A Refuge for Racists: The Democrat Party


“ … So it can be said of the Republican Party, a shelter for the kind of dead-enders who used to be Democrats, then Dixiecrats, but have found a home of sorts in the attic of the Party of Lincoln. It’s encouraging to see some party leaders trying to sweep these dark-hearted elements out, but they have work to do yet — starting with Donald Trump. … “

The above snippet is from a New York Times Op-Ed article A Refuge for Racists by Timothy Egan –  June 29, 2015.

This type of slander against Republicans has gone on for a long time and is wide spread among Liberal Democrat leaders, The New York Tines and writers like Egan — and it stinks to high heaven.

The truth of the matter is that the Democrat Party is the party of racism in this nation  — I’ve written about this in the past, so I’ll resurrect my writings on the topic at:

  • Why Do Blacks Overwhelmingly Embrace the Racist Democratic Party?

    Excerpt:  “ … In reviewing the history of the Democratic party, we see it as the party of slavery, as the party of post-civil war segregation, as the party of the KKK, as the party of Jim Crow laws in the deep South, as the party of Bull Conner and George Wallace, as the party of separate drinking fountains, as the party of blacks to the back of the bus, as the party of school segregation and more. This is the party that successfully resisted any and all civil rights legislation introduced by Republicans in Congress from the Civil War on to 1965 when the Democrat President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the land mark voting rights act of 1965. … “

  • Obama Recants Comments on Trayvon Martin  (Hint – he didn’t actually say any of this)

    Excerpt: “ … After reflecting on my previous comments regarding the Trayvon Martin case I find I must recant what I said. While I regard Mr. Martins death as tragic, I must respect the rule of law and allow the investigative process to run it’s proper course, which at this point in time is properly limited to the local and state jurisdictions.  If future events justify, then Federal actions may be appropriate.

    In weighing in on this matter I have unintentionally contributed to what is becoming a lynch mob mentality.

    In addition to my own previous statements, I specifically, and by name, repudiate the actions of the New Black Panther organization who have publically offered a large reward for the capture of Mr. Zimmerman. I also repudiate the frightful and shameful actions of Mr. Spike Lee who apparently has Tweeted the home address of Mr. Zimmerman. Rev. Al Sharpton has also contributed to this mob environment surrounding Mr. Zimmerman, and I repudiate him for his premature and incendiary actions.

    The incendiary actions and words of these individuals and groups are reminiscent of the days of the KKK, which regrettably were predominantly members of my own party.  America has moved past the KKK, and let us not allow the case of Mr. Martin result in a lynching of Mr. Zimmerman.

    American law and tradition require Mr. Zimmerman be afforded due process of law.

    Thank you and may God bless the United States of America.”

  • American Exceptionalism Part 3: The Case Against

    Excerpt:

    There are episodes in American history and culture that offer a legitimate denial of American Exceptionalism and point to some real non-exceptional attributes and episodes in American history:

    • Slavery
    • Segregation following the Civil War – Jim Crow
    • The KKK
    • The modern day Civil Rights movement.
    • The Indian wars
    • Women’s rights
    • Imperialistic adventures around the world

    Much of this criticism of American Exceptionalism comes from the liberal left and from Democrats, so let’s examine the record.

    Slavery:

    The Democratic Party is the party of slavery; on this the historical record is abundant and clear. The Republican Party by contrast was founded in 1854 by anti-slavery activists primarily in opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which repealed the Missouri Compromise and thus allowing slavery to be expanded into the new territories of the United States. The Democratic Party’s culpability in the national sin of slavery is further compounded by the southern succession movement which drug the nation into a Civil War resulting in the death of some 620,000 to 750,000 soldiers.

    And of course the war resulted in the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment freeing the slaves. But my goodness, what a heavy price to pay!

    Hardly an exceptional episode of American history, but what we see working here is the good (Exceptional) America driving out the bad (non-exceptional) America.

    A Century of Segregation following the Civil War – Jim Crow:

    The Democratic Party is also the party of Segregation and Jim Crow; on this the historical record again is abundant and clear.

    After the Civil War, the nation entered into a long century of racial segregation with the freed blacks relegated to a degrading and dangerous second class citizenship.

    The Reconstruction period of 1865-77 begun by President Lincoln was , after Lincoln’s assassination undercut by his successor Andrew Johnson , a Democrat, with his own Reconstruction policy. Johnson supported white supremacy in the South and favored pro-Union Southern political leaders who had aided the Confederacy once war had been declared. Southerners, with Johnson’s support, attempted to restore slavery in substance if not in name.

    The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to the freed slaves, but its passage, pushed by Congressional Republicans, was strongly resisted by President Johnson and the Southern Democrats.

    Likewise the Fifteenth Amendment, ratified in 1870, guaranteeing the right of black men to vote, pushed by Congressional Republicans, was strongly resisted by Johnson and Sothern Democrats.

    In 1875, the lame-duck Republican-controlled Congress, in a last-ditch effort to protect what remained of Reconstruction, managed to pass a civil-rights bill that sought to guarantee freedom of access, regardless of race, to the “full and equal enjoyment” of many public facilities. Citizens were given the right to sue for personal damages. Unfortunately this early Civil Rights Act of 1875 was rarely enforced, and was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1883.

    The Hayes (Republican) – Tilden(Democrat) election of 1876 was very close and the Electoral College deadlock carried on for months and was finally broken when Southern Democrats agreed to support Hayes’ claim for the Presidency if he would support increased funding for Southern internal improvements and agree to end Reconstruction, thus guaranteeing home rule — meaning white control — in the South. Hayes became President and the Southern Democrats could reverse with impunity the gains that blacks had made during Reconstruction.

    Hardly an exceptional episode of American history, but what we see working here is the good (Exceptional) America driving out the bad (non-exceptional) America.

    The KKK:

    The Klan was founded in 1866 and quickly spread to every state in the South and included mayors, judges and sheriffs; predominantly Democrats. The terror of the Klan was; a systematic murdering of black politicians and leaders; voter intimidation against blacks; black landowners driven off their rightfully owned property and other heinous acts of violence. Men, women, children, aged and crippled, were all victims of the Klan.

    Between 1870 and 1871 the Republican Congress passed the Enforcement Acts — criminal codes that protected blacks’ right to vote, hold office, serve on juries, and receive equal protection of laws. But again, Democrats in the South resisted enforcement of these acts until President Grant, a Republican, sent federal troops to restore order to areas of the South where violence was raging at its worst.

    The KKK endured well into the 20th century with perhaps the most notable member being Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Note well a quote written by Byrd in 1944 to segregationist Mississippi Senator Bilbo:

    “I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side … Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

    In fairness to Senator Byrd, he said, in 2005, “I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times … and I don’t mind apologizing over and over again. I can’t erase what happened.”

    But what Byrd said in 1944 fully reflected the mindset of the Democrat Party up to that point and beyond.

    The modern day Civil Rights movement: 1933-1964.

    A calculation of 26 major civil rights votes from 1933 through the 1960’s civil rights era shows that Republicans favored civil rights in approximately 96% of the votes, whereas the Democrats opposed them in 80% of the votes! These facts are often intentionally overlooked by Democrats but this record is consistent with the two parties record in the era immediately following the Civil War and into the Reconstruction period.

    A look at President Eisenhower’s Civil Rights record reveals:

    “I believe as long as we allow conditions to exist that make for second-class citizens, we are making of ourselves less than first-class citizens.”

    -Dwight D. Eisenhower

    (Remarks at the United Negro College Fund luncheon, May 19, 1953)

    Eisenhower was a product of his time and its attitudes regarding race. He was also aware of the discrimination and segregation that African Americans faced daily, and he viewed this racism as a most unfortunate and damaging aspect of our democratic society. In evaluating Eisenhower’s responses to civil rights questions, his actions speak louder than words. Many of his actions are consistent with his belief that federal  institutions must be at the forefront of upholding the ideal of racial equality. As a result, he was able to achieve more toward making equal treatment a civil right for minority Americans than any of his presidential predecessors since Reconstruction.

    Eisenhower favored a patient, constitutionalist approach that would avoid a violent disruption of Southern society. However, by the mid-1950s he realized that he would have no control over the pace of integration, and he responded with actions and proposed legislative initiatives to provide racial equality. He was not successful in getting sweeping reforms passed by Congress, but he did build a sturdy foundation upon which more comprehensive changes were made in the years following his presidency. Consider the following:

    • Eisenhower appointed California Governor Earl Warren as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Warren molded a unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education, striking down public school segregation. Eisenhower also appointed outstanding jurists such as Potter Stewart, William Brennan, John Marshall Harlan II, and Charles Evans Whittaker to the Warren court.
    • Eisenhower was consistently careful to appoint to the southern districts federal judges who were solidly committed to equal rights, fighting southern senators to get them confirmed. When enforcement of future civil rights laws came before the district courts in the 1960s, they were upheld by progressive judges – Frank Johnson, Jr., and Elbert Parr Tuttle, for instance – appointed by Eisenhower years earlier. Eisenhower’s judicial appointments constitute a significant contribution to civil rights.
    • Eisenhower achieved Congressional passage of the first civil rights legislation in the 82 years following Reconstruction. The Senate at first refused to pass the bill, which included both voting rights and a provision authorizing the Attorney General to protect all civil rights. Eventually, Congress approved the Civil Rights Act of 1957 without overall civil rights protection. This was a much weaker law than what Eisenhower had advocated. In 1960, Eisenhower was successful in getting Congress to pass additional voting rights legislation. These laws were the precedents for the civil rights legislation of the 1960s.

    The Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson from Texas, realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party, whose southern block was anti-civil rights and northern members were more pro-civil rights. Southern senators occupied chairs of numerous important committees due to their long seniority. Johnson sent the bill to the judiciary committee, led by Senator James Eastland from Mississippi, who proceeded to change and alter the bill almost beyond recognition. Senator Richard Russell from Georgia had claimed the bill was an example of the Federal government wanting to impose its laws on states. Johnson sought recognition from civil rights advocates for passing the bill, while also receiving recognition from the mostly southern anti-civil rights Democrats for reducing it so much as to kill it.

    • Eisenhower implemented the integration of the U.S. military forces. Although President Truman issued Executive Order 9981 (1948) to desegregate the military services, his administration had limited success in realizing it. As a life-long soldier, Dwight Eisenhower knew intimately the reality of racial intolerance in the military. As president, he commanded compliance from subordinates and was able to overcome the deeply rooted racial institutions in the military establishment. By October 30, 1954, the last racially segregated unit in the armed forces had been abolished, and all federally controlled schools for military dependent children had been desegregated.
    • Eisenhower sent elements of the 101st Airborne Division to carry out the mandate of the U.S. Supreme Court, when Orval Faubus of Arkansas openly defied a federal court order to integrate Little Rock Central High, an all-white high school. This act, the first time since Reconstruction that federal troops were deployed to a former Confederate state, was condemned by many at the time, but it established that southern states could not use force to defeat the Constitution.
    • Eisenhower was the first president to elevate an African-American to an executive level position in the White House. In July 1955, President Eisenhower appointed E. Frederic Morrow, a graduate of Bowdoin College and the Rutgers University Law School, as Administrative Officer for Special Projects.
    • Eisenhower worked to achieve full integration in the nation’s capital from his first day in office until the end of his administration. The President approached this task from several different angles. He appointed pro-desegregation district government officials and directed the Justice Department to argue in favor of desegregation in the Supreme Court. One of the results of judicial actions he instigated was the Supreme Court’s Thompson decision which desegregated Washington restaurants. He personally cajoled, persuaded, and pressured local government administrators, motion picture moguls, and business men in meetings at the White House. By the time Eisenhower left Washington, the Capital of the United States was transformed from an entirely segregated to an almost fully integrated city.
    • Eisenhower established the first comprehensive regulations prohibiting racial discrimination in the federal workforce. He established presidential committees that set standards and pressured governments agencies and businesses with government contracts to end racial discrimination in employment.
    • Eisenhower was the first president since Reconstruction to meet personally in the White House with black civil rights leaders. He discussed national policy on civil rights with Martin Luther King, Jr., A. Philip Randolph, Roy Wilkins, and Lester B. Granger.

    Now take a look at the landmark 1964 Civil Rights bill:

    Democrat Senators organized the record Senate filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Included among the organizers were several prominent and well known liberal Democrat standard bearers including:

    • Robert Byrd, current senator from West Virginia
    • J. William Fulbright, Arkansas senator and political mentor of Bill Clinton
    • Albert Gore Sr., Tennessee senator, father and political mentor of Al Gore
    • Sam Ervin, North Carolina senator
    • Richard Russell, Georgia senator and later President Pro Tempore

    Democrat opposition to the Civil Rights Act was substantial enough to literally split the party in two. A whopping 40% of the House Democrats VOTED AGAINST the Civil Rights Act, while 80% of Republicans SUPPORTED it. Republican support in the Senate was even higher. Similar trends occurred with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was supported by 82% of House Republicans and 94% of Senate Republicans. The same Democrat standard bearers took their normal racists stances, this time with Senator Fulbright leading the opposition effort.

    Hardly an exceptional episode of American history, but again what we see working here is the good (Exceptional) America driving out the bad (non-exceptional) America.

  • We’ve Been Here Before

    ExcerptThe Democrat party is the party of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, the KKK and lynching of blacks. It is also the party that opposed all civil rights legislation presented by Republican Congresses from the Civil War up to LBJ in 1964 when it became expedient to get on the Civil Rights bandwagon and start calling Republicans racist.  Be careful and know the record of those who you stand beside and support, it is past time to correct the record on who really is the racist party, and it is not the Republicans.

 

Mr. Egan needs to find a large mirror and stare into it for a long … long time!

     _________________________________________________________________________________________


Mr. Egan recently wrote an Op Ed for the NY Times Apologize for Slavery (June 19,2015).

Excerpt:  “ … It’s harder to be contrite than to conquer. Obama had nothing to do with slavery. Most Americans, descendants of immigrants shunned in their homelands, have very little connection to the slaveholders of the American South. So why apologize? Because we own this past. As such, we have to condemn it. … “

In light of the sordid history of the Democratic Party as I’ve outlined above, if there is to be an apology, it should come exclusively from the Democratic Party, the New York Times, and  people like Timothy Egan on behalf of the racists in their own party – an apology along with a large does of repentance for sins never accounted for against millions of black Americans.

And haven’t we as a nation already apologized for slavery?  — How you ask?

  • The 600,000+ mostly young white men and boys who died in our Civil War — ending slavery by the spilling of their own blood.
  • The long legislative record of the Republican Party to end racism — in the form a a long string of unsuccessful civil rights legislation blocked consistently by Democrats for 100 years.
  • Constitutional amendments 13, 14 and 15 — at long last abolishing slavery and giving all races equal standing under the law (the Constitution) . 

 

Mr. Egan needs to find a large mirror and stare into it for a long … long time!

 

Don Johnson – June 2015

Advertisements

One response to “A Refuge for Racists: The Democrat Party

  1. Pingback: Good bye Thomas Jefferson — | A Yearning for Publius

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s