The other thing that Tucker Carlson's text message makes undeniable

The Washington Post (via MSN.com) ^ | 03 May 2023 | Philip Bump

[zeestephen]

Carlson had for years been explicit — increasingly so — about his views of race and diversity in America...And then there was the replacement theory. Over and over, Carlson suggested that immigrants were being brought to the United States to shift the electorate to the left...This was a white-nationalist trope, now airing on the country's most-watched cable news channel in prime time.

[1Old Pro]

+1

[DiogenesLamp]

your post in question ‘They wanted those votes because they knew the existing population of citizens would never vote for them.’

I think you said that...

You think the word "Them" means one specific person such as the "President"? Are you going along with the gay "pronouns" thing and calling a single person "them"?

In my meaning, "Them" meant the liberal Republicans who controlled the congress, the bureaucracy, and everyone else in the system, up to and including the President. It meant everyone on the side of big government, big spending, corruption and graft.

three confederate states, Texas, Virginia, and Mississippi were denied the vote as they had not been restored to the Union; of the other eight states of the confederacy, 16 EV’s went to the dem Seymour, 41 to the pub Grant...

This isn't answering the question. Were they still denying white people the right to vote in that election? My recollection is that they disenfranchised all white males because they were "rebels", and therefore the only people allowed to vote were carpet baggers from outside their area.

you are supposing that the denied states would have voted for Seymour; as the majority of the former confederacy went for Grant (AR,TN,NC,SC,AL,FL against GA,LA) your supposition is weak in the extreme...

So, do you have a simple to understand explanation why the majority of the Confederate states would vote for the Republican Grant? That makes no sense on the face of it unless you postulate they controlled who got to vote.

You might as well say they all voted for Lincoln, because that's how dictatorships work. The will of the people is nothing when only certain people are allowed to vote and the majority isn't.

first of all, my feathers are perfectly in place, and secondly, nothing you could say would ever cause them to be otherwise...

Well that's good to know, because people shouldn't get to worked up about this stuff, they should just calmly weigh the information they are provided and look at it with an objective perspective.

So why would all the Southern states vote for the man who did the most to kill their sons? Why would they vote for the 13th amendment to end slavery when many of you would have us believe they sacrificed hundreds of thousands of men to keep slavery?

Can you explain any of this without a dictatorship forcing them to do these things?

[DiogenesLamp]

Of course, you realize, don't you, that Thomas Jefferson's "Democratic" party got its name because Jefferson was all in favor of expanding the voter rolls to include not just property owners -- which had enfranchised women and freed-blacks -- but all men "free, white and 21". Jefferson's new laws which expanded the vote to all adult men also disenfranchised property owning women and African Americans.

And Jefferson was 100% successful in that his Democratic Party dominated US national politics until they declared secession and war on the United States in 1861.

BroJoeK, I'm surprised at you. Normally you are more accurate in the bits of history you want to relate. You apparently have fallen for the old claim that Jefferson founded the Democrat party. This is completely wrong. Jefferson's party was the Democratic-Republican party. Andrew Jackson is the actual founder of the Democrat party.

And by the way he was anti-secession, so I guess that puts him on your side. :)

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "BroJoeK, I'm surprised at you.
Normally you are more accurate in the bits of history you want to relate.
You apparently have fallen for the old claim that Jefferson founded the Democrat party.
This is completely wrong.
Jefferson's party was the Democratic-Republican party."

Naw, Jefferson called himself a small-r republican, but his Federalist opponents called his political party Democratic-Republicans, because Jefferson supported the "democratic" French Revolution -- "democratic" then referring to the French guillotines and the blood of tyrants.
And Jeffersonians liked it so much, they kept the name "Democratics" and dropped "Republicans".
Within a few years they also referred to themselves as "The Democracy".

Nearly all the people who later became Jacksonian Democratics had earlier been Jeffersonian Democratics.

Yes, Jefferson's name "Republican" did survive his Democratic party, even in Jefferson's lifetime.
Virginia Congressman and Senator John Randolf called his faction of anti-Jeffersonians the "Old Republicans", meaning they still supported Strict Construction of the Constitution, long after President Jefferson himself had left Strict Construction to become a typical Democratic Party expansionist of Federal powers.

[jeffersondem]

“Of course, you realize, don't you, that Thomas Jefferson's “Democratic” party got its name because Jefferson was all in favor of expanding the voter rolls to include not just property owners — which had enfranchised women and freed-blacks — but all men “free, white and 21”.”

I can't make any sense of this sentence. Did your storied dislike of Jefferson cause you to make an inadvertent misstatement?

Or was it advertent?

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "I can't make any sense of this sentence."

Hmmmm... let's see which part of it is causing you difficulties.

1. "Thomas Jefferson's 'Democratic' party got its name because Jefferson was all in favor of expanding the voter rolls to include not just property owners."

   Jefferson himself didn't name his party, but on occasion referred to himself as a small-r republican.

   Jefferson's Federalist opponents began calling Jeffersonians "Democratic-republicans" because Jeffersonians favored expanding the voter rolls to include not just property owners, but all men "free, white and 21".
   Also because Jefferson was known to support the "Democratic" French Revolution, where "Democracy" meant the guillotine and "blood of tyrants" for the Old Order.

   In Jefferson's time, his "Democratics" were strongly distinguished from the "Old Republicans", strict constructionists lead by Virginia Congressman, later Senator John Randolf.

   So, the key point here is that the word "Democratic" originated not with Jeffersonians themselves, but with their Federalist opponents, as a term of mocking derision.

   Can you follow me so far?

2. It's well known that Jeffersonians expanded voter rolls, so that you did not have to be a property owner to vote for Thomas Jefferson.
   What's not so well known is that while expanding the rolls to include every man "free, white and 21", they also eliminated previously allowed voting by property owning women and free-blacks.
   This eventually put millions of poor immigrants in big cities on the Democratics voter rolls, while removing from voting upwardly mobile, property-owning women and freed-blacks

   And that is the point of general discussion -- shaping voter rolls to suit your own purposes, which is what Democrats are doing today, is as old as the Republic itself and Jefferson's Democratic Party.

3. It turned out, Jeffersonians liked that word "Democratic" and so they used it for themselves, and soon dropped the "-Republicans" to become the Democratic Party, also referring to themselves as "The Democracy".

   So, whenever you hear modern Democrats complaining that, for example, "Donald Trump is a threat to our Democracy", remember that by "our Democracy" they mean the Democrat Party, The Democracy.

jeffersondem: "Did your storied dislike of Jefferson cause you to make an inadvertent misstatement?"

Hmmmm... doubtless a story in the library's fiction section, since I hugely admire Thomas Jefferson.
But I do insist that we tell the truth about him, which is that his was a very mixed bag of ideas, quite advanced in some areas, not so much in others.

So, where, exactly do you see a "misstatement"?

[jeffersondem]

“Of course, you realize, don't you, that Thomas Jefferson's “Democratic” party got its name because Jefferson was all in favor of expanding the voter rolls to include not just property owners — which had enfranchised women and freed-blacks — but all men “free, white and 21”. Jefferson's new laws which expanded the vote to all adult men also disenfranchised property owning women and African Americans.”

You contend that Jefferson was “all in favor of expanding the voter rolls and in the same sentence include something about enfranchising women and freed blacks.”

In the very next sentence you state Jefferson was responsible for disenfranchising women and African Americans.

Enfranchise and disenfranchise are not the same thing. They are opposites.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "You contend that Jefferson was 'all in favor of expanding the voter rolls' and in the same sentence include something about enfranchising women and freed blacks.
In the very next sentence you state Jefferson was responsible for disenfranchising women and African Americans.

Enfranchise and disenfranchise are not the same thing.
They are opposites."

Not if you're a Democrat. 😂

The original laws of most states in, say, 1800 required voters to be property owners.
In some states that also enfranchised well-off property owning women and freed-blacks to vote.
Such voters were likely to support the party of the Constitution, the Federalists.

The genius of Jeffersonians was to campaign for universal suffrage, for any man "free, white and 21".
These added millions of Big City immigrants, who did not own property, to Democrat voter rolls and began the Democrats' alliance of Big City immigrants (i.e., Tammany Hall) with globalized Big Business (i.e., King Cotton) and poor rural whites.

And, genius of political geniuses, the very same laws which added more poor men, "free, white and 21" also revoked the franchise from property owning women and freed-blacks.

In military terms, that's called "shaping the battlefield", to improve your side's chances of victory.
I don't know what the political term for it is, maybe Donald Trump would call it rigging or stealing elections?

Whatever it's called, Democrats have long been masters of it and Republicans, generally, have no clue what's hitting them.

Here is one description of Tammany Hall in New York City:

"Tammany Hall, also known as the Society of St. Tammany, the Sons of St. Tammany, or the Columbian Order, was an American political organization founded in 1786 and incorporated on May 12, 1789, as the Tammany Society.
It became the main local political machine of the Democratic Party and played a major role in controlling New York City and New York State politics, and helped immigrants, most notably the Irish, rise in American politics into the 1960s. "

[jeffersondem]

“In some states (in 1800) that also enfranchised well-off property owning women and freed-blacks to vote.”

Seems I’ve read that New Jersey experimented with some women voting for a short time - not married women but unmarried and widows. I had never heard that Jefferson supported or opposed the New Jersey legislature in their back and forth.

What other states are you referencing that gave women the right to vote in 1800?

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Seems I’ve read that New Jersey experimented with some women voting for a short time - not married women but unmarried and widows."

Somewhere I read where other states, i.e., Massachusetts, allowed property owning women and freed-blacks to vote, but all of that ended in the early 1800s when property owning requirements were eliminated.

"1756 -- Lydia Chapin Taft votes in Uxbridge, Massachusetts."

jeffersondem: "I had never heard that Jefferson supported or opposed the New Jersey legislature in their back and forth."

By 1804 New Jersey was in firm Jeffersonian political hands and in 1807 NJ removed property requirements for voting, but restricted voting to men "free, white & 21".

"1797 -- John Adams recalls Eleanor “Nelly” Parke Custis having ridden to the polls on horseback in Virginia demanding her right to vote as a freeholder."

"In 1838, Kentucky passed the first statewide woman suffrage law (since New Jersey revoked theirs with their new constitution in 1807) – allowing female heads of household to vote in elections deciding on taxes and local boards for the new county “common school” system. "

I agree, specific examples don't add up to much.

[jeffersondem]

According to Wikipedia (I know) Federalists had their hand in the New Jersey reforms that you attributed to Thomas Jefferson. Maybe you over-drove your headlights; for the first time ever.

“Women voters became convenient scapegoats to blame for candidate's losses. Women were sometimes called “petticoat electors” and were considered to be easy to manipulate and generally incompetent. The Federalists also believed that denying women the right to vote would help them politically against the Republicans in New Jersey.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_New_Jersey

[BroJoeK]

Jeffersondem: "Federalists had their hand in the New Jersey reforms that you attributed to Thomas Jefferson."

Jeffersonian Democratics lead the charge to eliminate property owning requirements for voting and they were in charge in New Jersey in 1807.

Property owning freed-blacks could vote in New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey:

"Prior to the Civil War, free Black people had suffrage in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
However, the right to vote was rescinded in New Jersey (1807)[3] and Pennsylvania (1838).[4]
New York State's Constitution of 1821 imposed a heavy property ownership requirement on Black voters (only), in effect disenfranchising almost all of them."

I think it's still true: where property ownership was the main requirement for voting, women and freed-blacks could and sometimes did vote.
When property owning requirements were first removed, so were the franchises for women & freed-blacks.

[DiogenesLamp]

Just ran across this:

Memoirs of General William T. Sherman, Vol II,

Pg 373

I had a long and frank conversation, during which he [Chief Justice Chase] explained to me the confusion caused in Washington by the assassination of Mr. Lincoln, the sudden accession to power of Mr. Johnson, who was then supposed to be bitter and vindictive in his feelings toward the South, and the wild pressure of every class of politicians to enforce on the new President their pet schemes. He showed me a letter of his own, which was in print, dated Baltimore, April 11th, and another of April 12th, addressed to the President, urging him to recognize the freedmen as equal in all respects to the whites. He was the first man, of any authority or station, who ever informed me that the Government of the United States would insist on extending to the former slaves of the South the elective franchise, and he gave as a reason the fact that the slaves, grateful for their freedom, for which they were indebted to the armies and Government of the North, would, by their votes, offset the disaffected and rebel element of the white population of the South.

I had began to suspect that votes to keep them in power was the *ONLY* reason why the liberals wanted to give freed slaves the right to vote. This is a piece of evidence that confirms my suspicion.

The Liberals were doing then what they are doing now with illegals. They are trying to cut out the real constituency and replace it with people who will vote to keep them in power.

[x]

Johnson was a long time Democrat who turned out to be a lot softer on the South than most Republicans were. His idea may have been that freed slaves would vote with poorer whites to offset the power of the planter elite. In any case, we did eventually extend the suffrage to people of different races. Was that something we shouldn’t have done?

[rustbucket]

Controlling who gets to vote is what some politicians have been doing for a long time. Think of the Federalists and their Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 that extended the time of residency required for citizenship from 5 years to 14 years. The majority of immigrants at that time favored and voted for the Democratic-Republicans, not the Federalists.

Then there was the election of 1860, where some northern states let non-citizen immigrants vote if they promised to seek citizenship in the future.

The Southern Democrats of my youth stopped blacks from voting by requiring then to read and explain part of the US Constitution to the satisfaction of the registrar. I boned up on the Constitution before I registered to vote, but they didn’t ask me anything about the Constitution. I was white.

The current border policy has effectively let millions of aliens into the country. In addition, in the middle of the night some of the aliens were flown to various other states. Sounds to me like a way to affect the outcome of future elections.

[wardaddy]

Always their plan

Exploit blacks kept in the south to vote GOP which lol frankly was not a hard sell

Like the Dems do now

Parties have switched

Although it’s not that simplistic the radical republicans in many ways are aped by todays progressives

Though given most were white I doubt lefties today would claim them

Hell they even eschew poor Abe God love him

( yes I know abe was not an RR)

[DiogenesLamp]

Was that something we shouldn’t have done?

My rule of thumb is only tax paying citizens should vote, but that's not the main point here. The liberals created this right for them simply to gain power, not because it was the moral thing to do.

The mens rea was evil, just as it was for their reasons for starting the Civil War. They did these things for selfish reasons, and then pretended they did them for moral reasons.

For what it's worth, in the various readings I have done on the issue of the Civil War, I had come across an article alleging that this (enfranchisement of freed slaves) was the specific thing that motivated John Wilkes Booth to assassinate Lincoln. Perhaps others on the forum know more about this, but I have ran across that claim.

[DiogenesLamp]

Controlling who gets to vote is what some politicians have been doing for a long time. Think of the Federalists and their Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 that extended the time of residency required for citizenship from 5 years to 14 years. The majority of immigrants at that time favored and voted for the Democratic-Republicans, not the Federalists.

Thank you for giving me more insight on this particular point. I knew about the Alien and Sedition act, what I didn't know was that it was specifically created so that the party in power could hang on to power. That is eye opening.

Then there was the election of 1860, where some northern states let non-citizen immigrants vote if they promised to seek citizenship in the future.

I did not know that either. It probably wouldn't have changed the election, but the motivation seems clear.

The Southern Democrats of my youth stopped blacks from voting by requiring then to read and explain part of the US Constitution to the satisfaction of the registrar. I boned up on the Constitution before I registered to vote, but they didn’t ask me anything about the Constitution. I was white.

I perceive you must be quite a bit older than I am. :)

The current border policy has effectively let millions of aliens into the country. In addition, in the middle of the night some of the aliens were flown to various other states. Sounds to me like a way to affect the outcome of future elections.

I think the Rockefeller Republicans like the effect it has on the labor market, and I think the Democrats like the effect it has on their hold on power.

The people being screwed are everyone else in America.

[DiogenesLamp]

Parties have switched

The ideology definitely has. The 1860s Republicans were very similar in ideology to modern Democrats, and vice versa.

( yes I know abe was not an RR)

What's an "RR"?

[x]

We were concerned that the secessionist slaveowners who had started the war would return to power in the South. Giving the vote to the freed slaves was seen as a way to prevent that. As it happened, the vote was taken away, and with it, many other rights.

Sometimes, cynicism can be very close to naivete. I don’t think you have a greater insight into how people thought 150 years ago than the people at the time did. Also, your hijacking threads and turning them into civil war arguments may be irritating some people.