Why Did the Democratic South Become Republican?

Second in a series of videos that shoot down Democrat/Progressive political narratives.

This one pertains to the well-known “Southern Strategy”, when the Republicans and Democrats supposedly changed positions on racism.

Per Wikipedia:

In American politics, the southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans. As the Civil Rights Movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened pre-existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South to the Republican Party that had traditionally supported the Democratic Party. It also helped push the Republican Party much more to the right.

Is it true that in the 1960s and 70s, around the time of the Civil Rights Act, the Republican Party switched identities with the Democratic Party? Is it true that the Republicans abandoned their historic support of civil rights for blacks in order to get the Southern vote? In this video, Vanderbilt University professor Carol Swain tackles the thorny subject of what has come to be known as the GOP’s “Southern Strategy.”  Presented by Carol Swain, Professor of Political Science at Vanderbilt University.

Link to transcript and sources

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Government, Politics, The Culture, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Why Did the Democratic South Become Republican?

  1. czarowniczy says:

    Well, I’m outta hi-speed download until the 12th so I can’t watch a da video. That said, as a kid in Florida in the mid-50s I know that the natives viewed the Republican Party as the Party of Lincoln and the source of their ills from the Northern War of Aggression thru the carpetbaggers during Reconstruction. Regardless of the hornswoggler’s political beliefs they ran as Democrats…the infamous Dixiecrats. You look back at the biggest Southern racist Congressliars and they’re overwhelmingly Rat.
    The sea change came during the civil rights struggles of the 60s where the Rats managed to, if you’ll excuse the expression, whitewash their Southern platform, buy off the black voters and start feeding at the new trough.It wasn’t as much the Republicans stoking and feeding off of the inate Southern racism as it was the Rats consolidating their hold over their new cattle and portraying all non-Rat white Southerners as predators.
    That’s mah story an’ I’m astickin’ to it.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. czarowniczy says:

    Let’s not forget that under Kennedy and LBJ the Rats saw the potential of farming the black residents of the US, especially the South, turning them into the Rat party’s political cotton crop. Part of their strategy was portraying the white population of the South as decendents of Simon Legree, a theme that continues to today.
    The Rat’s success in getting corrosive anti-American Southern Rat parasites elected to Congress is somrthing that has taken on a life of its own and left unchecked will come back to bite the Rats in the butt. If you farm someone, let them go and be free. If they have gratitude they won’t come back and bite you in the butt. Invest in Kevlar undies.

    Like

    • joshua says:

      well, we shudda picked our own cotton until threshers and combined got invented and employed in Southern Agriculture. Without Southern food and cotton production, the Northern folks would have been real hungry and their weaving mills would have been out of business.

      If congress did not have votes dependent upon census counts of people, then the race issue would not have been so important. slavery was incidental. When succession took place, the “confederacy” offered to purchase the US Forts and return the arms and goods that were there, but the brilliant Northerners did not want peace so they refused…just like when Lincoln proposed to purchase freedom for the slaves by paying for them…but Congress refused to do so…even though the majority of Southern Capital was tied up in the inventory of slave workers on the plantations…and to just free them would turn loose 4 million illiterate unskilled workers on the Southern states with no jobs for them and no way for them to support their families…but the North did not want the slaves escaping North and bringing down wages of white laborers since they would have worked much cheaper than the whites that were employed…freedom was not the issue at all, altho that is the excuse….even the Ft. Sumner attack was fabricated. The Fort was refused to be vacated despite the military being given safe passage and the confederacy offering to buy the facility, but the US send reprovisioning gun ships to the harbor to provide blockades against any southern shipping into the harbor, so the confederates opened fire on the Fort to force them to vacate…they surrendered, no union solders were injured and they left, but the US Congress immediately declared war on the South for the “attack” and supposed provocation of war.

      Liked by 1 person

      • czarowniczy says:

        The North wanted Southern agricultural goods but the pols didn’t want slavery. The North was pretty god at using black slaves in their industrial capacity until cheaper technology rendered cheap slave labor unnecessary. The Northern states had some pretty nasty anti-black laws on the books until close to the mid-19th century, all the while blasting the South.
        The North was largely industrial and mechanization was cheaper than keeping slaves while agriculture was cheaper with slaves as it had not been mechanized. You don’t think those Yankee elites were happy paying the lower costs for clothes made with slave-produced cotton? How ’bout dem cheap Southern Ag products produced by slaves?
        And then we have the issue of the vast number of black slave owners, an issue the apologists have been (no pun intended) whitewashing for decades but, like Pepé Le Pew, there ain’t enough paint in the world.

        Like

  3. joshua says:

    alternatively, if Rayon and Sucralose had been invented instead of depending on cotton cloth and sugar, we would have not needed “bowlies” and cane choppers….then de Klerk could have had more folks to free and then to try to control and not just the Zulus who never respected law anyway.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s