December 16, 2005

Remember Which Party Instituted Jim Crow And Benefits From It To This Day

Confederate Yankee points to this article from the News-Observer about the Wilmington Riot of 1898.

The 1898 riot that killed an unknown number of blacks in Wilmington was part of an organized, statewide effort to put white supremacist Democrats in office and stem the political advances of black citizens.

And in the wake of the riot, white supremacists in state office passed North Carolina's Jim Crow laws.

Those laws disenfranchised African Americans until the civil rights movement and Voting Rights Act of the 1960s.

In a 460-page document released today, the Wilmington Race Riot Commission describes the riot and accompanying coup d'etat as a watershed moment in North Carolina history.

"Because Wilmington rioters were able to murder blacks in daylight and overthrow Republican government without penalty or federal intervention, everyone in the state, regardless of race, knew that the white supremacy campaign was victorious on all fronts," the report says.

Democratic leaders, including News & Observer editor Josephus Daniels, developed a strategic campaign to put white supremacist leaders in the General Assembly and U.S. Congress during the 1898 elections. The Democrats were working to drive out a coalition government of Republicans and Populists, which had the support of black voters.


In Wilmington, Democrats fueled a push against a Republican-controlled city council. The day after the 1898 election, a mob of several hundred white men burned the building of a black-owned newspaper. African Americans in the city fled as the building burned, with families hiding in swamps and cemeteries for days with little more than the clothing on their backs, said LeRae Umfleet, a researcher with the state Office of Archives and History who authored the report.

The white mob overthrew the democratically elected city council and had all black city workers fired. Leading black figures were forced out of town.

No one was arrested for this act of rebellion against lawful authority during time of war (treaty negotiations to end the Spanish-American War were still underway in Paris), and Josephus Daniels, whose active support for white supremacy in the pages of his newspaper led to him being referred to by one historian as the "precipitator of the riot", eventually became Secretary of the Navy for the entire two terms of the Wilson administration.

So the next time you hear Democrats and their allies start talking about the "Bush regime" and "taking back our country", remember that this is their heritage -- they have done it before and will do it again given the chance.

Is it any wonder that they fear the Second Amendment -- for a well-armed citizenry is the bulwark against such nefarious deeds.

|| Greg, 04:07 PM || Permalink || Comments (18) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Trackback Information for Remember Which Party Instituted Jim Crow And Benefits From It To This Day

TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Remember Which Party Instituted Jim Crow And Benefits From It To This Day'.

Comments on Remember Which Party Instituted Jim Crow And Benefits From It To This Day

The hypocrisy of the Dems knows no bounds. These facts should be known to a lot of people, and let them judge after that. God bless :)

|| Posted by Miguel, December 17, 2005 05:49 AM ||

As you have pointed out, history repeats itself time after time. With only a few changes, this could easily have been the recorded history of the Mormons being forced to leave Navoo in the middle of winter November, 1838. An extermination order was issued by the governor of Missouri, in effect giving mob rule the power to either kill or force the Mormons out of Missouri.

The point is that even in America, there has been sufficient evidence of hatred run rampant, for the purpose of race or religion it pops up from time to time in some very ugly ways.

|| Posted by TF Stern, December 17, 2005 02:05 PM ||

Yeah judge a political party on the happenings of 100 years ago. You can do that and we can judge the GOPigs on little things like Teapot Dome, Watergate, and Iran-Contra, difference is your shit happened in order 80, 33, and 18 years ago. G'head make that specios argument you hack ass hole

|| Posted by effufucktard, December 17, 2005 03:04 PM ||

Hmmmmm -- so you equate a financial scandal, a second-rate burglary and a policy difference with the murder of 42 blacks and the overthrow of the elected government in a coup d'etat. Nice to know that you hold black lives to be so worthless.

But if you want more recent Democrat shenanigans, might I sugget that you consider the butterfly ballot created in 2000 in Palm Beach County by a Democrat official which is claimed to have disenfranchised thousands, the concerted effort by the Gore campaign to disenfranchise military voters in 2000, a century of Democrat efforts to prevent the passage of civil rights legislation championed by the GOP...

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, December 17, 2005 06:17 PM ||

While my friend Effie is a little harsh in his language, any sensible person knows that the democrats of today are not the democrats of 100 years ago, and that your run of the mill racist redneck votes republican these days.

|| Posted by Dan, December 17, 2005 07:25 PM ||

Yeah -- maybe some of them do, but the party denounces them and works to defeat them when they run for office.

On the other hand, very special racists get the title of "elder stateman" and, when the Democrats have a majority, President Pro Tem of the Senate

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, December 17, 2005 07:57 PM ||

Democrats believe in redemption. Byrd has changed with the times, and cannot fairly be accused of racism in his current behavior anymore than Bush should still be tagged with his leaving the TANG so that he could campaign for a racist.

|| Posted by Dan, December 18, 2005 12:18 PM ||

That's amusing -- given the fact that a courtly compliment to an old man on his 100th birthday (long after changing his stripes and supporting civil rights) was sufficient to get Trent Lott tarred as a racist.

Oh, yeah, that's right -- racist Democrats only believe in redemption for other racist Democrats. Republicans will be accused of racism without any significant evidence whatsoever. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, given that FDR is trumpeted as a friend of the blacks despite refusing to desegregate the military, refusing to push for civil rights or anti-lynching legislation, and putting a known Kluxer on the Supreme Court.

Oh, and by the way, your slur directed against Winton Blount has only one problem to it -- a lack of supporting evidence.

I guess it is your own blind bigotry that leas you to presume that since the man was a Republican and a white southerner that he must be some sort of racist. I guess that makes you a lying liberal sack of shit, dan.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, December 18, 2005 03:24 PM ||

No, RWR, it wasn't blind bigotry that made me call Blount a racist. It was the fact that he was part of the infamous Republican "Southern Strategy", and that he used billboards claiming "A vote for Red Blount is a vote against forced busing . . . against coddling criminals . . . against welfare freeloaders."

You may be surprised that I agree with you that Trent Lott got shafted - it was a stupid thing to say, but it shouldn't have done the damage it did.

And your silly slams on FDR may be answered by the equally silly accusation that Lincoln did not integrate the army, did not support suffrage for women, and was, similarly, a product of his times.

|| Posted by Dan, December 18, 2005 05:50 PM ||

In other words, you have no evidence to support an accusation of racism against Blount.

Let's look at those three points on the billboard.

1) Opposition to forced busing. A legitimate position, given that such plans broke up community ties and resulted in long bus rides for students based solely on the color of their skin. The major (if unstated) premise of the busing plans was that black students were incapable of learning if not exposed to a sufficient number of white students every day. In addition, it remains a reasonable proposition that the mandate of ending segregation set forth in Brown (designed to get kids sent to the closest school, regardless of race) did not require forced integration (which sent kids away from the closest school because of their race). In addition, the forced busing programs were imposed by judges who took away local control of schools in a fundamentally anti-democratic manner. Opposition to forced busing is therefore not proof of racism.

2) Opposition to coddling criminals. One of the major criticisms of the Warren Court of the 1960s was the emphsis on the rights of criminals and the accuse over the rights of society to punish criminals. The Warren Court revolutionized the criminal justice system in many ways -- but at the cost of making it more difficult to obtain evidence, obtain convictions, and punish criminals. Unless you believe -- as you obviously do, based upon your comment -- that "criminal" and :lack" are synonymous, there can be no case made for calling someone a racist for taking a hard-line on crime and criminal justice issues.

3) Opposition to the welfare state. Lyndon Johnson's great Society programs were controversial -- and, ultimately, a disasterous failure in that they created generational poverty and incentives to avoid getting off the government teat. Exactly as Blount and others warned at the time.

As for the Sputhern Strategy, popular left-wing mythology paints it as a plot to appeal to racism. Actually, it was a plan to strip the Democrats of their southern base by taking a middle ground between the liberal Democrats (Kennedy, et al.) of the North and the racist Democrats of the South (Wallace, maddox, Byrd, et al.). By creating a viable alternative to the racists that controlled the southern Democrats for decades (with the acceptance of the allegedly nn-racist liberal Democrats of the North), the Republicans built a non-racist conservative coalition that dominates American politics to this day.

And as for my points about FDR, i was trying to point out how Democrat Klansmen and other racists have always been embraced byt the Democrat party without really repenting of anything.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, December 18, 2005 06:44 PM ||

Hah. You're still defending the billboard. Umm, sorry, I wish I had a way to break this to your more gently, but, YOU LOSE!!!! Your strained arguments don't pass the giggle test.

I don't mean to prolong your pain any further, and, if I were you, I'd probably ignore all this and tell Bush to spy on more citizens, but, anyhow, why did the republicans apologize for the "sputhern strategy" if it was so noble???

|| Posted by Dan, December 18, 2005 11:16 PM ||

Gee -- now we are into typo flames? That is the sure sign of a losing argument.

As for defending the billboard, you claimed that the points were racist and I explained that they are not.

And frankly, i don't think there should have been any apology for the Southern Strategy. Mehlman bought into the liberal Democrat mythology about it and pandered.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, December 19, 2005 08:44 AM ||

Sorry about the ding on the typo - I thought it was a pretty funny typo. But I certainly don't want to be held up for ridicule based on my typing difficulties, either.

You didn't explain that the billboard wasn't racist, you just came out with the same claptrap a racist back then would have used to excuse the positions.

And the fact that you understand the background and motivations behind the Southern Strategy better than Mehlman does is, to use a carefully chosen word, incredible.

|| Posted by Dan, December 19, 2005 10:20 AM ||

Those are the arguments that would have been used because they were true three decades ago. I think it says more about liberals that they believe "Criminal=black" and "welfare cheat=black" than it does about conservatives.

By the way -- pat buchanan recently demolished the "racist southenr strategy" argument.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, December 19, 2005 03:09 PM ||

Is that the same Pat Buchanan who defends Nazis and admires Hitler? Is that the same Pat Buchanan who called Dr. Martin Luther King a fraud? The same one who thought WMDs were called BLTs? You run in some freaky circles, my friend . . .

|| Posted by Dan, December 19, 2005 04:15 PM ||

Defends Nazis -- you must mean the fellow who was "conclusively" proven to have been a sadistic concentration camp guard by the government, only to have that identification thrown out by courts in both the US and Israel.

Admire Hitler? You care to prove that? A quick Google search shows no evidence of that.

As for the King comment, you seem to have taken that one out of context. What i have found is a quote that says others view him that way, not that he does.

And why do I cite him (even though I have little use for him)? Because he was one of the architects of the Southern Strategy. That might give him a certain expertise that we both lack.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, December 19, 2005 06:52 PM ||

He may have expertise in race-baiting in the south, but he doesn't have credibility. Not as much as me or you.

|| Posted by Dan, December 19, 2005 08:16 PM ||

No, Dan, the only race-baiting I see is yours.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, December 19, 2005 10:19 PM ||
Post a comment

Remember personal info?




Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards
Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2013 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2012 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2011 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2010 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2009 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Posts by Category

Announcements (posts: 13)
Blogging (posts: 187)
Border Issues & Immigration (posts: 421)
deferred (posts: 4)
Education (posts: 685)
Entertainment & Sports (posts: 483)
Guns & Gun Control (posts: 65)
History (posts: 329)
Humor (posts: 88)
Israel/Middle East (posts: 44)
Medical News (posts: 54)
Military (posts: 273)
News (posts: 1570)
Paid Advertising (posts: 234)
Personal (posts: 108)
Politics (posts: 5261)
Race & Racism (posts: 281)
Religion (posts: 819)
Terrorism (posts: 884)
Texas GOP Platform Reform Project (posts: 4)
The Courts (posts: 310)
Watcher's Council (posts: 482)
World Affairs (posts: 345)


January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
December 0000



Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Powered By

Powered by
Movable Type 2.64

Administrative Stuff

Email Me
Syndicate this site (XML)

Advertising Disclosure


About Me

NAME: Greg
AGE: 50-ish
SEX: Male
OCCUPATION: Social Studies Teacher
LOCATION: Seabrook, TX
DISCLAIMER: All posts reflect my views alone, and not the view of my wife, my dogs, my employer, or anyone else. All comments reflect the view of the commenter, and permitting a comment to remain on this site in no way indicates my support for the ideas expressed in the comment.

Search This Site

Support This Site

Recent Entries

Who Is Regan Theiler And Why Was She Allowed To Spend Public Funds On A Sole Source Contract For Her Part-Time Employer?
Not My Idea Of A Stimulating Evening
About Trump's Liberty University Speech
Do Not Place The Secessionist "Texas Independence" Measure On The 2016 Republican Primary Ballot
Conservatives Vs. Liberal On Those Engaged In Violent Political Activity
Tom Mechler Makes His Case Against Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Jared Woodfill Makes His Case For Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Questions About Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Reject The Call To Move 2016 Republican Party Of Texas Convention
It Is Too Bad That Political Parties Cannot Reject Voters Who Seek To Join, Stop Would-Be Candidates Who Want To Run


Watchers Council
  • Ask Marion
  • Bookworm Room
  • The Colossus of Rhodey
  • The Glittering Eye
  • GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD
  • The Independent Sentinel
  • JoshuaPundit
  • Liberty's Spirit
  • New Zeal
  • Nice Deb
  • The Noisy Room
  • The Razor
  • Rhymes With Right
  • The Right Planet
  • Simply Jews
  • Virginia Right!
  • Watcher Of Weasels

  • Political & Religious Blogs