CreateDebate


Debate Info

10
28
True Wait..., what? No!
Debate Score:38
Arguments:23
Total Votes:42
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph

Debate Creator

joecavalry(34159) pic



Blacks were hung by Democrats who were members of the KKK

    Muslim Democrat Congressman Andre Carson of Indiana thinks that the Tea Party wants to hang blacks from trees. Is he just stupid about black history or is he deliberately distorting the truth? The blacks were hung by Democrats who were members of the KKK. The KKK tried to keep the blacks from voting because they were voting for Republicans; the KKK also hung many Republicans. What's your guess; stupid or a liar? Don't the blacks know about the history of the Democrats in trying to keep them from becoming truly free? The Civil Rights Act was written by President Eisenhower. But the head of the Democrat Senate kept it from becoming law. Then after he became President he pushed it through and got the credit for it!
"Although it is relatively unreported today, historical documents are unequivocal that the Klan was established by Democrats and that the Klan played a prominent role in the Democratic Party," Barton writes in his book. "In fact, a 13-volume set of congressional investigations from 1872 conclusively and irrefutably documents that fact.

Read more: KKK's 1st targets were Republicans http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=44171#ixzz1Wk3yIpAL

True

Side Score: 10
VS.

Wait..., what? No!

Side Score: 28

Just thought you guys would like know a little history ;)

2 years ago | Side: True

It is funny that DEMOCRATS have the true hypocritical history.

2 years ago | Side: True
2 points

I see a lot of mention of Classical Liberalism, and I think it's important to point out that the ideals of Classical Liberalism were not Democratic. They were an ideology. Just how Republicans, today, do not support Classical Liberalism.

Lincoln and the Republicans had trouble with unions (unions hating Republicans? no way!!!) because of their belief that business should be allowed to hire immigrants and blacks who were willing to work for much less. Now, if one's argument is that immigration policy among Republicans has changed, I would agree, but unfortunately for the folks on the other side, they decided to go about a different route :(

So anyway, why do Democrats all of a sudden support civil rights? Well, because of LBJ. That's about it. It wasn't a Democratic policy (especially since LBJ worked with Republicans to get civil rights legislation passed in the first place). But what did this result in? Blacks supporting Democrats. So what do Democrats do to maintain that support? Keep blacks dependent on government and the Democrats.

This is what is happening now. The Democrats actually managed to bring back slavery. Good work.

2 years ago | Side: True
2 points

For your first point, I wasn't trying to say that Democrats of the past are the exact same thing as Democrats of the present. Not only would that be inaccurate, but it's also impossible. As the world changes, policy changes. What I was pointing out is that Classical Liberalism wasn't a platform for either Republicans or Democrats. Republicans of the past would tend to get the favor of business since Republicans passed legislation in favor of individual responsibility as opposed to favoring unions (made up of white people). Now, Republicans weren't fully classical liberal (as they aren't these days either) because of their support of tariffs. They made the mistake in favoring a sort of corporatism instead of Capitalism. But, this is how Capitalism died (in the name of Capitalism, ironically).

As for civil rights, you're talking about how voters shifted their party support. What I'm talking about is the legislative position, which civil rights was not a Democratic policy.

2 years ago | Side: True
1 point

The Republican party wasn't opposed to slavery.They believed Southern states had the right to maintain their slavery system but,didn't want slavery to migrate to the North.The Republican party didn't even oppose southern lynching laws.The Republican party was always the party of Big Business and their biggest concern was that the differences between the North and the South on the slavery issue and economics would eventually lead to the South seceding from the union.Wealth in the North was based on how many factories you owned and the South how many slaves you owned.The North had 5 times the factories than the South.The wealthy in the North didn't want to lose the Southern states as their base.America needs an FDR more today than ever.Democrats are opposed to "Free Markets" as was the North in the days of pre-Civil War Era days and as the South was not.Americas economic collapse today is proof of that.

2 years ago | Side: True
3 points

Classical Liberalism advocated a more limited government and free markets which was supported by mostly white farmers. In the early days The Democratic party was the more conservative of the parties. It wasn't until FDR's presidency did we really begin to see this transition from a conservative Democratic Party to a Liberal Democratic party. The pro-slavery southern democrats were largely conservative in their beliefs.

The democratic party under went a massive demographic change, where originally the party was supported by mostly rural folks, and over time became more associated with urban areas. The New Deal had split the party between conservative democrats and Liberal democrats. Many of these same Conservative democrats who opposed the New Deal became Republicans under Nixon's Southern Strategy. This is the reason the Democrats were the ones who pushed the civil rights movement in the 60's.

Sources:

http://www.answers.com/topic/southern-democrats

http://www.answers.com/topic/southern-strategy

http://www.answers.com/topic/democratic-party

2 years ago | Side: Wait..., What? No!
3 points

One of the many reasons Republicans need to try so hard to make up a new history at every opportunity. Sad thing, like evolution I thought it was common knowledge.

After the two terms of Democrat Grover Cleveland, the election of William McKinley in 1896 is widely seen as a resurgence of Republican dominance and is sometimes cited as a realigning election. McKinley promised that high tariffs would end the severe hardship caused by the Panic of 1893, and that the GOP would guarantee a sort of pluralism in which all groups would benefit. The Republicans were cemented as the party of business, though mitigated by the succession of Theodore Roosevelt who embraced trust busting. He later ran on a third party ticket of the Progressive Party and challenged his previous successor William Howard Taft. The party controlled the presidency throughout the 1920s, running on a platform of opposition to the League of Nations, high tariffs, and promotion of business interests. Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover were resoundingly elected in 1920, 1924, and 1928 respectively. The Teapot Dome scandal threatened to hurt the party but Harding died and Coolidge blamed everything on him, as the opposition splintered in 1924. The pro-business policies of the decade seemed to produce an unprecedented prosperity until the Wall Street Crash of 1929 heralded the Great Depression.

The New Deal coalition of Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt controlled American politics for most of the next three decades, excepting the two-term presidency of Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower. African Americans moved into the Democratic Party during Roosevelt's time. After Roosevelt took office in 1933, New Deal legislation sailed through Congress at lightning speed. In the 1934 midterm elections, 10 Republican senators went down to defeat, leaving them with only 25 against 71 Democrats. The House of Representatives was split in a similar ratio. Republicans in Congress heavily criticized the "Second New Deal" and likened it to class warfare and socialism. The volume of legislation, and the inability of the Republicans to block it, soon elevated the level of opposition to Roosevelt. Conservative Democrats, mostly from the South, joined with Republicans led by Senator Robert Taft to create the conservative coalition, which dominated domestic issues in Congress until 1964. The Republicans recaptured Congress in 1946 after gaining 13 seats in the Senate and 55 seats in the House. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)

So yeah, it was democrats who later became republicans, and the republicans switched to democrats basically.

It's even easier when you look at a map, south vs north and urban vs suburban more or less regardless what they are calling themself at any point in history.

2 years ago | Side: Wait..., What? No!
1 point

I see a lot of mention of Classical Liberalism, and I think it's important to point out that the ideals of Classical Liberalism were not Democratic. They were an ideology.

Just as Liberalism and Conservatism are just ideologies, and it's important to note that Democrats were not always liberal and Republicans haven't always been conservative. So democrats of the past do not mirror the democrats of the present in terms of ideology or personal beliefs.

So anyway, why do Democrats all of a sudden support civil rights? Well, because of LBJ. That's about it.

Not quite. The democrats who opposed the new deal and who opposed the civil rights movement left the party and became republicans.

2 years ago | Side: Wait..., What? No!

In order to teach it, you have to know it. See --------->

2 years ago | Side: Wait..., What? No!
2 points

As for civil rights, you're talking about how voters shifted their party support

And the racial attitudes that voters have tend to follow them when they change parties.

What I'm talking about is the legislative position, which civil rights was not a Democratic policy.

But lynching was?

2 years ago | Side: Wait..., What? No!

Yeah..., he does put a nice spin on it ;)

2 years ago | Side: Wait..., What? No!
2 points

Blacks were hung by Racists.The people of the south the same people that promote hatred and ignorance hands down vote Republican today.Both parties have at one point or another used fear and division to get them to vote for their candidates.Doesn't matter if your talking about Lincoln,Kennedy or Reagan.The GOP has done a better jobs of rallying and tugging on their heart strings.

2 years ago | Side: Wait..., What? No!

Yea - it's definitely a better and more accurate "spin" than comparing Democrats of 1872 to the Democrats of today.

2 years ago | Side: Wait..., What? No!

Wait for a debate from me showing how liberalism can lead to a watered down version of Hitler's master race ;)

2 years ago | Side: Wait..., What? No!

and then the one comparing Republican xenophobia to Hitler too, right?

2 years ago | Side: Wait..., What? No!

even funnier if people think they are the only ones...

2 years ago | Side: Wait..., What? No!

No..., actually...., I did not have any plans to do that one. But thanks for playing though. That was hysterical ;)

2 years ago | Side: Wait..., What? No!

Good supporting evidence can be found in the Party platforms of the time:

In 1932 and 1936 the Democratic Party platform had just a general nod to equality:

equal rights to all; special privilege to none

- the Democratic Party platform in 1940 had:

Our Negro citizens have participated actively in the economic and social advances launched by this Administration, including fair labor standards, social security benefits, health protection, work relief projects, decent housing, aid to education, and the rehabilitation of low-income farm families. We have aided more than half a million Negro youths in vocational training, education and employment. We shall continue to strive for complete legislative safeguards against discrimination in government service and benefits, and in the national defense forces. We pledge to uphold due process and the equal protection of the laws for every citizen, regardless of race, creed or color.

In 1944:

We believe that the country which has the greatest measure of social justice is capable of the greatest achievements.

We believe that racial and religious minorities have the right to live, develop and vote equally with all citizens and share the rights that are guaranteed by our Constitution. Congress should exert its full constitutional powers to protect those rights.

In 1948:

"The Democratic Party is responsible for the great civil rights gains made in recent years in eliminating unfair and illegal discrimination based on race, creed or color,"

"The Democratic Party commits itself to continuing its efforts to eradicate all racial, religious and economic discrimination."

"We again state our belief that racial and religious minorities must have the right to live, the right to work, the right to vote, the full and equal protection of the laws, on a basis of equality with all citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution."

"We highly commend President Harry S. Truman for his courageous stand on the issue of civil rights."

"We call upon the Congress to support our President in guaranteeing these basic and fundamental American Principles: (1) the right of full and equal political participation; (2) the right to equal opportunity of employment; (3) the right of security of person; (4) and the right of equal treatment in the service and defense of our nation."

"We pledge ourselves to legislation to admit a minimum of 400,000 displaced persons found eligible for United States citizenship without discrimination as to race or religion. We condemn the undemocratic action of the Republican 80th Congress in passing an inadequate and bigoted bill for this purpose, which law imposes no-American restrictions based on race and religion upon such admissions"

 

That progression (along with a largely anti-racist Republican party) culminated in Dixiecrat Southern congressmen (like Strom Thurmond) breaking off and forming their own racist "States Rights Democratic Party" whose 1948 party platform stated:

"We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race; the constitutional right to choose one's associates; to accept private employment without governmental interference, and to learn one's living in any lawful way. We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed civil rights program. We favor home-rule, local self-government and a minimum interference with individual rights."

"We oppose and condemn the action of the Democratic Convention in sponsoring a civil rights program calling for the elimination of segregation, social equality by Federal fiatt, regulations of private employment practices, voting, and local law enforcement."

"We affirm that the effective enforcement of such a program would be utterly destructive of the social, economic and political life of the Southern people, and of other localities in which there may be differences in race, creed or national orgin in appreciable numbers."

"We, therefore, urge that this Convention endorse the candidacies of J. Strom Thurmond and Fielding H. Wright for the President and Vice-president, respectively, of the United States of America."

Supporting Evidence: Party Platform collection (www.presidency.ucsb.edu)
2 years ago | Side: Wait..., What? No!

I wasn't trying to say that Democrats of the past are the exact same thing as Democrats of the present. Not only would that be inaccurate, but it's also impossible.

Then I would suggest that your position is incorrectly marked on the True side of this argument since the debate creator is specifically trying to tie current Democrats with Democrats of the 1800's

civil rights was not a Democratic policy

see Party platforms post ----->

2 years ago | Side: Wait..., What? No!

I'll try to contain my shock. ;)

I didn't assume you would be concerned with any historical accuracy, but did think you would jump at the opportunity to make more points - cuz you're a winner like that....

2 years ago | Side: Wait..., What? No!

Oh Jeez ;) Points...., really ;) I almost have 16K and you thought I'd be wanting to accumulate more ;)

2 years ago | Side: Wait..., What? No!

I see quite a few sentences there (some I agree with and some I don't), but none of them seem to be directed at supporting or opposing the topic of the debate vis a vis historical and current democrats.

2 years ago | Side: Wait..., what? No!


About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Help/FAQ
Newsletter Archive
Sharing Tools
Invite Your Friends
Bookmarklets
Partner Buttons
RSS & XML Feeds
Reach Out
Advertise
Contact Us
Report Abuse
Twitter
Basic Stuff
User Agreement
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
Creative Commons
©2014 TidyLife, Inc. All Rights Reserved. User content, unless source quoted, licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Debate Forum | Big shout-outs to The Bloggess and Andy Cohen.