It was the right who were pro-slavery and pro-segregation; change my mind.

Seriously? Do you even know who Barry Goldwater was? Goldwater did NOT support slavery. The South went through a change and begin to separate themselves from slavery and Jim Crow and all of the other things that are the legacy of the Democrat party.

Goldwater's famous quote was "Extremism in defense of liberty is not a vice". He did NOT mean that just for white people but everyone regardless of race.

The Democrats just changed tactics. Johnson decided to use blacks instead of segregate them. Johnson said, "I'll have these "n*****s" voting Democrat for 200 years". The left has been denying he said that ever since and maybe he didn't but he certainly said a whole lot of other things just like that and he frequently used the "n" word.

I know that the South changed because I am from the South. My dad left the Democrat party in the 50's. The reason? The same reason why most Democrats in the South left and it had zero to do with slavery. There was a much bigger issue going on in this country at the time. It was so big that people were building fallout shelters in their backyards. It caused classrooms to have air raid drills. And the party that looked most like what the nation was fearing was the Democrat party. They were running away from the Communism and Socialism that had taken over the Democrat party.

BTW Communism, Socialism, Fascism and Nazism are all the same thing. They are all governments that run off of slave labor. The citizen is enslaved to the ruling elites.

Zero to do with slavery in the 1950s? yes - that's why I added pro-segregation. The white Americans of the south were on the right in the 1850s, 1950s, 2010s. Like my maps show - the deep south seems to have switched name of party only, in the 1950s. The RIGHT, now Republicans-not Democrats anymore-have been on the wrong side of history vs black Americans.

What? Republicans have always been the right (right ones). That's why we always have and always will opposed slavery. I don't see republicans out there implying that minorities are to stupid to get IDs to vote. I don't see republicans telling African Americans that they aren't black if the don't vote for them. I don't see republicans using the race card every chance they get so they can hopefully get more votes. In fact, when Trump was in office, he did more for the African American community than any president in decades. One example would be (what was supposed to be) permanent federal funding for HBUC's. As soon as Biden got into office, he made a bunch of promises and now those promises have turned up empty. Trump did damn near everything he said he would. Biden has only destroyed the solid foundation that Trump had built. Y'all need to open your eyes and take those damn blinder off.

I don't think Republicans (the right) these days are pro-slavery, but the Confederates in the 1860s were the far right who hated Abraham Lincoln's big and intrusive government. They switched platforms but still claim Lincoln as their own. Guess who went against the civil rights movement in the 1960s? The right, by then officially going by "Republican." You can google _party platform switch_ if you don't believe me.

I love the fact that someone's making the effort to set the record straight on this.

The trouble is that Eisenhower is a terrible example. He obviously wanted to run on the war hero angle and he was much loved enough across the country that he had a serious choice as to whether to run as a Democrat or as a Republican. He honestly could have won as either; his policy positions were balanced enough, and what it came down to for him is that he wanted to run as a change candidate after 20+ years of Democrat rule AND perhaps more importantly, he wanted to run on the platform of ending the Korean war. Those votes on the map could be interpreted as votes for peace more than votes for an ideology.

Eisenhower's Republicanism was not the same as Hoover's or Coolidge's. Certainly not what would later become Nixonism.

But the point you're trying to make about the party position switch is accurate. Even within the Democratic party, there was ALWAYS a difference between the North and the South. Always.

I'm trying to show the drastic change that took place with the left and the right, in the mid 20th century.
But, yes, it is very complicated, with Eisenhower being unusual. Like RussSpy on this thread, too many are hung up on the name of the parties, who switched platforms by the early 1960s, and haven't switched back.

Pretty sure RussSpy is Purgeboy and is trolling you. Deliberate misinformation is deliberate.

Black Americans had pretty much broken up with the Republican Party by 1936. As much as it needs to be said, the two parties didn't just switch notes one day in 1963 - really, by 1900, people were already noticing that Republicans weren't the intellectual descendants of abolitionists anymore.

Don't let the Dixiecrats confuse you even when you're getting at the truth - the South was the anomaly, and as a whole, the Democrats were the party more sympathetic to social justice long before the 60's.

I haven't come across him before but I was thinking RussSpy just MAY not know about the party switch.

Also, yes, the whole switch was extremely complicated, but it MAY have become "official" by JFK's time. Here in the 21st century, I've looked at voting in Alabama; very noticeably, black Alabamians vote overwhelmingly with the left (now NOT Republicans anymore). Of course, Trumpists would say that the left is worse for their interests.

No he does. If he is who I think he is and I'm 90% sure he is, he's a legit segregationist; he's commented on imgflip that black people should go back to Africa and even refers to them as farm equipment. The fact that he's posing to you now as someone who thinks that segregation is bad but it was the Democrats who take the blame is concern trolling - he doesn't believe it even for a second, he just wants to manipulate your values for his political purpose.

Oh, thanx for the heads up. People on politicsTOO have seen me write about demons that I run into on POLITICS; I suppose I could chalk him up to one of them.

Don't listen to him. He calls everyone purgeboy or akts if they disagree with him.

I've never called you Purgeboy, have I? Not even once. So you KNOW that's not true.

It's interesting and should be obvious why the deep south didn't go with Eisenhower; I believe he was socially left and I know he went on to enforce desegregation.

Oh, those states voted Democrat in EVERY election since the end of Reconstruction regardless as to whose name was on the ticket. Don't get me wrong, your meme is right in many respects and that was one of them. If Eisenhower had run as a Democrat, those states would have been exactly the same color.

Well done.

Yes, the political affiliation has changed but Southern white people and culture remained similar in terms of racial hostility toward black Americans.

And increasingly for the last 50+ years, it’s been solidifying as Republican.

You could also look at how George Wallace, an out-and-out segregationist, did in the South when he ran for President.

And there has been/is plenty of racism in the north (like the state of Maine, where I grew up); I guarantee those racist northerners were/are on the right, politically. In the 21st century, northern Maine is more to the right, while southern Maine is more to the left. I'm tired of people getting hung up on the whole Democrat and Republican party NAMES/COLORS - I'm talking about right vs left.

Dixiecrates weren’t Democrats.
Native Southerners were MAGA, before MAGA exsisted

You should carefully read my meme again.