Tom Cotton set Twitter on fire with a short history lesson for 2020 Democrats on their “troubled history on race”

Tom Cotton decided that 2020 Democrats and the media needed a short history lesson today regarding Biden’s comments praising segregationists for civility:

This may be what Cotton was referring to:

In the article from ABC News I posted earlier, I noticed that it didn’t mention these segregationists were Democrats, at least by name. Biden’s comments, however, pointed to that when he said he and they were in the same caucus.



But Cotton is right. This has far more to do with Democrats and their segregationist ways than it does anything to do with bipartisanship.

Needless to say, his comments are making Democrats go nuts and some are saying the derndest things:

Oh right, they were ‘conservative’. Just another foolish attempt by a partisan ‘historian’ to push the bad history of the Democrat party onto Republicans.

There’s a lot more angry tweets from Democrats out there. But a few on the right, like Donald Trump Jr, really liked Cotton’s tweet and praised it:

And he’s in good company.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

116 thoughts on “Tom Cotton set Twitter on fire with a short history lesson for 2020 Democrats on their “troubled history on race”

  1. These mistakes are only ever made in one direction. Remember that. Kasie Hunt was hoping no one would notice and call her out on it. Tom Cotton also has a good speech on the floor about the corporations trying to push the abortion agenda on the people and states that do not support it. It was a good speech. At least I can say I have one decent Senator.

      1. Does 1/2 way decent count? Ron Johnson is not great but not bad either and he kept Russ Feingold, ardent socialist, from returning to the Senate. On the other hand we have Tammy Baldwin who’s main claim to fame is being a lesbian.

          1. I guess on thinking about it I would definitely prefer Ron Johnson and Tammy Baldwin to Feinstein and Harris.

  2. That was beautiful and long overdue. Republicans have allowed this particular narrative to flourish for far too long.

  3. If it wasn’t for the GOP the Civil Rights Act wouldn’t have passed. It was people like Al Gore Sr and other Dems who voted no. It’s time to show the Dems for the racists they are.

    1. Sure, but it wouldn’t have passed without the Democrats either. 46 Democratic Senators voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as did 27 Republican Senators.

      There were 21 Democratic Senators voted against 1964 Civil Rights Act: both Senators from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and one Democratic Senator from West Virginia (Byrd).

      The Civil Rights era broke the Democratic party in the South (or fixed it, depending on your perspective.) Many white Southerners left the Democratic Party and became Republicans precisely because they opposed the Civil Rights agenda.

      1. Lol you keep telling yourself that! All those racist went over to the Republican Party and now the democrats are as pure as spring water.

  4. So Sasha Stone….did she forget that blacks would have school choice as well? It gives blacks an opportunity to get out of the schools the left blames for all the woes in the black communities.

    Kevin Kruse…..that was just pure stupidity. I suppose Nancy Pelosi is a conservative too.

      1. @t_ump Ok… if you’re talking about school choice it is being done in some states and it shows a lot of promise.

        School voucher programs—if well designed—improve students’ academic performance. In fact, the competition created by school voucher programs actually drives improvement for public school students, as well. Beyond that, school voucher programs foster more racial and socio-economic integration and better civic values in students. The proof is in the empirical evidence.

        https://www.edchoice.org/school-choice/types-of-school-choice/what-are-school-vouchers-2/

        We haven’t tested it on a single nationwide program, so what are you saying doesn’t always work?

  5. Right but you can’t weasel out of the pro-segregationists IN the GOP today and actively working to bring it all back but hide it behind “school choice.

    So you’re not pro-choice then, Sasha? Huh.

    1. Yeah, because school choice is only for one race. SMH Here in Arkansas, it’s being given to a limited group – not by race but by financial ability.

  6. Democrats have officially become the unabashed “Party of Projection”. The spirit of derision among them is on a scale of biblical proportions…

  7. Democrats have officially become the unabashed “Party of Projection”. The spirit of derision among them is on a scale of biblical proportions…

  8. I enjoy the smell of burning liberal brain cells when they get their sanctimonious noses rubbed in their dishonest propaganda.

  9. The only segregationists today are black people who want “black dorms,” “black cultural centers.” “black commencement ceremonies” and other separate accommodations that discriminate against non-blacks.

  10. The word “conservative” applied to a Democrat is virtually meaningless as a conservative Democrat is NOT ANYTHING LIKE a conservative Republican or even a ‘moderate’ one. Even liberal Republicans are more conservative than the most conservative Democrat. Holding a position on this or that issue that is not full embrace of the most lunatic left-wing fringe ideology while continuing to remain an active member of the organization that promotes their full-blown craziness is as far removed from being a Republican as East is from West.

    Herman Talmadge HATED the GOP and most people who viewed themselves as aligned with it. He was popular with older Georgians because so many of them were of that second or third Post Civil War generation that blamed Republicans for Reconstruction (indeed, even in my childhood that era was a not infrequent subject of discussion either at the dinner table or other gatherings). I’m talking about the ’50’s and 60’s here. For all of my childhood and a fair portion of my adult life, individuals from Northern states fell into two categories: Yankees and Damn Yankees; the difference being that a Damn Yankee was a Yankee who came South and took up permanent residence.

    Political power was inaccessible to anyone who was NOT a Democrat and they routinely nominated and elected outright buffoons such as Lester Maddox to the highest offices available.

    The difference between a Democrat and a conservative Democrat is that a conservative Democrat may still have some vestige of a conscience that will lead him or her to oppose a particularly odious plank in every Democrat platform such as abortion on demand.

    Even the venerated, even revered ‘Zig Zag’ Zell Miller, for whom I have almost as much affection as I do for ‘Dubya’ so reviled the GOP that he could not bring himself to switch parties even though, by the time of his retirement from politics, he opposed virtually every single policy position that the Democrats held. That is how visceral is the hatred of the GOP by Democrats, not there’s any love lost.

    Tenesse Williams’s character from ‘Cat on a Hot Tin Roof’ had a phrase that I think best defines the Democrat Party: It is characterized by “… a powerful and obnoxious odor of mendacity…”

  11. If it was Republicans that fought for slavery, Jim Crow, KKK, segregation, against suffrage and the black vote…?

    Democrats would never shut up about it!

    All these statues being torn down? Democrats. All the evil policies of US history? Democrat. And the genocide happening right now, disguised as “women’s health”? Democrats.

    But remember kids, Republicans are racists.

    1. This attempt to portray either side as the “racists” is intellectually dishonest. The battles over Reconstruction, Slavery, Jim Crow, School Segregation, Segregation in Public Accommodations, etc. were NOT defined by political affiliation, but by geography. There were “racists,” as you present the term, from both parties.

      In 1964, for example, if you were a Federal Representative or Senator from a former Confederate State, whether you were a Democrat or Republican, you were very likely opposed to the Civil Rights Act. If you were a Federal Representative or Senator not from a former Confederate State, whether you were a Democrat or Republican, you very likely supported the Civil Rights Act. Here are the votes for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, based on whether or not the politician was from a former Confederate State.

      From the South (former Confederate States)
      –No House Republican from the South voted for the Civil Rights Act. (0/11)
      –No Senate Republican from the South voted for the Civil Rights Act. (0/1)
      –Only 9% (8/91) of House Dems. from the South voted for the Civil Rights Act.
      –Only 5% (1/21) of Senate Dems. from the South voted for the Civil Rights Act.

      Not From the South
      –95% (144/152) of House Democrats not from the South voted for the Civil Rights Act.
      –98% (45/46) of Senate Democrats not from the South voted for the Civil Rights Act.
      –85% (137/161) of House Republicans not from the South voted for the Civil Rights Act.
      –84% (27/32) of Senate Republicans not from the South voted for the Civil Rights Act.

      As you can see, by the way you present the term in your post, Democrats who were NOT from the South were not “racist.” Likewise Republicans NOT from the South were not “racist.” In contrast, Democrats who were from the South were “racist.” Likewise, Republicans from the South were also “racist.”

  12. If it was Republicans that fought for slavery, Jim Crow, KKK, segregation, against suffrage and the black vote…?

    Democrats would never shut up about it!

    All these statues being torn down? Democrats. All the evil policies of US history? Democrat. And the genocide happening right now, disguised as “women’s health”? Democrats.

    But remember kids, Republicans are racists.

  13. ———————-
    Right but you can’t weasel out of the pro-segregationists IN the GOP today and actively working to bring it all back but hide it behind “school choice.”
    ———————-

    Seems to me the only “pro-segregationists” I see are on the Left. For example, it’s the Left who champions black dorms, separate black graduation ceremonies, and even “safe spaces where no whites are allowed” on university campuses.

    When people say “All Lives Matter” in response the slogan “Black Lives Matter” they are called racist by the Left.

  14. Woodrow Wilson, an ardent progressive and racist, when President introduced Jim Crow to the Federal Government and Washington D.C.

  15. I wonder how many black folks realize that the more Republican the south became, the less racism there was? I’ve asked numerous people around where I live and they’ve never had an answer. Literally, nothing…..mouth wide open….uuuuhhhhhhhh.

    1. Maybe they are flabbergasted by the bombastic nature of your claim?

      Take the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts of the mid-1960’s, which were major milestones in the fight against racism. Which is a more accurate statement?:

      a) A massive number of Democrats in the South left the Democratic Party and became Republicans because they supported desegregation, and the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.

      b) A massive number of Democrats in the South left the Democratic Party and became Republicans because they opposed desegregation, and the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.

      1. Both statements are inaccurate. Democrats in the South started leaving the Democrat party when it went radical left under George McGovern. The South has always been patriotic and military-oriented, and were staunch anti-Communists and supporters of the Cold War. When the Democrat party lurched to the left, veered into support of Communists and the Communist party, turned against the Vietnam War while our soldiers were still fighting it, and started supporting student radicals, the South began voting Republican. But at first, only in national elections. It took nearly a generation before Republicans gained control of Southern states at the state and local level.

        The so-called “Southern Strategy” is a fairy tale liberals like to tell themselves to explain away their losses in the South by blaming it all on racism.

        BTW, the Republicans supported the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts by much bigger margins than the Democrats. If racism was what motivated those Democrats to leave the Democrat party, then joining the Republican party was a step backward.

        It’s been this way for a long time, too. It was Woodrow Wilson that re-segregated the military, and Eisenhower who de-segregated it. (Harry S Truman did at least start the ball rolling on desegregation, but it was still being studied when he left office. It was up to Eisenhower to finally implement it.)

        1. Interesting theory but it lacks a basis in reality.. Support for national democrats started sliding away during WWII and really slid when, in 1948 Truman desegregated the military and banned discrimination in federal hiring, but it really picked up pace with desegregation, the enforcement of Brown v. Board, and the rest of the Civil Rights agenda.

          The ONLY concentrated Democratic resistance to the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts came from Southern Democrats. For example 20 Senators from 10 Southern States, plus Robert Byrd from WV were the ONLY Democratic Senators to vote against the 1964 Act.

          As for your McGovern theory, the facts support that either. Long before this, National Republicans steadily gained as National Democrats increasingly pushed for Civil Rights. By 1964, national Republicans were overperforming in the South. Barry Goldwater got absolutely trounced except for Arizona (his home state) and the South. In fact Goldwater carried the so-called “Deep South.” JFK then LBJ had actively advocated for passage of Civil Rights protections, and this was extremely unpopular among Southern Democrats.

      2. Southern Democrats didn’t leave one party for another. They died off and left younger, more educated, less racist, more conservative, more fiscally responsible Republicans.

        This is a generational issue. The fact is, Democrats must maintain an ignorant, victimized, poor base to continue to exist. Republicans, however, flourish with a bright, educated, self-sufficient, go-getter base.

        1. It’s true that there has been generational change in the South with regard to views on race related issues, but when it comes to when Southern Democrats switched their support away from national Democratic candidates who supported a Civil Rights Agenda, it change wasn’t so subtle.

          But regardless, my point remains the same. The “racist” story of the Democratic party is and pretty always has been a story based on geography. That’s not to say that there were no northern Democrats who were racist. There were, just as there were Northern Republicans who were racist. And there were most certainly northern Democrats who were bending over backwards to mollify their Southern brethren in order to maintain power. But major demographic driving the racist agenda was the white Southern voter, and as the national Democratic candidates moved toward even hinting at expanding Civil Rights for minorities, the a growing segment of southern Democrats abandoned these national candidates.

          Look at the 1948 States’ Rights Democratic Party (Dixiecrat) candidacy of Southern Democrat but soon to be Republican Strom Thurman, for example. The “party” wasn’t evan a party. They ran no local candidates and had not party structure. It was born purely out of a desire to keep the South segregated and in response to Truman’s Civil Rights Commission and his Order to desegregate the military and prohibit discrimination in federal hiring. Despite the haphazard nature of the “Party” Thurman carried Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina, and received one additional electoral vote in Tennessee. Look at the “Southern Manifesto” as well, which was widely supported across the South, especially the Deep South.

          Or look at the candidacy of George Wallace in 1968. Wallace was a Southern Democrat but he ran as an independent in 1968 on what was largely a segregation ticket. He won Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi and the rest of the South except for Texas went to Nixon. This is even though the white South was still largely made up of Democrats. They were Democrats in their States because their state Democratic politicians opposed Civil Rights. But they didn’t vote as Democrats nationally.

          1. That’s a nice long post that didn’t give one iota of credence to your theory.

            The truth is, the reason the South remained Democrat after the Civil War was because of the Republican’s horrendous agenda masked as Reconstruction. Once the Republicans abandoned punishing the South for the Civil War then the South began to industrialize, and as that generation of racist Democrats died off, the move to Republican rule and conservatism began.

            It wasn’t racism. Race had nothing to do with the shift. Nothing. There was no “Southern Strategy”. It was ALL ECONOMIC, as it usually is.

            1. Look, if you want to pretend that “race had nothing to do the shift” in the South away from national Democratic candidates, nothing I say will change your mind, but you must realize you are absolutely kidding yourself. The evidence otherwise is ample and deep.

              Desegregation was deeply unpopular among a large segment of white Democrats in South, as was the Civil Rights agenda. As national Democratic candidates took positions seen as challenging Segregation and pushing Civil Rights and Voting Rights, those white Southern Democrats refused to support those candidates, either coming up with their own (Thurman and Wallace) or supporting Republicans like Goldwater, who didn’t support Civil Rights legislation.

              Take a detailed look at Kennedy’s approval numbers in the South if you don’t believe me. He was Catholic so some Southern Democrats wouldn’t support him for that, but considering he was Catholic he had relatively solid support in the South until Civil Rights started to become a bigger issue. When it became clear that Kennedy was pushing a Civil Rights agenda his support dried up and support for his likely challenger, Goldwater, skyrocketed.

              As for your reference to the Reconstruction South, you have got to be kidding me, right? Reconstruction lasted until about 1877, and from about that point until the Civil Rights movement in the middle of the next century, the Jim Crow approach was firmly entrenched in the South. When national Democratic Candidates began challenging Segregation and legal discrimination, the Southern Democrats shifted their support to national Republican candidates.

              And you keep bringing up the “Southern Strategy” as if that is to what I am referring, but I haven’t once mentioned the supposed “Southern Strategy. I am talking about the undeniable split in the Democratic Party regarding Segregation and Civil Rights. Whether the Republicans intentionally exploited this split or not isn’t at all the issue I was addressing.

      3. No, nitwit, the racist southern Democrats died off and their children grew up to be non-racist Republicans. Proportionally, more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Acts than Democrats did; Democrats filibustered them.

  16. Blacks want reparations. Sure, find your ancestors former slave owner present day ancestors and you’all work something out. I’m good with that.

    Otherwise, I want a refund for every government benefit you folks got from 1865 onwards. Then we can talk about settling accounts – and please provide your 23 and Me percentage of your original African genetics.

    Helpful also if you can explain why your freed slave ancestors turned down the fully paid repatriation offer to go back to Africa, with a stipend to get life started over again.

    No charge for the skills your ancestors picked up when in this country that vastly out-paced those of your relatives that were lucky enough to have not been victims of the Arab slave traders. Demand reparations from them too.

    TIA

  17. Some of these debates on the history of slave-supporting Democrats (and whether or not the Republicans “flipped” or that the Republicans replaced the Democrats in the south) are endless and full of cherry picking.

    What I usually try to do is to cut through core principles. The Republican party was always about the individual liberty of all people. Whether it was the individual liberty of slaves in the late 1800’s, the individual liberty of taxpayers in the early 1900’s, or the individual liberty of men and women today who just want to run their businesses, go to their churches, and make their own healthcare purchasing choices without the statist collective’s dominance.

    1. That sounds more like a Libertarian division than a Democratic vs. Republican division.

      When it comes to issues of race, the most prevalent political division throughout our history has always been geography. The North and the South were split on the issue of slavery and race at the time of the founding, during western expansion, before, during, and after the Civil War, during Jim Crow, and starting with the WWII and through the Civil Rights Movement and onward to Reagan’s election.

      Of course there were exceptions and blips, and it is more complicated now, but in a general sense these issues have always been defined by North and South.

      1. Martin Luther Ling Jr. said he saw worse racism in Chicago than he ever saw in the South. Your narrative just took a hit at the water line.

  18. Democrats desperately don’t want to own the “sins of their fathers”. Goodness knows, they’re currently committing enough of their own sins right now! They suck and should not hold any office imo. The same goes for many republicans (RINOs) too.

    1. Indeed. Considering they were the creators and home of the KKK, Jim Crowe and other wonderful “INCLUSIVE” inventions, the democrats and the democrats alone should pay ANY reparations.

  19. ———————-
    Right but you can’t weasel out of the pro-segregationists IN the GOP today and actively working to bring it all back but hide it behind “school choice.”
    ———————-

    Seems to me the only “pro-segregationists” I see are on the Left. For example, it’s the Left who champions black dorms, separate black graduation ceremonies, and even “safe spaces where no whites are allowed” on university campuses.

    When people say “All Lives Matter” in response the slogan “Black Lives Matter” they are called racist by the Left.

  20. Hey, Kevin Kruse,

    It wasn’t a southern “conservative” (whatever this means) who resegregated the entire Federal Civil Service.

    It wasn’t a southern “conservative” (whatever this means) who appointed the KKKs lawyer to a supreme court justice.

    It wasn’t a southern “conservative” (whatever this means) who locked up innocent Americans of Japanese descent in internment camps.

    It wasn’t a southern “conservative” (whatever this means) who was a President pro tempore of the Senate, third in line in the presidential line of succession, and a former member of the KKK.

    These were all “progressive” leaders in the modern Democratic party.

    1. Oh, and, by the way, Congressional records show that Democrats from all over the country opposed the passage of the following laws introduced by Republicans to achieve civil rights for African Americans:

      Civil Rights Act 1866
      Reconstruction Act of 1867
      Freedman Bureau Extension Act of 1866
      Enforcement Act of 1870
      Force Act of 1871
      Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
      Civil Rights Act of 1875
      Civil Rights Act of 1957
      Civil Rights Act of 1960
      And during the 60’s many Democrats fought hard to defeat the
      1964 Civil Rights Act
      1965 Voting Rights Acts
      1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act

      1. This really isn’t true, at least not in a general sense. The main opposition to the Civil Rights Agenda has always come from the South. Take the 1964 Civil Rights Act, for example. The only Democrats to vote against it were two Senators each from 10 southern states, plus Byrd from West Virginia.

        1. From DEMOCRATS in the South.

          DEMOCRATS.

          Come on, you can say it: Democrats have a long history of racism.

  21. So ABC just assumed they were Republicans just like the left does all the time after a loony lefty commits an act of terror….like the guy that flew his plane into the IRS building. You’d think that one day they would actually do their jobs and FIND OUT before they report it as fact.

    1. When Republicans/conservatives actually do a boogaloo the left won’t have to speculate on anything. It’ll be a massive, awe-inspiring wave of action, maybe even violent, and the history books will call it a revolution, and the turning point of our nation.

  22. So Sasha Stone….did she forget that blacks would have school choice as well? It gives blacks an opportunity to get out of the schools the left blames for all the woes in the black communities.

    Kevin Kruse…..that was just pure stupidity. I suppose Nancy Pelosi is a conservative too.

      1. @t_ump Ok… if you’re talking about school choice it is being done in some states and it shows a lot of promise.

        School voucher programs—if well designed—improve students’ academic performance. In fact, the competition created by school voucher programs actually drives improvement for public school students, as well. Beyond that, school voucher programs foster more racial and socio-economic integration and better civic values in students. The proof is in the empirical evidence.

        https://www.edchoice.org/school-choice/types-of-school-choice/what-are-school-vouchers-2/

        We haven’t tested it on a single nationwide program, so what are you saying doesn’t always work?

      2. “Often” does not work that way?

        Public school are an abject failure. Not “often” a failure. Just a plain old failure. Anything would be better. Hell, abolishing public school would be better. At least then the market would provide, where now the government insists upon a failed model.

    1. I love what Dr. Walter Williams and Dr. Thomas Sowell have to say about this.

      To paraphrase:

      It’s better for black students to excel at a mediocre school than, for diversity sake, they be admitted to an elite school, and fail. Or worse, for the elite school to lower its standards so they succeed.

      Brilliant men.

      1. @texas-chris Yep….brilliant. It’s not helping a student if they’re admitted when the deciding factor is race. Yeah, they got in and if they fail we’ve done them an extreme disservice.

      2. Two truly great men. And yet unappreciated in the black community that listens to corrupt people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

  23. If it wasn’t for the GOP the Civil Rights Act wouldn’t have passed. It was people like Al Gore Sr and other Dems who voted no. It’s time to show the Dems for the racists they are.

    1. Sure, but it wouldn’t have passed without the Democrats either. 46 Democratic Senators voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as did 27 Republican Senators.

      There were 21 Democratic Senators voted against 1964 Civil Rights Act: both Senators from Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and one Democratic Senator from West Virginia (Byrd).

      The Civil Rights era broke the Democratic party in the South (or fixed it, depending on your perspective.) Many white Southerners left the Democratic Party and became Republicans precisely because they opposed the Civil Rights agenda.

      1. Lol you keep telling yourself that! All those racist went over to the Republican Party and now the democrats are as pure as spring water.

      2. The point is it is really the GOP who is the party of civil rights. Unfortunately, too many blacks have decided to keep the mindset of the Democrats, rather than grasping the opportunity to leave the “Plantation” once and for all. Sometimes, it’s easier to be a victim and whine rather than pulling yourself up by the bootstraps and force yourself to move on.

        1. I understand your point, but unfortunately your claim that the GOP is the party of civil rights is not true in any meaningful sense. At best one can claim politicians in both parties supported civil rights, and this support was largely dependent upon where they were from.

          All the major legislation civil rights which passed during the mid-1900’s needed support from politicians from both parties, and fortunately there were enough members of both parties to force a vote and get the acts passed. So, while the Republicans can claim that their votes were necessary for passage, so can the Democrats.

          Also, while President Eisenhower (R) advanced civil rights by, among other things, acting on Truman’s (D) Executive Order to desegregate the Military and prohibit discriminatory federal hiring, the reality was that, so far as actual federal legislation goes, these initiatives had to be spearheaded by the Democrats simply because the Democrats controlled the House and Senate, (as well as the White House before and After Eisenhower), and they thus controlled the legislative agenda. But as I said, the northern Democrats still needed the northern Republicans because the southern Democrats (and southern Republicans) opposed them on these issues.

          For example, with the 1964 Civil Rights act was strongly supported by JFK, and then after he was assassinated, by LBJ; was ushered through both houses by the Democratic leadership in both the Senate and the House. But, because of the “Southern Block” in the senate (consisting of 18 southern Democrats and one southern Republican) the Senate Democrats only had 46 votes, so they first needed needed about 21 Republicans to force a vote, then at least five Republicans to pass the bill, and they got it, and those who supported it in both parties deserve credit. It would make no sense to credit only the Republicans here.

          The problem with this attempt to portray Democrats as the racists (or, for that matter, the Republicans as the racists) is that it is dishonest. The major divide in the country at the time was NOT political party, it was geographic. Same as it always had been on this issues. In the South, both parties opposed civil rights. And in the north, both parties were in favor of civil rights.

  24. School Choice benefits kids of all races stuck in terrible schools. What a stupid point.

    1. Most of the Charter Schools around here are benefiting largely black students because their parents don’t want to send them to the terrible public schools

        1. What I said is charter schools have helped many who wouldn’t have had a decent education otherwise. Yet the Dems are trying to close them because they’re interfering with the precious teachers’ unions.

  25. These mistakes are only ever made in one direction. Remember that. Kasie Hunt was hoping no one would notice and call her out on it. Tom Cotton also has a good speech on the floor about the corporations trying to push the abortion agenda on the people and states that do not support it. It was a good speech. At least I can say I have one decent Senator.

      1. Does 1/2 way decent count? Ron Johnson is not great but not bad either and he kept Russ Feingold, ardent socialist, from returning to the Senate. On the other hand we have Tammy Baldwin who’s main claim to fame is being a lesbian.

          1. I guess on thinking about it I would definitely prefer Ron Johnson and Tammy Baldwin to Feinstein and Harris.

  26. That was beautiful and long overdue. Republicans have allowed this particular narrative to flourish for far too long.

  27. Right but you can’t weasel out of the pro-segregationists IN the GOP today and actively working to bring it all back but hide it behind “school choice.

    So you’re not pro-choice then, Sasha? Huh.

    1. Yeah, because school choice is only for one race. SMH Here in Arkansas, it’s being given to a limited group – not by race but by financial ability.

  28. Woodrow Wilson, an ardent progressive and racist, when President introduced Jim Crow to the Federal Government and Washington D.C.

  29. I wonder how many black folks realize that the more Republican the south became, the less racism there was? I’ve asked numerous people around where I live and they’ve never had an answer. Literally, nothing…..mouth wide open….uuuuhhhhhhhh.

    1. Maybe they are flabbergasted by the bombastic nature of your claim?

      Take the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts of the mid-1960’s, which were major milestones in the fight against racism. Which is a more accurate statement?:

      a) A massive number of Democrats in the South left the Democratic Party and became Republicans because they supported desegregation, and the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.

      b) A massive number of Democrats in the South left the Democratic Party and became Republicans because they opposed desegregation, and the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.

      1. No, nitwit, the racist southern Democrats died off and their children grew up to be non-racist Republicans. Proportionally, more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Acts than Democrats did; Democrats filibustered them.

      2. Both statements are inaccurate. Democrats in the South started leaving the Democrat party when it went radical left under George McGovern. The South has always been patriotic and military-oriented, and were staunch anti-Communists and supporters of the Cold War. When the Democrat party lurched to the left, veered into support of Communists and the Communist party, turned against the Vietnam War while our soldiers were still fighting it, and started supporting student radicals, the South began voting Republican. But at first, only in national elections. It took nearly a generation before Republicans gained control of Southern states at the state and local level.

        The so-called “Southern Strategy” is a fairy tale liberals like to tell themselves to explain away their losses in the South by blaming it all on racism.

        BTW, the Republicans supported the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts by much bigger margins than the Democrats. If racism was what motivated those Democrats to leave the Democrat party, then joining the Republican party was a step backward.

        It’s been this way for a long time, too. It was Woodrow Wilson that re-segregated the military, and Eisenhower who de-segregated it. (Harry S Truman did at least start the ball rolling on desegregation, but it was still being studied when he left office. It was up to Eisenhower to finally implement it.)

        1. Interesting theory but it lacks a basis in reality.. Support for national democrats started sliding away during WWII and really slid when, in 1948 Truman desegregated the military and banned discrimination in federal hiring, but it really picked up pace with desegregation, the enforcement of Brown v. Board, and the rest of the Civil Rights agenda.

          The ONLY concentrated Democratic resistance to the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts came from Southern Democrats. For example 20 Senators from 10 Southern States, plus Robert Byrd from WV were the ONLY Democratic Senators to vote against the 1964 Act.

          As for your McGovern theory, the facts support that either. Long before this, National Republicans steadily gained as National Democrats increasingly pushed for Civil Rights. By 1964, national Republicans were overperforming in the South. Barry Goldwater got absolutely trounced except for Arizona (his home state) and the South. In fact Goldwater carried the so-called “Deep South.” JFK then LBJ had actively advocated for passage of Civil Rights protections, and this was extremely unpopular among Southern Democrats.

      3. Southern Democrats didn’t leave one party for another. They died off and left younger, more educated, less racist, more conservative, more fiscally responsible Republicans.

        This is a generational issue. The fact is, Democrats must maintain an ignorant, victimized, poor base to continue to exist. Republicans, however, flourish with a bright, educated, self-sufficient, go-getter base.

        1. It’s true that there has been generational change in the South with regard to views on race related issues, but when it comes to when Southern Democrats switched their support away from national Democratic candidates who supported a Civil Rights Agenda, it change wasn’t so subtle.

          But regardless, my point remains the same. The “racist” story of the Democratic party is and pretty always has been a story based on geography. That’s not to say that there were no northern Democrats who were racist. There were, just as there were Northern Republicans who were racist. And there were most certainly northern Democrats who were bending over backwards to mollify their Southern brethren in order to maintain power. But major demographic driving the racist agenda was the white Southern voter, and as the national Democratic candidates moved toward even hinting at expanding Civil Rights for minorities, the a growing segment of southern Democrats abandoned these national candidates.

          Look at the 1948 States’ Rights Democratic Party (Dixiecrat) candidacy of Southern Democrat but soon to be Republican Strom Thurman, for example. The “party” wasn’t evan a party. They ran no local candidates and had not party structure. It was born purely out of a desire to keep the South segregated and in response to Truman’s Civil Rights Commission and his Order to desegregate the military and prohibit discrimination in federal hiring. Despite the haphazard nature of the “Party” Thurman carried Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina, and received one additional electoral vote in Tennessee. Look at the “Southern Manifesto” as well, which was widely supported across the South, especially the Deep South.

          Or look at the candidacy of George Wallace in 1968. Wallace was a Southern Democrat but he ran as an independent in 1968 on what was largely a segregation ticket. He won Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi and the rest of the South except for Texas went to Nixon. This is even though the white South was still largely made up of Democrats. They were Democrats in their States because their state Democratic politicians opposed Civil Rights. But they didn’t vote as Democrats nationally.

          1. That’s a nice long post that didn’t give one iota of credence to your theory.

            The truth is, the reason the South remained Democrat after the Civil War was because of the Republican’s horrendous agenda masked as Reconstruction. Once the Republicans abandoned punishing the South for the Civil War then the South began to industrialize, and as that generation of racist Democrats died off, the move to Republican rule and conservatism began.

            It wasn’t racism. Race had nothing to do with the shift. Nothing. There was no “Southern Strategy”. It was ALL ECONOMIC, as it usually is.

            1. Look, if you want to pretend that “race had nothing to do the shift” in the South away from national Democratic candidates, nothing I say will change your mind, but you must realize you are absolutely kidding yourself. The evidence otherwise is ample and deep.

              Desegregation was deeply unpopular among a large segment of white Democrats in South, as was the Civil Rights agenda. As national Democratic candidates took positions seen as challenging Segregation and pushing Civil Rights and Voting Rights, those white Southern Democrats refused to support those candidates, either coming up with their own (Thurman and Wallace) or supporting Republicans like Goldwater, who didn’t support Civil Rights legislation.

              Take a detailed look at Kennedy’s approval numbers in the South if you don’t believe me. He was Catholic so some Southern Democrats wouldn’t support him for that, but considering he was Catholic he had relatively solid support in the South until Civil Rights started to become a bigger issue. When it became clear that Kennedy was pushing a Civil Rights agenda his support dried up and support for his likely challenger, Goldwater, skyrocketed.

              As for your reference to the Reconstruction South, you have got to be kidding me, right? Reconstruction lasted until about 1877, and from about that point until the Civil Rights movement in the middle of the next century, the Jim Crow approach was firmly entrenched in the South. When national Democratic Candidates began challenging Segregation and legal discrimination, the Southern Democrats shifted their support to national Republican candidates.

              And you keep bringing up the “Southern Strategy” as if that is to what I am referring, but I haven’t once mentioned the supposed “Southern Strategy. I am talking about the undeniable split in the Democratic Party regarding Segregation and Civil Rights. Whether the Republicans intentionally exploited this split or not isn’t at all the issue I was addressing.

  30. Blacks want reparations. Sure, find your ancestors former slave owner present day ancestors and you’all work something out. I’m good with that.

    Otherwise, I want a refund for every government benefit you folks got from 1865 onwards. Then we can talk about settling accounts – and please provide your 23 and Me percentage of your original African genetics.

    Helpful also if you can explain why your freed slave ancestors turned down the fully paid repatriation offer to go back to Africa, with a stipend to get life started over again.

    No charge for the skills your ancestors picked up when in this country that vastly out-paced those of your relatives that were lucky enough to have not been victims of the Arab slave traders. Demand reparations from them too.

    TIA

  31. Some of these debates on the history of slave-supporting Democrats (and whether or not the Republicans “flipped” or that the Republicans replaced the Democrats in the south) are endless and full of cherry picking.

    What I usually try to do is to cut through core principles. The Republican party was always about the individual liberty of all people. Whether it was the individual liberty of slaves in the late 1800’s, the individual liberty of taxpayers in the early 1900’s, or the individual liberty of men and women today who just want to run their businesses, go to their churches, and make their own healthcare purchasing choices without the statist collective’s dominance.

    1. That sounds more like a Libertarian division than a Democratic vs. Republican division.

      When it comes to issues of race, the most prevalent political division throughout our history has always been geography. The North and the South were split on the issue of slavery and race at the time of the founding, during western expansion, before, during, and after the Civil War, during Jim Crow, and starting with the WWII and through the Civil Rights Movement and onward to Reagan’s election.

      Of course there were exceptions and blips, and it is more complicated now, but in a general sense these issues have always been defined by North and South.

      1. Martin Luther Ling Jr. said he saw worse racism in Chicago than he ever saw in the South. Your narrative just took a hit at the water line.

  32. Democrats desperately don’t want to own the “sins of their fathers”. Goodness knows, they’re currently committing enough of their own sins right now! They suck and should not hold any office imo. The same goes for many republicans (RINOs) too.

    1. Indeed. Considering they were the creators and home of the KKK, Jim Crowe and other wonderful “INCLUSIVE” inventions, the democrats and the democrats alone should pay ANY reparations.

  33. Hey, Kevin Kruse,

    It wasn’t a southern “conservative” (whatever this means) who resegregated the entire Federal Civil Service.

    It wasn’t a southern “conservative” (whatever this means) who appointed the KKKs lawyer to a supreme court justice.

    It wasn’t a southern “conservative” (whatever this means) who locked up innocent Americans of Japanese descent in internment camps.

    It wasn’t a southern “conservative” (whatever this means) who was a President pro tempore of the Senate, third in line in the presidential line of succession, and a former member of the KKK.

    These were all “progressive” leaders in the modern Democratic party.

    1. Oh, and, by the way, Congressional records show that Democrats from all over the country opposed the passage of the following laws introduced by Republicans to achieve civil rights for African Americans:

      Civil Rights Act 1866
      Reconstruction Act of 1867
      Freedman Bureau Extension Act of 1866
      Enforcement Act of 1870
      Force Act of 1871
      Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
      Civil Rights Act of 1875
      Civil Rights Act of 1957
      Civil Rights Act of 1960
      And during the 60’s many Democrats fought hard to defeat the
      1964 Civil Rights Act
      1965 Voting Rights Acts
      1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act

      1. This really isn’t true, at least not in a general sense. The main opposition to the Civil Rights Agenda has always come from the South. Take the 1964 Civil Rights Act, for example. The only Democrats to vote against it were two Senators each from 10 southern states, plus Byrd from West Virginia.

        1. From DEMOCRATS in the South.

          DEMOCRATS.

          Come on, you can say it: Democrats have a long history of racism.

  34. So ABC just assumed they were Republicans just like the left does all the time after a loony lefty commits an act of terror….like the guy that flew his plane into the IRS building. You’d think that one day they would actually do their jobs and FIND OUT before they report it as fact.

    1. Most of the Charter Schools around here are benefiting largely black students because their parents don’t want to send them to the terrible public schools

Comments are closed.