that the Democrats and the mainstream media wouldn’t exploit it to the hilt if the Republicans had started the KKK.
If you see a need to cover up the historical sins of the Democratic Party, what the hell are you doing on FR anyway? Shouldn’t you be over at MoveOn or something?
Oh, wait. I just realized that you are probably a Southerner who just wants to erase subject of slavery. You poor guy. Please forgive me for my insensitivity!
And Senator Byrd still does target Republicans today.
And what kills me about Bird is that his background with the KKK is forgiven by the Democrats as a “youthful indiscretion.” Wasn’t he a high-ranking member of the KKK at around the age of 40 or something? That’s some “youthful indiscretion”!
If a Republican Senator had a similar background, we would never hear the end of it from the Democrats and the mainstream media, of course. And just like the Foley scandal, it would taint the entire Republican Party.
The MSM continues to do this with Senator Trent Lott (Senator Wuss).
What have you been smoking? The democrats may not be hanging blacks from trees for voting republicans anymore. That's too passe. However, blacks who vote republican aren't readily admitting it and those who do are readily slandered for doing so. Democrats publicly call black republicans horrendous racial slanders along with all the other names republicans get. Nooses are no longer used but intimidation is still a tactic the democrats use to keep blacks in their place
Get a life, guy.
You might want to consider counseling for your guilt over slavery. If you decide to become a Republican, you can feel better that your party actually fought the Democrats to end slavery. I feel pretty good about it myself.
Are still in grade school? Your posts don’t make much sense.
Now they take credit for it.
I wouldn’t expect them to make sense to someone incapable of thinking.
You got my attention son, what do you want to say.
Slavery was a terrible thing, and the Republicans should be proud that they fought against it and tried to give blacks their full civil rights shortly after the Civil War — a full century before Democrats were willing to do so.
The Democrats should be ashamed that they fought *for* slavery and blocked civil rights for blacks for a century after the Civil War.
Every time Democrats or Leftists try to demagogue the race issue and smear Republicans as racist, Republicans should remind people of these facts. Every time some Leftist yahoo demands reparations for slavery, these facts should be brought up.
That’s all. Have a nice day.
“I’m surprised this hasn’t been posted yet, but I searched FR and couldn’t find it.
The despicable history of the Democratic Party in supporting slavery and the KKK must be heralded far and wide. And so also the Republican history of fighting them.
Rusty Humphries talked extensively about this book today — and I loved every second of it. We need more of that.
I am always amazed at people who are obsessed with the history of slavery and racism yet are apparently ignorant of the fact that, for many decades, the Democrats fought tooth and nail to keep them in place while the Republicans fought to end them.
Imagine how the political landscape could change if this history were widely known.”
Well a few years ago, PBS (of all networks) had a series about the Jim Crow era, and they touched on the facts that the kkk and democrats worked with eachother.
I would bring it up and the demoncraps I’d be debating would start in with the personal attacks, and calling the PBS series “lies and propaganda” while saying that Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond proves that Republicans are the racists, and that the parties shifted after the Civil Rights Act was passed because all the racists and klansmen joined the Republicans.
“Whatever the party did previously with respect to the KKK doesnt matter when they are firmly devoted to siding with minorities, particularly blacks as they are the loudest, on every issue from affirmative action to reparations (should the latter ever get off the ground), and will stomp the head of any whitey who gets in the way nowjust in case anyone doubts their sincerity.”
That is all a smoke screen to keep the minorities that they “support” on the so called plantation.
For 40 years the democrats have been making promises to the minorities, and giving them handouts in exchange for votes. Beyond that, the democrats have done NOTHING for the minorities except for keeping them in failed public schools, housing projects, and the welfare rolls.
“Also, I would argue that Affirmative Action policies of the Democrats are still racist. Deep down, they dont believe that blacks can compete in academia or the marketplace without favoritism mandated by the government.”
Exactly! That’s why they smear and vilify Dr. Rice, Justice Thomas, and Bill Cosby because they became who they are without the government crutch, and they advocate self reliance and personal responsibility
“Thats the same Democratic Party that wants to force corporations today to apologize for their history of racism!”
That is another one of their smokescreens to keep the masses on the “plantation”
“I would bring it up and the demoncraps Id be debating would start in with the personal attacks, and calling the PBS series lies and propaganda while saying that Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond proves that Republicans are the racists, and that the parties shifted after the Civil Rights Act was passed because all the racists and klansmen joined the Republicans.”
If I recall correctly, Michael Zak points out in his book that a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats in Congress voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
“Exactly! Thats why they smear and vilify Dr. Rice, Justice Thomas, and Bill Cosby because they became who they are without the government crutch, and they advocate self reliance and personal responsibility”
Absolutely. I remember when they tried to claim that Clarence Thomas should support Affirmative Action because he “benefitted” from it himself. All the Leftists *assumed* that he couldn’t have made the grade on his own, without favoritism mandated by the government.
Apparently these bozos can’t fathom the notion that some blacks can make the grade on their own merit. The notion is simply beyond their mental capacity.
And just what is that supposed to mean? Because I mentioned a point from a book by Michael Zak, that makes me a “fanboy”?
Good grief, what passes for “thinking” these days.
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.