During Reconstruction, many white southerners were disenfranchised, and "carpetbaggers" and blacks ran the governments in the South for about 20 years. From contemporary accounts, many of those in charge during this time were corrupt, incompetent, or both. At least in the case of the blacks, this wasn't necessarily their fault, as many had not been allowed to be educated before the Civil War.
Backlash to the policies of Reconstruction (which apparently were much harsher than Lincoln would have implemented had he not been assassinated) ended up leading to the KKK, Jim Crow laws, and other problems. White southerners at least up to the 1960s would not have voted GOP on a bet.
That said, up to FDR, the Democratic party was the party of limited government, giving power to the states and not the federal government -- which most on this board would agree with.
In fact, if one reads the Dixiecrat platform from 1948, except for the explicit support of integration and Jim Crow laws, I'd bet that most FReepers would agree more with it than with either the Democratic (post FDR) or GOP platforms of that year.
At the risk of being branded a racist myself, the Dixiecrat platform was also rather prescient of some current problems - such as affirmative action, quotas, and government bureaucracies - that the GOP now opposes.
Perhaps it was the intrusive Federal government that Lott was referring to in his comments, but it certainly sounded as if he was supporting segregation - which is not only wrong, but stupid.
I believe it was Mafree who said on another thread that perhaps it's time for a discussion of states rights vs. the Federal government, without the baggage of slavery and segregation - and I agree that there should be such a discussion, but I'm not sure it could be done with all the emotional baggage the term "states' rights" now conveys.
Sounds like a segregationist association of journalists
Yes, I did say that and it'd be nice if Lott started to give a simple explanation of this when he appears on BET tomorrow.