Posted on 04/18/2013 2:14:07 PM PDT by Epsdude
Sorry for this unusual post. I'm probably the youngest one this site so you can imagine I've got a lot to learn in politics, but one thing has always puzzled me.
I know that Republicans broke away from the Whigs to oppose the pro-slavery Democrats but the change in party demographics since then has perplexed me.
I recently saw this picture: http://manwiththemuckrake.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/slavery-2012.jpg
I'm just curious, what caused such a radical shift in the solid south? Some people accredit this to an 'ideological party switch' but that seems rather implausible to me. So what did cause this arbitrary shift and, also why did the black vote slowly drift over to the Democrats?
Thanks.
If there are 20 million voters in the south, there are 20 million reasons, perhaps 40 million voters if some of them have more than one reason.
Black voters (and arguably all voters) have been betrayed by both parties many times. Which incidents one may chose to remember in the voting booth has great variability.
One has to convince voters to vote for you, one by one, and do it so they stay convinced in the privacy of the voting booth.
Or commit voter fraud. Sadly, we have opponents who are enthusiastic about that.
It may be that processes or mores changed to permit more voter fraud in some districts, and decreased voter fraud in other districts.
Yet, despite the increased number of Roman Catholics, Abortion remains the a key tenet among liberal politicians of a very catholic state.
A friend does blood tests to support bone marrow transplants, with a patient base in East LA. He notes that many large hispanic families have children by fathers other than the one married to the mother. After popping out a cuckoo or two, mother tends to make it up to hubby by giving him another child.
Read post 178, your 1896 incident meant and means nothing to anyone, and did not have anything to do with blacks switching from staunch republican voters until 1936 and then suddenly switching.
Because the majority of Catholics support abortion and homosexual marriage and liberalism, that is what the left depends on, look at the leading democrat politicians for generations, and look at that 2004 vote breakdown in that abortion influenced California election of 2004 in post 180.
If we but cut off their water and leave the allotments for the states to the East, to whom it all rightfully belongs, I think California would change substantially!
Another switch was in 1915. Votes switch back and forth. There is no one turning point.
The alamo is a hate site now, one that marks where Mexicans and their government murdered Americans.
The union didn’t break up. Rather, the slave power pretended authority for states that the states didn’t have, and then started an insurrection.
What switch? What are you talking about?
the racist post reconstruction Democrat south was statist, in the sense that they asserted that state laws should demand compliance over personal relations between people, to the point where they asserted state control over what water fountain you would drink from, or where you would sit or if you could sit in a cafeteria, what school your child would attend. Poll taxes and literacy tests were perverted to prevent ‘the wrong people’ from voting.
This was enforced by extrajudicial terror, to include lynching and murder of people who disagreed with the racist Democrat state authorities.
Such state power was initially banned using the federal power over interstate commerce. Once the racist and cruel nature of southern institutions was revealed, they were overturned one by one, mostly by the good and decent people of the south, who were protected in part by private ownership of firearms, and further empowered by the federal government to be good and decent.
It wasn’t true when Jay said it, as one considers the large numbers of loyalists during the Revolution, the African population, and the Indian tribes.
Californa doesn’t import much water from other states. They do move it around a lot from the mountains to various deserts.
Current Democrat policy is to deny water to areas that vote (R).
You seem to be raving now, forget it.
I know. Originally post#5 had a map showing which states were blue or red. The only state not colored was Florida. It was gray.
As I distinctly recall San Diego water comes from the Colorado.
In the North, water comes down from Oregon. Then there's the Sacramento river ~ it lies mostly within the original land claims assigned to Russia in the Treaty of London (1604). There was no legitimate Spanish claim after that date since it was EXTINGUISHED by the king of Spain himself! When we pull out of California, the water goes with it as well as anything North of San Fran!
Then perhaps you can explain why 100% of the trans-Atlantic slave trade was being carried in Yankee ships by 1860? Every other country in the western world banned the slave trade in the 1830's. But the Yankees continued slave running until Brazil, the last country in the western Hemisphere, abolished slavery in 1884. Those in the North who were truly against slavery for its own sake were very few in number.
Slavery was the key issue for the south, which is why southern states that gave any reason for pretended secession, all cited slavery.
Abolitionism was intensely unpopular in the North. The Southern propaganda effort was intended to undermine the Union war effort. It worked. There were draft riots in New York.
I see. And how would you describe the American War of Independence? How about the secessions from the Articles of Confederation. What about the secession of Maine from Massachusetts? Tennessee from North Carolina? Kentucky from Virginia? How about Vermont which seceded from both New York and New Hampshire? Were all those "pretended authorities" too? The southern legislatures held special elections to choose delegates to state conventions in order to consider the secession question. It doesn't get any more democratic than that.
The republican party founded in 1854, was not anti-slavery?
Anti-Southern and anti-negro would be a better way to describe it. The Liberty party was the only party to merge into the Republican party that wanted to abolish slavery in the South. The rest of the nominally abolitionist parties were really anti-negro and opposed the expansion of slavery, but did not oppose it where it existed. How can they be an anti-slavery party they consider slavery acceptable in the South?
The issue that the Republican party rode to victory was bleeding Kansas. That issue wasn't about eliminating slavery. It was about keeping negros out of the territories.
The republicans were definitely anti-slavery and it is why they came to be.
Don’t confuse the initial fight of ending slavery only where they could in 1854, with not being against it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.