HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I still cant get my head ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:22 PM

I still cant get my head around the fact the Lincoln was a Republican and Democrats

were the one supporting Slavery ....


Then one day, they all sat on a table and decided - I'll be you and you be me?

45 replies, 2308 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 45 replies Author Time Post
Reply I still cant get my head around the fact the Lincoln was a Republican and Democrats (Original post)
srican69 Dec 2012 OP
leftynyc Dec 2012 #1
srican69 Dec 2012 #2
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #11
gollygee Dec 2012 #3
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #25
thucythucy Dec 2012 #28
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #31
thucythucy Dec 2012 #34
gollygee Dec 2012 #32
backscatter712 Dec 2012 #26
EOTE Dec 2012 #4
cali Dec 2012 #5
srican69 Dec 2012 #6
Arkana Dec 2012 #15
srican69 Dec 2012 #7
JHB Dec 2012 #27
LeftInTX Dec 2012 #8
SoCalDem Dec 2012 #13
The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2012 #9
SoCalDem Dec 2012 #10
Arkana Dec 2012 #12
LiberalAndProud Dec 2012 #14
JustABozoOnThisBus Dec 2012 #16
former9thward Dec 2012 #17
1-Old-Man Dec 2012 #18
FarCenter Dec 2012 #19
LeftInTX Dec 2012 #20
FarCenter Dec 2012 #21
upaloopa Dec 2012 #22
pinboy3niner Dec 2012 #23
Xolodno Dec 2012 #24
LeftInTX Dec 2012 #29
H2O Man Dec 2012 #30
brokechris Dec 2012 #33
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #36
LeftinOH Dec 2012 #35
LeftInTX Dec 2012 #37
jwirr Dec 2012 #38
JoePhilly Dec 2012 #39
louis c Dec 2012 #40
Bucky Dec 2012 #43
louis c Dec 2012 #45
Bucky Dec 2012 #41
SpartanDem Dec 2012 #42
Bucky Dec 2012 #44

Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:23 PM

1. And a republican started the EPA

Things don't stay static so what is your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:24 PM

2. I just find it totally bewildering ...that's all

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:49 PM

11. the new deal, after the party of capital had bankrupted the economy.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:32 PM

3. There was a shift in the 1960s

Some before that but largely in the 1960s, when Democrats passed civil rights laws, and Republicans started to employ what they called The Southern Strategy, by appealing to racist voters in the south to get them to vote Republican.

The "before that" is largely about The New Deal of FDR.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:47 PM

25. Um

 

By party
The original House version:

Democratic Party: 15296 (6139%)
Republican Party: 13834 (8020%)
Cloture in the Senate:

Democratic Party: 4423 (6634%)
Republican Party: 276 (8218%)
The Senate version:

Democratic Party: 4621 (6931%)
Republican Party: 276 (8218%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 15391 (6337%)
Republican Party: 13635 (8020%)

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #25)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:25 PM

28. And how many of the Democrats

who voted against the CRA of 1964 were southern Democrats who switched parties to become Republicans?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #28)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:32 PM

31. No idea

 

I was just pointing out the data did not support the claim that "largely in the 1960s, when Democrats passed civil rights laws,"

There is no question the parties have changed since then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #31)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:06 PM

34. Well, even the figures you cite show

the number of Democrats in both chambers voting for the bill to be greater than the number of Republicans. Both houses of Congress were controlled by Democrats, which meant the Democratic leadership had to support the bill, or it wouldn't have been on the legislative agenda. Not to mention it was a Democratic president who signed the act, making it a law.

To my mind, all of that constitutes "Democrats passing" the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But yes, Republicans--northern liberals mostly, and some from the west coast, voted for the bill. But the Republican candidate for president in 1964, Barry Goldwater, opposed it, as did much of the Republican intelligensia (for example, William F. Buckley). There were some Republicans who supported the New Deal as well, but I think most people still consider New Deal landmarks such as Social Security and Rural Electrification to be Democratic achievements.

Of course, after the vote you cite, unrepentent racists like Strom Thurmond switched parties, and were welcomed with open arms by Republicans, while racists who remained as Democrats, such as Robert Byrd, recanted and mended their ways.

The result has been that Republicans have had a "solid south" -- until recently, anyway -- but at the cost of having to accommodate the blatent racism we see so much of in their ranks today.

Like you say, both parties have changed. I would argue that the Democratic Party is the better for its changes, while the Republican Party is markedly worse.

Wouldn't you agree?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlexSatan (Reply #25)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:55 PM

32. I was talking about Kennedy and Johnson

Not that just or only Democrats voted for it, or even about the house and senate at all. People started following Kennedy and Johnson and became Democrats, or moved away from Kennedy and Johnson and became Republicans over it. That was part of the shift - thought it took longer than that.

I should have specified "Kennedy and Johnson" because you're right that the Democratic Party in total wasn't behind it, but I guess I thought that by saying that this was what started much of the shift, it would be clear that not all politicians would have shifted by that point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gollygee (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:15 PM

26. The shift started earlier than that.

By the late 1800's, the Republicans, while still supportive of civil rights, were also firmly in bed with big business.

The Democrats that used to support slavery also became aligned with unions and labor movements in the late 19th, earth 20th century.

By the 1930's, there were still lots of Dixiecrats, but FDR was starting to push for more civil rights (though he didn't fight very hard for anti-lynching legislation.)

By the 60's, Democrats were mostly supportive of civil rights, and the Republicans were pushing against them. Then the Civil Rights Act was passed, the remaining Dixiecrats left the party and became Republicans, the GOP started the Southern Strategy, and the parties became for the most part what they were today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:35 PM

4. The Democrats became Dixiecrats, and then Republicans.

It's really hard to say when this all happened, it certainly wasn't all at once. I think Eisenhower was a good republican, perhaps the last good Republican president. I also think LBJ's support for the Civil Rights Act was really the line in the sand for a number of southern Dixiecrats. That's when the republican party stopped being the party of Lincoln

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:37 PM

5. read a history of the democratic party

you can find the basics on line- heck you can start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Democratic_Party

Honestly though, what's surprising about political parties changing over many decades?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:40 PM

6. I know the history ... but I still find it pretty funny given where we are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:55 PM

15. The Democrats' early history is checkered at best.

We don't have any real luminaries pre-20th century unless you count Andrew Jackson, and I certainly wouldn't put him on the list of the greatest leaders this nation's ever had. That is, unless you count Grover Cleveland.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:42 PM

7. What I find wierd is the switching of poles .. certain core values is what define a party ...

how does that change?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:22 PM

27. The usual way. Extended exposure to money and power. N/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:45 PM

8. FDR was originally a Republican, but switched when he ran for state office.

I think he did it to for either his or his family's political advantage.

Here's a fact about Teddy Roosevelt the Republican from Wikipedia:

Roosevelt attempted to move the Republican Party (GOP) toward Progressivism, including trust busting and increased regulation of businesses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftInTX (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:53 PM

13. "Republicanism" used to be associated with the moneyed class

Democrats were "of the people"... the people lower on the scale.

People used to accept dictates from on high because, until quite recently (in historical terms), they had little recourse.

Union movements, voting rights movements, and of course communication technology have all helped to crystallize the differences between the parties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:46 PM

9. A lot can change in 150 years.

The parties have totally swapped sides. Or maybe they just swapped names.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:48 PM

10. not that simple



Party identifiers are not what they used to be..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:52 PM

12. It took over 150 years for it to happen.

The Republican Party's founding principles were noble--men like William Seward, Salmon Chase, Abraham Lincoln...it's a shame they've fallen so far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 02:53 PM

14. FDR (D) opposed anti-lynching laws.

Truman (D) was a Klansman, yet desegregated the military by executive order.

Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) signed the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was sponsored by Mike Mansfield (D) and Everett Dirkson (R).

Our history is checkered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:02 PM

16. Freeing the slaves was a political gambit

Didn't the emancipation proclamation free the slaves only in those states/territories that were Confederate?

He was all about preserving the Union, everything else was a means to that end.

But yeah, in the South, I think the Dems and Reps switched positions about the time Air Conditioning became widespread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #16)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:09 PM

17. The emancipation was a military order.

The reason it only applied to the areas that were under Confederate control is that Lincoln was issuing the order in his role as Commander in Chief. To make it apply everywhere he would have had to go to Congress and get a law passed. There was no political will to do that. Eventually the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution were passed which applied everywhere but those were after the Civil War was over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:19 PM

18. Between Nixon's "Southern Strategy" and Johnson's signing of the Voting Rights Act

The switch came more recently than you might imagine and as with much of the history of this nation it is all tied up in southern bigotry - and it continues to this day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:29 PM

19. The Federalists and the Republicans became the Whigs and the Democrats.

Then the anti-slavery Whigs became the Republicans. The pro-slavery Whigs pretty much died out.

The Democrats stayed Democrats. This is why the Democrats have a Jefferson-Jackson Day with dinners for fundraising, even though both Jefferson and Jackson were "Republicans" when they were president. (And they both owned slaves.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:29 PM

20. Look at the 1936 vs 2012 presidential election maps

1936


2012



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftInTX (Reply #20)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:40 PM

21. The "Solid South" was solidly white Democrats -- blacks, if they voted, voted Republican

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:41 PM

22. They are just labels. I see it many times here.

Younger DUers try to explain the past with today's paradigms.
Drop the labels and try to understand what motivated the people in the past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:46 PM

23. I can't get over today's GOP turning into the Know-Nothings

Seems kinda suicidal to me. As Billo says, "You can't explain that!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 03:46 PM

24. 100 years from now...

...The GOP will look at the Southern State Strategy as their biggest mistake. It allowed the inmates to run the asylum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:26 PM

29. The Republicans have always been about big business

It is just "how" they have supported big business that has changed. They used to believe that a vital workforce was part of the solution. Today, they don't. So they don't support workers.

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party

It emerged in 1854 to combat the Kansas Nebraska Act which threatened to extend slavery into the territories, and to promote more vigorous modernization of the economy.

The Republican Party was based on northern white Protestants, businessmen, professionals, factory workers, farmers, and African-Americans. It was pro-business, supporting banks, the gold standard, railroads, and tariffs to protect industrial workers and industry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 04:26 PM

30. oh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:02 PM

33. the Republicans were the progressive party

through the time of Teddy Roosevelt (who was quite progressive) and is one of my favorite Presidents.

It was during his time that the Republicans started moving to the right---that is why TR left the party and challenged them running on the Bull Moose ticket. Sadly, the progressive lost control of the party and they moved rightward---although not as far right as today until the 1960s.

Interestingly enough things in politics tend to go in cycles---parties don't always hold the same positions. The Republicans were also the "anti-war" party for many years..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brokechris (Reply #33)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:32 PM

36. Not so much anti-war as anti-foreign entanglement (read 'isolationist'...)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:20 PM

35. The Democratic Party had an albatross around its neck :

The "Dixiecrats". And it took FOREVER to get rid of them. And we all know where they went; Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, Jesse Helms.. etc

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftinOH (Reply #35)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 05:35 PM

37. I remember when they were the pariahs of US politics

Now they are spreading all over the country like roaches via the Tea Party etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:14 PM

38. The Great Depression happened and FDR came in to save the day. And families like mine ended up

Democratic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:15 PM

39. Take a few history classes ... then it will make more sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:20 PM

40. Political Parties Often Change Philosophies

Lincoln was a radical by 1860 standards.

Republicans remained the party of tolerance through the end of the 19th century, although they succumbed to the Democrats, who were the party of "Jim Crow" laws during that time.

Teddy Roosevelt was as progressive as any President until his Cousin Franklin won the White House.

Taft made the Republican Party the Party of Big Business when Teddy R relinquished the Presidency to him in 1908. T. Roosevelt was so disillusioned and upset he tried to wrestle the nomination from his former Vice-President in 1912. Failing at gaining the Republican nomination that year, he started a third party, the Bull Moose Party and challenged the incumbent Republican President Taft in 1912, assuring the Democratic election of Woodrow Wilson.

In 1920, the Republicans became the full blown party of big business and the Democrats were the populist party. The Republicans won 3 successive elections and let big bushiness run the government, ushering in the roaring 20's and Laissez Faire Economics. Then the crash of 1929 and today's 2 parties received their current identity, economically.

The solid South ended when Lyndon Johnson signed civil rights into law, and the Southern Democrats finally went into the Republican column after flirting with the third party started by George Wallace (and an off shoot of the Dixiecrats started by Strom Thurmond in 1948).

That's the evolution to the 2 parties as best as I can see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to louis c (Reply #40)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 07:22 PM

43. Where to begin....

  • Lincoln was not a radical by 1860 standards. Calling him such is the equivalent today of those who call Obama a "socialist." Lincoln was from the moderate faction of the young Republican Party. The Radicals were uniting behind Seward in the 1860 convention while Lincoln, who didn't favor opposing or restricting slavery where it already was legal, was seen as more electable. He was elected because he seemed to be a pragmatist. Tho the Dems were split in two (or three) factions, there's a good chance Seward would have lost the election and Stephen Douglass become president in 1861.

  • Republicans, almost from the gitgo, were the party of the large corporations. Lincoln himself was a strong advocate of railroad expansion, was hired lawyer and lobbyist for the railroads in the 1850s, and pushed for a transcontinental line paid for by the government as early as 1849. The Republican Congress during Lincoln's first term passed two critical laws: (1) giving away huge land & cash bounties to the two large railroads that built the TCRR and (2) giving away a lot of free land in the west to settlers so that the big railroad corporations would have lots of paying customers.

  • Franklin

  • Teddy Roosevelt was damned friendly to big corporations. He wanted monopolies regulated, not truly "busted" as his PR of the day liked to pretend. It was Wilson and the Democratic progressives who actually broke up the monopolies into smaller companies. TR wanted big business scared so they'd play nice with consumers, but he didn't (as president) ever really threaten the growing dominance corporations had over the nation's economy.

  • Taft--who was TR's Secretary of War, not VP--actually brought more law suits against corporations, using Roosevelt's regulatory laws (primarily the Interstate Commerce Act), than TR ever did. Taft's biggest problem was that he was a technocrat, perhaps one of our most apolitical presidents in history. He didn't know how to "triangulate" however, and so he kept on pissing off all sides whenever an inevitable compromise got brokered. TR took him on more for his falling popularity with the voting public than for his policies, which never really drifted from the 1904-1909 Teddy Roosevelt model. While out of office, it was Teddy who changed positions, becoming far more lefty than he'd ever been as POTUS.

  • The Republicans were the "full blown party of big business" almost from their inception. Northern Democrats had been trying for decades to pull in the Negro vote--limited as it was--to their coalition from the 1890s on. Woodrow Wilson made a particularly strong pitch for black votes in 1912, promising to fight for strong anti-lynching laws. Sadly, it was a promise he renegged on. As president, he actually reversed longstanding Republican policy of desegregating federal employees. Wilson put Jim Crow into federal policy. He even saw to it that Washington DC was resegregated (this was before DC had home rule).

  • Laissez faire. I mean, really

  • The Democratic coalition of today was put together in the 1930s, including FDR's reluctant embrace of Northern blacks. He liked their votes, but it took Eleanor to keep on pushing him to deseg New Deal programs and Southern war industry plants.

  • I can tell you as a middle aged Texas Democrat I personally saw the slow, not sudden, evolution of the South into a solide Republican voting block. Dems still stood a fighting chance in the South during the 70s and 80s, winning governorships in Georgia, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Florida just a little under half the time. It's the just the knuckle-draggers in the cotton belt that went whole-hog stoopid overnight. You KNOW what states I'm talking about. The Republicans didn't really perfect their dog-whistle politics of race baiting until the Clinton years.

  • Ruy Texiera, the guy who predicted Obama's victories back in the mid-1990s, has started talking about Dems making serious inroads back into the South. The current dog-whistles of anti-gay politics has a shelf life of perhaps another two election cycles. By the mid 20s, most of the gay-haters will be dead or out of the closet. And yet the Republicans show little sign of getting off the hate-addiction as a campaign tactic. Demographically, whites are going to start coming over to us in the next decade unless the GOP can gin up some new group of humans to hate.

  • So the beat goes on... no national coalition holds forever. Usually coalitions last about a generation. The last Republican/conservative cycle started with Nixon, despite the post-Watergate hiccups of 1974 & 1976. From there on out, Republicans set the public policy agendas, even when they lost the elections. We started ours in 2008, despite the 2010 hiccup. It'll be interesting to watch the Republicans evolve to stay viable over the next 20 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Reply #43)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 08:08 AM

45. I welcome your very articulate response

but I hold to my positions.

Each opinion is based, as best as I can surmise, on understanding the times.

The Republican Party of 1860 was a radical party. Lincoln may have been a moderate to the Republican standards, but as for the overall electorate of that time, he was radical.

Teddy R. was the enemy of big business and helped reign in the economic titans of his time. He may not have been so "radical" by toady's standards, but for the standards of his time, he sure was.

William Jennings Bryant certainly moved the Democratic party of that era to the populist side, even linking evangelicals to economic social justice.

I understand your point, but my position still holds, and I thank you for your response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 06:21 PM

41. Yeah, weird, cause, like all that changed happened, like, overnight and stuff.

I mean, duuuude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to srican69 (Original post)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 07:08 PM

42. Presidental elections 1948-60

Republicans were centered two areas with the liberal wing in the Northeast and conservatives dominated the Midwest, particularly the plains states.

48


52


56


60

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SpartanDem (Reply #42)

Thu Dec 13, 2012, 07:23 PM

44. Interesting to note how smoothly Adlai Stevenson accommodated the Jim Crow crowd.

Kennedy was scared of them too, but he got over it when things got violent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread