Thank you. Her responses were condescending.
Not a problem (as I know you've spoken before on the matter) - and as I said before, I don't make a point of being surprised or concerned with anything that shows an inability to actually do objective discussions on all facets of an issue. Facts are facts - and the fact of the matter is that Democrats AND Republicans killed Black people, from the KKK to other white supremacist groups in the North, West and South....many of whom had significant membership in conservative circles just as the Democrats had KKK support in certain circles. And of course, as other conservatives (be it Democrat or Republican) are aware, there's more than enough history on the reality of what has happened with systemic racism. One excellent place for basic study (as it concerns those who were conservatives doing extensive killing of Blacks) can be seen here in
The Ghosts of 1898 - News & Observer (
http://media2.newsobserver.com/content/media/2010/5/3/ghostsof1898.pdf )
And fo
r other examples:
As former Confederates and Whigs began to come back into the political process, they formed the Conservative Party, which opposed federal intervention in state affairs and spoke out against the so-called “radical” reconstruction policies of the U.S. Congress. The Conservatives, who would later change their name to the Democratic Party, took control of the North Carolina General Assembly in 1870 and began to reverse some of the changes enacted by Reconstruction-era Republicans. In 1876, popular Civil War governor Zebulon Vance was returned to the state’s highest office. In the eyes of many white North Carolinians, the state had been “redeemed.”
When North Carolina, like much of the rest of the nation, was mired in a severe economic depression in the 1880s, the small farmers in the state were hit the hardest. The poor infrastructure in the state made it difficult for them to get their goods to market, and, when they did, they thought that they were not given a fair price by buyers. To compound their problems, many farmers felt that neither of the two major political parties had their best interests at heart.
Leonidas L. Polk (top) and Marion Butler were leaders of the Populist Party in North Carolina. About the photographs: Polk, Butler
The national Farmers Alliance, an organization of farmers advocating for cooperatives and economic reform, spawned smaller organizations throughout the country, with an active branch in North Carolina. The “alliancemen” were active supporters of the new People’s Party, also known as the Populist Party, led nationally by North Carolinian Leonidas LaFayette Polk.
The Populists ran several candidates in the 1892 election in North Carolina and the results were surprising. While few of their candidates were elected, they did receive a significant number of votes. In fact, the Populist vote combined with the Republican vote was greater than that for the Democrats. While the Democratic party still controlled the government, they no longer represented the majority of voters.
Anyone intellectually honest on the discussion of Liberal vs. Conservative understands that others have already noted that there's plenty of racism on the Democratic side just as there is on the Republican side (especially the side unwilling to address the KKK within their own ranks or history) and that has been the case for a long time.
On a side note, you'd probably appreciate other Civil Rights activists such as Glen Ford (who has been very vocal during this presidential term with the corruption that has occurred from the White House while also calling out a lot of the problems on the Right with others who critique inconsistently)
Beyond the Dead End of Imperial Politics - Black Agenda Report
It's not that difficult to recognize racism when you see it, including the reality of KKK past and PRESENT in the Republican party and we dishonor those who've died before us when failing to deal historically with all points. Anyone claiming it was only those who were progressives who were racist already shows the bias toward anything - and everything - conservative in revisionist history that fails to honor those murdered by conservatives who were racist. And it fails to deal with history when forgetting the many on both sides of the isle who contributed to the freedom of Blacks.
I appreciate other great minds in history like Martin Luther King, who was a Democratic Socialis
t and I appreciate the ways that both of them sought to address issues from the bottom up....THE SAME thing that the Founding Fathers spoke on when it came to Stock Ownership for all (which I have spoken about before herei, here and here )
.
I was VERY frustrated/angered as a Black Hispanic when seeing how many teachers/text-books talked on supporting Dr.King for the achievements he did and speaking like they loved his work.....and yet they were all selective on the things he did which disagreed with the common U.S stance that anything not capitalist is evil. For more detail,
Dr.Martin Luther King was often called a "Communist" (wrongly)
simply because of his leanings toward Democratic socialism and
alternatives apart from capitalism...
for both poor whites/blacks and all.
He was often harrassed due to believing the government was to play a role in aiding the poor communities it often helped to create---and called out the U.S on it when noting the extensive resources it was willing to invest in war/other endeavors while the plight of the Negro was ignored.
Although he studied communists materials and disagreed at various points, he did agreed with many of the critiques on capitalism that much of the U.S refused to acknowledged.
FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, beloved by crew-cutted conservatives of his time, called King the
most notorious liar in the country. In
Canaans Edge: America In The King Years 1965 & 1968, author Taylor Branch details how Hoover cultivated King as the fearsome dark symbol of the latest 20th century threat to tranquility on Main Street America—succeeding immigrants, Depression gangsters, Nazis and communists. Polite society rallied against King under the auspices of the White Citizens Councils..
Adding to this narrative were people like Alabama Governor George Wallace, who told
The New York Times in 1963 that "President [Kennedy] wants us to surrender this state to Martin Luther King and his group of pro-Communists who have instituted these demonstrations." And although he was against communism, he often noted directly why it was an issue to begin with and how the U.S was to go about dealing with it. One of his best speeches can be found at
A Christian view of Communism
In 1958 MLK published
Stride Toward Freedom in which he gave his thoughts on everything from Gandhi to Hitler; from communism to... Nietzsche and a lot in between
. As he said best:
Second, I strongly disagreed with communism;s ethical relativism. Since for the Communist there is no divine government, no absolute moral order, there are no fixed, immutable principles; consequently almost anything-force, violence, murder, lying-is a justifiable means to the millennial end. This type of relativism was abhorrent to me. Constructive ends can never give absolute moral justification to destructive means, because in the final analysis the end is preexistent in the mean.
Third, I opposed communism's political totalitarianism. In communism the individual ends up in subjection to the state. True, the Marxist would argue that the state is an interim; reality which is to be eliminated when the classless society emerges; but the state i s the end while it lasts, and man only a means to that end. And if any man ;s so-called rights or liberties stand in the way of that end, they are simply swept aside. His liberties of expression, his freedom to vote, his freedom to listen to what news he likes or to choose his books are all restricted. Man becomes hardly more, in communism, than a depersonalized cog in the turning wheel of the state.This deprecation of individual freedom was objectionable to me. I am convinced now, as I was then, that man is an end because he is a child of God.
Man is not made for the state; the state is made for man.
The ways that attacks were given toward king by conservatives often seems to echo in our politics today, as it concerns using buzz terms meant to get others incensed before even seeing what's said (like poisoning the well), calling opponents anti-American, communist or hell-bent on destroying the Constitution....indeed, that is worth caution and condemnation.
And what's interesting, in regards to Jim Crow Laws, is that the lack of ability for blacks to start businesses and be treated fairly with having their property rights respected.....it actually led to Blacks finding other models beyond what Capitalism had to offer. Specifically, if wanting more historical documentation,
Anticommunism and the African American Freedom Movement is truly one of the best reads on the subject, if ever interested enough to take time and buy it. The other one that may give some food for thought would be
Black Struggle, Red Scare: Segregation and Anti-Communism in the South, 1948-1968.
It was often the Communist party that was influential in aiding oppressed blacks/minorities in the American system..
But of course, this cannot be discussed if there's any kind of dedication to discuss only those things favoring your own political camp.....and ignoring the fact that Blacks had a very complicated history with both Democrats and Republicans often not being favored.
If you're gonna teach history, then one must be honorable and teach all sides of it - and not condemn teachers aware of the other sides of it that other teachers don't want to discuss in the classroom.
Those outside of Black culture tend to be ignorant of what actually occurred with Blacks and I am glad for the many Black conservatives who call out the mess for what it is (regarding people misrepresenting conservatism via focusing only on Liberal or Democrats as the problem while trying to sanitize the Right's history when it comes to Mob violence, lynchings/killings of blacks and many other things that Black Republicans had to do battle with other White Republicans who dishonored the other White Republicans fighting on behalf of Blacks). And for historical reference on what happened, as said best with regards to the Black and Tan Republicans in
Black and Tan Republicans | The Black Past: Remembered:
Black and Tan Republicans were African Americans in the Reconstruction-era South who were loyal to the Republican Party. When the Republican Party was founded in 1854, few African Americans joined. By the time of the election of Abraham Lincoln, the Party began to attract support from Northern blacks including, crucially, Frederick Douglass. That support grew in the late 1860s as some Southern blacks, now voting, cast ballots for the Republicans.
After the 15th Amendment was passed in 1870 allowing most of the black males in the former Confederate states to vote, the Republican Party (also now known as the Grand Old Party or GOP) commanded the loyalty of an overwhelming majority of African Americas, prompting Frederick Douglass to remark that for them, "The Republican Party was the ship and all else was the sea."
Many of the newly enfranchised Southern black men now formed "Black and Tan" clubs, which along with similar organizations like the Union League, helped to institutionally tie these voters to the Republican Party.
Black Republican votes were also driven by white terror. Beginning with the founding of the Ku Klux Klan in 1866 and escalating through the late 1860s and 1870s, Southern whites used violence to intimidate black would-be voters which at first helped solidify their allegiance to the GOP. Thousands of black voters were murdered in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. White terrorists also intimidated and ostracized Southern whites who supported the Republican Party. They harassed the children of white Republicans in schools and isolated the wives of prominent white Republicans in churches and social clubs. On many occasions direct violence, usually reserved for African American Republican voters, was used on white Party activists as well.
The violence and intimidation of black and white voters, often called the "shotgun policy" or the "Mississippi Plan," destroyed the effectiveness of the Republican Party in most areas of the South as an alternative to one-party (Democratic) rule. Whites left the GOP and rejoined the Democrats or quit politics. Blacks who continued to vote did so at the risk of being killed.
White Republicans who remained in the Party were increasingly convinced that they could survive politically only by removing black GOP officeholders and leaders and in some instances by jettisoning black voters altogether. These Republicans, known as the "Lilly Whites," fought the Black and Tan Republicans for control of the Party. They remained warring factions until the 1930s when African Americans deserted the GOP to support the policies and administration of Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Moreover, as
another noted wisely:
White supremacist Southern Democrats were a key part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal Coalition. They used their large numbers, unity and seniority to exclude as many black people from as much of the New Deal benefits and protections as possible and to stop the federal government from doing anything about lynching. Then the black freedom movement and white allies insisted on civil rights. In reactionary response, those white southern Democrats left the Democratic Party en masse, as evidenced by Strom Thurmond’s Dixiecrat presidential campaign in 1948 and Richard Nixon’s opposition to school busing and play for segregationist Alabama Gov. George Wallace’s constituency.
White southern Democrats were explicit about their racism, and it’s no mystery that they left the party when it yielded to civil rights movement pressure, and as blacks began to make up a larger part of its constituency.
The 1948 Dixiecrat platform was pretty clear (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25851 ):
“We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed civil rights program. We favor home-rule, local self-government and a minimum interference with individual rights…We oppose and condemn the action of the Democratic Convention in sponsoring a civil rights program calling for the elimination of segregation, social equality by Federal fiat, regulations of private employment practices, voting, and local law enforcement.”
“If the Freedom Democratic Party is not seated now, I question America,” Famer concluded after detailing the horrific abuses and threats she and others had endured for simply trying to register black people to vote. “Is this America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, where we have to sleep with our telephones off the hooks because our lives be threatened daily, because we want to live as decent human beings, in America?”
Additionally, And as ano
ther noted wisely:
First, Republicans don’t like being called out on their Jim Crow voting laws or their Stand Your Ground gun laws that frequently do not get interpreted the same for black people or women as they do for the whitest man in the room (highest ranker on the patriarchy scale).
They know it’s “bad” to be a racist, and so they will deny the white hood while hiding under the deflection that Democrats wore it first way back in the late 1860s when it was founded by six veterans of the Confederate Army. Yes, Democrats were a big part of the original KKK over 150 years ago. But Democrats were on the other side in 1948 with the addition of civil rights as a campaign plank and on into the fights for Civil Rights in the 60s, losing Southern white voters to the Republican Party. But really, what matters when you are voting is where each party stands TODAY. (The KKK had a resurgence in the 20s by white protestants angry at industrialization and immigration and high on Prohibition and the Bible, and a third big incarnation in reaction to the Civil Rights movement.)
Moreover, on the history of Blacks impacted by conservatives and lynchings (for a brief excerpt) FROM William Borah (
https://thebluereview.org/william-borah-lynching-history/ )
:
In the South, “states’ rights” has long been code for preserving white supremacy. Out West, it translates more simply into “don’t tread on me.” Dixie’s lasting resentment of federal interference emerged from its struggle to preserve slavery; Idaho’s roots back to territorial days when D.C.’s heavy hand lay upon its government appointees, Indian policy and lands. Ninety years ago, Idaho possessed the smallest black population percentage-wise in the West; the South had the largest in the nation. Nevertheless, under a states’ rights banner, Idaho served as the south’s passionate partner in jointly killing federal anti-lynching legislation. If one includes North and South Dakota as part of the West, then they tied for fewest blacks in the west in 1920, with 0.1% to Idaho’s 0.2 percent.
LYNCHING: PSEUDO-SANCTIONED TERRORISM IN THE SOUTH
In 1920 the Republican Party finally added antilynching legislation to its official platform. After years of empty promises to northern black voters, leaders knew that black loyalty to the party of Lincoln was strained. The spike in mob-induced lynchings and bloody race riots the previous year had earned 1919 the name “Red Summer.” That, and the shameful lynching of several black soldiers newly home from war—some murdered in uniform—helped force the GOP’s hand. With widespread public support in 1922, the GOP embraced Representative Leonidas Dyer’s (R-MO) antilynching bill.
Without Sanctuary
Lynching photo, circa 1920, from the extensive collection at Without Sanctuary.
Lynching had become the white South’s key terrorist tool of social control. Its purpose extended beyond punishing any one individual. Rather, perpetrators aimed to intimidate an entire community into compliance with a white supremacist social order. Lynchings were public events—spectacles of horrific torture (sexual mutilation, burning at the stake, beatings, hangings) that drew white onlookers in droves, some with picnic baskets. Though technically illegal even in the South, these hate crimes occurred with the tacit support of local officials, making prosecutions rare. This sent blacks a clear message: stay in your place or risk death for you and your loved ones. The message to whites: enjoy your legal immunity and do what you will. With large populations of blacks concentrated in the South, this pseudo-sanctioned terrorism enforced a fear-based conformity to the Jim Crow system and thwarted blacks from amassing easily in their own defense.
President Warren G. Harding endorsed Dyer’s 1922 antilynching campaign, promising to sign the bill when it reached his desk. And blacks, who had advocated such action for decades, felt the moment was ripe. Southern Democrats (Dixiecrats) controlled powerful seats on congressional committees, and swore they’d use every means available to stop federal interference against lynching, but Republicans dominated both houses of Congress as well as the White House. Large black migrations from south to north also meant increased black voter pressure upon Republican officials in some urban northeastern and midwestern districts. If a united GOP truly wanted legislation passed, it could have likely gotten it through Congress. As a positive first step, the House easily approved Dyer’s bill 230 to 119, despite objections from Representative Burton French, a Republican from of Idaho.
Library of Congress
William “Lion of Idaho” Borah.
“If you’re in favor of Lynching! Endorse Borah!” See a 1936 photograph of black protestors outside a Borah campaign stop at the Kismet Templehere.When the bill moved to the Senate, a handful of mostly Western progressive Republicans from predominantly white states opposed it. Led by William Borah, the “Lion of Idaho” and a constitutional expert, they created a powerful states’ rights alliance with Dixiecrats to stop Dyer. Much like onlookers at a mob lynching, the impassioned actions of these forces drew the lukewarm apathy of other Republican senators willing to let the bill die. Borah’s silver tongue laid out the states’ rights position against the bill more effectively than could southern Democrats. The influential Idahoan’s constitutional and federalist arguments helped distance the cause of “states rights” from the South’s ugly racial animus, while adding a patriotic flourish. In the process, Borah performed like the South’s defense attorney, depicting its white citizens as the real victims who were doing their best to cope with a racial mess the North bequeathed them after the Civil War.
Dyer’s bill would have criminalized state refusals to enforce equal-protection laws with respect to safeguarding people from mob-based murders. Read the bill.Whenever local officials failed to pursue and prosecute a lynching case, the federal government would be able to step in and hold them accountable. Counties that permitted lynching would also be fined $10,000 as compensation for the victims’ families.
Advocates contended that lynch-loving localities were violating victims’ 14thAmendment rights to equal protection under the law, justifying federal involvement. In situations where blacks were strung up for trying to vote, the intent of the 15thAmendment became a casualty, too. And the recently passed 18th Amendment, prohibiting the manufacture, sale, and distribution of alcohol, created clear precedent for Washington’s interference into state law enforcement matters.
BORAH: SMALL GOVERNMENT PROGRESSIVISM VS. CIVIL RIGHTS
To Borah, who condoned federal policing of prohibition, the 18th amendment was a rare exception to the Constitution’s states’ rights rule.The 17th Amendment, which permitted the direct election of senators, was another rare exception for Borah. On most other issues, the church-going booze-foreswearing Republican wedded his progressivism to a fierce protection of states’ rights in the 10th Amendment. Borah had championed many causes he hoped would enhance the liberty and moral lives of average Americans. Along with prohibition, these included women’s suffrage, anti-immigration laws, direct election of senators, civil liberties, anti-imperialism, a graduated income tax and antitrust efforts. His devotion to the founders’ federal system inspired the special favor he bestowed on states’ rights. Unlike with his Southern friends, race was not his prime motivation. Borah felt that America’s system of government, and basic responsibilities of citizenship, would be compromised if the federal government encroached too far. Therefore, women’s suffrage received Borah’s support so long as women used a state-by-state approach. Much like on the Dyer bill, he voted against the federal women’s suffrage amendment because he deemed voting rights a state’s prerogative. He stood similarly on immigrant matters, backing California’s right to ban Japanese from owning land or attending public schools. Conversely, prohibition required federal action, he reasoned, because of interstate liquor commerce. Wet states could hamper a neighboring dry state’s enforcement efforts without a federal law, whereas states without women’s suffrage, for instance, could not impede those that allowed it. With respect to lynching, states must be left to police themselves; if Dyer passed, lives might be saved but American federalism—the key to liberty—would be lost.
via History Matters
1922 NAACP ad advocating for Dyer’s antilynching bill asks voters to “telegraph your senators today.”
In addition to taking a states’ rights stand against the Dyer bill, Borah argued that the Supreme Court would deem it unconstitutional. Justices had already ruled that the 14thAmendment only covered state actions, not those of local officials or individuals such as lynch mobs. But other bright legal minds disagreed—including the U.S. Attorney General—and wanted Dyer passed to test the court. Indeed, with the original grandfather clauses (designed to suppress the black vote) recently felled by the bench, change appeared to be afoot. Clearly by the late 1930s, as Borah continued opposing new antilynching bills, the conservative court was beginning to bend.
Although Borah’s states’ rights philosophy was not racially driven at its core, his brand of small-government Progressivism often protected anti-black policies by advocating inaction on blacks’ behalf. The senator’s personal belief in Anglo Saxon superiority certainly affected his stands on the suffrage amendment and Dyer bill, too. So did his political aspirations. When angry suffragists confronted him, as the only senator representing a suffrage state to oppose the federal amendment (Idaho women got the vote in 1896), he explained that he simply could not, in good conscience, force upon the South the enfranchisement of ignorant black women against its will. Repeal the 15thAmendment first, which outlawed racial voting barriers, and he’d be happy to support a federal amendment for white women. Passage of the 15th Amendment (1870) had been a mistake anyway, he asserted, done in a fit of Northern vengeance against the Confederacy. It put the South into the understandable position of using legal tricks to disenfranchise culturally inferior, unqualified blacks—a situation for which the federal government bore much blame, Borah argued. Through poll taxes, literacy tests and other deterrents, Borah felt Southerners were merely doing what was necessary to keep the unfit legally off the roles. Certainly white suffragists could understand his logic, he queried. “We did,” a suffrage leader replied, after a visit to his chambers. “We all guessed he had his eyes on the White House.” They were right.At a Boise rally, suffragist Harriet Stanton Blatch noted perceptively, “if Senator Borah thinks the amendments his party passed are not enforced and yet ought to be, why has he not fought steadily ever since he has been in the senate for the accomplishment of his beliefs?”
Privately, Borah celebrated how his positions won favor across the South. Such affection could prove indispensable in a run for the presidency. Borah may well have been the South’s favorite adopted son. Though he did not verbally condone lynching, occasionally chastised the South’s disrespect for law and order on this front and even helped rescue two black Boiseans from a lynch mob in Nampa, Idaho in 1903, Borah adamantly opposed the federal government’s involvement in local police matters. If they could intrude to stop lynching, what would be next? Outlawing racial segregation in public education? Herein, Borah stood squarely with California’s senators who, during the suffrage and Dyer bill debates, defended their quest to restrict liberties for Japanese residents. As Borah exclaimed, “I have no desire… to bestow the franchise on the 10,000 Japanese on the Pacific slope or yield up to the federal government the control of the school questions of the Pacific coast. I would count myself derelict to those great Pacific states and to the framework of our government if I were to here set a precedent as to who shall own property in the states.” In doing so, he also placed himself with the South on race. To help solidify this Western and Southern alliance, Representative Finis Garrett (D-TN), affirmed, “Whatever you people in the West decide to do in working out your [racial] problem, we of the South will understand.”
Southerners’ affection for Borah, and willingness to let him argue their states’ rights stance on race, lasted long after his death in 1940. Amid the 1958 school integration crisis in Little Rock, Arkansas, the Alabama newspaper publisher Col. Harry Ayers used Idaho’s Lion to defend the white South’s fury over federally-forced integration and urge the feds to back off. In a letter published in Pocatello’s Idaho State Journal, the newsman quoted a Borah speech from 1938 against antilynching legislation. The senator had pled for patience and empathy toward the white South, along with respect for the region’s states’ rights, as it managed its delicate “race problem.” Education, not federal involvement, was Borah’s remedy for white violence and local leaders who flouted the law. Meanwhile, to blacks Borah generally dispensed Horatio Alger advice: self-help. After admitting frankly in a 1911 speech that blacks faced brutal discrimination in both the North and South, he told them they should not expect special help from Congress beyond protections currently in the Constitution. Blacks would simply have to raise themselves up to white cultural standards, and win white respect in the process. Southerners loved the speech. As one Borah biographer wrote, “it was probably almost as pleasing to Southerners as his justification of a statue of [General Robert E.] Lee in the Hall of Fame.”
“The Rise of the Ku Klux Klan!” from an April 1916 ad in the Idaho Statesman.
Coming from a predominantly white state, Borah risked little hometown offense with such positions. Northern colleagues with sizeable black constituencies could lose votes by inciting their displeasure. But when the national NAACP campaigned against Borah through the 1930s as he continued fighting antilynching bills, he proceeded unscathed. White Idahoans generally shared Borah’s conception of race, states rights and post Civil War history—positions popularized by the 1915 filmBirth of a Nation, which played to great fanfare across Idaho.
When national politicians spoke of Borah as potential presidential timber, even Idaho’s small black population sometimes let local pride and historic loyalty to the GOP trump their displeasure with him. A straw-poll-for-president fundraiser in 1928, sponsored by Pocatello’s black Bethel Baptist Church, declared Borah the winner with 98.5 votes—three more than Democrat Al Smith. Black Boiseans also felt a tempered fondness. His evening strolls from the Owyhee hotel led him directly into the River Street neighborhood that whites dubbed “Colored Town.” Whether he came for the pleasant front-porch conversations, or for the brothels that drew many of Boise’s rich and powerful, remains unknown.
Borah inflicted damage on the Dyer bill through more than his skilled oratory, courting of the press and keen legal mind. As a top Washington powerbroker who chaired the judiciary subcommittee considering the bill, he delayed its exit from committee while leading the group of Senate lawyers who recommended the bill be held back. Though it eventually received an 8 to 6 vote to move forward, these delays, combined with a no-holds-barred filibuster from Dixiecrats that stymied all Senate business, helped run down the clock on the 1922 legislative session. Republicans who still wanted to pass other bills let Dyer’s die in order that theirs could live. The New York Times also reported that several were willing to sacrifice the Dyer bill after witnessing the contention it caused in the House.
Senator Borah thrust Idaho into a powerful states’ rights alliance with the South on racial matters. Though not as single-minded as Dixiecrats here, he nevertheless helped preserve, protect and defend domestic terrorists on American soil. Borah convinced himself that he was safeguarding America’s federalist system of government. He equated states’ rights with patriotic protection of Constitutional law, as he assumed the founders intended. From another viewpoint, Borah participated in undercutting the country’s international image, constitutional integrity and animating vision. He willingly abandoned law and order to the will of prejudiced mobs—to a “tyranny of the majority” that Alexis de Tocqueville warned a century earlier could become America’s Achilles’ heel. Regardless of Borah’s motives, his championing of states’ rights on racial matters during the peak of the Jim Crow era strengthened the white South’s hand in its race-based fight, and delayed justice for black Americans. Republicans’ failure to deliver antilynching legislation also triggered the start of black defections from the GOP. This political realignment accelerated throughout the century as Northern white Democrats started to support civil rights. In the post-1960s years, states-rights conservatives from the west and south led the backlash against civil rights advances such as affirmative action and federal voting rights laws.
In June 2005, the U.S. Senate officially apologized for never passing antilynching legislation. Approximately 80 of 100 senators joined the effort as co-sponsors by the day of the vote. Among those initially declining and refusing a roll-call vote were eight Southerners and eight Westerners, including Mike Crapo of Idaho. Eventually, both of Idaho’s senators affixed their names.
For other places of study, one can go to
Ku Klux Klan: A History of Racism and Violence - Southern Poverty Law Center (
https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/Ku-Klux-Klan-A-History-of-Racism.pdf )
There are many other places besides that one can look into, but the bottom line is that anyone unable to deal with where Conservatives have had an extensive history of avoiding blacks in the Republican Party (just as they have had a history of avoiding people in the Democratic party). Anyone unable to handle that tends to reveal where they are unfortunately unable to deal with the same issues of racism impacting blacks that Blacks noted to be an issue.
If you're going to make this about "It's Democrats who are the real racists!" then I'm gonna assume you really have nothing to contribute to the discussion, because it's more complex than that. 
