White racist conservatives from the confederate states are the people who supported slavery, the confederacy,kkk,segregation,jim crow and lynchings.The Democrat party no longer represents these people.
It certainly makes it confusing when the names of the two parties essentially has switched from their initial policy positions. However, it's time to update what the descriptor means to it's current meaning. "Civil war should be about regaining control, rhetoric is a distraction" What are you referring to about control? Rhetoric has been responsible for the uptick in calls for violence as well as actual violence. "Political class that sold everyone out." This needs qualification. Some have been influence by dark money and we need campaign finance reform. In addition, stopping the use of riders to must pass legislation would go a long way to correct mis-aligned incentives.
That's not new at all. You've got plenty of white lunatics telling people that whites are racist and calling for recognizing privledge and all sorts of stupid crap. Heck, I can give you a video of white women and men kissing the feet of black to apologize for slavery. Its madness, and you're at the table, brother.
"At its inception, the Democratic Party was the party of the "common man". It opposed the abolition of slavery. From 1828 to 1848, banking and tariffs were the central domestic policy issues." (Hmm, common man... that sounds like democrats. Banking etc... that sounds like republicans.) When it became clear to the slavers that it was republicans that wanted to end slavery, they switched parties to democrat. To make sense of this, to cut through your partisan hackery, just keep in mind that it was slavers, regardless of party, who were responsible for the KKK and lynching.
the switchening happened during the civil rights movements since Johnson broke from the ranks of the dem southern racists hence known as Republicans. This is like US history 101, there was no mass migration of dems to northern states and repugs to southern states. It's cons vs progs/libs, not even worth debating it.
That's revisionist. Not everything boils down to some Marxist struggle. there was no "efforts to organize" amongst blacks and whites in the colonies, are you kidding me? You can make that argument in the 20th century but colonial America? C'mon now.
I thought you'd read Zinn. These assertions are backed by primary sources from the time, like pamphlets, flyers, and diary entries.
You're saying Zinn's assertions were that during the slave trade days (colonial America), the white man was enslaving blacks in Africa to keep them from "organizing" with whites? I'm going to need a citation.
No. The "white" and "black" laborers became dissatisfied with their working conditions and began to agitate for better treatment, etc. Property owners came up with a way of dividing them by suggesting one group was better, favored, over the other. From that point on, "whites" began to believe that winning concessions for "blacks" meant they would lose some of what they deserve. As for a citation, I highly recommend Zinn's book, it's full of them. Years of additional reading there if one wanted it.