Why Did Most Blacks Switch Political Parties

[f100lover]

The answer to this illustrates how frail our system is and how filled with myth and total falsehood as well as deceit and outright hatred for the purpose of gaining political advantage.


After the "Uncivil" war up until the mid-1950's blacks in America were solid Republican. Even MLK was Republican. (See link below) The Republicans were always the leaders in civil rights for blacks and sponsored the "underground railroads" for blacks escaping slavery. There were no Republicans in any major offices in the South because of the ruthlessness of Abe Lincoln's punishing of southerners by having the northern armies select young men from southern communities who were not in the war and having them publicly executed to demoralize the south. These disgusting acts are documented in Lorenzo's book, The Real Lincoln. and to some degree in Stephen Crane's book, The Red Badge of Courage where returning rebel soldiers were lined up and mowed down with Gatling guns after having been promised their release.


The war was not fought over slavery as is almost always stated, but over the revolt by southern states against paying taxes to fund Lincoln's buddies railroads to the west. Lincoln was ruthless and jailed anyone in authority who disagreed with him. He had the Union army fire on Ft. Sumter in order to provoke the south to go to war. Lincoln was a sadistic racist who wanted all blacks sent back to Africa, thought Mexicans were "mongrels," and had plains tribesmen executed simply because they got in the way of his ambitions. I once carried my middle name of Lincoln proudly until I began to put together facts that did not make sense to me. Now I detest the name. Lincoln was a sick ambitious bigot who wanted to be an emperor. You will not hear this in public schools or even private schools. He wasted the lives of almost 600,000 Americans in his maniacal ambitions and set back racial relations forever by pitting the races against each other.


To rub salt into the wound, he sent black carpetbaggers into the south to continue to suck taxes from southerner after the war. General Robert E. Lee had released the slaves he had because he thought it was morally wrong to have slaves. Christianity in the south was making it hard for anyone to keep slaves because of the pressure put on the greedy slave owners. The Emancipation Proclamation was not universal, as is always reported (See Lorenzo's book).


Also see


Emancipation Proclamation (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h1549.html)


It was a ploy to get states to surrender and did not include states that had already surrendered. This illustrates how Lincoln actually used blacks to further his agenda.


Virtually all blacks were, understandably, Republicans after the war, and most southern whites were Democrats because of Lincoln's ruthlessness. That remained so up into the 1950's when the Republican Dwight Eisenhower and Chief Justice Earl Warren began the movement to remove racial discrimination in America. All southern offices were controlled by bigoted Democrats. All racial "offenses' were committed by Democrats. There were no Republicans in power. Segregation was set up by Democrat legislatures, judges, and local officials. Orval Faubus, George Wallace, and all other governors were Democrats. Bus segregation in the south was due to Democrats. The pinhead and cowardly KKK, though few in number, were all Democrats.


Why MLK was a Republican (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16500)


The NAACP was a Republican institution. Affirmative action was started by Nixon to hedge against the discriminatory practice of Democrat President Woodrow Wilson when he kicked all blacks out of office in 1912. The black colleges were all started by Republicans. The 1965 voting rights act was championed by the Republican Senator Dirkson. Senator Barry Goldwater condemned discrimination against blacks in the south and wanted to pass laws to protect black Americans.
Lyndon Johnson was a racist and used racial slurs. Lyndon Johnson, under pressure from Republicans, signed the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The "Dixiecrats" voted against it. Robert Byrd, a former KKK officer, is still in the Senate and is a Democrat.
Need I say more? How then did such a preponderance of evidence to the contrary allow blacks to reject the Republican Party? The answer shows how frail and corrupt our system is.


MLK was in jail in Georgia in 1960 and blacks were searching for help. John Kennedy, who was never much concerned about racism, took a very opportunistic time to call the wife of King and express sympathy. That call was like a tsunami to the Republican Party. Kennedy narrowly won, thanks to a large black swing vote in the south. That call, coupled with the march on Washington DC and King's "I Have A Dream" speech, and the passage of the Civil Rights Bill, which would have failed without Republicans championing it, amazingly branded Republicans as racists and left them wondering "What the hell happened?"


The champions of the black cause through many years of deliberate concerned effort were crushed by a cunning phone call. The disgusting thing is that the Republicans were the ones who championed the black plight and are now routinely called racist bigots by their bigoted Democrat counterparts. If Nixon had placed that call instead of Kennedy, the Republican party of today would be the Democrat party, and vice versa. I hate politics. Damn them all.

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

I'm sure you have proof of Dr. King's political affiliation and to what party he was registered. Not conjecture, proof.

I'll wait.

[f100lover]

I'm sure you have proof of Dr. King's political affiliation and to what party he was registered. Not conjecture, proof.

I'll wait.If you will click on the link you will find that the article was written by a black woman; however, there are many references to the same on the Internet with no political bias intent. Since I was not intimately involved, I can only refer to what seems to be an overwhelming number of references that are written just for factual information.

[smyrna]

The answer to this illustrates how frail our system is and how filled with myth and total falsehood as well as deceit and outright hatred for the purpose of gaining political advantage.


After the "Uncivil" war up until the mid-1950's blacks in America were solid Republican. Even MLK was Republican. (See link below) The Republicans were always the leaders in civil rights for blacks and sponsored the "underground railroads" for blacks escaping slavery. There were no Republicans in any major offices in the South because of the ruthlessness of Abe Lincoln's punishing of southerners by having the northern armies select young men from southern communities who were not in the war and having them publicly executed to demoralize the south. These disgusting acts are documented in Lorenzo's book, The Real Lincoln. and to some degree in Stephen Crane's book, The Red Badge of Courage where returning rebel soldiers were lined up and mowed down with Gatling guns after having been promised their release.


The war was not fought over slavery as is almost always stated, but over the revolt by southern states against paying taxes to fund Lincoln's buddies railroads to the west. Lincoln was ruthless and jailed anyone in authority who disagreed with him. He had the Union army fire on Ft. Sumter in order to provoke the south to go to war. Lincoln was a sadistic racist who wanted all blacks sent back to Africa, thought Mexicans were "mongrels," and had plains tribesmen executed simply because they got in the way of his ambitions. I once carried my middle name of Lincoln proudly until I began to put together facts that did not make sense to me. Now I detest the name. Lincoln was a sick ambitious bigot who wanted to be an emperor. You will not hear this in public schools or even private schools. He wasted the lives of almost 600,000 Americans in his maniacal ambitions and set back racial relations forever by pitting the races against each other.


To rub salt into the wound, he sent black carpetbaggers into the south to continue to suck taxes from southerner after the war. General Robert E. Lee had released the slaves he had because he thought it was morally wrong to have slaves. Christianity in the south was making it hard for anyone to keep slaves because of the pressure put on the greedy slave owners. The Emancipation Proclamation was not universal, as is always reported (See Lorenzo's book).


Also see


Emancipation Proclamation (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h1549.html)


It was a ploy to get states to surrender and did not include states that had already surrendered. This illustrates how Lincoln actually used blacks to further his agenda.


Virtually all blacks were, understandably, Republicans after the war, and most southern whites were Democrats because of Lincoln's ruthlessness. That remained so up into the 1950's when the Republican Dwight Eisenhower and Chief Justice Earl Warren began the movement to remove racial discrimination in America. All southern offices were controlled by bigoted Democrats. All racial "offenses' were committed by Democrats. There were no Republicans in power. Segregation was set up by Democrat legislatures, judges, and local officials. Orval Faubus, George Wallace, and all other governors were Democrats. Bus segregation in the south was due to Democrats. The pinhead and cowardly KKK, though few in number, were all Democrats.


Why MLK was a Republican (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16500)


The NAACP was a Republican institution. Affirmative action was started by Nixon to hedge against the discriminatory practice of Democrat President Woodrow Wilson when he kicked all blacks out of office in 1912. The black colleges were all started by Republicans. The 1965 voting rights act was championed by the Republican Senator Dirkson. Senator Barry Goldwater condemned discrimination against blacks in the south and wanted to pass laws to protect black Americans.
Lyndon Johnson was a racist and used racial slurs. Lyndon Johnson, under pressure from Republicans, signed the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The "Dixiecrats" voted against it. Robert Byrd, a former KKK officer, is still in the Senate and is a Democrat.
Need I say more? How then did such a preponderance of evidence to the contrary allow blacks to reject the Republican Party? The answer shows how frail and corrupt our system is.


MLK was in jail in Georgia in 1960 and blacks were searching for help. John Kennedy, who was never much concerned about racism, took a very opportunistic time to call the wife of King and express sympathy. That call was like a tsunami to the Republican Party. Kennedy narrowly won, thanks to a large black swing vote in the south. That call, coupled with the march on Washington DC and King's "I Have A Dream" speech, and the passage of the Civil Rights Bill, which would have failed without Republicans championing it, amazingly branded Republicans as racists and left them wondering "What the hell happened?"


The champions of the black cause through many years of deliberate concerned effort were crushed by a cunning phone call. The disgusting thing is that the Republicans were the ones who championed the black plight and are now routinely called racist bigots by their bigoted Democrat counterparts. If Nixon had placed that call instead of Kennedy, the Republican party of today would be the Democrat party, and vice versa. I hate politics. Damn them all.

:hand:You are scary.

[Angra Mainyu]

It's called the Southern Strategy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

[captusa]

The answer to this illustrates how frail our system is and how filled with myth and total falsehood as well as deceit and outright hatred for the purpose of gaining political advantage.


.......
The NAACP was a Republican institution. Affirmative action was started by Nixon to hedge against the discriminatory practice of Democrat President Woodrow Wilson when he kicked all blacks out of office in 1912. The black colleges were all started by Republicans. The 1965 voting rights act was championed by the Republican Senator Dirkson. Senator Barry Goldwater condemned discrimination against blacks in the south and wanted to pass laws to protect black Americans.
Lyndon Johnson was a racist and used racial slurs. Lyndon Johnson, under pressure from Republicans, signed the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The "Dixiecrats" voted against it. Robert Byrd, a former KKK officer, is still in the Senate and is a Democrat.
Need I say more? How then did such a preponderance of evidence to the contrary allow blacks to reject the Republican Party? The answer shows how frail and corrupt our system is.


MLK was in jail in Georgia in 1960 and blacks were searching for help. John Kennedy, who was never much concerned about racism, took a very opportunistic time to call the wife of King and express sympathy. That call was like a tsunami to the Republican Party. Kennedy narrowly won, thanks to a large black swing vote in the south. That call, coupled with the march on Washington DC and King's "I Have A Dream" speech, and the passage of the Civil Rights Bill, which would have failed without Republicans championing it, amazingly branded Republicans as racists and left them wondering "What the hell happened?"

What Southern states did Kennedy win in 1960?
The champions of the black cause through many years of deliberate concerned effort were crushed by a cunning phone call. The disgusting thing is that the Republicans were the ones who championed the black plight and are now routinely called racist bigots by their bigoted Democrat counterparts. If Nixon had placed that call instead of Kennedy, the Republican party of today would be the Democrat party, and vice versa. I hate politics. Damn them all.

I don't know where and how you learned your history or if you just make it up as you go along but the main movement of the Northern Negro vote to the democrats (Southern Negroes couldn't vote) was during FDR's administration and based on many actions by FDR and his wife.
Like the Tuskegie Airmen, demanding blacks be paid the same as whites on the TVA and having Marion Anderson sing at the Lincoln Memorial when the DAR refuse to allow her to perform at their facilities.
Truman's victory (1948) was largely due the the northern Negro vote while Southern Democrats like Eastman, Strom Thurmond and others left the Democratic party over civil rights differences and formed the "Dixicrats".
In 1948 Thurmond had more electoral votes than any 3rd party candidate.
Then they became Republicans.
BTW I was alive at the time and recall the events.
Truman desegregating the armed services was quite popular with the black electorate and opposed by both the Republicans and the Dixicrats.
Senator Byrd was one of the few southern Democrats that did not join the Republican party.

[f100lover]

I don't know where and how you learned your history or if you just make it up as you go along but the main movement of the Northern Negro vote to the democrats (Southern Negroes couldn't vote) was during FDR's administration and based on many actions by FDR and his wife.
Like the Tuskegie Airmen, demanding blacks be paid the same as whites on the TVA and having Marion Anderson sing at the Lincoln Memorial when the DAR refuse to allow her to perform at their facilities.
Truman's victory (1948) was largely due the the northern Negro vote while Southern Democrats like Eastman, Strom Thurmond and others left the Democratic party over civil rights differences and formed the "Dixicrats".
In 1948 Thurmond had more electoral votes than any 3rd party candidate.
Then they became Republicans.
BTW I was alive at the time and recall the events.
Truman desegregating the armed services was quite popular with the black electorate and opposed by both the Republicans and the Dixicrats.
Senator Byrd was one of the few southern Democrats that did not join the Republican party.
Since I have no political affiliation and have never been racist nor the least bit dishonest, I can tell you that your facts regarding this article are 100% incorrect and are based on pre-conceived position rather than fact. You are arguing something that is not directly related to the thesis I have stated and are trying to make a point of Republican racism. The facts that I have assembled are well-documented and are not racist nor implied as racist. I simply made the factual statement as to why blacks switched parties. You need to re-check historical accounts. I too was alive at the time in the south, despised the racism I saw, especially the separate water fountains, restrooms, bus waiting areas, ...etc, and was embarrassed by the total ignorance of the white "ruling" party that made these ridiculous restrictions; and I also am aware of racial exploitation by both parties, as I have stated. This article was in no way to blame either party but to expose the idiocy of the system and the lengths to which politicians will go to maintain political control.

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

If you will click on the link you will find that the article was written by a black woman; however, there are many references to the same on the Internet with no political bias intent. Since I was not intimately involved, I can only refer to what seems to be an overwhelming number of references that are written just for factual information.

I clicked on the link, and searched for others as well. No where have I found a source that gives any proof as to his registered party affiliation. If you have such, please provide it. Thanks.

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

It wasn't Democrat vs Republican, it was a north / south thing. This has been documented here multiple times.

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

Thanks to PG:

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=56546111&postcount=115

Southern conservatives of both parties were solidly aligned against the passage of the Civil Rights act:
_______________

By party and region

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)

* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)

* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

The Senate version:

* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)

* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)

* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)

* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party_and_region

Its interesting how the South went from a reliable Democratic voting bloc pre-CRA, and almost immediately after became a solid Republican voting bloc. While the facts get lost in the shuffle of Democrats/Republicans, its pretty obvious that Southern conservatives were aligned against the passage of the CRA.

[f100lover]

I clicked on the link, and searched for others as well. No where have I found a source that gives any proof as to his registered party affiliation. If you have such, please provide it. Thanks.The title of the link was copied and pasted from the title of the article and was for reference confirmation only. I did not intend it for the centerpiece of this article, although the woman who penned the article was black. If my determining MLK's party affiliation is paramount to validating the facts I have stated, then I will try to confirm for you; however, the results would still only be conjecture because one could still try to discredit the author of that evidence as well. :neutral:

[ShinGouki]

It wasn't Democrat vs Republican, it was a north / south thing. This has been documented here multiple times.

Exactly. Republicans in the south were just as anti-civil rights as the Democrats down there.

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

The title of the link was copied and pasted from the title of the article and was for reference confirmation only. I did not intend it for the centerpiece of this article, although the woman who penned the article was black. If my determining MLK's party affiliation is paramount to validating the facts I have stated, then I will try to confirm for you; however, the results would still only be conjecture because one could still try to discredit the author of that evidence as well. :neutral:
I'm not trying to discredit the author and I don't see how her race has anything to do with it. It's just this whole "MLK Jr. was a Republican" thing seems to be based solely on conjecture and not facts. I'm just curious as to any proof there may be that he was indeed registered as a Republican.

[f100lover]

Exactly. Republicans in the south were just as anti-civil rights as the Democrats down there.Tunnel vision is impossible to correct when one is incapable of knowing that he possesses it. I will also ask Mr. King if he was a Republican when I see him. :rolleyes:

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

Well at least I'm not getting into the whole Civil War / slavery debate, as it's been shown here that it certainly was (on the part of the South) about slavery.

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

Tunnel vision is impossible to correct when one is incapable of knowing that he possesses it. I will also ask Mr. King if he was a Republican when I see him. :rolleyes:

Well, like I said... there have been a lot of recent claims made to that effect (and in the news with the billboards and such) but no one has yet to bring forth any proof of how he was registered. If they (or you) want to argue that he should have been a Republican, or that Republicans of the day best fit his agenda, that's one thing. Fair enough and something that can be debated. To flatly state he was a Republican is wrong. My own personal belief is that he was apolitical in that he supported those who supported his cause, regardless of their party affiliation.

[captusa]

Exactly. Republicans in the south were just as anti-civil rights as the Democrats down there.

And some of the Republican Anti-civil rights Southern legislators had been anti-civil rights Democratic congressmen until the 1948 presidential election when they found the Republican party was more sympathetic to their "ideals".
Does the name Strom Thurmond ring a bell.
When did he leave the Democratic party ?
Senator Byrd was in the KKK and so were several Supreme Court Justices.
The fact that he did not leave the party and worked for his ideals within the Democratic party. Fortunately he was unsuccessful.

I did not think it was a momentus moment when Obama became the first black president.

When I saw Strom Thurmond standing in front of Clarence Thomas and his white wife and defended his nomination to the court I knew things had changed.

[camarozz]

From the little I truly know about the civil war, I have gathered from my research that the civil war was not just a slavery thing. It was several things comming together, slavery was probably the cataylist that the politicians could grasp and use for their political agenda. Once again it seems they were more concerned about their popularity with the people and picked something that could play on peoples feelings.

[captusa]

Well, like I said... there have been a lot of recent claims made to that effect (and in the news with the billboards and such) but no one has yet to bring forth any proof of how he was registered. If they (or you) want to argue that he should have been a Republican, or that Republicans of the day best fit his agenda, that's one thing. Fair enough and something that can be debated. To flatly state he was a Republican is wrong. My own personal belief is that he was apolitical in that he supported those who supported his cause, regardless of their party affiliation.

I don't remember in what state MLK was registered to vote (one can assume it wasn't Mississippi) but one might assume that in that (assumung southern) state the Republican party was preferable.

And MLK was a strong Kennedy supporter BEFORE Kennedy came to his aid when he was arrested for leading a protest.

It is amazing how some people can be so oblivious to facts when making up history as they would like to see it.

[captusa]

From the little I truly know about the civil war, I have gathered from my research that the civil war was not just a slavery thing. It was several things comming together, slavery was probably the cataylist that the politicians could grasp and use for their political agenda. Once again it seems they were more concerned about their popularity with the people and picked something that could play on peoples feelings.

The first major confrontation over secession was in the Jackson administration when John C. Calhoun defied some federal regulations.
Jackson, avid racist put down the attempt without force.

Slavery was a catalyst and even though Lincoln said he would not accept slavery rather than have the union split over it and the Republican plank on slavery stated that their policies would not free one slave that was in bondage at the time the election of Lincoln was perceived as a threat to the South.

[f100lover]

The flight of white Democrats to the Republican party began just before the Kennedy election and was in no way related to racial policies but to the fact that Kennedy was Roman Catholic. Baptists all over the south were being scorched with sermons that warned of a Catholic takeover of America. They did not know that Kennedy was basically a secular Catholic and not rigid. That would have made no difference because Baptists and other evangelicals still had the visions of the Catholic Inquisition emblazoned in their memories where Baptists and Protestants were often drawn and quartered or burned at the stake for being heretics. The change of balance in the electorate remained fairly stable until Jimmy Carter came along and inspired some Southern Baptists, of whom Carter was a professed member, to switch back and vote Democrat. They were then shocked that Carter was not a true evangelical but was a follower of Reinhold Niebuhr, a secular progressive. When Carter caused the Shah of Iran to be deposed and the Ayatollah to return and re-institute Islamic despotism that including persecution of women including stoning, as well as allowing the puppet Ahmadinejad to rise to power during and following the embassy takeover, evangelicals began to abandon the Democrat Party. The election of Ronald Reagan gave them hope that human civility would return and sealed forever that block of voters. This is all my personal experience and is entirely accurate because I was in the midst of the evangelical concern with first hand evidence and personal interaction. Blacks, on the other hand, had no history of evangelical persecution, and the same roots did not apply.


There are racists such as David Duke, former head of the KKK, who are reported to be members of the Republican Party, but his attempt at running for public office in Louisiana as a Republican was resoundingly rejected by Republicans.


To summarize:


Too many people vote according to tradition and not according to policy. I can say unequivocally, though, that this group that I have detailed all have a strong conviction that our current path will destroy the United States and ultimately the world leading to enslavement of all in a wickedly barbaric totalitarian regime that has no regard for any human life. That is why all across America there are signs in both black and white families front yards that say


“Prayer, America's Only Hope” II Chronicles 7:14


simply because they believe that we have passed the point of human awakening to the reality that they believe now exists.

[captusa]

Well at least I'm not getting into the whole Civil War / slavery debate, as it's been shown here that it certainly was (on the part of the South) about slavery.

There were economic reasons (as their always are) other than slavery that had been fomenting for decades that were more primary causes than slavery.

[FidelisAdMortem]

B/c some people like the idea of not having to work and continuing to get handouts and promises of more handouts.

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

There were economic reasons (as their always are) other than slavery that had been fomenting for decades that were more primary causes than slavery.

The Confederate states themselves said it was about slavery.

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=57049781&postcount=928

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=57049801&postcount=929

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=57049831&postcount=930

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=57049881&postcount=931

[captusa]

The flight of white Democrats to the Republican party began just before the Kennedy election and was in no way related to racial policies but to the fact that Kennedy was Roman Catholic. Baptists all over the south were being scorched with sermons that warned of a Catholic takeover of America. They did not know that Kennedy was basically a secular Catholic and not rigid. That would have made no difference because Baptists and other evangelicals still had the visions of the Catholic Inquisition emblazened in their memories where Baptists and Protestants were often drawn and quartered or burned at the stake for being heretics. The change of balance in the electorate remained fairly stable until Jimmy Carter came along and inspired some Southern Baptist, of whom Carter was a professed member, to switch back and vote Democrat. They were then shocked that Carter was not a true evangelical but was a follower of Reinhold Niebuhr, a secular progressive. When Carter caused the Shah of Iran to be deposed and the Ayatollah to return and reinstitute Islamic despotism that including persecution of women including stoning, as well as allowing the puppet Ahmadinejad to rise to power during and following the embasy takeover, evangelicals began to abandon the Democrat Party. The election of Ronald Reagan gave them hope that human civility would return and sealed forever that block of voters. This is all my personal experience and is entirely accurate because I was in the midst of the evangelical concern with first hand evidence and personal interaction. Blacks, on the other hand, had no history of evangelical persecution, and the same roots did not apply.


......
In 1928 the KKK demonstrated strongly against Alfred E. Smith, the 1st Roman Catholic to run by a major party.
He did take the "solid south" because of the tradition of voting Democrat but the anti- Catholic bias was a major cause for his loss
There were lots of jokes about Kennedy being Catholic and becoming president but it was not serious. Many of them mentioned "tongue in cheek" by my Catholic friends.
Kennedy didn't change the Statue of Liberty to Our Lady of the Harbor or telegraph the Pope with the one word message "pack" after the election.
AND Jimmy Carter DID NOT CAUSE THE SHAH OF IRAN TO BE DEPOSED.

[captusa]

The Confederate states themselves said it was about slavery.

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=57049781&postcount=928

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=57049801&postcount=929

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=57049831&postcount=930

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=57049881&postcount=931

OK!
Slavery may have been the most volatile subject to ignite the rebellion but trade, tariffs and other economic causes had been seething for decades.

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

OK!
Slavery may have been the most volatile subject to ignite the rebellion but trade, tariffs and other economic causes had been seething for decades.

I agree with that; slavery was the primary reason for secession, though.

[f100lover]

In 1928 the KKK demonstrated strongly against Alfred E. Smith, the 1st Roman Catholic to run by a major party.
He did take the "solid south" because of the tradition of voting Democrat but the anti- Catholic bias was a major cause for his loss
There were lots of jokes about Kennedy being Catholic and becoming president but it was not serious. Many of them mentioned "tongue in cheek" by my Catholic friends.
Kennedy didn't change the Statue of Liberty to Our Lady of the Harbor or telegraph the Pope with the one word message "pack" after the election.
AND Jimmy Carter DID NOT CAUSE THE SHAH OF IRAN TO BE DEPOSED.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/jimmy_carters_human_rights_dis.html

http://www.payvand.com/news/06/mar/1090.html

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32599

There are more if you will but look for less than 5 minutes, and I did not say that Kennedy in any way used his Catholicism to change anything. I said it was the fear that he would that produced evangelical white flight. This is a fact. He actually was far more conservative in his thinking than John McCain and certainly than Obama.

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

I Googled MLK jr's political party affiliation

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_political_party_did_martin_luther_king_jr_sup port

states : Dr. King was a Republican. The Republican Party was formed to help abolish slavery.

http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2007/11/why-martin-luth.html

opening paragraph: Why Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican

Why Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican, from National Black Republican Association by Francis Rice

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/18/AR2006101801754.html

Great article by Francis Rice in the Washington Post:

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=what+political+party+affiliations+was+MLK+jr%3F&btnG=Google+Search

Remainder of articles that came up on Google under the original search.


From what it appears...MLK jr. was a republican.

Who knew?

~Mysty

[Angra Mainyu]

I Googled MLK jr's political party affiliation

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_political_party_did_martin_luther_king_jr_sup port

states : Dr. King was a Republican. The Republican Party was formed to help abolish slavery.

http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2007/11/why-martin-luth.html

opening paragraph: Why Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican

Why Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican, from National Black Republican Association by Francis Rice

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/18/AR2006101801754.html

Great article by Francis Rice in the Washington Post:

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=what+political+party+affiliations+was+MLK+jr%3F&btnG=Google+Search

Remainder of articles that came up on Google under the original search.


From what it appears...MLK jr. was a republican.

Who knew?

~Mysty

Even if he was(which I doubt the Socialist MLK jr. was), that Republican party and the Party post nixon were two very different things post Southern Strategy.

[captusa]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/jimmy_carters_human_rights_dis.html

http://www.payvand.com/news/06/mar/1090.html

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32599

There are more if you will but look for less than 5 minutes, and I did not say that Kennedy in any way used his Catholicism to change anything. I said it was the fear that he would that produced evangelical white flight. This is a fact. He actually was far more conservative in his thinking than John McCain and certainly than Obama.

I agree with you on Kennedy.
I did not say he wanted to make the Statue of Liberty, Our Lady of the Harbor.
I said it part of a joke at the time that most people did not take seriously.
My favorite president, Good Old Harry Ass, told a Baptist minister convention they should go to hell if they opposed Kennedy because he was a Catholic.

It is possible to get lots of opinions from the web.
The Iran problem was developing for many years and treated with benign neglect until everything hit the fan.

Jimmy Carter did not cause the overthrow of the shah.
BTW I believe Jimmy Carter was one of the most principled and intelligent people to hold the office of president.
I also believe he was one of the worst presidents.
(Not as bad as Franklin Peirce or George W. Bush but poor)

[captusa]

I Googled MLK jr's political party affiliation

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_political_party_did_martin_luther_king_jr_sup port

states : Dr. King was a Republican. The Republican Party was formed to help abolish slavery.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/18/AR2006101801754.html

opening paragraph: Why Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican

Why Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican, from National Black Republican Association by Francis Rice

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/18/AR2006101801754.html

Great article by Francis Rice in the Washington Post:

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=what+political+party+affiliations+was+MLK+jr%3F&btnG=Google+Search

Remainder of articles that came up on Google under the original search.


From what it appears...MLK jr. was a republican.

Who knew?

~Mysty

Did you read the article you posted ?
This is from one of your articles citing reactions by Conservative Black Republicans over the ad implying MLK Jr. was a Republican.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/18/AR2006101801754.html

The debate surrounding the ad is the latest skirmish in the ongoing battle over the King legacy. Foes of affirmative action, for example, often cite a line from King's "I Have a Dream" speech in 1963 in which he prayed that his children would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the "content of their character," an adoption that makes black liberals fume. But in the latest fight, civil rights veterans may be surprised to find that some black conservatives agree with them.

Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (R), who is running for the U.S. Senate, denounced the King ad, and Donald E. Scoggins, president of Republicans for Black Empowerment and a former member of the association, said it was a terrible idea.

Black Republicans railed against the radio ads, with the sharpest criticism coming from former members of the black Republican association.

"The vast majority of black Republicans I know would not have approved of the ad," Scoggins said.
The article goes on to say that the allegations you mentioned Why Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican, from National Black Republican Association by Francis Rice

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until ....
were statements by the a woman in the ad and the article continues to quote leading Conservative Black Republicans refuting those allegation (Including that MLK was a Republican)

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

Did you read the article you posted ?
This is from one of your articles citing reactions by Conservative Black Republicans over the ad implying MLK Jr. was a Republican.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/18/AR2006101801754.html


The article goes on to say that the allegations you mentioned
were statements by the a woman in the ad and the article continues to quote leading Conservative Black Republicans refuting those allegation (Including that MLK was a Republican)

Geeze Cap...re-read what I posted...and put your school ruler and chalk board away. I posted a quick Google search....I really could care less one way or the other what party affiliation the late MLK jr. was. :whistle: I also posted the Google page...all stories related to the OP...which either has a group hailing said findings...or a group vehemently opposed to the idea. Yeah..and?

My post was for another poster who requested sites/info on the topic. I provided it.

~Mysty

[handle]

I'm sure you have proof of Dr. King's political affiliation and to what party he was registered. Not conjecture, proof.

I'll wait.

http://www.nbra.info/MLKWasARepublican

[captusa]

Geeze Cap...re-read what I posted...and put your school ruler and chalk board away. I posted a quick Google search....I really could care less one way or the other what party affiliation the late MLK jr. was. :whistle: I also posted the Google page...all stories related to the OP...which either has a group hailing said findings...or a group vehemently opposed to the idea. Yeah..and?

My post was for another poster who requested sites/info on the topic. I provided it.

~Mysty

But you did add the conclusion:From what it appears...MLK jr. was a republican.

Who knew?

~Mysty

[captusa]

http://www.nbra.info/MLKWasARepublican

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/18/AR2006101801754.html



The article above cites reactions by Conservative Black Republicans over the ad implying MLK Jr. was a Republican.


http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-152869236.html
Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, the Black Republican nominee for Maryland's open U.S. Senate seat, has demanded that the Washington-based National Black Republican Association stop running a radio ad that accuses Democrats of starting the Ku Klux Klan and saying Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican, a claim challenged by researchers of the late civil rights leader.



Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (R) who blasted the ad is now chairman of the RNC.

[mysticbeauty_nbeast]

But you did add the conclusion:

But...but...but...but what?;) (had to catch you on the but monkey...love doing that to my kids...lol) I said it 'appeared'....as in the excerpt from the first article. That's not a conclusion....but let's not get into semantics shall we? :drool:

Whether or not the late MLK jr. was or was not a republican has no baring on today's political environment. That generations democrat or republican has no likeness to today's current/modern democrat or republican. A better article would be to apply what Dr. King believed in and apply what he would be in today's political environment...and even that would be pure conjecture. If I had to take a wild guess...I'd say Dr. King would be a Libertarian..similar to Joe Lieberman. ;)

~Mysty

[snagswolf]

Why Did Most Blacks Switch Political Parties?
If memory serves me right, I believe the Dems offered a free toaster to any black willing to make the switch.

[handle]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/18/AR2006101801754.html



The article above cites reactions by Conservative Black Republicans over the ad implying MLK Jr. was a Republican.


http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-152869236.html




Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (R) who blasted the ad is now chairman of the RNC.

The video on the link I provided where MLK's niece said that he was a republican is false? I guess that by your admission she is a liar... gotcha! Thanks for the clarification.

[Claymore]

Why Did Most Blacks Switch Political Parties

Because LBJ 'bought' and entire class of 'welfare slaves' with his 'Great Society'.
JFK's support of civil rights brought many over, regardless of the Democrats history of oppposing civil rights. The Southern Democrats that supported the wasteful spending of LBJ's welfare plan were the monsters that ruined the minority faminly unit and turned males into economically impotent sperm donors whose sole purpose was to help produce more poor minority wards of the state.

[gary2012]

Welfare programs just lead to more welfare programs.

[Sinister Rouge]

Your whole premise is flawed.
The real question is 'when did the GOP abandon the blacks?'
And that is a complicated answer.
The 1876 election was disputed, with Florida's results confused (sound familiar?). Rutherford B. Hayes (a Republican) promised FL that he would end Reconstruction if he were elected.
Later, in the election of 1920, the GOP ignored violence against African Americans in the South (particularly in FL).
While you are right that the Democrats supported slavery and later segregation, starting in the 1930s that began to change. Democrats like Alfred E. Smith, Franklin Roosevelt, and later JFK and LBJ began supporting the Civil Rights Movement. By the 1960s, the Democrats were fully behind the CRM, and old school democrats (Strom Thurmond, etc.) began switching parties.
By the 1970s, the GOP began an effort push for southern voters--white southern voters. Nixon called them 'the silent majority.'


And your history regarding the Civil War is flawed too.

It is correct to say that 'states rights' was the casus beli of the war, it was the right to own slaves that was at issue. The slavery debate goes back to the founding of the country--indeed it almost derailed the Constitutional Convention. Slavery a defining institution of the South. While not all southerners owned slaves (most did not) the men in power were plantation owners who practiced slavery as a feudal system of power.
As the country expanded west, the debate grew more heated. Southern politicians wanted western states to be designated as slave states, so that they wouldn't be outnumbered by free states in the Senate. Nothern abolitionists wanted to stop this expansion. This debate defined America in the early 1800s.
South Carolina secceded because when Lincoln was elected, they feared that his first order of business would be to emancipate the slaves.
However, that wasn't Lincoln's plan. He had said that while he opposed slavery, he wouldn't destroy the country in order to end it.
When South Carolina fired on US soldiers inside Fort Sumter, Lincoln's hand was forced and he declared war on the secceding states.
Lincoln didn't start out with the intention of ending slavery, but it was his goal by 1862, when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
It's bad history to apply modern moral standards to historical figures. What we see as morally reprehensible today was perfectly acceptable 150 years ago. For example, would you take your kids to a public execution? In the 1800s a hanging was considered a proper family outing.
This business about Lincoln wanting to send the blacks to Africa needs context. The repatriation--which led to the founding of Liberia--plan was one of many proposals abolitionists debated. It was borrowed from the British, who tried it with Sierra Leone. Another plan was to settle freed slaves in the Western states.
These were considered because 19th century Americans didn't believe that blacks and whites could live together peacefully. Even Thomas Jefferson had this view. Whites would see themselves as superior to blacks and unwilling to accept them as equals. Blacks would resent their history of mistreatment at the hands of whites.

Bottom line, if it weren't for Lincoln and the Civil War, blacks would have been enslaved for far longer than they were. So saying that Lincoln freed the slaves is not incorrect.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

Republican Abe Lincoln freed the slaves.
A Republican Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
The Republicans during the Civil War were "civil rights oriented".
In 1892, the Democrats took the presidency & Congress and repealed most of the civil rights laws.
In 1929, most blacks were Republicans.
In 1932, Republican Herbert Hoover drew 3/4 of the black vote. Democratic Franklin Roosevelt drew 1/4. Roosevelt won.
By 1936, millions of blacks starting changing parties.
In 1942, Democrat Harry Truman integrated the armed forces.
A Democratic Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[handle]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/18/AR2006101801754.html



The article above cites reactions by Conservative Black Republicans over the ad implying MLK Jr. was a Republican.


http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-152869236.html




Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (R) who blasted the ad is now chairman of the RNC.





Well, I"m still waiting for a response. Is MLK's niece a liar?

[captusa]

Well, I"m still waiting for a response. Is MLK's niece a liar?

Apparently the chairman of the Republican National Committee thinks so.

[handle]

Apparently the chairman of the Republican National Committee thinks so.

Oh, you're the Chairman of the Republican National Committee. Wow, I did not know that I had the honor of speaking with you.


All sarcasm aside, let me ask you again. Are YOU calling MLK's niece a liar?
I hope that this time you will give your own personal response instead of hiding behind someone else; which I highly doubt that you will have the courage to do. But I still await your answer.

[captusa]

But...but...but...but what?;) (had to catch you on the but monkey...love doing that to my kids...lol) I said it 'appeared'....as in the excerpt from the first article. That's not a conclusion....but let's not get into semantics shall we? :drool:

Whether or not the late MLK jr. was or was not a republican has no baring on today's political environment. That generations democrat or republican has no likeness to today's current/modern democrat or republican. A better article would be to apply what Dr. King believed in and apply what he would be in today's political environment...and even that would be pure conjecture. If I had to take a wild guess...I'd say Dr. King would be a Libertarian..similar to Joe Lieberman. ;)

~Mysty

No real arguement.
The post you were answering did have me a bit steamed.
When I see history rewritten through opinion I react.

As for black Republicans, a few articulate black leaders have joined the Republican party to exert influence.
They had and have several good reasons for doing so.
Some are rock-ribbed Conservatives but many see that there is opportunity to effect change through the Republican party based on the fact that the Democratic party DOES take the black vote for granted .

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

I Googled MLK jr's political party affiliation

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_political_party_did_martin_luther_king_jr_sup port

states : Dr. King was a Republican. The Republican Party was formed to help abolish slavery.

http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2007/11/why-martin-luth.html

opening paragraph: Why Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican

Why Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican, from National Black Republican Association by Francis Rice

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/18/AR2006101801754.html

Great article by Francis Rice in the Washington Post:

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=what+political+party+affiliations+was+MLK+jr%3F&btnG=Google+Search

Remainder of articles that came up on Google under the original search.


From what it appears...MLK jr. was a republican.

Who knew?

~Mysty

We still don't know. Wiki answers is simply something that anyone can post an answer---right or wrong. And the other links are to why people felt he was or should have been a Republican. Unless someone can produce his registration, we may never know for sure.

[EmmanuelGoldstein]

http://www.nbra.info/MLKWasARepublican

Still waiting.

Personally, I don't think we'll ever know for sure.

[captusa]

Oh, you're the Chairman of the Republican National Committee. Wow, I did not know that I had the honor of speaking with you.


All sarcasm aside, let me ask you again. Are YOU calling MLK's niece a liar?
I hope that this time you will give your own personal response instead of hiding behind someone else; which I highly doubt that you will have the courage to do. But I still await your answer.

From the link I posted.
Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, the Black Republican nominee for Maryland's open U.S. Senate seat, has demanded that the Washington-based National Black Republican Association stop running a radio ad that accuses Democrats of starting the Ku Klux Klan and saying Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican, a claim challenged by researchers of the late civil rights leader.

I am not familiar with MLK Jr.'s niece.
I am not familiar with the situation and knew nothing about the specific ad.
When leading black REPUBLICANS so adamently object to the ad that suggests MLK Jr. was a Republican I would tend to believe them over a niece.

Michael Steele is presently the chairman of the Republican National Committee and is far more familiar with the situation than am I.
Write a letter to Michael Steele and the other black Republican leaders quoted in the article and ask them if they are calling MLK's niece a liar.

In short, in this situation I believe Mr. Steele over the aforementioned niece and based on his statement (and the historical record) the ad was intentionally misleading therefore making her a liar.
BTW Are you calling Michael Steele the former Maryland Lt. Gov. and present chairman of the Republican National Committee a liar ?
I await your answer.

[handle]

From the link I posted.


I am not familiar with MLK Jr.'s niece.
I am not familiar with the situation and knew nothing about the specific ad.
When leading black REPUBLICANS so adamently object to the ad that suggests MLK Jr. was a Republican I would tend to believe them over a niece.

Michael Steele is presently the chairman of the Republican National Committee and is far more familiar with the situation than am I.

Well, since you are not familiar with the video, why don't you watch the video. Take the word directly from the "horses mouth."

Side note to all of the hate-mongers... "horses mouth" is an expression. It has nothing to do with race.
Yes, I did make a note of that because I know that there are many ignorant people on this board.

PS... captusa.. you still haven't taken the personal stance with what MLK's niece said. Watch the video.

Then tell everyone if you think that she is a liar and the washington post and other non-related 3rd party websites are more accurate than her... a relative.

[captusa]

''''''Then tell everyone if you think that she is a liar and the washington post and other non-related 3rd party websites are more accurate than her... a relative.
I watched the video.
I believe the black Republican leaders mentioned over the niece.
In the situation of the ad it was not the Washington post that made the statements and the black leaders that responded were strongly related to the matter.
BTW My nephew is unaware of my political affiliation.
BTW Lincoln only emancipated the slaves in the states that were in the Confederacy.
When Lincoln died the slaves in Maryland, Delaware and Missouri (I forgot the 4th border state) were still enslaved.
And more accurate than her
it is more accurate than "she"

[willdonn]

I watched the video.
I believe the black Republican leaders mentioned over the niece.
In the situation of the ad it was not the Washington post that made the statements and the black leaders that responded were strongly related to the matter.
BTW My nephew is unaware of my political affiliation.
BTW Lincoln only emancipated the slaves in the states that were in the Confederacy.
When Lincoln died the slaves in Maryland, Delaware and Missouri (I forgot the 4th border state) were still enslaved.
And
it is more accurate than "she"
"In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king"

[captusa]

Your whole premise is flawed.
The real question is 'when did the GOP abandon the blacks?'
And that is a complicated answer.
The 1876 election was disputed, with Florida's results confused (sound familiar?). Rutherford B. Hayes (a Republican) promised FL that he would end Reconstruction if he were elected.
Later, in the election of 1920, the GOP ignored violence against African Americans in the South (particularly in FL).
While you are right that the Democrats supported slavery and later segregation, starting in the 1930s that began to change. Democrats like Alfred E. Smith, Franklin Roosevelt, and later JFK and LBJ began supporting the Civil Rights Movement. By the 1960s, the Democrats were fully behind the CRM, and old school democrats (Strom Thurmond, etc.) began switching parties.
By the 1970s, the GOP began an effort push for southern voters--white southern voters. Nixon called them 'the silent majority.'


And your history regarding the Civil War is flawed too.

It is correct to say that 'states rights' was the casus beli of the war, it was the right to own slaves that was at issue. The slavery debate goes back to the founding of the country--indeed it almost derailed the Constitutional Convention. Slavery a defining institution of the South. While not all southerners owned slaves (most did not) the men in power were plantation owners who practiced slavery as a feudal system of power.
As the country expanded west, the debate grew more heated. Southern politicians wanted western states to be designated as slave states, so that they wouldn't be outnumbered by free states in the Senate. Nothern abolitionists wanted to stop this expansion. This debate defined America in the early 1800s.
South Carolina secceded because when Lincoln was elected, they feared that his first order of business would be to emancipate the slaves.
However, that wasn't Lincoln's plan. He had said that while he opposed slavery, he wouldn't destroy the country in order to end it.
When South Carolina fired on US soldiers inside Fort Sumter, Lincoln's hand was forced and he declared war on the secceding states.
Lincoln didn't start out with the intention of ending slavery, but it was his goal by 1862, when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
It's bad history to apply modern moral standards to historical figures. What we see as morally reprehensible today was perfectly acceptable 150 years ago. For example, would you take your kids to a public execution? In the 1800s a hanging was considered a proper family outing.
This business about Lincoln wanting to send the blacks to Africa needs context. The repatriation--which led to the founding of Liberia--plan was one of many proposals abolitionists debated. It was borrowed from the British, who tried it with Sierra Leone. Another plan was to settle freed slaves in the Western states.
These were considered because 19th century Americans didn't believe that blacks and whites could live together peacefully. Even Thomas Jefferson had this view. Whites would see themselves as superior to blacks and unwilling to accept them as equals. Blacks would resent their history of mistreatment at the hands of whites.

Bottom line, if it weren't for Lincoln and the Civil War, blacks would have been enslaved for far longer than they were. So saying that Lincoln freed the slaves is not incorrect.

Excellent summation!
I had forgotten the Hayes deal.

[handle]

I watched the video.
I believe the black Republican leaders mentioned over the niece.
In the situation of the ad it was not the Washington post that made the statements and the black leaders that responded were strongly related to the matter.
BTW My nephew is unaware of my political affiliation.
BTW Lincoln only emancipated the slaves in the states that were in the Confederacy.
When Lincoln died the slaves in Maryland, Delaware and Missouri (I forgot the 4th border state) were still enslaved.
And
it is more accurate than "she"



More accurate??? Stop running. Either you believe she is lying or she is telling the truth. Grow some stones and have some convictions. Stop running. Answer my question. Do you thing she is a liar or not?
Answer the question.

[handle]

BTW My nephew is unaware of my political affiliation.
BTW Lincoln only emancipated the slaves in the states that were in the Confederacy.
When Lincoln died the slaves in Maryland, Delaware and Missouri (I forgot the 4th border state) were still enslaved.
And
it is more accurate than "she"

By the way, what does your nephew have to do with anything? Is he related to MLK? Did he know him?

And what does Lincoln have to do with the discussion?? He was dead for 100 years or so. Please, please start making actual sense when you speak. Please, and I beg of you, to start making sense by staying on topic.

So again, are you calling the niece of MLK a liar when, in the video I provided, she states that MLK is a Republican?

[captusa]

Oh, you're the Chairman of the Republican National Committee. Wow, I did not know that I had the honor of speaking with you.


All sarcasm aside, let me ask you again. Are YOU calling MLK's niece a liar?
I hope that this time you will give your own personal response instead of hiding behind someone else; which I highly doubt that you will have the courage to do. But I still await your answer.
This is Frances Rice's article:
http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2007/11/why-martin-luth.html
http://cache.trustedpartner.com/docs/library/NationalBlackRepublicanAssociation2009/Democrats%20Smeared%20MLK%20in%20the%201960's.pdf
Note all the errors in fact.
Read the articles that so many black leaders Republican and Democrats considered an insult to Dr. Kings legacy and perhaps you might agree with me that the author of the piece published by the National Black Republican Association is a liar.
R.F.K. as Attorney General did not direct J. Edgar Hoover to bug Dr. King's phone is one that stands out.
Either Ms. Rice lied or is ignorant of the history of the civil rights movement.
Take your pick.

As I said:
In short, in this situation I believe Mr. Steele over the aforementioned niece and based on his statement (and the historical record) the ad was intentionally misleading therefore making her a liar.

BTW Are you calling Michael Steele the former Maryland Lt. Gov. and present chairman of the Republican National Committee a liar ?
I await your answer.

In addition Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who marched with King in the 1960s, called the ads an "insult to the legacy and the memory of Martin Luther King Jr." and "an affront to all that he stood for."

Are you calling both Michael Steele the former Maryland Lt. Gov. and present chairman of the Republican National Committee and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who marched with King in the 1960s (and would have been conferred with Dr.King) both liars ?
I await your answer.

[Claymore]

What, no rebuttals?

[captusa]

By the way, what does your nephew have to do with anything? Is he related to MLK? Did he know him?
The point was that it was no more likely that Ms. Rice knew any more about her uncle's political affiliations than my nephew knows about his uncle's.

And what does Lincoln have to do with the discussion?? He was dead for 100 years or so. Please, please start making actual sense when you speak. Please, and I beg of you, to start making sense by staying on topic.
Part of the article discussed Lincoln and the Republican position on emancipation.
The Republican plank said their policy would free no African that was in bondage at the time.


So again, are you calling the niece of MLK a liar when, in the video I provided, she states that MLK is a Republican?
Why is it of any importance to you that I entone the words that Ms. Rice, a niece of Martin Luther King Jr. is a liar.
Lying is not a task with which Republicans have found to be difficult.
My opinion is trivial in this matter.
Her misrepresenting historical facts should be obvious to anyone who has a reasonable knowledge of the history of the period.
Should I disbelieve the black leaders that decribed her article as "insult to the legacy and the memory of Martin Luther King Jr." and "an affront to all that he stood for." ?
The anger of Republicans and Democrats who knew and worked with Dr. King and their statements are far more signifigant than my opinion.

You haven't answered my question.
Are you calling both Michael Steele the former Maryland Lt. Gov. and present chairman of the Republican National Committee and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who marched with King in the 1960s (and would have been conferred with Dr.King) both liars ?
I await your answer.

[PheonixOps]

LOL, here we go again! This crap about MLK being a republican.........
Do you think that MLK would have voted for Nixon or Kennedy? Nixon or Humphrey? Ford or Carter? Carter or Reagan? Mondale or Reagan? etc???
Especially when Martin Luther King had these particular stances:
"There is probably no greater sacred cow in America than Martin Luther King Jr. The slightest criticism of him or even suggesting that he isn’t deserving of a national holiday leads to the usual accusations of racist, fascism, and the rest of the usual left-wing epithets not only from liberals, but also from many ostensible conservatives and libertarians.

This is amazing because during the 50s and 60s, the Right almost unanimously opposed the civil rights movement. Contrary to the claims of many neocons, the opposition was not limited to the John Birch Society and southern conservatives. It was made by politicians like Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, and in the pages of Modern Age, Human Events, National Review, and the Freeman.

Today, the official conservative and libertarian movement portrays King as someone on our side who would be fighting Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton if he were alive. Most all conservative publications and websites have articles around this time of the year praising King and discussing how today’s civil rights leaders are betraying his legacy."

"The main reason is that they have created a mythical Martin Luther King Jr., that they constructed solely from one line in his "I Have a Dream" speech. " That manipulators preach to the dullards who just eat it up and accept it without question. (edit/emphasis mine)

"In this article, I will try to dispel the major myths that the conservative movement has about King. I found a good deal of the information for this piece in I May Not Get There With You: The True Martin Luther King by black leftist Michael Eric Dyson. Dyson shows that King supported black power, reparations, affirmative action, and socialism."

"Myth #1: King wanted only equal rights, not special privileges and would have opposed affirmative action, quotas, reparations, and the other policies pursued by today’s civil rights leadership.

This is probably the most repeated myth about King. Writing on National Review Online, There Heritage Foundation’s Matthew Spalding wrote a piece entitled "Martin Luther King’s Conservative Mind," where he wrote, "An agenda that advocates quotas, counting by race and set-asides takes us away from King's vision." (LOL, what a joke! Suckas!)

The problem with this view is that King openly advocated quotas and racial set-asides. He wrote that the "Negro today is not struggling for some abstract, vague rights, but for concrete improvement in his way of life." When equal opportunity laws failed to achieve this, King looked for other ways. In his book Where Do We Go From Here, he suggested that "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis." To do this he expressed support for quotas. In a 1968 Playboy interview, he said, "If a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas." King was more than just talk in this regard. Working through his Operation Breadbasket, King threatened boycotts of businesses that did not hire blacks in proportion to their population."

"King was even an early proponent of reparations. In his 1964 book, Why We Can’t Wait, he wrote,
No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries…Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of a the labor of one human being by another. This law should be made to apply for American Negroes. The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law." Read the rest here:
SOURCE (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html)

These are obviously Republican values ha? :))
This is what happens when people hear only one side full of, in my opinion; insincere, manipulative, HORSE ****. Once again, to all of the "MLK was a Republican" folks, thanks for the laugh! ;)

[captusa]

More accurate???
I was correcting your grammar.


It is not more accurate than "her".
It is more accurate than "she".


Stop running. Either you believe she is lying or she is telling the truth. Grow some stones and have some convictions. Stop running. Answer my question. Do you thing she is a liar or not?
Answer the question.

Based on what she wrote in the article and said on the tape, Frances Rice is a liar.
I assume she was well paid for her appearance.
Not only do I believe that Ms. Rice lied but I also agree with the black leaders that knew and worked with Dr. King that her statement WAS an "insult to the legacy and the memory of Martin Luther King Jr." and "an affront to all that he stood for."
I still wonder why my making the statement is of such a great interest to you.
(And also your interest in the growth of my stones).

Now you have my statement that I believe Ms. Rice is a liar.
I just think my opinion is not as relevant as that of the people I cited.
BTW Speaking of the black leaders I cited,
Are you calling both Michael Steele the former Maryland Lt. Gov. and present chairman of the Republican National Committee and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who marched with King in the 1960s (and would have been conferred with Dr.King) both liars ?
I await your answer.

[captusa]

.....
PS... captusa.. you still haven't taken the personal stance with what MLK's niece said. Watch the video.

Then tell everyone if you think that she is a liar and the washington post and other non-related 3rd party websites are more accurate than her... a relative.

I have seen the video.
I have read her article.
Do you believe she so ignorant enough of history not to notice the blatant misrepresentations ?
I believe she was lying.
Do you believe she was lying (in her article) ?
If not are you saying Ms. Rice is ignorant ?
Since you considered my opinion so important and will attach the same importance to yours.
What do you believe is the reason for the blatant misrepresentations in her statements both verbal and written ?
Ignorance or dishonesty ?

Do you believe being a relative of Dr. King gives her immunity from being called on her false statements?

I have answered the question several times.
Would you extend the same courtesy to me and answer my questions.
Why do you consider important to hear my opinion on whether Ms. Rice, Doctor Martin Luther King Jr.'s niece is a liar ?
Why was my opinion more signifigant and relevent than that of black political leaders of both major parties including some that worked closely with Dr. King.
Why was my opinion so important to you ?

Do you have any reason to doubt the statements of the chairman of the Republican Committee ?
Why do you believe he is lying?
Why do you think Rep. John Lewis, who marched with King in the 1960s considered Ms. Rice's statements an "insult to the legacy and the memory of Martin Luther King Jr." and "an affront to all that he stood for." ?

[PheonixOps]

LOL, here we go again! This crap about MLK being a republican.........
Do you think that MLK would have voted for Nixon or Kennedy? Nixon or Humphrey? Ford or Carter? Carter or Reagan? Mondale or Reagan? etc???
Especially when Martin Luther King had these particular stances:
"There is probably no greater sacred cow in America than Martin Luther King Jr. The slightest criticism of him or even suggesting that he isn’t deserving of a national holiday leads to the usual accusations of racist, fascism, and the rest of the usual left-wing epithets not only from liberals, but also from many ostensible conservatives and libertarians.

This is amazing because during the 50s and 60s, the Right almost unanimously opposed the civil rights movement. Contrary to the claims of many neocons, the opposition was not limited to the John Birch Society and southern conservatives. It was made by politicians like Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, and in the pages of Modern Age, Human Events, National Review, and the Freeman.

Today, the official conservative and libertarian movement portrays King as someone on our side who would be fighting Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton if he were alive. Most all conservative publications and websites have articles around this time of the year praising King and discussing how today’s civil rights leaders are betraying his legacy."

"The main reason is that they have created a mythical Martin Luther King Jr., that they constructed solely from one line in his "I Have a Dream" speech. " That manipulators preach to the dullards who just eat it up and accept it without question. (edit/emphasis mine)

"In this article, I will try to dispel the major myths that the conservative movement has about King. I found a good deal of the information for this piece in I May Not Get There With You: The True Martin Luther King by black leftist Michael Eric Dyson. Dyson shows that King supported black power, reparations, affirmative action, and socialism."

"Myth #1: King wanted only equal rights, not special privileges and would have opposed affirmative action, quotas, reparations, and the other policies pursued by today’s civil rights leadership.

This is probably the most repeated myth about King. Writing on National Review Online, There Heritage Foundation’s Matthew Spalding wrote a piece entitled "Martin Luther King’s Conservative Mind," where he wrote, "An agenda that advocates quotas, counting by race and set-asides takes us away from King's vision." (LOL, what a joke! Suckas!)

The problem with this view is that King openly advocated quotas and racial set-asides. He wrote that the "Negro today is not struggling for some abstract, vague rights, but for concrete improvement in his way of life." When equal opportunity laws failed to achieve this, King looked for other ways. In his book Where Do We Go From Here, he suggested that "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis." To do this he expressed support for quotas. In a 1968 Playboy interview, he said, "If a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas." King was more than just talk in this regard. Working through his Operation Breadbasket, King threatened boycotts of businesses that did not hire blacks in proportion to their population."

"King was even an early proponent of reparations. In his 1964 book, Why We Can’t Wait, he wrote,
No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries…Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of a the labor of one human being by another. This law should be made to apply for American Negroes. The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law." Read the rest here:
SOURCE (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html)

These are obviously Republican values ha? :))
This is what happens when people hear only one side full of, in my opinion; insincere, manipulative, HORSE ****. Once again, to all of the "MLK was a Republican" folks, thanks for the laugh! ;)

Where is the response to all of the "MLK was a republican" folks? Can y'all refute what I posted above? Surely, surely, you must have some rebuttal??? Why all of the silence? :))

[PheonixOps]

LOL, here we go again! This crap about MLK being a republican.........
Do you think that MLK would have voted for Nixon or Kennedy? Nixon or Humphrey? Ford or Carter? Carter or Reagan? Mondale or Reagan? etc???
Especially when Martin Luther King had these particular stances:
"There is probably no greater sacred cow in America than Martin Luther King Jr. The slightest criticism of him or even suggesting that he isn’t deserving of a national holiday leads to the usual accusations of racist, fascism, and the rest of the usual left-wing epithets not only from liberals, but also from many ostensible conservatives and libertarians.

This is amazing because during the 50s and 60s, the Right almost unanimously opposed the civil rights movement. Contrary to the claims of many neocons, the opposition was not limited to the John Birch Society and southern conservatives. It was made by politicians like Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, and in the pages of Modern Age, Human Events, National Review, and the Freeman.

Today, the official conservative and libertarian movement portrays King as someone on our side who would be fighting Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton if he were alive. Most all conservative publications and websites have articles around this time of the year praising King and discussing how today’s civil rights leaders are betraying his legacy."

"The main reason is that they have created a mythical Martin Luther King Jr., that they constructed solely from one line in his "I Have a Dream" speech. " That manipulators preach to the dullards who just eat it up and accept it without question. (edit/emphasis mine)

"In this article, I will try to dispel the major myths that the conservative movement has about King. I found a good deal of the information for this piece in I May Not Get There With You: The True Martin Luther King by black leftist Michael Eric Dyson. Dyson shows that King supported black power, reparations, affirmative action, and socialism."

"Myth #1: King wanted only equal rights, not special privileges and would have opposed affirmative action, quotas, reparations, and the other policies pursued by today’s civil rights leadership.

This is probably the most repeated myth about King. Writing on National Review Online, There Heritage Foundation’s Matthew Spalding wrote a piece entitled "Martin Luther King’s Conservative Mind," where he wrote, "An agenda that advocates quotas, counting by race and set-asides takes us away from King's vision." (LOL, what a joke! Suckas!)

The problem with this view is that King openly advocated quotas and racial set-asides. He wrote that the "Negro today is not struggling for some abstract, vague rights, but for concrete improvement in his way of life." When equal opportunity laws failed to achieve this, King looked for other ways. In his book Where Do We Go From Here, he suggested that "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis." To do this he expressed support for quotas. In a 1968 Playboy interview, he said, "If a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas." King was more than just talk in this regard. Working through his Operation Breadbasket, King threatened boycotts of businesses that did not hire blacks in proportion to their population."

"King was even an early proponent of reparations. In his 1964 book, Why We Can’t Wait, he wrote,
No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries…Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of a the labor of one human being by another. This law should be made to apply for American Negroes. The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law." Read the rest here:
SOURCE (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html)

These are obviously Republican values ha? :))
This is what happens when people hear only one side full of, in my opinion; insincere, manipulative, HORSE ****. Once again, to all of the "MLK was a Republican" folks, thanks for the laugh! ;)

Bump for a rebuttal from all of you "MLK was a republican folks"..................



:))

[captusa]

Where is the response to all of the "MLK was a republican" folks? Can y'all refute what I posted above? Surely, surely, you must have some rebuttal??? Why all of the silence? :))

rebump

http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=58138231&postcount=62