How Lincoln’s Republicans became Franklin Roosevelt’s Democrats

Author: 8:36 am

By “Don’t Forget How America Got Screwed Up…”

History truly does repeat itself.  Sometimes in frighteningly similar ways.

We all know how the Republican Party started out as the Party of Lincoln, the Great Emancipator who took a political ‘states-rights’ issue and raised the ante to set America on the moral high ground with a bloody civil war that ended legalized slavery of African-Americans.  Blacks were forever indebted to Mr. Lincoln and his Republican Party for its commitment to their freedom.

But, that all changed with another Republican, Herbert Hoover.  In the 1920s, Hoover was the Secretary of Commerce under Republican Calvin Coolidge.  Hoover was to Coolidge as “Brownie” was to George W. Bush.  And just like the Bush Administration, Coolidge’s Admin had to handle a natural catastrophe similar in scope to Katrina.  Fortunately, Hoover was a smarter administrator than Brownie and managed the relief work admirably.  Unfortunately he was a lying, manipulative, power-hungry Republican that would have made Dick Cheney proud.

Here’s the story:

The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 broke the banks and levees of the lower Mississippi River in early 1927, resulting in flooding of millions of acres and leaving one and a half million people displaced from their homes. Although such a disaster did not fall under the duties of the Commerce Department, the governors of six states along the Mississippi specifically asked for Herbert Hoover in the emergency. President Calvin Coolidge sent Hoover to mobilize state and local authorities, militia, army engineers, the Coast Guard, and the American Red Cross.

With a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation, Hoover set up health units to work in the flooded regions for a year. These workers stamped out malaria, pellagra, and typhoid fever from many areas. His work during the flood brought Herbert Hoover to the front page of newspapers almost everywhere, and he gained new accolades as a humanitarian. The great victory of his relief work, he stressed, was not that the government rushed in and provided all assistance; it was that much of the assistance available was provided by private citizens and organizations in response to his appeals. “I suppose I could have called in the Army to help,” he said, “but why should I, when I only had to call upon Main Street.”


The horrible treatment of African Americans during the disaster, however, endangered Hoover’s reputation as a humanitarian. Local officials brutalized blacks and prevented them from leaving relief camps, aid meant for African-American sharecroppers was often given to the landowners instead, and many times black males were conscripted by locals into forced labor, sometimes at gun point.  Knowing the potential ramifications on his presidential aspirations if such knowledge became public, Hoover struck a deal with Robert Moton, the prominent African-American successor to Booker T. Washington as president of the Tuskegee Institute. In exchange for keeping the suffering of African Americans out of the public eye, Hoover promised unprecedented influence for African Americans if he was elected president. Moton agreed, and consistent with the accommodationist philosophy of Washington, worked actively to suppress information about mistreatment of blacks from being revealed to the media. Following election, Hoover broke his promises. This led to an African-American backlash in the 1932 election that shifted allegiance from the Republican party to the Democrats.  That was the year, of course, that American first elected Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Original Southern strategy;

To gain Republican votes in Southern states, Hoover pioneered an electoral tactic later known as the “Southern Strategy”. Hoover ousted many African American leaders in the Republican party, and replaced them with whites. Hoover’s appeal to white voters yielded substantial results, including Republican victories in Tennessee, North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, and Texas. It marked the first time a Republican candidate for president carried Texas.

This outraged the black leadership, which largely broke from the Republican Party, and began seeking candidates who supported civil rights within the Democratic Party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover

This “Southern Strategy” would be used again by Republicans in the 1950s & 1960s to drive a racial wedge between black and white Democrats during the struggle for civil rights and desegregation.   Republicans never unite….they ALWAYS divide to conquer.

Related posts:

facebook comments:

9 Comments

  • A great piece of work and thank you. I was living in the south, SC to be exact, and can say for sure that SC turn Republican mainly because of Civil Rights. The south Baptist also had a problem with JFK being Catholic but this was mostly a smoke screen. The Civil War was most certainly about slavery and in SC they let you know that for they still have not accepted defeat and celebrate the fact that they fired the first shot. They fly the rebel battle fly atop their state capitol and accept the boycott by the NAACP and other folks with brains who don’t won’t to donate any money to a state that hasn’t had a new idea since they fired that first shot of the Civil War.

  • Dawn Michel

    And where are the footnotes and references to these claims? I appreciate being able to substantiate claims, regardless of the
    party or political philosophy from which they emanate.

  • I problem I have with this is the civil war was not about slavery, it was about state rights. And before anyone gets their panties in a bunch slavery was a states right issue. And it was resolved, in my opinion correctly.

    • If you look carefully at the history, and read period documents, you will see that the issue leading to civil war was, indeed, slavery, not states’ rights.

    • If it were about states’ rights, then why did South Carolina, in the Declaration of Causes for Secession, specifically rail AGAINST the exercise of states’ rights?

      “The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.”

      Granted, it wasn’t about African-American rights, either. It was about whether the nation would continue under a modern industrial economy or be held back by a backward feudal system.

      http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

      • You misread the antebellum stance of South Carolina.

        The Declaration of Causes for Secession was not a complaint against States Rights. It was a complaint about failure to enforce provisions of the Compromise of 1850, among them the Fugitive Slave Act as well as the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. Northern honor had grown tired of the Slave Power’s manipulation of territorial self determination (i.e., States Rights) in Kansas and finally it refused to act as slave catcher to the South no matter what federal law mandated. In that sense, years of overreach by the South finally resulted in northern civil disobedience & the South’s complaint against the General Government’s failure to enforce the law was an objection to the failure of those sectional States Rights to prevail, notwithstanding the fact that they had been enshrined in the constitution.

        The spectacle of today’s Republican Party gracelessly pandering to the remnants of the Confederacy, as witnessed by the recent victory of Newt Gingrich in the South Carolina primary, is one of the great ironies of American political history.

  • Just to save them time, I’ll offer the Republican rebuttal:

    Nuh-uh!

  • Robin Howlett

    “Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
    Abraham Lincoln

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

x
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter