Liberal roots of the KKK

[distracted]

.

From the book Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg:

For decades the Klan has stood as the most obvious candidate for an American brand of fascism. That makes quite a bit of sense. The right-wing label, on the other hand, isn’t nearly as clean a fit. The Klan of the progressive Era was not the same Klan that arose after the civil War. Rather, it was a collection of loosely independent organizations spread across the united States. What united them, besides their name and absurd getups, was that they were all inspired by the film The birth of a Nation. They were, in fact, a “creepy fan subculture” of the film. Founded the week of the film’s release in 1915, the second Klan was certainly racist, but not much more than the society in general…

For years the conventional view among scholars and laymen alike was that the Klan was rural and fundamentalist. The truth is it was often quite cosmopolitan and modern, thriving in cities like New York and Chicago. In many communities the Klan focused on the reform of local government and on maintaining social values. It was often the principal extralegal enforcer of prohibition, the consummate progressive “reform.” These Klansmen,” writes Jesse walker in an illuminating survey of the latest scholarship, “were more likely to flog you for bootlegging or breaking your marriage vows than for being Black or Jewish.”

When modern liberals try to explain away the Klan membership of prominent Democrats – most frequently West Virginia enator Robert Byrd – they cough up a few clichés about how good liberals “evolved” form their southern racial “conservatism.” But the Klan of the 1920s was often seen as reformist and modern, and it had a close relationship with some progressive elements in the democratic Party. The young Harry Truman as well as the future supreme court justice Hugo black were members. In 1924, at the famous “Klanbake” Democratic convention, the KKK rallied around the future senator William McAdoo, Woodrow Wilson’s secretary of the treasury… a key architect of Wilson’s… socialism.

[The author mentions E.A.] Ross [who] served as a tutor on immigration issues to Teddy Roosevelt… and shared with… Wilson and others a conviction that social progress had to take into account the innate differences between the races. Ross… shared Wilson’s view, expressed in The State, that various races were at different stages of evolution. Africans and south Americans were still close to savages. Other races – mostly Asians – might be more “advanced” but had slid into evolutionary degeneration. … In 1914 he wrote: “Observe immigrants… in their gatherings… in their Sunday best … [They] are hirsute, low-browed, big-faced persons of obviously low mentality… [C]clearly they belong in skins, in wattled huts at the close of the Great ice Age. These ox-like men are descendants of those who always stayed behind.”

Such views didn’t stop Ross from getting a prominent appointment at Stanford [but] Stanford’s conservative… benefactor, Jane Stanford… disliked not only his politics and his activism but also his increasingly loud and crude denunciations of Chinese “coolies.” She forced the president of the school, David Starr Jordan – himself an avid eugenicist – to fire Ross.

The faculty erupted in outrage… [but after much protesting, he was not allowed to return].

It is telling that while we constantly hear about America’s racist past and our need to redeem ourselves via racial quotas, slavery reparations, and other overtures toward “historically oppressed groups,” it is rare indeed that anyone mentions the founders of American liberalism… [W]hen liberals are the historical villains, the crime is laid at the feet of America itself… ***When conservatives sin, the sin is conservatism’s [fault] alone… never is liberalism itself to blame ***[but (c]onsider the infamous Tuskegee experiments, where poor Black men were allegedly infected with syphilis without their knowledge and then monitored for years. … [a study that, as a University of Chicago writer put it] “emerged out of a liberal progressive public health movement concerned about the health and wellbeing of the African-American population.

Americans should read this book… I’m not finished but it is very interesting, especially if you want to find out how much we’ve all been lied to… and how much necessary information has been denied us via the public school system, which, of course, does not teach us the truth about many things…

 

[bpbasilphx]

Two things that get forgotten:

1. The Republican party was founded, among other reasons, to eliminate slavery.
2. When I was growing up, the ribbon in the mouth of the Democratic rooster (not a donkey!) in Alabama said, “White supremacy for the right.” By the mid-60’s, it said, “Democrats for the right.”

Think about it.

 

[Lujack]

Let’s rock and roll. This whole passage is nonsense; I’m really interested in buying this book to see other distortions of history.

Anyway:

Founded the week of the film’s release in 1915, the second Klan was certainly racist, but not much more than the society in general

Hahaha, total nonsense. The Klan was intensely racist, but it had a new focus other than African-Americans: immigrants, Jews, and Catholics.

For years the conventional view among scholars and laymen alike was that the Klan was rural and fundamentalist. The truth is it was often quite cosmopolitan and modern, thriving in cities like New York and Chicago.

The Klan’s base was always rural, though; it didn’t elect mayors or governors in New York and Chicago, but the Invisible Empire did rule Indiana and Oklahoma. So the Klan was always more powerful in rural fundamentalist areas than it was in urban ones. Let’s think about this absurd assumption: the Klan was stronger in Catholic, Jewish, African-American, and immigrant areas than it was in Protestant, homogeneous ones with lots and lots of whites? How does that even work? Grand Wizard DeAngelo most have had a great recruitment drive down at St. Joe’s, or maybe Exalted Cyclops Goldberg was leading the way.

In many communities the Klan focused on the reform of local government and on maintaining social values. It was often the principal extralegal enforcer of prohibition, the consummate progressive “reform.”

Prohibition was far from being the consummate progressive reform. While it was a progressive reform, it marked an alliance between progressives and anti-immigrant arch-conservatives. Fear of Southern Europeans was as big an aid in passing that amendment as hope for social change was.

The idea that there was even one consummate progressive cause is silly; public ownership of utilities, direct election of senators, women gaining the right to vote, environmental conservation, and labor protections were all also prominent progressive causes.

These Klansmen,” writes Jesse walker in an illuminating survey of the latest scholarship, “were more likely to flog you for bootlegging or breaking your marriage vows than for being Black or Jewish.”

That’s a frightening defense of the Klan, actually, but let’s look at it logically. The new Klan had very little contact with blacks, Jews, and Catholics (odd that Jonah Goldberg won’t mention Catholics; the Klan’s support for prohibition was mainly because it excluding Catholic groups like Italians and Irish), because they settled in predominantly Protestant areas. They were most powerful in Indiana, which at the time was something like 95% WASP, and Oklahoma, which wasn’t far behind. They didn’t have the opportunity to flog minorities because they lived far away from them, except in the Old Deep South, where they blended in with the general racism and violence of the era.

When modern liberals try to explain away the Klan membership of prominent Democrats – most frequently West Virginia enator Robert Byrd – they cough up a few clichés about how good liberals “evolved” form their southern racial “conservatism.”

Or they point out that the “Dixiecrats” were often more conservative than both the Republicans and the Democrats. The Dixiecrats despised LBJ, stormed out on Harry Truman, and were a thorn in the side to FDR. The Democratic affiliation was more a mark of their hatred for all things Republican than it was for their actual loyalty to the Democratic Party, which, in those pre-FDR days, was weak and fractured.

But the Klan of the 1920s was often seen as reformist and modern, and it had a close relationship with some progressive elements in the democratic Party. The young Harry Truman as well as the future supreme court justice Hugo black were members.

Never was the KKK seen as reformist. Never. That’s an absurd statement that has no basis in reality. Modern, maybe. But the KKK were no progressives. Now, the smear of Harry Truman is particularly interesting. Truman once gave a friend $10 for an initiation fee, but asked for his money back soon after, and never once attended a KKK meeting.

His later actions make it unlikely that he ever believed in Klan principles; he desegregated the military and split the Democratic Party in 1948 by running on a civil rights platform, which prompted the first Dixiecrat revolt.

In 1924, at the famous “Klanbake” Democratic convention, the KKK rallied around the future senator William McAdoo, Woodrow Wilson’s secretary of the treasury… a key architect of Wilson’s… socialism.

The famous “Klanbake” convention, of course, ended when those liberal cosmopolitans that were apparently KKK members rallied around the Catholic Al Smith, and tossed the convention into a stalemate; he was not nominated, because Northern Democrats couldn’t stomach him.

And if Woodrow Wilson was a socialist, what was Teddy Roosevelt, or William Howard Taft, for that matter? Could you post those quotes, please? I’d love to read this version of history.

It is telling that while we constantly hear about America’s racist past and our need to redeem ourselves via racial quotas, slavery reparations, and other overtures toward “historically oppressed groups,” it is rare indeed that anyone mentions the founders of American liberalism… [W]hen liberals are the historical villains, the crime is laid at the feet of America itself… When conservatives sin, the sin is conservatism’s [fault] alone… never is liberalism itself to blame [but (c]onsider the infamous Tuskegee experiments, where poor Black men were allegedly infected with syphilis without their knowledge and then monitored for years. … [a study that, as a University of Chicago writer put it] “emerged out of a liberal progressive public health movement concerned about the health and wellbeing of the African-American population.

Will McAdoo is a founder of American liberalism? He was the conservative candidate fro the 1924 nomination against Al Smith; he was more liberal than Harding and Coolidge, but not the other Democrats. Even Woodrow Wilson is far less a founder than a tag-along; he was more conservative than both Taft and Teddy.

 

[distracted]

Two things that get forgotten:

1. The Republican party was founded, among other reasons, to eliminate slavery.
2. When I was growing up, the ribbon in the mouth of the Democratic rooster (not a donkey!) in Alabama said, “White supremacy for the right.” By the mid-60’s, it said, “Democrats for the right.”

Think about it.

've thought about it and i’m still confused… as to exactly wht you are saying…

 

[distracted]

Let’s rock and roll. This whole passage is nonsense; I’m really interested in buying this book to see other distortions of history.

Anyway:

Hahaha, total nonsense. The Klan was intensely racist, but it had a new focus other than African-Americans: immigrants, Jews, and Catholics.

The Klan’s base was always rural, though; it didn’t elect mayors or governors in New York and Chicago, but the Invisible Empire did rule Indiana and Oklahoma. So the Klan was always more powerful in rural fundamentalist areas than it was in urban ones. Let’s think about this absurd assumption: the Klan was stronger in Catholic, Jewish, African-American, and immigrant areas than it was in Protestant, homogeneous ones with lots and lots of whites? How does that even work? Grand Wizard DeAngelo most have had a great recruitment drive down at St. Joe’s, or maybe Exalted Cyclops Goldberg was leading the way.

Prohibition was far from being the consummate progressive reform. While it was a progressive reform, it marked an alliance between progressives and anti-immigrant arch-conservatives. Fear of Southern Europeans was as big an aid in passing that amendment as hope for social change was.

The idea that there was even one consummate progressive cause is silly; public ownership of utilities, direct election of senators, women gaining the right to vote, environmental conservation, and labor protections were all also prominent progressive causes.

That’s a frightening defense of the Klan, actually, but let’s look at it logically. The new Klan had very little contact with blacks, Jews, and Catholics (odd that Jonah Goldberg won’t mention Catholics; the Klan’s support for prohibition was mainly because it excluding Catholic groups like Italians and Irish), because they settled in predominantly Protestant areas. They were most powerful in Indiana, which at the time was something like 95% WASP, and Oklahoma, which wasn’t far behind. They didn’t have the opportunity to flog minorities because they lived far away from them, except in the Old Deep South, where they blended in with the general racism and violence of the era.

Or they point out that the “Dixiecrats” were often more conservative than both the Republicans and the Democrats. The Dixiecrats despised LBJ, stormed out on Harry Truman, and were a thorn in the side to FDR. The Democratic affiliation was more a mark of their hatred for all things Republican than it was for their actual loyalty to the Democratic Party, which, in those pre-FDR days, was weak and fractured.

Never was the KKK seen as reformist. Never. That’s an absurd statement that has no basis in reality. Modern, maybe. But the KKK were no progressives. Now, the smear of Harry Truman is particularly interesting. Truman once gave a friend $10 for an initiation fee, but asked for his money back soon after, and never once attended a KKK meeting.

His later actions make it unlikely that he ever believed in Klan principles; he desegregated the military and split the Democratic Party in 1948 by running on a civil rights platform, which prompted the first Dixiecrat revolt.

The famous “Klanbake” convention, of course, ended when those liberal cosmopolitans that were apparently KKK members rallied around the Catholic Al Smith, and tossed the convention into a stalemate; he was not nominated, because Northern Democrats couldn’t stomach him.

And if Woodrow Wilson was a socialist, what was Teddy Roosevelt, or William Howard Taft, for that matter? Could you post those quotes, please? I’d love to read this version of history.

Will McAdoo is a founder of American liberalism? He was the conservative candidate fro the 1924 nomination against Al Smith; he was more liberal than Harding and Coolidge, but not the other Democrats. Even Woodrow Wilson is far less a founder than a tag-along; he was more conservative than both Taft and Teddy.

you are wasting your time… For one thing, i don’t fully understand a lot of what you say… you seem to just be cutting & pasting ideas here & there with no… central point, really.

and also i don’t take your word for anything. Get irritated at me all you want but i dont trust liberals or much of anyone else… i trust people who are against things I’m against… like murdering the unborn… and the stupid violation of the law and Constitution that made such a horror possible… and it is the liberals who fit that description… (duh)

i’m not going to take your word for anything you say on this kind of histoyr… (even if i could totally u/stand it)…

don’t trust liberals one bit…

and a lot of Republicans are “liberals”… far too liberal for me… Like McCain, that unborn babies who are victims of existence (as it were) thinking that because their fathers were rapist, they should be killed… . ditto incest babies…

Life is either sacred at any age or it isn’t… His position is illogical…

 

[Swan]

Let’s rock and roll. This whole passage is nonsense; I’m really interested in buying this book to see other distortions of history.

Anyway:

Hahaha, total nonsense. The Klan was intensely racist, but it had a new focus other than African-Americans: immigrants, Jews, and Catholics.

The Klan’s base was always rural, though; it didn’t elect mayors or governors in New York and Chicago, but the Invisible Empire did rule Indiana and Oklahoma. So the Klan was always more powerful in rural fundamentalist areas than it was in urban ones. Let’s think about this absurd assumption: the Klan was stronger in Catholic, Jewish, African-American, and immigrant areas than it was in Protestant, homogeneous ones with lots and lots of whites? How does that even work? Grand Wizard DeAngelo most have had a great recruitment drive down at St. Joe’s, or maybe Exalted Cyclops Goldberg was leading the way.

Prohibition was far from being the consummate progressive reform. While it was a progressive reform, it marked an alliance between progressives and anti-immigrant arch-conservatives. Fear of Southern Europeans was as big an aid in passing that amendment as hope for social change was.

The idea that there was even one consummate progressive cause is silly; public ownership of utilities, direct election of senators, women gaining the right to vote, environmental conservation, and labor protections were all also prominent progressive causes.

That’s a frightening defense of the Klan, actually, but let’s look at it logically. The new Klan had very little contact with blacks, Jews, and Catholics (odd that Jonah Goldberg won’t mention Catholics; the Klan’s support for prohibition was mainly because it excluding Catholic groups like Italians and Irish), because they settled in predominantly Protestant areas. They were most powerful in Indiana, which at the time was something like 95% WASP, and Oklahoma, which wasn’t far behind. They didn’t have the opportunity to flog minorities because they lived far away from them, except in the Old Deep South, where they blended in with the general racism and violence of the era.

Or they point out that the “Dixiecrats” were often more conservative than both the Republicans and the Democrats. The Dixiecrats despised LBJ, stormed out on Harry Truman, and were a thorn in the side to FDR. The Democratic affiliation was more a mark of their hatred for all things Republican than it was for their actual loyalty to the Democratic Party, which, in those pre-FDR days, was weak and fractured.

Never was the KKK seen as reformist. Never. That’s an absurd statement that has no basis in reality. Modern, maybe. But the KKK were no progressives. Now, the smear of Harry Truman is particularly interesting. Truman once gave a friend $10 for an initiation fee, but asked for his money back soon after, and never once attended a KKK meeting.

His later actions make it unlikely that he ever believed in Klan principles; he desegregated the military and split the Democratic Party in 1948 by running on a civil rights platform, which prompted the first Dixiecrat revolt.

The famous “Klanbake” convention, of course, ended when those liberal cosmopolitans that were apparently KKK members rallied around the Catholic Al Smith, and tossed the convention into a stalemate; he was not nominated, because Northern Democrats couldn’t stomach him.

And if Woodrow Wilson was a socialist, what was Teddy Roosevelt, or William Howard Taft, for that matter? Could you post those quotes, please? I’d love to read this version of history.

Will McAdoo is a founder of American liberalism? He was the conservative candidate fro the 1924 nomination against Al Smith; he was more liberal than Harding and Coolidge, but not the other Democrats. Even Woodrow Wilson is far less a founder than a tag-along; he was more conservative than both Taft and Teddy.

Thanks so much for taking time to post the above. Too bad some folks don’t want to hear it. The very idea that the KKK was ever liberal (liberals being for equality, not racism and discrimination) is nonsense. A lot of folks don’t understand about the Dixiecrats and other conservative Democrates - that it was only when the Demoncratic party came out of desegretation and civil rights that many of these folks started voting Republican - which is why most Southern states are red states today. A Democrat didn’t automatically equal a liberal, especially back then.

 

[Lujack]

you are wasting your time… For one thing, i don’t fully understand a lot of what you say… you seem to just be cutting & pasting ideas here & there with no… central point, really.

I’m not cutting and pasting any ideas. Its ironic that you’d accuse me of that, especially because you did cut and paste a large section of some silly tract/book and expect everyone on here to nod sagely and say how great it is.

Of course, it does have a central point: every point Jonah Goldberg just tried to make is wrong. Goldberg threw a lot of stuff at the wall and none of it stuck.

and also i don’t take your word for anything. Get irritated at me all you want but i dont trust liberals or much of anyone else… i trust people who are against things I’m against… like murdering the unborn… and the stupid violation of the law and Constitution that made such a horror possible… and it is the liberals who fit that description… (duh)

i’m not going to take your word for anything you say on this kind of histoyr… (even if i could totally u/stand it)…

Then look it up yourself. Its very, very easy to verify everything I said there. Almost as easy as it was to debunk what Goldberg said. It also isn’t hard to understand, if you read it. For example, Goldberg tried to use William McAdoo as an example of liberals being racist. I pointed out that McAdoo, while a Democrat, was not really a liberal; he was associated with the most conservative candidate running in the election of 1912, and was the conservative champion at the 1924 Democratic Convention.

don’t trust liberals one bit…

and a lot of Republicans are “liberals”… far too liberal for me… Like McCain, that unborn babies who are victims of existence (as it were) thinking that because their fathers were rapist, they should be killed… . ditto incest babies…

Life is either sacred at any age or it isn’t… His position is illogical…

Abortion had nothing to do with anything you just posted, and is even more irrelevant to me because I am also opposed to abortion, and would like to see it outlawed. I also get that you don’t believe anything I say, and although I’m insulted by it very much, I can deal with it. But like I said, all of those points are very easy to verify if you’re willing to put in the time.

 

[distracted]

Abortion had nothing to do with anything you just posted, and is even more irrelevant to me because I am also opposed to abortion, and would like to see it outlawed. I also get that you don’t believe anything I say, and although I’m insulted by it very much, I can deal with it. But like I said, all of those points are very easy to verify if you’re willing to put in the time.

abortion has to do with Right and Left. We all know where ea party stands…

how can you be insulted tht i don’t believe you?? I don’t believe 90% of what i read when it is written by those i know - or suspect - of having liberal viewpoints… that’s just the way i am and the way i do thingss… nothing insulting about it… If it makes you feel better i don’t even automatically trust everything devout Catholics say… even the pope is not infallible in everything he says in casual conversation… so all i really trust are the doctrines & dogmas of the Church and the ex-cathedra statements of the RCC…

I’m surprised you didn’t comment on the very badly worded part of my post concerning abortion… Yikes!! :whacky:…)must have been one of those low blood sugar moments!!! (no, i don’t have diabetes… i just don’t eat breakfast, usually and it messes w/ my blood sugar & then my brain cells starve or get wacked out… & its just not a good thing:hypno: :whacky:…)

anyway… forgot what i was saying…

 

[distracted]

one thing i was saying… thinking of saying is:

Bull Conner and other Democrats were very racist… obviously…

Abe Lincoln was not… obviousy…

and if you read enough A Coulter, you see plenty of examples she brings up of… people who claim to be so “diverse” and open-minded and color-blind but who are more seemingly racist than anyone…

again, if a person goes around shouting Racism!!! over every other thing that happens in this world… you can better believe that person is “racist”…

we tend to see outside what exists on the inside… human nature…

 

[tomarin]

I don’t believe 90% of what i read when it is written by those i know - or suspect - of having liberal viewpoints…

Well that’s convenient. That way you don’t have to deal with the substance of any actual arguments as long as the author of those arguments can be persuasively identified as a liberal. The fact that many liberals do the same thing to conservatives (“I don’t trust so-and-so because I’ve heard he’s, gasp, conservative”) doesn’t make it any more defensible.

 

[distracted]

Well that’s convenient. That way you don’t have to deal with the substance of any actual arguments as long as the author of those arguments can be persuasively identified as a liberal. The fact that many liberals do the same thing to conservatives ("I don’t trust so-and-so because I’ve heard he’s, gasp, conservative) doesn’t make it any more defensible.

i didn’t say i ALWAYs (necessarily) disbelieved that 90% either, did I?

and that last thing you say… chalk that kind of thing up to human nature… I doubt you are any different…

 

[Lujack]

abortion has to do with Right and Left. We all know where ea party stands…

Abortion does not have to do with Right and Left. It has to do with Democratic and Republican, and only that on some issues; it is far from being the defining issue that divides the parties (otherwise, explain Olympia Snowe). If it was the defining issue of Right and Left we’d have to say that somebody like Eugene V. Debs was a conservative, because he never mentioned abortion, and that’s a ridiculous thing to think.

how can you be insulted tht i don’t believe you?? I don’t believe 90% of what i read when it is written by those i know - or suspect - of having liberal viewpoints… that’s just the way i am and the way i do thingss… nothing insulting about it… If it makes you feel better i don’t even automatically trust everything devout Catholics say… even the pope is not infallible in everything he says in casual conversation… so all i really trust are the doctrines & dogmas of the Church and the ex-cathedra statements of the RCC…

If you want to run a witch hunt, be my guest. But you’ll never learn anything if you distrust a historian of the past who has liberal viewpoints today; James McPherson, for example, is a present-day liberal. He’s also the best living Civil War historian. Is The Battle of Cry of Freedom, the best single-volume history of the Civil War, suspect in your eyes because of McPherson’s voting habits? Do you think Ken Burns’s The Civil War is also lies, because Burns is also a Democrat?

 

[distracted]

Abortion does not have to do with Right and Left. It has to do with Democratic and Republican, and only that on some issues; it is far from being the defining issue that divides the parties (otherwise, explain Olympia Snowe). If it was the defining issue of Right and Left we’d have to say that somebody like Eugene V. Debs was a conservative, because he never mentioned abortion, and that’s a ridiculous thing to think.

?

hair-splitting…

 

[Lujack]

one thing i was saying… thinking of saying is:

Bull Conner and other Democrats were very racist… obviously…

Abe Lincoln was not… obviousy…

Alright, that may be true, but you’ve ignored two things:

1. The parties over the years underwent a dramatic transformation. Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft both basically ran as liberals, while Woodrow Wilson ran as a conservative. In large part, FDR and LBJ were responsible for that shift.
2. Bull Connor was a racist, no doubt, and elected as a Democrat, but if you take a look at an electoral map from 1964, you’ll notice that the Democrats did not carry the Deep South (with the exception of Texas and Florida). You’ll notice that the candidate of one party shoved through the Civil Rights Act, and you’ll notice that the candidate of the other voted against it. You’ll notice that in 1968, the Southern Democrats, better termed the Dixiecrats, did not support any of the major Democratic challengers (Kennedy, McCarthy, Humphrey, or the incumbent LBJ), but instead ran their own challenger, George Wallace, who ran on a segregationist platform.

and if you read enough A Coulter, you see plenty of examples she brings up of… people who claim to be so “diverse” and open-minded and color-blind but who are more seemingly racist than anyone…

again, if a person goes around shouting Racism!!! over every other thing that happens in this world… you can better believe that person is “racist”…

we tend to see outside what exists on the inside… human nature…

Because you posted none of those examples and used a platitude instead, I can’t really say anything in response.

 

[distracted]

Alright, that may be true, but you’ve ignored two things:

1. The parties over the years underwent a dramatic transformation. Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft both basically ran as liberals, while Woodrow Wilson ran as a conservative. In large part, FDR and LBJ were responsible for that shift.
2. Bull Connor was a racist, no doubt, and elected as a Democrat, but if you take a look at an electoral map from 1964, you’ll notice that the Democrats did not carry the Deep South (with the exception of Texas and Florida). You’ll notice that the candidate of one party shoved through the Civil Rights Act, and you’ll notice that the candidate of the other voted against it. You’ll notice that in 1968, the Southern Democrats, better termed the Dixiecrats, did not support any of the major Democratic challengers (Kennedy, McCarthy, Humphrey, or the incumbent LBJ), but instead ran their own challenger, George Wallace, who ran on a segregationist platform.

Because you posted none of those examples and used a platitude instead, I can’t really say anything in response.

um… well, like… maybe you are like you claim i am… only wnat to see your own side… otherwise you wouldn’t be afriad to read coulter…

but anyhow, i am not going to argue about which side had the most racists… It is a never-ending argument… You pull up a conservative, i pull up a lib…

not going there… If you want to go there you will be alone…

it doesn’t matter to me…

in fact, what matters is bringing people to Jesus…

so what i am doing here anyway…?

wasting time, that’s what…

and so are others…

 

[ChadS]

Lujack your post answering the lies put forth by Goldberg is right on. I can’t bring my self to read his book, but I was wondering how long it would take before someone tried to rehabilitate the KKK into a “liberal” organization. Notice what he does in the book is move every nasty and despicable political party and organization that belongs ideologically on the right and moves them to the left. So what we’re left with is a right that is as pure as the wind driven snow (gagging).

Just a few other notes:

I don’t believe that Harry S Truman ever belonged to the Klan. It’s true he considered joining as a young man to aid his political career, but a machine boss urged him not to claiming that the Klan would be a liability later on and he didn’t want to be associated with people like that.

The Klan, especially the women’s auxilliary of the Klan, supported a woman’s right to vote and even championed it. However, far from being a bastion of liberalism the Klan promoted this as a way to protect white, Protestant civilization from the immigrant males that were increasingly getting the right to vote. The one thing Goldberg seems to forget that a cause can have supporters for many different reasons. He assumes that only liberals or progressives would want to support this, that or the other thing. As in the case of women’s voting many liberals and other left radicals supported it as an inherent right but the Klan supported the same measures for very different reasons.

In the OP we also learn about an E.A. Ross and his racist, liberal tendancies. Apparently though he was an advisor of sorts to the great Republican hero, Teddy Roosevelt. Does Goldberg find that this guy somehow “infected” Roosevelt or was he able to remain above the fray. I’d also like to remind people that Teddy Roosevel was also somewhat of a progressive himself and took to breaking up many trusts and monopolies and using the Presidency as a bully pulpit in defense of the little guy.

ChadS

 

[distracted]

.

Hugo Black… Mason AND member of the KKK… one of the most liberal, anti-Constitution justices we’ve had…

Oliver Wendal Holmes…

i think he was the one who decided to sterilize a young girl he looked upon as an imbecile… because “3 generations of imebiciles is enough”… Come to find out she wasn’t an imbecile after all but it doesn’t matter… “imbeciles” have rights too…

well… they SHOULD have rights, that is…

hmmm… “3 generations of imebiciles is enough”…

sounds kinda Hitler-like… doesn’t it… ?

 

[tomarin]

i didn’t say i ALWAYs (necessarily) disbelieved that 90% either, did I?

and that last thing you say… chalk that kind of thing up to human nature… I doubt you are any different…

It’s a natural human tendency, sure, but one that I think can and should be resisted. You don’t seem to believe we have any reasoning faculty at all.

The roots of the KKK go back to the Reconstruction period in the South, which immediately followed the Civil War. The closest thing to liberals back then were the Abolitionists. The people who founded the KKK were white southern veterans (just as the founders of the Nazi party in Weimar Germany were disgruntled WWI veterans) who believed in the superiority of Anglo-Saxon whites over and above blacks, Jews, Catholics, etc. They wanted “their country back” you might say, and were opposed to the race-egalitarian ideology of the abolitionists in every way. So whatever they were, it was not liberals.

 

[Lujack]

hair-splitting…

It isn’t hair-splitting. The modern Democrats and the modern Republicans are not the only parties to have existed in the history of the world! What about the way things were aligned in 1964? Or 1932? Or 1920? Or 1912, when there was a strong third party? What about in 1860? Or when the Whigs and the Democrats went head-to-head and the Republicans didn’t even exist? Or the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists?

What about other countries, where the party alignments are totally different and have changed as many times?

 

[Lujack]

It’s a natural human tendency, sure, but one that I think can and should be resisted. You don’t seem to believe we have any reasoning faculty at all.

The roots of the KKK go back to the Reconstruction period in the South, which immediately followed the Civil War. The closest thing to liberals back then were the Abolitionists. The people who founded the KKK were white southern veterans (just as the founders of the Nazi party in Weimar Germany were disgruntled WWI veterans) who believed in the superiority of Anglo-Saxon whites over and above blacks, Jews, Catholics, etc. They wanted “their country back” you might say, and were opposed to the race-egalitarian ideology of the abolitionists in every way. So whatever they were, it was not liberals.

Well, it should be noted that the KKK of the post-war and the KKK of the 1920’s were very different organizations. The old KKK was made up of the white Southern vets that you describe, and that was broken by military force under President Grant. It was almost all in the South, and entirely preoccupied with blacks. They were probably anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant, but they were not really interested in that aspect of things.

The New KKK was founded in the 1910’s in homage to the old one, and they were both Northern and Southern. It was this incarnation of the Klan that took a great interest in being anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish; although the old Klan was made up of racists who probably felt the same way, anti-Catholicism and anti-Semitism was not a defining feature like it was for the New Klan.

Other than that, I agree with you wholeheartedly.