Presumably they would have registered as Republicans because the Democrats would have thrown up barriers to membership in their party. Had that happened, blacks would have run the GOP in the state (since almost no whites there were Republicans). But they would have made the GOP there into a liberal party that was to the left of the FDR/Henry Wallace Democrats. They certainly wouldn't have been “Robert Taft Republicans”.
In other words, even if they had been Republicans, they'd be of the Jim Jeffords/John Chafee variety, if not worse. Even if MLK Jr. was technically registered as a Republican, we know for a fact he wasn't a conservative. He supported every socialist wealth redistribution scheme ever proposed and one of his last acts before being killed was to offer sympathy to the Vietcong.
Once Mississippi blacks were able to register, starting in the mid-60s, they flooded to the polls to sign up as Democrats. By that time all the barriers the state Democratic Party might have in the past thrown up to stop them (white primaries, etc.) had been struck down. Once they could register as Dems, they did, even in a state where the Democrats had just recently tried to prevent them from attending the state university and where the Dem governor Ross Barnett had practically joined the KKK.
People here keep posting articles (literally, on almost a daily basis) about how anti-black the Dems once were. They're right, but they miss the point. They think blacks would rush to join the GOP if they only knew how racist those old-time Dems used to be. But they surely knew that circa 1968. Those old-time Dems were still around and had stood in the schoolhouse door right in front of them. YET THEY STILL REGISTERED AS DEMOCRATS, once the barriers the Dems had put up to keep them from registering were removed.
Why? Because they liked what the northern Democrats were pushing, which was socialism and the beginning hints of racial preferences. They knew that if they joined the Democratic Party in the South, they could take the party in their states away from the conservatives and create a national, truly leftist party. This was especially true when white conservatives began leaving the Democrats for the GOP in all the southern states.
So telling blacks that the Dems were once racist is pointless. They take it as a source of pride that they took the party away from those old-time Dixiecrats. Few blacks will even consider supporting a fellow black man like Michael Steele, if he's a Republican. Steele's an intelligent, articulate, conservative. No one could reasonably call him “anti-black”. Yet when he ran for governor of Maryland, he got massacred in Baltimore and Prince Georges County by a three-to-one margin. Blacks preferred the Dem candidate, socialist hack Ben Cardin.
There was essentially no Republican party in any Deep South state (with rare exceptional breakthoughs). Without the Jim Crow laws, there would've been no "Solid Dem South." The Republicans enjoyed multiracial coalitions, with occasional majority breakthroughs even in post-Reconstruction (such as in North Carolina in the 1890s). That likely would've continued for many years to come, and would've altered future national political contests.
"Presumably they would have registered as Republicans because the Democrats would have thrown up barriers to membership in their party. Had that happened, blacks would have run the GOP in the state (since almost no whites there were Republicans). But they would have made the GOP there into a liberal party that was to the left of the FDR/Henry Wallace Democrats. They certainly wouldn't have been “Robert Taft Republicans”."
Au contraire. The presumption today is that the vast majority of Black voters are far-left (or always have been), but that is a misconception. Indeed, in my state of TN, where Blacks did have limited political participation, Blacks were not for Eisenhower in 1952, but were for Taft. A sad and almost forgotten fact of history is that in desiring to be more competitive in the South with Whites, the Eisenhower campaign had operatives hijack multiracial (or majority Black) local Republican outfits that were almost to the last loyal to Taft. That was Ike's own version of a "Southern strategy." Also, remember, too, that the last Northern Republican elected to the House during the FDR era, Oscar DePriest, was a Conservative. He lost reelection in 1934 because he refused to support big government welfare schemes of FDR. Even those Democrats that succeeded him in his seat until the 1970s (Arthur Mitchell and Bill Dawson) had been Republicans that reluctantly switched parties in order to get crumbs from the majority party in DC. Many Blacks in the North had to become Democrats because that's where the power was in the political machines. Even NY's Adam Clayton Powell had to reluctantly run as a Democrat in 1944 when he'd have preferred the GOP and aligned with the national Dems simply because they were the majority party.
"In other words, even if they had been Republicans, they'd be of the Jim Jeffords/John Chafee variety, if not worse. Even if MLK Jr. was technically registered as a Republican, we know for a fact he wasn't a conservative. He supported every socialist wealth redistribution scheme ever proposed and one of his last acts before being killed was to offer sympathy to the Vietcong."
Well, as I stated above, it wasn't entirely so. I never argued MLK, Jr. was a Conservative. Many Blacks came to the conclusion that the national government was their friend and state governments (in the South at least) were not. For awhile, that was the case. But in the 1960s, many Blacks became politically radicalized in short order, embracing positions unimaginable and overwhelmingly so a decade earlier. Despite the fact the GOP HAD been more pro-Civil Rights than the Democrats, the great lie was spread out that the GOP was "anti-." Anybody who tried to go against that mindset, especially if you were Black, would be publicly ostracized. I've often given the example of Sammy Davis, Jr., who well remembered that back in 1960, the Kennedys applied pressure on him to delay (or put off entirely) marrying his White fiancee lest JFK be tarred with such a horror of having a supporter of his in a mixed marriage ! Davis knew the Dems were nowhere near the pure party towards Blacks they claimed to be, and he endorsed Nixon in 1972. The reaction to Davis was visceral and appalling. How dare he endorse that Republican ! Sadly, Davis was later forced to do a backtracking of sorts and go before none other than his majesty, Je$$e Jack$on, in order to "reclaim" his standing.
"Once Mississippi blacks were able to register, starting in the mid-60s, they flooded to the polls to sign up as Democrats. By that time all the barriers the state Democratic Party might have in the past thrown up to stop them (white primaries, etc.) had been struck down. Once they could register as Dems, they did, even in a state where the Democrats had just recently tried to prevent them from attending the state university and where the Dem governor Ross Barnett had practically joined the KKK."
By which time the myth of the Democrat party as their liberators was taking hold. However, I'll add this, it was not as clear cut as them merely joining with the regular Democrats in MS. Indeed, into the 1980s, there were really 3 separate parties. The regular White Democrats, Independent Black Democrats and Republicans. Thanks to the split between the Dems, the GOP started winning federal offices with pluralities. One of the leaders of the Independent Black Dems was Charles Evers (Medgar's older brother), and Evers was no liberal. He eventually became, and still is today, a Republican. Many Southern Blacks that are Dems are not the stereotypical liberal moonbat. Here in my hometown of Nashville, a member of our Council ran for Vice-Mayor last year but was ignored by the media all because she was a solid Social Conservative (and predictably lost due to the media's "blackout" of her candidacy, helping a White liberal moonbat -- with a vote along racial lines, except for my household, who voted for the Black lady).
"People here keep posting articles (literally, on almost a daily basis) about how anti-black the Dems once were. They're right, but they miss the point. They think blacks would rush to join the GOP if they only knew how racist those old-time Dems used to be. But they surely knew that circa 1968. Those old-time Dems were still around and had stood in the schoolhouse door right in front of them. YET THEY STILL REGISTERED AS DEMOCRATS, once the barriers the Dems had put up to keep them from registering were removed."
"Why? Because they liked what the northern Democrats were pushing, which was socialism and the beginning hints of racial preferences. They knew that if they joined the Democratic Party in the South, they could take the party in their states away from the conservatives and create a national, truly leftist party. This was especially true when white conservatives began leaving the Democrats for the GOP in all the southern states."
It's not as clear-cut as that. Part of the reason had to do with joining the MAJORITY party. They had little to gain in the 1960s in the South joining a non-existent legislative party. However, they sometimes exacted leverage. In my state in 1969, it was a Black Democrat that gave the TN House a Republican Speaker for the first time in a century, and for the last time since. Had the Republicans a more sizeable presence both in Congress and in state legislatures in the '60s, or if they were the majority, I think it would've been a different outcome. However, once all the eggs were placed in one basket, it was hard to go back. Remember that it took nearly 70 years from the end of the Civil War for the Dems to start to peel away Blacks to get one elected to Congress, 100+ years to start to get them elected to Southern legislatures, and nearly 140 years before the first Black male Democrat was elected to the Senate (Obama himself).
"So telling blacks that the Dems were once racist is pointless. They take it as a source of pride that they took the party away from those old-time Dixiecrats. Few blacks will even consider supporting a fellow black man like Michael Steele, if he's a Republican. Steele's an intelligent, articulate, conservative. No one could reasonably call him “anti-black”. Yet when he ran for governor of Maryland, he got massacred in Baltimore and Prince Georges County by a three-to-one margin. Blacks preferred the Dem candidate, socialist hack Ben Cardin."
You mean Senator. Steele's presence on the ticket in '02 helped to get a larger-than-average % of the Black vote and earned the endorsement of a prominent Black Dem political leader in PG County. Some Blacks do realize that keeping all their eggs in one basket is ill-advised. Steele had the best showing for a GOP Senate candidate (44%) in 26 years (when the last Republican, the very liberal Charles Mathias, won his final term in 1980), but he was running in a heavily Democrat state in a terrible year for the GOP (in which the incumbent GOP Governor also was brought down). It's also worth pointing out that Steele performed nearly twice as well in both PG County (24%) and Balto City (23%) then the previous Senate candidate in '04 who was a State Senator (who received 13% and 12% (!) respectively). Bush got only 17% in both in '04.
But to get back to a basic criticism I've had is that the GOP has not been nearly aggressive or serious enough with pursuing the Black vote. We're in the same position the Dems were in over 7 decades ago, with having to make crucial breakthroughs, and we're not doing that. We're scarcely past tokenism, and that is unacceptable. Many Blacks do have the opinion that they are taken for granted by the Dems, but hold the opinion that the GOP just ignores them entirely, and that's not altogether a falsehood. If you don't even bother to go into the neighborhoods and ASK for their vote, why would they feel the need to change their voting patterns ?