“Democrats are the REAL racists” and “The parties never changed” are common sayings among modern “conservatives.” While there may be some resemblance to the old party, it’s ridiculous for people to say the Democrats of the early 1800’s were the same as today’s Democrats. This theory is used to connect the modern neo-Marxist Democrats of today with the conservative Democrats of the past, such as Jefferson Davis or George Wallace. This theory is obviously nonsense, but is an unfortunate result of cultural Marxism being absorbed into mainstream conservatism. With most of the Greatest Generation dead or in nursing homes, there remains few to oppose this theory. Today, I will debunk this myth, as well as, the myth that the Civil Rights movement was “conservative.”
First, let’s look at the origin of the two major political parties. The modern Democrats descend from the Anti-Federalists, which spawned the Democratic-Republican Party. This party was the party of Thomas Jefferson. The Democratic-Republicans were known for their belief in states’ rights, agrarianism, free trade, opposition to central banks, and fear of taking on debt. They tended to be the yeoman farmer’s party, while the Federalists tended to be the party of industry and banking. In 1824, the modern Democratic Party was then born from the Democratic-Republican Party. The early Democrats were supportive of Jacksonian era politics, which was the heir to its’ Jeffersonian predecessor.
Now, we will look at the origin of the Republican Party. The Republican Party can generally be traced back to the Federalists. The Federalists were opposed to the Democratic-Republicans. They favored a stronger federal government, supported internal improvements, implied powers, protectionism/tariffs, were against the French Revolution, wanted a central bank, and supported government spending. Alexander Hamilton and John Adams were some of its leading proponents. This party was most popular among bankers and businessmen, as well as, folks who thought that the Jeffersonians were too atheistic. This party was dissolved in the 1820’s, but its ideals were reborn in the Whig Party in 1834. The Whig Party shared most of the positions of their Federalist forefathers. The Whig Party was then dissolved in 1854. The ex-Whig abolitionists then formed the Republican Party shortly afterwards. Abraham Lincoln is the most famous early Republican.
So, as we can see, the two main political parties were both quite different in the early 1800’s compared to today. We also see that Jefferson is really the father of the Democratic Party (although, Jackson was the first official Democrat). This is ironic because Republicans revere Jefferson for his constitutionalism. This shouldn’t be surprising to the unbiased, but to those who have fallen for the DR3 (Dems R Real Racists) narrative it presents a problem. Republicans are obsessed with partisan politics to the point where R is good, and D is always bad. They have also accepted “anti-racism” as the conservative view (just as Reverend R.L. Dabney said would happen).
Another inconsistency of those who hold to the DR3 narrative is the fact that many of the people who subscribe to this view hold contradictory opinions. One central belief of the DR3 narrative is that Lincoln was a conservative Republican who freed the blacks from the “liberal Democrats” of the South. Many of the DR3 proponents will hold to this view, while at the same time holding to the view that the war was over state’s rights. So, is Lincoln a tyrant or a “True-Con”? If one believes that the Democrats of the South were no different than today’s Democrats, why do Republicans in the South still love the Confederate flag? If they were consistent, they would hate the Confederacy. Its cognitive dissonance at it’s finest!
So, we have established that the Democratic Party was rooted in Jeffersonianism/limited government, so how did it become what it is today? For one, we can see that the Democrat Party has been considered the common man’s party since Jefferson (although, many planters were also Democrats), so there have always been populist roots to a certain extent. Northeastern industrialization and unionism seems to be one of the main reasons for a leftward shift in politics. With the arrival of poor European immigrants to the Northeast in the late 1800’s, the Northern Democrats began to cater to the labor unions and began to espouse a more Keynesian view of economics. The party continued to grow with populist sentiment through the late 1800’s, and this is exemplified by William Jennings’ “Cross of Gold” speech. It should be stated that there remained distinctions within the party. You had the more Jeffersonian agrarians, as well as, the union factory workers. Although, slowly but surely, the Democrat base become more representative of the industrial workers, rather than the yeoman farmers.
The first half of the 20th century, there was a growing leftward economic view within segments of the Democrat Party. Woodrow Wilson was an early example of this, by his passing of the Federal Reserve Act and the Federal Revenue Act. We also see that Wilson held some views that were completely opposite of Andrew Jackson. The most obvious example is his favoritism towards a central bank. Many historians rightfully regard Wilson as influential in shaping the modern Democrat Party. Despite this, Wilson was still far different in his views from the modern Left. While he may have supported some Left leaning views, he was still quite socially conservative (excluding, his support for women’s suffrage). Furthermore, he was a lifelong Southern Presbyterian, whose father served as a chaplain for the Confederacy and he also thought that segregation was beneficial for bringing peace between the races. Woodrow Wilson is no Corey Booker, you’d have to be, quite literally, a fool to believe they hold the same beliefs.
A few decades later, Franklin Delano Roosevelt became president and made further changes to the Democrat Party. FDR is most known for passing the New Deal. This bill greatly increased the power of the federal government, and is known for laying the groundwork for today’s entitlement programs. Much of the New Deal legislation was very popular all across America. Unfortunately, many Southerners came to be very supportive of the New Deal legislation as well, due in part to the desperate poverty inflicted by Reconstruction and the Great Depression.
The New Deal wasn’t without opposition though. About 50% of Republicans opposed it, and many of the conservative Democrats also raised opposition. This resulted in the Conservative Coalition, which was a coalition of conservative Republicans and conservative Democrats (mainly Southern). Some prominent members were (throughout the 20th century); Senators Harry Byrd and Carter Glass of Virginia (D), Vice President John Garner of Texas (D), Robert Taft of Ohio (R), Barry Goldwater of Arizona (R), and Senator Josiah Bailey of NC (D) This coalition remained active until the 1990’s when most of the conservative Democrats were finally purged from the party. Furthermore, the New Deal also faced opposition from the Southern Agrarians in I’ll Take My Stand.
Despite conservative opposition to the New Deal legislation, most of it became acceptable among the mainstream of both parties. In fact, Republican Dwight Eisenhower expanded on the New Deal legislation. He furthermore said:
Should any party attempt to abolish social security and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group of course, that believes you can do these things […] their number is negligible and they are stupid.Dwight Eisenhower
It wasn’t until 1964 with Barry Goldwater that the New Deal faced any serious opposition. And, the Goldwater Anti-New Dealers would eventually support Ronald Reagan in the 1980’s conservative resurgence.
The next big shift in the Democrat Party started in the 1950’s and 1960’s with the Civil Rights Movement. 1948 was the beginning of this massive change with Harry Truman’s executive order ending segregation in the military, as well as, liberal Yankee Democrat Hubert Humphrey’s influence on the Democratic National Committee. As a result, many Southern Democrats briefly left the Democrat party to form the short-lived Dixiecrat Party. Throughout the next few decades, most Republicans and a sizable amount of Democrats (mainly non-Southern) jumped on the Civil Rights bandwagon.
In the next few years President John F. Kennedy (a Northeast Democrat) furthered Civil Rights legislation. With Kennedy’s death came Lyndon Baines Johnson of Texas, a moderately liberal Democrat. Historians largely credit LBJ with sowing further discontent within the Democrat Party. Johnson was a well-known supporter of integration, civil rights and signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as well as, the Civil Rights Act of 1968. He was also known for his Great Society legislation, which greatly enlarged the welfare state.
The 1964 and the 1968 Civil Rights Acts were some of Johnson’s most well-known acts of legislation. Furthermore, they received support from the majority of both parties (if one excludes the South), and faced little opposition from anyone, but the Southern Democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans like Barry Goldwater. Some neoconservatives will say that the Democrats, as a whole, were against the Civil Rights legislation, while the Republicans were for it. This is untrue and it was really more along the lines of region rather than party.
Why do the Republicans, like Dinesh D’Souza, think the Civil Rights Movement was conservative? In fact, I would say that it was the opposite of conservative. The 1964 Civil Rights Act destroyed freedom of association and is largely responsible for the troubles people are facing today in refusing to cater to the homosexual community. Furthermore, icon MLK was a sexual deviant and known to have communist ties. Even if one doesn’t personally like segregation, no true conservative can believe in a federal ban on state segregation laws.
Through the rest of the 20th century most Southerners remained loyal to the Democrat Party on a local level, while sometimes voting Republican on a national level. This remained true until around the mid-1990’s and early 2000’s when the conservative and moderate Democrats (think the Blue Dog Democrats) either died out or were purged by the Far Left majority.
Neoconservatives like Levin, Prager, and D’Souza love to capitalize on this to prove their theory that the parties never changed and that the Dems R Real Racists. They will say that if the Democrats were truly conservative, why did only a few leave and become Republicans? What D’Souza and other neocons fail to realize is that the South is much more steeped in tradition than other regions. And, they also don’t realize that many Southerners in the early part of the 20th century had fathers and grandfathers who either fought in the War or lived through Reconstruction – our people weren’t going to vote Republican on history and principle. So, many of them chose to remain in the Democrat party and be a minority voice, rather than join the tyrannical Party of Lincoln. Others, such as Harry Byrd Jr., became Independents.
As you can see, one of the main problems the DR3 crowd runs into is that the Democrat Party had a variety of different factions. You had the constitutional Jeffersonian Democrats, like James Eastland and Harry F. Byrd Sr., then you had those who were socially conservative, but liberal on economics such as Woodrow Wilson and Robert Byrd. You also had people who were moderate on most issues such as Sam Rayburn, but you had the liberal Democrats such as George McGovern. Finally, you also had people who were simply “politicians” – men who flip-flopped when it was convenient.
Lastly, a major problem with DR3 is that it uses the same type of argumentation that the far leftists do. In essence, D’Souza wants to redefine American history through his modern politically correct egalitarian lens. So, basically anything that doesn’t conform to equality is bad. Essentially, it’s just the “Right’s” version of cultural Marxism. People like D’Souza need to realize that if you’re going to make the Democrat Party the party of “racism and slavery,” you’re going to have to disavow the Republican Party as well. For more on “racism” in the North read this.
So, have the Republicans changed as well? The answer is yes and no. Although Republicans may not want to admit it, they have historically been the party of big government and crony capitalism. Up until the neoconservative take over in the 80’s and 90’s, Republicans were hardcore protectionists. But, they finally became free traders when it became cheaper to produce goods in Third World countries, rather pay the imported Irish and Italian labor. Many Republicans also tended to be non-interventionist, rather than the interventionists they are today. The biggest change that occurred with the neocon takeover is that the Republicans used to be Federalists, whereas they are now internationalist-lite.
I hope this brief history has been informative and helped you see the foolishness of modern hucksters like D’Souza and the neocon establishment. Liberals have long ago abandoned the party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Robert E. Lee. Moving forward, we must not let the enemy win by letting them frame the argument. The sad truth is that neither party in the current day is truly conservative in any meaningful sense. Now, I will leave you with some quotes;
“The true brotherhood of America, of respecting the separateness of others, and uniting in effort . . . has been so twisted and distorted from its original concept that there is a small wonder that communism is winning the world. We invite the negro citizens of Alabama to work with us from his separate racial station. . As we will work with him . . to develop, to grow in individual freedom and enrichment. We want jobs and a good future for BOTH races . . the tubercular and the infirm. This is the basic heritage of my religion, if which I make full practice . . . . for we are all the handiwork of God. But we warn those, of any group, who would follow the false doctrine of communistic amalgamation that we will not surrender our system of government . . . our freedom of race and religion . . . that freedom was won at a hard price and if it requires a hard price to retain it . . we are able . . and quite willing to pay it. The liberals’ theory that poverty, discrimination and lack of opportunity is the cause of communism is a false theory . . . if it were true the South would have been the biggest single communist bloc in the western hemisphere long ago . . . for after the great War Between the States, our people faced a desolate land of burned universities, destroyed crops and homes, with manpower depleted and crippled, and even the mule, which was required to work the land, was so scarce that whole communities shared one animal to make the spring plowing. There were no government handouts, no Marshall Plan aid, no coddling to make sure that our people would not suffer; instead the South was set upon by the venturous carpetbagger and federal troops, all loyal Southerners were denied the vote at the point of bayonet, so that the infamous, illegal 14th Amendment might be passed. There was no money, no food and no hope of either. But our grandfathers bent their knee only in church and bowed their head only to God.”Governor George Wallace
“This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress.”Senator Strom Thurmond
“The two portion so this bill to which I have constantly and consistently voiced objections, and which are of such overriding significance that they are determinative of my vote on the entire measure, are those which would embark the Federal Government on a regulatory course of action in the area of so-called “public accommodations” and in the area of employment–to be precise, Titles II and VII of the bill. I find no constitutional basis for the exercise of Federal regulatory authority in either of these areas; and I believe the attempted usurpation of such power to be a grave threat to the very essence of our basic system of government, namely, that of a constitutional government in which 50 sovereign states have reserved to themselves and to the people those powers not specifically granted to the central or Federal Government.
If it is the wish of the American people that the Federal Government should be granted the power to regulate in this two areas and in the manner contemplated by the bill, then I say the Constitution should be so amended as to authorize such action in accordance with the procedures for amending the Constitution which that great document itself prescribes. I say further that for this great legislative body to ignore the Constitution and the fundamental concepts of our governmental system is to act in a manner which could ultimately destroy the freedom of all American citizens, including the freedoms of the very persons whose feelings and whose liberties are the major subject of this legislation”.Senator Barry Goldwater
“Is Segregation Scriptural? (April 17, 1960)Pastor Bob Jones Sr.
What does God teach about the races of the world? If you will go to… the twenty-sixth verse of the seventeenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, that says that God Almighty fixed the bounds of their habitation… God Almighty did not make of the human race one race in the sense that He did not fix the bounds of their habitation. That is perfectly clear… There is an effort today to disturb the established order [segregation]… You cannot run over God’s plan and God’s established order without having trouble. God never meant to have one race. It was not His purpose at all. God has a purpose for each race… Wherever we have the races mixed up in large numbers, we have trouble. They have trouble in New York… If we would just listen to the Word of God and not try to overthrow God’s established order, we would not have any trouble… Yes, God chose the Jews. If you are against segregation and against racial separation, then you are against God Almighty because He made racial separation in order to preserve the race through whom He could send the Messiah and through whom He could send the Bible. God is the author of segregation. God is the author of Jewish separation and Japanese separation. God made of one blood all nations, but He also drew the boundary lines between races.”
“The true Negro does not want integration… He realizes his potential is far better among his own race.”Pastor Jerry Falwell
-Pastor Jerry Falwell
“Many today seek to pervert another great difference that the creator established. God made man of diverse races, but some would fly in the face of God’s creating genius and merge the races into oneness. The vast majority of good thinking people prefer to associate with and intermarry with, people of their respective race; this is a part of their God-given inclination to honor and uphold the distinctiveness of separate races. But there are many false prophets of oneness, and many shallow stooges, who seek to force the amalgamation of the races. They even dress themselves in holy self-righteousness and claim to be seeking the unifying purpose of God”.John Richards: founder of the PCA Church
“The Southern institution of racial segregation or racial separation was the correct, self-evident truth which arose from the chaos and confusion of the Reconstruction period. Separation promotes racial harmony. It permits each race to follow its own pursuits, and its own civilization. Segregation is not discrimination … Mr. President, it is the law of nature, it is the law of God, that every race has both the right and the duty to perpetuate itself. All free men have the right to associate exclusively with members of their own race, free from governmental interference, if they so desire.”Senator James Eastland
“What will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities? The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and thereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.”Friedrich Engels
Oh, I'm a good old Rebel, now that's just what I am; For this "Fair Land of Freedom" I do not give a damn! I'm glad I fit against it, I only wish we'd won, And I don't want no pardon for anything I done.