Lincoln Freed The Slaves. Why do Blacks generally vote Democrat?

1. 69

   Charles Jamesposted 12 years ago

   I am not an American, but what goes on in the USA is important to the world.
   
   Lincoln was a Republican and freed the slaves. One would expect black Americans to generally vote Republican. But they don't.
   
   How did this come about?

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Xenonlitposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      First of all, we aren't "Blaaaacks". 
      
      This is about the most ignorant question I've seen in a while. Lincoln freed the slaves a long time ago. His party has turned into a racist, Facist slag heap since then.
      
      After  the treasonous confederates were run out of the Democratic Party during the 1960s,  it became the party of real human beings. Look at the racist, extremist trash heap that  the Republican Party has become, and figure it out for yourself why people of color don't  vote for your candidates or show up for your speeches and conventions!

      replyreport
      1. 84

         kathleenkatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         That's an awfully harsh and mean thing for you to say. Just because Charles, who is admittedly not even an American citizen, accidentally insulted you with a question, doesn't give you the right to go and insult half the country which you live in.
         
         @Charles:
         
         Because the Republican party has changed vastly since Lincoln's time (both parties have). At the time, the Republican party was doing what was in black people's best interest (at that time). Now, I would say that many black people vote Democratic, because during the most recent social issue that affected blacks (1960s) the Democratic party supported their best interest. I am not aware of any current social issues that affect blacks, however, the 1960s remains crystal clear in our country's memory. Perhaps ask in another 100 or so years, things could be different.

         replyreport
      2. 59

         Backwater Sageposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         You seem racist to me. This was an honest question. Why offend the man?
         
         Now I have to say "people of color" to be politically correct? Just call me "Cracker", I'm proud of it even though I'm mixed race.

         replyreport
         1. 90

            wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            It did seem a little racist, didn't it?  Although I doubt it was intended that way any more than the OP was.
            
            Like you, I'm tired of trying to be PC.  We've gone from "nig***" to "negro" to "black" to "african-american" over the years, and of them all only the first was intended as a racial slur.  The rest were all honest efforts to be polite, to show some respect by using a terminology that was asked for.  I'm tired of forever changing my language to satisfy a small group that will take imagined offense at anything said.
            
            Call me white, call me caucasion or european american.  Call me african american if it pleases you - best guess is that we're all from somewhere in the area of Olduvai Gorge, after all.  Just quit taking offense when someone tries to be polite and means no offense at all.

            replyreport
      3. 59

         Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         "After  the treasonous confederates were run out of the Democratic Party during the 1960s,"?
         
         Man, they must have been real old. Please don't vote.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Backwater Sageposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Hey, I'm old, and I can vote better than people half my age! We never did get rid of all the Yankee carpetbaggers (Republicans) down here. Slavery was never an issue with Crackers, we never did anything but get along good with the "people of color" around here. We depend on each other just to survive. We just don't like washington DC telling us what to do.

            replyreport
   2. 61

      Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Basically because the democrats supported the civil rights movement and the power bases switched.
      
      A simple way to look at it is who controls the South, the Democrats used to be effectively the southern party but now the Republicans control the south, generally the party with the support of white southerners does not have the support of minorities.  (To generalize very broadly).

      replyreport
   3. 79

      Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Charles, without plugging myself, I wrote a hub article addressing your question "Why do Blacks (AA) vote Democratic" check it out, and I hope to clear this up. Alot has happened since Abraham Lincoln and today's GOP is not your Great grandfathers GOP. They have only themselves to blame for not being relevant with today's black electorate.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         Charles Jamesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Excellent hub. I am now following you.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks, Charles for taking the time to read the article and for your interest in American history in general.
            
            As an epilogue to the article I direct you to the Voter ID controversy that has been going on over several states and intitiated by GOP controlled legislatures. They (GOP) says that it is necessary to prevent voter fraud, a problem that has been shown to be virtually non-existent in the real world .
            But what has been happening is fortunately the courts have prevented this sinister GOP scheme which was to have the effect of disenfranchiseing certain Democratic voting constituencies. For example, please see the article "Whose Zoomin' Who', the Voter ID Controversy You can bet that today (2012) we know who it is that would much rather disenfranchise us than take the trouble to persuade us through policy and actions to their point of view.
            
            Thus the distrust of the GOP by the African american(black) community continues and that distrust has been well earned.
            
            BTW, are things as much fun on your side of the pond?

            replyreport
            1. 69

               Charles Jamesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Generally speaking the ethic minorities tend to support Labour, but there have been hiccoughs around George Galloway who has twice defeated the Labour candidate in a traditionally Labour seat. I have no respect for George's Respect party but in some situations it does win.
               
               We have a coalition government called ConDem because it is the Conservative party working with a small Liberal Democrat party.
               
               "We are all in this together" said George Osborne before dropping the top rate of tax for people who inherit millions of pounds. Like he and his friends often do. The Conservative Party is significantly funded by hedge funds.
               
               For the first time ever, squatting in empty houses has been made a criminal offence. Having five homes like David Cameron does is of course not a criminal offence.
               
               Yes its interesting over here, too!

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Well, Charles there is that universal struggle between the haves and have nots, The key is maintaining the balance that allow the issues of both sides to be fairly considered and not plowed under by those that stand to gain by eliminating the referee which is one of the many slights of hand  by the political right here in America.
                  
                  Alas, Charles, it is a never ending story.

                  replyreport
   4. 85

      Len Cannonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Three important things:
      
      1. FDR's (a democrat's) social policy's were more amenable to the poor which included the vast majority of racial minorities in the US
      
      2. Southern democrats opposed to equal rights for blacks/former slaves split off from the increasingly liberal democratic party and formed the Dixiecrats.
      
      3. Richard Nixon insitututed the so-called "Southern Strategy" to win over former DIxiecrat democrats in the south by appealing to racist boogieman's, firmly planting the Republican party against the burgeoning civil rights movement.
      
      You'll find a lot more mixed opinions regarding race between the big two parties prior to the Kennedy presidency.

      replyreport
2. 73

   Reality Bytesposted 12 years ago

   Civil Rights Act of 1964
   
   
   
   By party
   The original House version:[16]
   Democratic Party: 152–96   (61–39%)
   Republican Party: 138–34   (80–20%)
   
   Cloture in the Senate:[17]
   Democratic Party: 44–23   (66–34%)
   Republican Party: 27–6   (82–18%)
   
   The Senate version:[16]
   Democratic Party: 46–21   (69–31%)
   Republican Party: 27–6   (82–18%)
   
   The Senate version, voted on by the House:[16]
   Democratic Party: 153–91   (63–37%)
   Republican Party: 136–35   (80–20%)
   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yes... but things have changed. The Democratic Party is not the Democratic Party of 1964, neither is the Republican Party. Why do you think so many like Reagan switched parties?

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         UW, that is the question, isn't it. Those on the right think that it is easy to confuse people on this issue, many of them may have been born yesterday but believe me I wasn't. The GOP became the party of racial resentment mainly in the south and among those that were the least educated....so explains the great migration from a solid democratic south to just as solid a GOP one. When the roles regarding civil rights advocates were reversed see how fast everyone found the appropriate partner to dance with.....From the perspective of many of us the GOP may have been the 'good guys' at one time, but not anymore.

         replyreport
      2. 59

         JSChamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         To get away from the Socialists. Ask them.

         replyreport
3. 80

   Wayne Brownposted 12 years ago

   The Republican Party is also largely responsible for pushing through Civil Rights legislation which Al Gore's father voted against as a Senator.  The Democrat Party has spent so many years lying and convincing black citizens that they are the only thing standing between them and nothing.  The south is 35 to 40% black population.  The south was also traditionally Democrat until the 80's when it became apparent that the true Democrats had been abandoned by their party....Progressives had taken the reins....even worse today.  Many of the white population today vote Democrat because it was a "family tradition" to be a Democrat when in actuality, if one goes back a couple of generations, the beliefs of the Democrat Party were not that far off of those of the Republicans.  It was not so much the goal as it was the manner in which the goal was to be achieved. Now, we have one faction that wants to dismantle America and turn it into a society of distributed wealth and vast entitlement with a safety net built in by the government for all....and do so on borrowed money from China.  The other faction is looking for a way to perserve what the Founding Fathers gave us....a very delicate democratic republic which must be respected and nurtured....a feat which cannot be accomplished by the efforts of "Big Government".  ~WB

   replyreport
4. 73

   Mighty Momposted 12 years ago

   Very apt description of 1% rule. Distributed wealth out of the middle class into the hands of the very few, entitlements to corporations that don't need the breaks, and who exactly started this big old debt with two unfunded wars, etc., etc.?
   Hint: How bad were you hit in '08?

   replyreport
5. 92

   Robephilesposted 12 years ago

   To those that bring up the voting on the civil rights act and the percentages of Republicans who voted, the Republicans did not control the Senate or the House when the civil rights act was passed so their percentages were higher but that is because they were mostly northern Republicans. 
   
   At the time that the civil rights act was passed the Democrats still had a very strong base in the south, and most of the Democrats who voted against it were from the south.  The President who signed the legislation was Johnson, a Democrat, and he famously said that by signing it the Democrats had "lost the south."  This became true because many Democrats who voted against the act defected to the Republican party when they attempted their "southern strategy" in future elections.

   replyreport
6. 59

   Backwater Sageposted 12 years ago

   Good question.
   
   Republicans love to ascend to the ideal, but they are poor planners. Lincoln ended slavery, but the Republicans did not follow up with a transition plan to move the uneducated (by law) slaves into mainstream society. Republicans (Reagan) held up the ideal that the private sector (church, charities, non-profits) should pay for social services, not the government. Again, there was no transition plan for the severely mentally ill who were turned out on the street when he pulled the plug on federal programs. Now we have an insane homeless problem.
   
   The Democrats are no better. Both parties have led us headlong into whacko world! It is time to elect someone from the First Nation Party (Native Americans).

   replyreport
7. 77

   psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

   Successfully running a black presidential candidate probably counts for something.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Backwater Sageposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      When will that happen?

      replyreport
8. 71

   seanorjohnposted 12 years ago

   Lincoln may have helped to free slaves but he actually wanted to deport them from the USA. The civil war was fought for economic reasons and Lincoln was not interested in the welfare of slaves.

   replyreport
9. 73

   Kathleen Cochranposted 20 months ago

   A little bit of historical trivia: The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in the southern states only - not the northern states.
   
   National Archives, "Did the Emancipation Proclamation apply to all slaves?
   President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, announcing, "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious areas "are, and henceforward shall be free."
   
   The arrival of Gen. Gordon Granger and Union troops in Galveston, Tex., on June 19, 1865, was the official end of slavery in the United States. Juneteenth is celebrated on that date.

   replyreport