Duke Removes Robert E. Lee Statue

[hapapp]

Mills Godwin was elected as a Democrat as Virginia's governor in 1965. In 1973, he was elected as a Republican. Harry Byrd,Jr was elected as a Democrat to the U.S. Senate in 1966 and was reelected in 1972 as an independent. There were many elected officials in Virginia that left the Democratic Party in the 1970s. Virginia was a part of the "Solid South" that consistently voted Democratic until 1964. From that point until 2008, the commonwealth voted Republican. There clearly was a shift in party identification.

[AppfaninCAALand]

and the Democrat Party is trying to atone for or cover up (depending on your political prespective) their racist history.

You do know that the Democrats changed from being the party of racists because the ENTIRE SOUTH switched to the Republican party because they couldn't stand the fact that black people were gaining civil rights... right? I'd love to hear your explanation for why the South switched parties in the 60s/70s if you don't buy it.

You do know the "Big Switch" of the 60s/70s is a myth not backed up by the historical record... right?

African Americans started voted Democrat in large numbers in the 30s while Southern whites didn't start voting Republican in large numbers until the 80s and 90s - Nixon's 49 state landslide not withstanding. Contrary to popular mythology, most Southern Democrats did not switch parties, it was subsequent generations that changed affiliations.

The Big Switch is primarily projection and excuse making fueled by guilt and political posturing. The notion that far leftists Progressive Democrats like Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger, or William Fulbright would be Republicans if they lived today simply because they were also vehement racists is laughable.

Even if the "Big Switch" was accurate, that does not preclude the Democrats wanting to atone for or recitify their party's past crimes, hence my statement about "atone or cover up depending on your political perspective".

I was implying that those sympathic to the Dems may want to rectify their past while Repub-leaning folks may see it as a cover up. Either way, I suspect their racist history is a factor in this debate, but as a political independent I was trying to be value neutral.

Be honest, did you learn this from Dinesh D'Souza's books/documentaries? Your "big switch" terminology is straight from his stuff. Keep in mind that he is not a historian and also a convicted felon. I'm not denying that the Democrats used to be the party of the KKK but to say that the parties haven't switched ideologies is just denying reality.

To answer your first questions, I've heard of D'Souza's recent book but know nothing more about it than it exists, and wasn't aware he used the term "big switch". Its not new to him, I've used it when discussing this topic since the 90s, dont know where it comes from.

The idea though that the parties "switched ideologies" is absurb and shows an utter lack of understanding of American political history, particularly with regards to my favorite era to read and study, the first 4 decades of the 20th Century, when much of modern American political thought was born.

If one wants to argue that the Democrats changed their pre-1964 positions, fine; of course they no longer advocate white supremacy -- but then again they are still Keynesians and would find much to support with the pre-'64 DNC platform. The Republicans on the other hand are basically the same party idealogically speaking that Calvin Coolidge would recognize, so they haven't changed much at all.

But I that is why I shouldn't have posted anything I this thread. Wasnt intending to talk about the party switch. My wider point - which was removed from the quoted sections above - hold true that the statues are political distraction by a number of groups for a number of questionable reasons and will not fix the problems of this country whether they stay up or come down..

[97grad]

But I that is why I shouldn't have posted anything I this thread. Wasnt intending to talk about the party switch. My wider point - which was removed from the quoted sections above - hold true that the statues are political distraction by a number of groups for a number of questionable reasons and will not fix the problems of this country whether they stay up or come down..

This is just whataboutism. No one claimed the taking down the statutes would solve any of the problems you cite. But for lots of folks the statues are a problem.

[AppfaninCAALand]

But I that is why I shouldn't have posted anything I this thread. Wasnt intending to talk about the party switch. My wider point - which was removed from the quoted sections above - hold true that the statues are political distraction by a number of groups for a number of questionable reasons and will not fix the problems of this country whether they stay up or come down..

This is just whataboutism. No one claimed the taking down the statutes would solve any of the problems you cite. But for lots of folks the statues are a problem.

Not true, taking down the statues (or more accurately, debating whether or not to take down the statues) will solve a major problem I cite. It will sufficiently distract the voters from the real local problems of the schools, roads, and jobs long enough to get the mayors of these cities re-elected. And Virginia's governor has been using the aweful events in Charlottesville to launch a presidential bid, abeit somewhat clumsily. And it will keep BLM and Antifa and the KKK funded for another year. And it will drive cable news ratings. These are the problems these people care about, and it will solve them wonderfully.

[Yosef10]

And I don't believe any of the gentleman on Mt. Rushmore engaged in a war of treason against their own country.

George Washington? Thomas Jefferson?

Yes. Literally every founding father was engaged in that exact brand of treason.

I don't think CSA statues are an appropriate public land use. I mean, black people are paying taxes for the upkeep of those monuments. But this Yankee moral-high grounding is historically tone deaf.

What? Treason was fighting for the confederacy. Guess I missed Jefferson and Washington donning confederate uniforms. But yes, yankee moral high ground, good one.

The American REVOLUTION was a rebellion against England. The American colonies were English colonies. It was treason.

Also, re: monarchy vs democracy, the Magna Carta was signed in 1251. Colonials were angry because they were being taxed without being represented in Parliament. Parliament is a democratically elected legislator. King George was still King by line of succession, but the American Revolution was still a rebellion against a largely democratically elected government.

Slavery in England had ended at the time the American Colonies seceded. The American Revolution was a treasonous attempt to start a new country and continue slavery against a former sovereign that did not wish to continue the practice. And Washington and Lee were both from Virginia.

The biggest distinction between the plight of the Colonial Rebels and the CSA is that the former conscripted a European ally and held out long enough for the enemy home front to abandon the fight, despite being numerically and technologically superior. The Confederate emissary sent to Great Britain to ask for help fighting for independence was unsuccessful largely BECAUSE of Britains anti-slavery stance and the South's goal of preserving the institution.

It's really ironic and fascinating.

Thanks for the history lesson. My point remains while you engage in pathetic whataboutism.

[appst89]

I let it live as long as possible, but it's getting too political.