Members banned from this thread: Mister D


User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789
Results 81 to 88 of 88

Thread: The Democrat Party and the end of Reconstruction

  1. #81
    Points: 40,665, Level: 49
    Level completed: 31%, Points required for next Level: 1,185
    Overall activity: 28.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran25000 Experience Points
    jet57's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    2137
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    15,121
    Points
    40,665
    Level
    49
    Thanks Given
    1,549
    Thanked 2,127x in 1,783 Posts
    Mentioned
    192 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    First, that's what I posted before.

    Second, you cite wapo:



    But they no where connect the two, therefore:



    Is not supported.

    Try critical thinking, jet.
    No, YOU give it a shot for once. I posted the proofs.
    Make everything from toy guns that spark, to flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark. It’s easy to see without looking too far, that not much is really sacred.
    Thomas Jefferson (to Richard Price) January 8. 1789 "...wherever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government..."

  2. #82
    Points: 538,566, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 77.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    411117
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    167,444
    Points
    538,566
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    20,916
    Thanked 58,692x in 41,484 Posts
    Mentioned
    1809 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    No, YOU give it a shot for once. I posted the proofs.
    There was no proof. From WaPo you posted (a) some facts about White-lilies and (b) the South is Republican. Then you posted (c) a personal opinion. (a), (b) ⇏ (c). There was no proof. There was no critical thinkiing.
    Virgil's Aeneid, Book VI: "Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito."

  3. #83
    Points: 40,665, Level: 49
    Level completed: 31%, Points required for next Level: 1,185
    Overall activity: 28.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran25000 Experience Points
    jet57's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    2137
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    15,121
    Points
    40,665
    Level
    49
    Thanks Given
    1,549
    Thanked 2,127x in 1,783 Posts
    Mentioned
    192 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    There was no proof. From WaPo you posted (a) some facts about White-lilies and (b) the South is Republican. Then you posted (c) a personal opinion. (a), (b) ⇏ (c). There was no proof. There was no critical thinkiing.
    No I posted facts that tied all together very well which verified what I said about the south and Repulicanism. I used a variety of source material to form my argument and used the best ones to illustrate and verify what I said. THAT Chris is critical thinking.

  4. #84
    Points: 538,566, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 77.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    411117
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    167,444
    Points
    538,566
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    20,916
    Thanked 58,692x in 41,484 Posts
    Mentioned
    1809 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    No I posted facts that tied all together very well which verified what I said about the south and Repulicanism. I used a variety of source material to form my argument and used the best ones to illustrate and verify what I said. THAT Chris is critical thinking.
    True, if your conclusion followed from your premises. But your premises (a), (b) did not imply your conclusion (c). There must be more than the form of proof, there must be logic connecting premises to conclusion. You offered no logic.
    Virgil's Aeneid, Book VI: "Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito."

  5. #85
    Points: 40,665, Level: 49
    Level completed: 31%, Points required for next Level: 1,185
    Overall activity: 28.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran25000 Experience Points
    jet57's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    2137
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    15,121
    Points
    40,665
    Level
    49
    Thanks Given
    1,549
    Thanked 2,127x in 1,783 Posts
    Mentioned
    192 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    True, if your conclusion followed from your premises. But your premises (a), (b) did not imply your conclusion (c). There must be more than the form of proof, there must be logic connecting premises to conclusion. You offered no logic.
    Stop trying to parse everything down to the inth degree. It makes you look like a sore loser again. EVERYTHING I said has been covered, validated and creates an ascending argument drawn for multiple objective sources.

    So you can stop now. I'm not getting on your merry go round.

    /
    Make everything from toy guns that spark, to flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark. It’s easy to see without looking too far, that not much is really sacred.
    Thomas Jefferson (to Richard Price) January 8. 1789 "...wherever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government..."

  6. #86
    Points: 538,566, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 77.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    411117
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    167,444
    Points
    538,566
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    20,916
    Thanked 58,692x in 41,484 Posts
    Mentioned
    1809 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    Stop trying to parse everything down to the inth degree. It makes you look like a sore loser again. EVERYTHING I said has been covered, validated and creates an ascending argument drawn for multiple objective sources.

    So you can stop now. I'm not getting on your merry go round.

    /

    That's a lousy defense of your lack of logic.

    Here we go, let's look at your premises (a) and (b) and your conclusion (c)

    Premise (a) is taken from WaPo: "Although this fight was mostly over control of federal patronage, the Lily-Whites argued that the only way for the GOP to win elections in the region again was to become a “white” party and purge its black leaders. This was because black voters were largely disenfranchised and white Southern voters were unwilling to vote for a “$#@!” party."

    Premise (b) is also taken from WaPo: "Of course, the South has gone for Republicans for quite some time. Since 1972, Republican presidential nominees generally have carried a majority of Southern states. In five elections — 1972, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004 — they swept the region. Since support for the Republican Party is notoriously low among black voters, this means that the party’s contemporary base consists of white, Southern voters."

    Conclusion (c) is yours: "Right, eight years after the Civil Rights Act Southern white DID turn to the Republic an party beginning with early efforts by the Lily-White racist Republicans and of course, look at today's Republican party which got it's evangelical boost through Reagan."

    We can state that more briefly:

    (a) Lily-Whites purged the GOP of blacks.

    (b) The South is now Republican.

    (c) (b) because of (a)

    First off, (a) is false. Some Reps tried to keep blacks out but they failed. We know this because it was a prominent black politician in the GOP who named it the Lily-White movement. Abd because the $#@! Republican Party formed within the GOP, later called the Black-and-tan faction (source). During this period there were 43 Black-American Members by Congress.

    We also know that while this GOP movement was like the Democratic actions, they pale in comparison to the KKK, Jim Crow, and lynchings. And we also know the South was solidly Democratic at this time. That leaves the WaPo article suspect of biased cherry-picking.

    As for your conclusion, the WaPo premises (a) and (b) provide no evidence of causation, in fact, no link whatsoever. (a) leaves out that the movement was largely a failure. (b) could be a result of many factors such has as Democratic resistance to Civil Rights while, generally, Republicans favored civil rights.
    Virgil's Aeneid, Book VI: "Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito."

  7. #87
    Points: 40,665, Level: 49
    Level completed: 31%, Points required for next Level: 1,185
    Overall activity: 28.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran25000 Experience Points
    jet57's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    2137
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    15,121
    Points
    40,665
    Level
    49
    Thanks Given
    1,549
    Thanked 2,127x in 1,783 Posts
    Mentioned
    192 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    That's a lousy defense of your lack of logic.

    Here we go, let's look at your premises (a) and (b) and your conclusion (c)

    Premise (a) is taken from WaPo: "Although this fight was mostly over control of federal patronage, the Lily-Whites argued that the only way for the GOP to win elections in the region again was to become a “white” party and purge its black leaders. This was because black voters were largely disenfranchised and white Southern voters were unwilling to vote for a “$#@!” party."

    Premise (b) is also taken from WaPo: "Of course, the South has gone for Republicans for quite some time. Since 1972, Republican presidential nominees generally have carried a majority of Southern states. In five elections — 1972, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004 — they swept the region. Since support for the Republican Party is notoriously low among black voters, this means that the party’s contemporary base consists of white, Southern voters."

    Conclusion (c) is yours: "Right, eight years after the Civil Rights Act Southern white DID turn to the Republic an party beginning with early efforts by the Lily-White racist Republicans and of course, look at today's Republican party which got it's evangelical boost through Reagan."

    We can state that more briefly:

    (a) Lily-Whites purged the GOP of blacks.

    (b) The South is now Republican.

    (c) (b) because of (a)

    First off, (a) is false. Some Reps tried to keep blacks out but they failed. We know this because it was a prominent black politician in the GOP who named it the Lily-White movement. Abd because the $#@! Republican Party formed within the GOP, later called the Black-and-tan faction (source). During this period there were 43 Black-American Members by Congress.

    We also know that while this GOP movement was like the Democratic actions, they pale in comparison to the KKK, Jim Crow, and lynchings. And we also know the South was solidly Democratic at this time. That leaves the WaPo article suspect of biased cherry-picking.

    As for your conclusion, the WaPo premises (a) and (b) provide no evidence of causation, in fact, no link whatsoever. (a) leaves out that the movement was largely a failure. (b) could be a result of many factors such has as Democratic resistance to Civil Rights while, generally, Republicans favored civil rights.
    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...3C6050DFA5771B

    In the post-Reconstruction South, two Republican factions vied for control of state party organizations. The Black-and-Tans sought to keep the party inclusive and integrated, while the Lily-Whites worked to turn the GOP into a whites-only party. The Lily-Whites ultimately emerged victorious, as they took over most state parties by the early twentieth century. Yet no comprehensive data exist to measure how the conflict played out in each state. To fill this void, we present original data that track the racial composition of Republican National Convention delegations from the South between 1868 and 1952. We then use these data in a set of statistical analyses to show that, once disfranchising laws were put into place, the “whitening” of the GOP in the South led to a significant increase in the Republican Party's vote totals in the region. Overall, our results suggest that the Lily-White takeover of the Southern GOP was a necessary step in the Republican Party's reemergence—and eventual dominance—in the region during the second half of the twentieth century.


    You might just want to stop now, you're in quick sand as it is.
    Make everything from toy guns that spark, to flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark. It’s easy to see without looking too far, that not much is really sacred.
    Thomas Jefferson (to Richard Price) January 8. 1789 "...wherever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government..."

  8. #88
    Points: 538,566, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 77.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassYour first GroupOverdrive50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Chris's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    411117
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    167,444
    Points
    538,566
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    20,916
    Thanked 58,692x in 41,484 Posts
    Mentioned
    1809 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...3C6050DFA5771B



    [/FONT][/COLOR]You might just want to stop now, you're in quick sand as it is.

    "In the post-Reconstruction South, two Republican factions vied for control of state party organizations." Once again demonstrating blacks were not excluded and the Lily-White movement failed.


    "Yet no comprehensive data exist to measure how the conflict played out in each state." Right, no data exists to link Lily-White movement to present day Republican South.


    "once disfranchising laws were put into place" These were laws enacted by Democrats. Remember at that time the Democrats dominated the South. Disfranchisement after the Reconstruction era:

    During the later elections of Reconstruction era, beginning in the 1870s, white Democrats used violence by paramilitary groups (such as the Ku Klux Klan), as well as fraud, to suppress black Republican voters and turn Republicans out of office. After regaining control of the state legislatures, Democrats were alarmed by a late 19th-century alliance between Republicans and Populists that cost them some elections. After achieving control of state legislatures, white Democrats added to previous efforts and achieved widespread disfranchisement by law: from 1890 to 1908, Southern state legislatures passed new constitutions, constitutional amendments, and laws that made voter registration and voting more difficult, especially when administered by white staff in a discriminatory way. They succeeded in disenfranchising most of the black citizens, as well as many poor whites in the South, and voter rolls dropped dramatically in each state. The Republican Party was nearly eliminated in the region for decades, and the Democrats established one-party control throughout the southern states.


    "suggest" is not proof.

    You're the one digging yourself into a hole by citing biased opinion to support your claim.

    Moreover, critical thinking requires facts and logic. You present some facts but fail to make any argument.
    Virgil's Aeneid, Book VI: "Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito."

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts