A Short History of White Racism in the Two-Party System

If you’ve seen the Lincoln movie, maybe you’re still walking around with this bit of cognitive dissonance: In 1864, the Democrats are the party of slavery and the Republicans the party of emancipation and racial justice. What’s up with that? How did we get from there to here?

The story is doubly worth telling because Republicans like Ann Coulter and Jonah Goldberg have been misrepresenting it so grossly.

A good place to start is the presidential election of 1860, which brings Lincoln to power and convinces Southern whites (the only people who can vote in the South in 1860) that secession is their best chance to maintain slavery*.

Lincoln gets only 40% of the vote, but in a four-way race (the Democratic Convention split over whether the platform should endorse the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision) that’s enough to win. In terms of the popular vote, his closest competition is Illinois Democrat Stephen Douglas (30%), but in electoral votes another Democrat, sitting Vice President John Breckenridge of Kentucky, finishes second with 72 EVs to Lincoln’s 180.

Douglas fails because he is a national candidate representing continued compromise over slavery, while Breckenridge and Lincoln are sectional candidates with clear pro- and anti-slavery positions. So Douglas gets 15% in Alabama (to Lincoln’s 0%) and 43% in Wisconsin (to Breckenridge’s 0.5%), but only manages to carry Missouri and New Jersey, giving him 12 EVs and fourth place behind John Bell’s 39.

During Reconstruction, Southern whites still blame Lincoln’s party for their humiliation in “the War of Northern Aggression“, but the new black vote makes Southern Republicans competitive — particularly in South Carolina, where blacks have long outnumbered whites. So the 1876 map looks like this:

1876 electoral map

But by 1896 the Jim Crow laws have disenfranchised Southern blacks, and Southern whites still remember how Lincoln destroyed their society, so Southern Republicans go extinct. Mississippi, for example, gives Democrat William Jennings Bryan a 91% majority. The 1896 map is almost a negative of the 2012 map — Democratic in the South and Mountain West, Republican in the Northeast, Midwest, and Far West.

1896 electoral map

1896 electoral map

2012 electoral map

2012 electoral map

The “solid South” stays Democratic through 1944, when FDR carries Mississippi with 94% of the vote.

1944 electoral map

So until 1944, there is no doubt that the Democrats are the party of Jim Crow. National figures like FDR may not be actively racist — and blacks benefit from the general anti-poverty provisions of the New Deal — but Democrats are not going to rock the boat of Southern white supremacy. Republicans, on the other hand, have nothing to defend in the old Confederacy, so it costs them nothing to champion civil rights. Their 1944 platform does them credit:

Racial and Religious Intolerance

We unreservedly condemn the injection into American life of appeals to racial or religious prejudice.

We pledge an immediate Congressional inquiry to ascertain the extent to which mistreatment, segregation and discrimination against Negroes who are in our armed forces are impairing morale and efficiency, and the adoption of corrective legislation.

We pledge the establishment by Federal legislation of a permanent Fair Employment Practice Commission.

 Anti-Poll Tax

The payment of any poll tax should not be a condition of voting in Federal elections and we favor immediate submission of a Constitutional amendment for its abolition.


We favor legislation against lynching and pledge our sincere efforts in behalf of its early enactment.

But outside the South, Democrats are also changing. In 1941 Roosevelt bans racial discrimination in defense industries.

At the 1948 Democratic Convention, a young Hubert Humphrey leads a Northern liberal bloc that adds this Civil Rights plank to the platform:

We again state our belief that racial and religious minorities must have the right to live, the right to work, the right to vote, the full and equal protection of the laws, on a basis of equality with all citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution.

We highly commend President Harry S. Truman for his courageous stand on the issue of civil rights.

We call upon the Congress to support our President in guaranteeing these basic and fundamental American Principles:

(1) the right of full and equal political participation;
(2) the right to equal opportunity of employment;
(3) the right of security of person;
(4) and the right of equal treatment in the service and defense of our nation.

Southern delegates respond by walking out of the convention and establishing the States’ Rights Democratic Party, a.k.a. the Dixiecrats, who nominate South Carolina’s Democratic Governor Strom Thurmond for president and endorse “the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race”. In spite of later efforts to sugarcoat his memory, Thurmond is a racist running an openly racist campaign. He tells one rally:

There’s not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigger** race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches.

After the Dixiecrat walkout, President Truman decides the die is cast and desegregates the military.

The 1948 electoral map looks like this:

1948 electoral map

So Democrats and Dixiecrats split the South, with still no Southern Republicans worth mentioning. Tom Dewey gets only 3% of the vote in Mississippi and 4% in South Carolina.

1948-1980 is a transitional period. On the state level, the South is still solidly Democratic. Republicans often don’t even bother to field candidates, as in Alabama in 1962, where George Wallace wins the governor’s race with 96% of the vote. (Wallace previously ran in 1958 with the endorsement of the NAACP and without support from the KKK. After losing the Democratic primary to a more openly racist candidate, he said, “I was out-niggered by John Patterson. And I’ll tell you here and now, I will never be out-niggered again.”)

The great civil rights face-offs of the 50s and 60s are between Southern Democratic governors and presidents of either party. In 1957, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sends troops to Little Rock when Democratic Governor Orval Faubus refuses to integrate Central High School. But Democratic President John Kennedy does exactly the same thing in 1962 when Democratic Governor Ross Barnett refuses to integrate the University of Mississippi, and in 1963 when Governor Wallace refuses to integrate the University of Alabama.

With Eisenhower’s invasion of Little Rock still rankling, 1960 is the second-to-last hurrah of the Democratic South. Putting Texan Lyndon Johnson on the ticket holds most of the South for Kennedy, but the Democrats’ hold is slipping: 15 Southern electoral votes go to Virginia Senator Harry Byrd, and Nixon is competitive in places Republicans never were before; he gets 49% in South Carolina, far more than Dewey’s 4% just three elections ago.

1960 electoral map

After JFK’s assassination, Johnson pushes the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through Congress with bipartisan support. 18 Southern Democrats and one Republican filibuster in the Senate — a rare occurrence in those days — but the bill ultimately passes with 46 Democratic votes and 27 Republicans. As he signs the bill, Johnson comments, “We have lost the South for a generation.

But will the Republicans pick the South up, or will spurned Dixiecrats be a regional party whose support no one wants? Through the 60s, moderate Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller and George Romney push to uphold the Lincoln-Dewey-Eisenhower civil-rights tradition and compete for black votes. But they lose. The 1964 Republican nominee against Johnson is Barry Goldwater, one of the few non-Southern senators who voted against the Civil Right Act.

Goldwater marks the beginning of I’m-not-a-racist-but Republicanism. His stated reasons for opposing the Civil Right bill have nothing to do with race. (He thought it was unconstitutional.) And the 1964 Republican platform stands by the Party’s pro-civil-rights record:

[W]e pledge: …

—full implementation and faithful execution of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and all other civil rights statutes, to assure equal rights and opportunities guaranteed by the Constitution to every citizen;

—improvements of civil rights statutes adequate to changing needs of our times;

—such additional administrative or legislative actions as may be required to end the denial, for whatever unlawful reason, of the right to vote;

—immigration legislation seeking to re-unite families and continuation of the “Fair Share” Refugee Program;

—continued opposition to discrimination based on race, creed, national origin or sex. We recognize that the elimination of any such discrimination is a matter of heart, conscience, and education, as well as of equal rights under law.

But it also gives white racists reason to hope.

[The Johnson] Administration has failed to apply Republican-initiated retraining programs where most needed particularly where they could afford new economic opportunities to Negro citizens. It has preferred, instead, divisive political proposals.

i.e. the Civil Rights Act and what becomes the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The platform also denounces “inverse discrimination” and “the abandonment of neighborhood schools, for reasons of race”. So Goldwater is against a public school saying “no niggers”, but if a neighborhood (just by pure chance, of course) happens to be all-white, its all-white school is just fine. His party also pledges

to open avenues of peaceful progress in solving racial controversies while discouraging lawlessness and violence.

Note the change: Dewey was worried about lynchings — white-on-black violence. In 1964 lynching are still happening, the Watts riots are still in the future, and Martin Luther King’s campaign of non-violent civil disobedience is being met with murders like the infamous Mississippi Burning case. But Goldwater’s platform lumps civil disobedience (“lawlessness”) together with “violence”, and pledges to “discourage” it.

So if you’re a Southern white supremacist who worries about civil rights agitators stirring up trouble in your town, Goldwater is your guy, just like he’s Strom Thurmond’s guy. Goldwater carries the South (and his home state of Arizona) as the rest of the country soundly rejects him.

1964 electoral map

Re-elected, LBJ passes the Voting Rights Act of 1965, also with bipartisan support. LBJ addresses a joint session of Congress, in a speech that still makes me misty-eyed:

It is not just Negroes, but really it is all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall overcome.

Thurmond the Dixiecrat-turned-Republican is the only Republican senator who votes No. Republicans field a candidate for governor in South Carolina in 1966 for the first time since Reconstruction. He loses 58%-42%, but erosion of support for the national Democratic Party is reaching the state level.

Goldwater’s landslide loss hardly establishes a new normal for Republicans, who still flirt with Rockefeller and Romney before settling on Nixon, whose civil-rights position is fuzzy. While few Dixiecrats are ready to follow Thurmond into the new tribe of Southern Republicans, they also can’t vote for the hated Hubert Humphrey. So in 1968 they give the regional-party thing another try with George Wallace.

1968 electoral map

But Nixon understands that Republicans have to pick up what the Democrats have dropped. His “Southern Strategy” (with Thurmond’s endorsement) captures the upper South in 1968, which is his victory margin in a close election. His long-term vision is for Republicans to absorb the Wallace vote into an unbeatable conservative coalition that Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips calls The Emerging Republican Majority.

https://i0.wp.com/ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51N4bKDcioL._SL500_AA300_.jpgPhillips writes:

The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

The Nixon re-election landslide of 1972 sweeps the South, but it’s hard to read much into that, since he takes every state but Massachusetts, and Georgia’s Jimmy Carter manages to pull the Democratic South together one last time in 1976.

But 1980 is the re-alignment election that has been brewing since 1964.

Ronald Reagan’s first speech as the Republican nominee is in the symbolic location of Neshoba County, Mississippi, site of the Mississippi Burning murders of 1964. So: symbolic time, symbolic place — what’s he say? Nothing about race at all. Just this:

I believe in state’s rights; I believe in people doing as much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level. And I believe that we’ve distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended in the constitution to that federal establishment. And if I do get the job I’m looking for, I’m going to devote myself to trying to reorder those priorities and to restore to the states and local communities those functions which properly belong there.

States rights, local control — just what Orval Faubus and Ross Barnett and George Wallace wanted when they refused to enforce federal court orders to integrate their schools. Just what Eisenhower and Kennedy didn’t allow when they sent federal troops.

It’s the beginning of the dog-whistle era. After the election, Reagan strategist Lee Atwater lays it out:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, “forced busing”, “states’ rights”, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

So Reagan isn’t trying to “out-nigger” anybody, because people up North will hear him and think he’s evil. He’ll just say “states rights” — like Strom Thurmond and Jefferson Davis before him — and hope “Negrophobe whites” get the message that they are welcome in his coalition.

They get the message.

1980 electoral map

They get it not just nationally, but on the state level. Alabama and Georgia elect Republican senators for the first time since Reconstruction.

In case anybody has forgotten that message by 1988, George H. W. Bush reminds them: If you vote for Democrats, Willie Horton will rape your wife.

Locally, the transition from the “old comfortable arrangement” is gradual. Most Dixiecrat/Democrat politicians don’t follow Strom Thurmond’s path to the Republican Party, though during the 70s and 80s they often combine with Republicans in Congress to form the conservative majority Phillips predicted. But as they retire, they are replaced by Republicans like Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich. (Lott, interestingly, was endorsed for Congress by his retiring Democratic predecessor.)

The chart on the right shows a generational turnover, not a walk-out. Southern Democrats in Congress today tend to be blacks representing majority-black districts, like South Carolina’s Jim Clyburn.

Today, the old white Confederacy is solidly Republican. Nationally, Romney had a clear majority of white voters: 59%. But in Mississippi, a whopping 89% of whites voted for Romney.

How did he lock up the Mississippi white vote? Not by saying “nigger, nigger”. Republicans never did that, because they didn’t exist in Mississippi when that was a winning strategy. Instead, they are the party of traditional values in a state where “tradition” means the stars-and-bars and Colonel Reb. They are the party of property rights and business in a state where property and business overwhelmingly belong to whites. They are the party of small government in a state where only massive federal intervention gave blacks the right to vote or to attend the state university.

Republicans don’t have to say “nigger, nigger”. Everybody gets it. They aren’t the Racist Party, but they are the party where white racists are welcome, where “Barack the Magic Negro” is funny, and people email each other photos of Obama with a bone through his nose or put his image on fantasy food stamps with ribs and watermelon. Just as Republicans aren’t anti-Hispanic, they just think police should stop people who look like they might be illegal immigrants. They aren’t even anti-Muslim, they just don’t think freedom of religion includes the right to build a mosque.

That’s the Party of Lincoln today. And now you know how they got here.

*A longstanding argument claims that secession was about “state’s rights” and not about slavery. Mostly you’ll hear this from people who have affection for the Confederacy but find slavery embarrassing. Actual Confederates did not suffer this embarrassment, and were very open about why they were seceding. South Carolina’s declaration of secession is clear:

A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. … On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved.

** When this recording came up in a different context a few months ago, I gave Thurmond the benefit of the doubt, that he might have said “negro” very fast and slurred. You can listen and judge for yourself.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • rebecca2000  On December 3, 2012 at 1:18 pm

    You did a great job with this post. It is sad how this has become part of the social commentary in 21st century.

  • Bobby  On December 3, 2012 at 1:21 pm

    Lots of things I didn’t know here, Doug. Thanks for pulling all of this together. It’s one of the best essays I’ve read this year.

  • Dan  On December 4, 2012 at 10:47 am

    People argue that the Civil War was about states’ rights not from a Southern but a Northern perspective. The South was very clear on the point that the slavery issue was their primary reason for secession, but Abraham Lincoln was equally clear that his reason for going to war was NOT to end slavery. At the beginning of the war he made several comments about how he would be fine with letting slavery continue in the seceeded states if it would bring them back to the union. So from the Northern perspective, the war was about the states’ right to seceed, and not about ending slavery.

    • zebardlj  On August 25, 2014 at 8:27 pm

      In every speech Lincoln made on slavery he made it clear that he regarded the south as having a constitutional right to the institution of slavery. His stated goal was to stop the SPREAD of slavery and he regarded that as a “conservative” agenda. His claim was that the founding fathers had declared in the Northwest Ordinances that there would be no slavery in the Northwest Territories. Since these were the only territories the US had at the time, Lincoln took it as evidence that the founding fathers did not want slavery to spread beyond where it had been made legal and constitutionally protected. So, he was offering the “conservative” solution.
      At the beginning of the Civil War some Federal Generals freed slaves and Lincoln ordered them to halt the practice because it violated the slaveholder’s constitutional rights.

  • John N.  On December 4, 2012 at 12:08 pm

    I found this post densely packed with interesting facts and maps and overall a very pithy synopsis of one of the more interesting phenomena in our political history. (One substantive question someone brought up about the piece was the lack of recognition that the role other issues (e.g., abortion in bible belt vs coastal/urban areas) may have played in the inversion of the geographic dominance of the parties. Food for thought. ) So I shared it on Facebook. Lots of interesting reaction from friends on the right – mainly taking offense (and not just a little) at the perceived implication that Republicans are racists. I was surprised because that is clearly not the point of the piece. But there seems to be a hyper-sensitivity on the right with respect to being demonized by the left. It has been pretty interesting to try to understand. Ultimately, I deleted the share. Too many friends seemed to think I was saying Rs are racist. Increasingly, I think our divided – even polarized – political culture has as much to do with perception that the other side doesn’t like you (Rs: Obama and the left hate me. Ds: Republicans think I am an unpatriotic freeloader) as with any sort of reality (most policy disputes are actually about matters of degree). Tribal thinking.

  • scyllacat  On December 6, 2012 at 8:15 am

    Thanks for this. When I was born, some of my older family members were still “Yellow Dog Democrats.” It really illuminates some of the questions I had about politics as a child.

  • Allan R. Tate  On December 8, 2012 at 11:16 pm

    I really appreciate all the research you did here. I learned a lot and will surely bookmark this one for future reference.

  • Richard D. Cameron  On August 12, 2014 at 8:08 pm

    Another brilliant analysis. Where are we headed as a Republic, united States or?

  • catlogic12  On August 13, 2014 at 1:55 pm

    The phrase “white racism” is not what’s really happening. I would instead call it “white flight”. Whites have fled. They have run away. Whites fled the major cities. They also fled the Democratic party. Whites have now started fleeing entire states, like California.

    The question is, why? Also, are they allowed to do this? People are obviously free to move from a city or neighborhood. The government cannot force them to live in a particular area. So yes, they should be allowed to continue to flee if they wish.

    But now the question is, why? I think the proper answer is the 4th and 5th amendments. White citizens, as all citizens, are not required to give out this information or provide an answer to a police official. I am white, and I would like to get away from Blacks also. But it is my legal right to remain silent and not tell you the reason why. I wish to protect my privacy from you and not tell you the reason why I am leaving a city or state.

    • M-Dan  On August 15, 2014 at 6:46 pm

      ….it’s because you’re racist. That’s literally the only reason to wish to move away from a specific race.

      • Albert Kirsch  On August 18, 2014 at 11:37 pm

        Due to a change in my circumstances, I have moved from a wealthy white community (Bal Harbour, FL) into a majority-black/Hispanic area (FL 24th Cong District.) It’s no big deal unless you make it so. Whites panic much too easily, likely not necessarily because they’re racist (though some are), but because they’ve been scared by racists.

    • Alex Sanchez  On June 25, 2015 at 1:12 pm

      Now a days people move for jobs… people move when they retire, people move to get better health care… if it white racism that makes you move you need a doctor to check your brain and another to sedate you. Moving is i not an easy thing and you need plenty of money and all these white trash people you are talking about are just white poor trash. We had lots oh white trash from Appalachia that came for jobs and we needed them but they brought their racism with them too.. some fit in – the majority did not- they moved and good riddance to white trash.

  • Samantha  On August 18, 2014 at 8:24 am

    I have been reading several of your analysis and I love your work. Because I grew up in the South to southern parents and grandparents, and because I am an anti – racist, I always read historical and political articles with two lenses: does it resonate with me? And, how could it resonate more with my parents? I feel that if you focused more on your poignant facts and analysis and overcame your tendency to drive points home with strong language that will always keep people like my folks from reading long enough to understand and hopefully internalized your message, your success in social change will be magnified. I wish I could share with them your writings about the tea/confederate party, but I would have to entirely rewrite it to get them to read it. But maybe that isn’t your goal? How far south do you want your impact to reach?

  • Albert Kirsch  On August 18, 2014 at 11:29 pm

    [sigh] I’ve been meaning to write this very article myself. Being of a certain age, I’ve seen it all from Jackie Robinson to today. This essay is spot on, and anyone who thinks race isn’t at the base of the electoral dynamic is just kidding themselves or lying to you.

  • joeldg  On August 22, 2014 at 9:41 pm

    Reblogged this on Navigating the surface.

  • smitsmckey18  On September 29, 2014 at 5:12 pm

    This was informative and very well-written; it pretty much confirms all of my own ideas about the matter which are based on my historical understanding of American politics (though I’ve never synthesized my ideas in this concise of a manner, I’ve definitely thought about the issue and discussed it quite a bit). Just thought I’d give an outside confirmation of your research : )

  • dave  On October 5, 2014 at 7:59 pm

    Well argued, this and the last article I read. (On the tea party, and the confederates)

    Your pov is not one that I find comfortable, but is one that I can see as being bang on accurate. I don’t like the idea at all.

  • sgbrun  On November 19, 2014 at 8:56 pm

    What is missing from the early part of this good article is a qualification of the “whites” vote. No women voted. That difference, which is not entirely irrelevant, is neglected in this otherwise thorough examination

  • Greg Gellman  On January 5, 2015 at 11:57 am

    THIS WAS GREAT AND INFORMATIVE READING. not sure why anypne would be a repulican after reading this.. hank you.

  • Albert Kirsch  On March 22, 2015 at 10:59 am

    I lived through the 50s and 60s and this is exactly how I remember it. If I were a blogger, I would have written this myself, only not as well.

  • naturebeckles  On June 21, 2015 at 9:48 pm

    Reblogged this on Musings Of A Beckles and commented:
    Some Electoral education

  • Jim Finch  On June 22, 2015 at 9:21 am

    Nicely done.

  • Gilbert Pilz  On May 12, 2016 at 4:25 pm

    This needs to be updated to take Trump into account. A lot of Trump’s popularity seems to stem from his willingness to “tell it like it is”, i.e. refusing to use the accepted dog whistle code and, instead, return to “nigger, nigger” – or something very much like it.

    • weeklysift  On May 13, 2016 at 7:24 am

      A good point. I think I’ll let this article stay the way it is, but might write a follow up at some point.

  • catherinel42  On January 30, 2017 at 6:35 am

    Hi, that was a good piece. One thing I thought was interesting was that arguments for “state’s rights” were always used to defend racism. Why do you think this might this be the case? Why would the federal government be historically an advocate for African-American rights? Is this traditionally true for other minority groups as well? We definitely see that with gay marriage today, but not so much with WWII Japanese internment.

  • Eli  On March 27, 2017 at 5:03 am

    Does it tell something more about the parties’ history if we look at how black Americans have voted over time? When did they switch over?

    The working assumption in reading these maps is that the South tends to go for the racist. Your discussion notes where that doesn’t apply — because the election was a landslide, or because a state is majority-black. And in general, white Southerners are not necessarily single-issue on racism. We might get a cleaner read-out on political racism by looking at the black voters, who probably tend to be more single-issue anti-racists than white voters altogether are pro-racist.

    Nice writeup you did, and I learned some things from it.

  • Ruth Fitts  On February 26, 2018 at 1:34 pm

    Very interesting and deep! I read a lot of Black History, but I found a lot of “new information here! Thank you!

  • Albert Kirsch  On February 26, 2018 at 10:09 pm

    I lived through the whole damn thing (well, 1960 – ) and your recap is on the money. The geographical distributions of the two major parties is heavily dependent on race, even outside the south. The GOP has moved further right and is finally off the left-right spectrum off in cloud cuckoo land somewhere.

  • Raymond Horton  On August 20, 2018 at 9:26 pm

    I think Strom was hurredly saying “Nigra”

  • Anonymous  On December 9, 2018 at 3:24 pm

    Thank you for a marvelous explanation. It’s too bad it had to be so wordy! Most will abandon it by 1930, I almost did! I hope you will take time to condense it and simplify it so the majority of the red voters can understand it. Possibly a few of them will even consider it!


  • By Where the Votes Are « The Weekly Sift on December 3, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    […] as the party of racial justice, I knew I had a research project to do. The result is “A Short History of White Racism in the Two-Party System“. Even shorter version: After Reconstruction, only whites could vote in the South, and they […]

  • […] A very good and detailed explanation of that confusing place in the movie Lincoln where the Democrat…. […]

  • By The Monday Morning Teaser « The Weekly Sift on December 10, 2012 at 7:04 am

    […] this week and picked another 20,000 hits, running its total over 160K. (For comparison, “A Short History of Racism in the Two-Party System” did well by ordinary Weekly Sift standards, getting just under 1,500 hits in its first […]

  • […] you plan to watch the movie Lincoln, then you should plan to read Doug Muder’s  A Short History of White Racism in the Two-Party System.  This post describes how our two parties have evolved since Lincoln’s time and the […]

  • By Lincoln’s Cognitive Dissonance « Several, Four, Many on December 28, 2012 at 11:57 am

    […] Muder at the Weekly Sift, in his article “A Short History of White Racism in the Two-Party System,” presents an outline of the change in voting patterns and some of the political issues that […]

  • By Buying Civilization | The Weekly Sift on April 15, 2013 at 10:51 am

    […] Party after it embraced the Civil Rights movement. (Charles Blow filled in that history for Paul. I reviewed it in detail in […]

  • By tumblr backups on May 19, 2013 at 7:56 pm

    […] A Short History of White Racism in the Two-Party System « The Weekly Sift December 4, 2012 Leave a reply […]

  • By מדבירים בקרית שמונה on October 27, 2013 at 1:20 am

    מדבירים בקרית שמונה

    … הדברת פשפשים – כיום נהוגות שתי שיטות עיקריות האחת היא העקיצה הכואבת העלולה לסכן חיי אדם במקרים מסוימים לקריסה של כל החללים. הדברה באמצעות ריסוס ושימוש בחומרים כימיים מיוחדים המאופיינים בקצב פי… A Short History of White Racism in the Two-Party Sys…

  • By The Yearly Sift: 2013 | The Weekly Sift on December 30, 2013 at 12:52 pm

    […] made me wonder how the two parties had switched positions on race since 1865. That led to “A Short History of Racism in the Two-Party System“, one of the most popular posts of […]

  • […] question took some work, but yielded readily to patient googling. I wrote up the answer in “A Short History of White Racism in the Two-Party System“. The second turned out to be much deeper than I expected, and set off a reading project that […]

  • By Quora on August 13, 2014 at 4:57 am

    The history of the Democratic party includes being the party of slavery from the 1800s until the 1960s; also, Democrats advocated of the eugenics movement (e.g., Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood), which claimed that blacks were inferior…


  • […] first question took some work, but yielded readily to patient googling. I wrote up the answer in “A Short History of White Racism in the Two-Party System“. The second turned out to be much deeper than I expected, and set off a reading project that has […]

  • By Not a Tea Party, a Confederate Party - A Dead Drop on December 7, 2014 at 9:38 am

    […] first question took some work, but yielded readily to patient googling. I wrote up the answer in “A Short History of White Racism in the Two-Party System“. The second turned out to be much deeper than I expected, and set off a reading project that has […]

  • By The Yearly Sift: 2014 | The Weekly Sift on December 29, 2014 at 8:33 am

    […] Tea Party” was the culmination of a race-and-history thread going back to 2012’s “A Short History of White Racism in the Two-Party System“, “Slavery Lasted Until Pearl Harbor“, “Ta-Nehisi Coates Goes There: […]

  • Molex connector – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    A Short History of White Racism in the Two-Party System | The Weekly Sift

  • By The Monday Morning Teaser | The Weekly Sift on March 16, 2015 at 7:11 am

    […] the post-Civil-War history of America: “Not a Tea Party, a Confederate Party“, “A Short History of White Racism in the Two-Party System“, and “Slavery Lasted Until Pearl Harbor“.
 This week I push back into the […]

  • By Kid Rock / Confederate Flag - Page 7 on July 9, 2015 at 12:15 pm

    […] Today, 11:15 AM A Short History of White Racism in the Two-Party System | The Weekly Sift for those who believe that today's two party system is the same as republican and democrat were […]

  • By The Yearly Sift: 2015 | The Weekly Sift on December 28, 2015 at 10:12 am

    […] “Not a Tea Party” goes on a run, it carries along two posts it links to: “A Short History of White Racism in the Two Party System” (17K new hits/ 32K total) and “Slavery Lasted Until Pearl Harbor” (6K/11K). Each […]

  • […] Republican Party and weren’t ever coming back, but that was a whole different story, which I’ve told before.) After falling ridiculously far behind in September, Humphrey came back almost all the way, making […]

  • By Why Bernie Backed Hillary | The Weekly Sift on August 1, 2016 at 7:37 am

    […] be seen as a forerunner of the New Deal, while Thurmond and Wallace were part of the decades-long shift of white Southerners from the Democratic to the Republican Party. But none of them created a new party that outlived their candidacies and replaced either the […]

  • […] Bigotry and Racism. Wednesday, Ted Cruz called the Democrats “the party of the Ku Klux Klan“, a charge that never seems to die, no matter how out-of-date it is. In 2012, I did the research and spelled out how white racists moved from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party over a period of decades in “A Short History of White Racism in the Two-Party System“. […]

  • […] first question took some work but yielded readily to patient googling. I wrote up the answer in “A Short History of White Racism in the Two-Party System“. The second turned out to be much deeper than I expected and set off a reading project that has […]

  • By Remaining Questions | The Weekly Sift on August 20, 2018 at 11:12 am

    […] Dinesh D’Souza’s new propaganda movie is bound to restart the bogus talking point that the Democrats are the real racist party. (Somehow, Nazis and white supremacists never seem to get that memo, and keep supporting Trump.) If you find yourself in an argument about this, I already collected the research you’ll need a few years ago in “A Short History of White Racism in the Two-Party System“. […]

  • […] failure of Blacks to develop a lucid perspicacity of the current two-party system has led to us being immensely vulnerable to highly fallible philosophies that place the blame of […]

  • By Kosher Legislation | The Weekly Sift on August 1, 2022 at 12:39 pm

    […] Third parties, then, are temporary phenomena in America. They arise primarily when both of the existing parties have agreed to ignore some contentious issue. In the 1840s, for example, Democrats and Whigs both tried to downplay the slavery issue, which split both of them regionally. The Republican Party arose because there was effectively no way to vote against slavery. The Whigs then broke apart, the Civil War was fought, and Republicans took the Whigs’ place in the two-party system. (If you’re wondering how we got from there to here, where Republicans are the white-supremacy party, I explained that in 2012.) […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: