Democrats vs. Republicans on Civil Rights

[mountainclmbr]

And another thread:

http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.DYK-Why%20MLK%20was%20a%20Republican&tp_preview=true

Why Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican
By Frances 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.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860's, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950's and 1960's.

During the civil rights era of the 1960's, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman's issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was President Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military.

Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Senator Al Gore, Sr. And after he became president, John F. Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tennessee after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.

Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860's, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon‘s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation‘s first goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.

Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans.

Critics of Republican Senator Barry Goldwater who ran for president against Democrat President Lyndon Johnson in 1964, ignore the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation.

Those who wrongly criticize Goldwater, also ignore the fact that President Johnson, in his 4,500 State of the Union Address delivered on January 4, 1965, mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only thirty five words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Then in 1967, showing his anger with Dr. King's protest against the Viet Nam War, President Johnson referred to Dr. King as "that ****** preacher."

Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats, the racist "Dixiecrats" did not all migrate to the Republican Party. "Dixiecrats" declared that they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than vote for a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks. Today, some of those "Dixiecrats" continue their political careers as Democrats, including Democrat Senator Robert Byrd who is well known for having been a "Keagle" in the Ku Klux Klan.

Another former "Dixiecrat" is Democrat Senator Ernest Hollings who put up the Confederate flag over the state capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina. There was no public outcry when Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd praised Senator Byrd as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment," including the Civil War. Democrats denounced Senator Trent Lott for his remarks about Senator Strom Thurmond. Senator Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Senator Byrd and Senator Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.
The thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party began in the 1970's with President Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" which was an effort on the Part of Nixon to get Christians in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were still discriminating against their fellow Christians who happened to be black. Georgia did not switch until 2002, and some Southern states, including Louisiana, are still controlled by Democrats.

Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous.

After wrongly convincing black Americans that a minimum wage increase was a good thing, the Democrats on August 3rd kept their promise and killed the minimum wage bill passed by House Republicans on July 29th. The blockage of the minimum wage bill was the second time in as many years that Democrats stuck a legislative finger in the eye of black Americans. Senate Democrats on April 1, 2004 blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Bill Clinton before he finally signed it. Since the welfare reform law expired in September 2002, Congress had passed six extensions, and the latest expired on June 30, 2004. Opposed by the Democrats are school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools and Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites).

Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30-40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. Over $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since President Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans.

In order to break the Democrats' stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party's economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.

 

[Limeyfellow]

Only the Libertarians have a clue. Some think their ideas are somewhat radical but 100 years ago if you proposed the government policies that are in effect today you'd have been called a radical and run out of town.

A hundred years ago you could get lynched if you were a black man and went and sat in a white restaurant and the country were led through events that resulted in the biggest economical collapse due to a lack of regulations, so enough of this "the world was so much better a hundred years ago" sthick. It was as much a corrupt horrid place today, with prominent businessmen trying to overthrow the government and put in power a fascist military dictator. Libertarian policies have just as many problems as most other policies and when you pull too far to one side, it causes a misbalance in society.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

Only the Libertarians have a clue. Some think their ideas are somewhat radica

I think our ideas are the most truly conservative and traditional of any of the parties. If we were able to go back to the Constitutional convention and present all three parties platform I believe 90%+ of the Delegates would join the Libertarian party. Especially with the Republicans erosion of First and Second amendment (yes I realize these were not written at the convention). I won't say we don't have a few radical members and a few more people willing to pursue radical initiatives in order to restore civil liberties.

Reps are more for individual responsibilities; ie. the government doesn't need to control and regulate everything we do.

Are you kidding me? Religion, drug control, marriage, drinking, and restrictions on almost every social issue is part of the Republican platform.

You're wrong of course. The Democrats are far worse than the Republicans.

Quote:
The Republicans don't believe all men are created equal

Does anyone really believe that? And I am not talking about race here. I think everyone knows that statement is a crock of $#!7 and probably the worst line of the Dec. of independence. I pretty much disagree with everything Cool hand luke says. 20 years ago most were not just gun oners, but also shooter. At this point I think very few are shooters (i.e. Cheney)

gold standard,

"Don't crucify me on this cross of gold." Seriously, I don't think we could go back to the gold standard and if we did it would crash everyones economy because at this point the world economy is based on money that doesn't exist and making sure the average person does not figure that out. The most common U.S. bill outside the U.S. a forged $100 bill out of China.

I am glad this election is coming b/c I think the next president, any of the three likely winners, will be better than Bush. I am sad b/c I think all three will pursue much more restrictive, overbearing, and expensive policies. I think in 8 years we will have much more restricted gun rights.

 

[milemission]

The Republicans don't believe all men are equal. Why do I say that? Ok, which party is proposing to limit marriage to between man and a woman, which is actively denying benefits to homosexual couples? And if you start saying it's a choice, please find some factual sources to state this. Because if you like, when I have time, I can find plenty to support sexual orientation being related to biology.

As far as the first amendment, doesn't it say that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?" That means any laws favoring Christianity or any other religion are out. Which party wants to post the ten commandments and have school prayer? How would you feel if Islams wanted to have kids in public schools praying to Allah? I'm all in favor of religious tolerance for all religions, and if they want to have a silent time where students can pray, go for it. But the government can't have religion in public schools.


As far as history goes, the history of either political party forty years ago is irrelevant, as the platform of the Democrats in the 60s is similar to that of the Republicans now, and vice versa. All that matters in this discussion is the here and now.

 

[freakshow10mm]

? And if you start saying it's a choice, please find some factual sources to state this. Because if you like, when I have time, I can find plenty to support sexual orientation being related to biology.

The porn industry. All them chicks can't all be true lesbians otherwise their gaydar is turned to high sensitivity.

<<< Supports gay marriage and equal benefits for those couples. There time will come, just as the Blacks, but it will not be as swift. Hopefully in the next few years they will get the rights that us heteros enjoy.

 

[Musketeer]

D or R, the only difference in civil rights is that each group fights to protect those as perceived as valuable to THEM and have no problems opposing those of OTHERS.

Only Libertarians have it right but that is normal. As I learned long ago, being smart is lonely.

 

[cool hand luke 22:36]

Which party wants to post the ten commandments and have school prayer?

Which American Supreme Court has the Ten Commandments hanging on the wall of the Courtroom?

And, how does a student voluntarily and silently reciting a prayer of their own choice somehow infringe on the rights of another student?

 

[Wuchak]

And, how does a student voluntarily and silently reciting a prayer of their own choice somehow infringe on the rights of another student?

Which party wants to force kids to stand up every day and pledge their allegiance with a little ditty that includes God in it? The God part was not there originally. It was added in the 1950's when everyone was afraid of those Godless Commies.

Which party wants to regulate sex acts and the substances you put into your body and will gladly to trample your liberties to enforce these policies? Can there possibly be anything more intrusive than the government telling you what sexual positions you can use? Maybe having them tell you that you have to carry the fetus inside your womb to term. I don't like abortion but I like the idea of the Government's power reaching into a woman's uterus even less.

Both parties have nothing to offer but bigger government, continued centralization of power in Washington, higher taxes, wealth redistribution, incumbent protection, and further erosion of civil liberties. They argue about emotional issues on the fringe to keep the public distracted but their core aims are the same. I don't think either party can be brought back and if a third party cannot gain enough of a foothold soon they will have rigged the entire election process to the point where none ever will. I hope I am wrong but I see nothing but dark days ahead in our Country's future. Looking at the current crop of presidential candidates sends cold chills down my spine.

Pay attention to how many times you hear current government officials at all levels mention that we have a Democracy. Either they don't understand the basic system of our government which is a republic or they are trying to condition the public to accept the concept that if the majority wants to do something then it should be done.

Nice short article
Are we a republic or a democracy?
Posted: January 05, 2005
1:00 am Eastern

By Walter Williams
© 2008 Creators Syndicate, Inc.



We often hear the claim that our nation is a democracy. That wasn't the vision of the founders. They saw democracy as another form of tyranny. If we've become a democracy, I guarantee you that the founders would be deeply disappointed by our betrayal of their vision. The founders intended, and laid out the ground rules, for our nation to be a republic.

The word "democracy" appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution – two most fundamental documents of our nation. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution's Article IV, Section 4, guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." Moreover, let's ask ourselves: Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag say to "the democracy for which it stands," or does it say to "the republic for which it stands"? Or do we sing "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy" or "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"?

So what's the difference between republican and democratic forms of government? John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights.

In recognition that it's Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties, the framers used negative phrases against Congress throughout the Constitution such as: shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied. In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange.

Contrast the framers' vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.

How about a few quotations demonstrating the disdain our founders held for democracy?

* James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10: In a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual."

* At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, " ... that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy."

* John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

* Chief Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."

In a word or two, the founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny the colonies suffered under King George III.

The framers gave us a Constitution that is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. One that has come in for recent criticism and calls for its elimination is the Electoral College. In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College so that in presidential elections large, heavily populated states couldn't democratically run roughshod over small, sparsely populated states.

Here's my question: Do Americans share the republican values laid out by our founders, and is it simply a matter of our being unschooled about the differences between a republic and a democracy? Or is it a matter of preference and we now want the kind of tyranny feared by the founders where Congress can do anything it can muster a majority vote to do? I fear it's the latter.

 

[jakeswensonmt]

As someone wiser than I once said:

Democrats, Republicans. Same pig, different dress.

 

[sasquatch]

Wuchak

Which party wants to force kids to stand up every day and pledge their allegiance with a little ditty that includes God in it? The God part was not there originally.

We were at my son's graduation from the LEO acadamy a while back and it was very gratifying to hear all of the graduates, as well as the families in attendance recite the pledge, including the God part.

We also recently attended a ceremony where people were becoming naturalized citizens of the United States. Everyone there recited the pledge, including the God part........brought tears to our eyes.

Believe it or not, some people in this country actually love the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

[DieHard06]

I find it funny when people try to use the founding fathers as proof of their cause. "If the founding fathers were alive to today, they would be Libertarians...Republicans...Democrats" I hear everyone saying this. It's kind of like when people think that God is definately on their side while the other side thinks the same thing.

 

[Danzig]

Problem with the "Pledge of Allegiance" is that it WRONG. Citizens do not owe allegiance to the State....the State owes it's allegiance to the Constitution and to the People.

The People are meant to be the masters of the government...not the other way around.

 

[Musketeer]

Believe it or not, some people in this country actually love the Pledge of Allegiance.

I have no problem reciting it either but I do the original one, with god left out. As an atheist I have no belief in a god and as an American I in no way see my nation as being answerable to one or the church that claims to know his will.

 

[sasquatch]

Problem with the "Pledge of Allegiance" is that it WRONG. Citizens do not owe allegiance to the State....

The author of the Pledge, Francis Bellamy, had this to say about why he wrote it:

The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches.

His idea is clearly NOT that citizens owe allegiance to the State, but allegiance to the idea that the nation must be kept undivided. There is a difference.

 

[sasquatch]

I have no problem reciting it either but I do the original one, with god left out. As an atheist I have no belief in a god and as an American I in no way see my nation as being answerable to one or the church that claims to know his will.

Better open up your wallet and ditch all of those nasty bills which say "In God We Trust" on them.

 

[Danzig]

Thanks for the quote Sasquatch. My statement stands though. No individual owes his allegience to the the geopolitical entity known as the United States of America. If individuals want to pledge their allegiance to a political creation I guess that is their right...but to show disdain for anyone else because they won't show allegiance to the "nation" is fascist in my opinion.

 

[milemission]

Cool hand luke, I have no problem with a silent time for prayer, as that gives students of all faiths time to pray. I also have no problem with a prayer led by teachers in private schools, but that is an entirely different domain. It's when people want to teach the Bible in public school that creates a situation that is in violation of the first amendment (intelligent design is creationism). If you want to teach the Bible in a public school, then create a course that teaches Christianity, Judaism, and Islam for world religions. In fact, I think we should have one of those.

 

[BillCA]

Thanks for the quote Sasquatch. My statement stands though. No individual owes his allegience to the the geopolitical entity known as the United States of America. If individuals want to pledge their allegiance to a political creation I guess that is their right...but to show disdain for anyone else because they won't show allegiance to the "nation" is fascist in my opinion.

[rant]
I dunno... have you ever received unemployment? Welfare? Worked at a company that received grant money? Driven on an interstate highway? Consumed water pumped in from another state? Flown on a commercial aircraft?

All of the above "benefits" of living in the USA come from that geopolitical entity. If a person doesn't wish to pledge allegiance to the basic principle of a constitutional republic then why should they benefit from the productivity of that republic? If they will not state they will stand by their country in times of crisis, support it's basic charter, pledge to defend her, then why should they benefit from it's largess?

We pledge our allegiance to the flag, as a symbol of our great Constitutional Republic, a single nation of united soverign states with a common purpose. For over 200 years it has been a shining example of what people can do when freed from oppression, from despots, dictators, kings and tyrants. We pledge to support our nation, our flag as it's symbol, and this "great experiement" called a Republic - not to some individual, not to The State, not a king or holy figure. But to an idea, the idea, the greatest idea that was ever concieved by which to govern a people.

That idea is not cheap. A dictatorship is cheaper than a Democratic Republic. A monarchy is cheaper, even a benevolent one. But we elected to take the hard road. One that requires the time, labor and expense of elections. Our government is not always efficient, nor effective or inexpensive. But, todate, it is the most successful in terms of wealth, productivity, innovation and freedom that anyone has ever seen.

MY allegiance is not to any particular administration, nor to a particular Congress. It is not to the people who run the government. My Allegiance is to our Republic, it's foundations and principles - and it citizens who also support them. I own no allegiance to you, if you refuse to ally yourself with our basic principles. Nor to the communist, born here or not. Nor to the socialist who views the constitution and it's principles as an obstacle. Nor to the fascist who wants the masses to be owned by the state. I will fight those who push to dismantle my Republic, to weaken her, to make her merely "equal" to other nations.

If you can't understand what you are pledging your allegiance to, or why you should, perhaps you should re-enter school and pay attention this time. Or perhaps you should read more about the principles upon which this country was founded.

There are lots of things wrong with our country. It has been imperfect from the beginning. But it is still the best place in the world to live.

[/rant]

 

[shortwave]

Thank You BillCA, couldn`t have said it better myself. We can all argue about whether the " Pledge of Allegiance" is written wrong or whether there should be prayer in school all we want. One thing we better not forget, thats the values,morals(which are failing) and unity we have as a nation. IMHO, values and morals are on a big downslide. Unity not far behind. In school standing saying 'Pledge of Allegiance" and saying a prayer always gave me a since of unity.Sure I wasn`t the only one that felt that. Something everyone did together. Today, as a nation, somebody tell me one thing our country(everybody) does as one. For the most part families don`t even eat together. As a nation, we`ve gotten smarter in a lot of aspects while letting some core values slip away. If we`re not careful, there may come a day when our country may have to change its name and leave "United" out

 

[cool hand luke 22:36]

It's when people want to teach the Bible in public school that creates a situation that is in violation of the first amendment (intelligent design is creationism). If you want to teach the Bible in a public school, then create a course that teaches Christianity, Judaism, and Islam for world religions. In fact, I think we should have one of those.

Well said. I agree 100%.