http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.DYK-Why%20MLK%20was%20a%20RepublicanWhy Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican
By Frances Rice
It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism.
It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860's, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950's and 1960's.
In October 1960, when Martin Luther King, Jr. was arrested at a peaceful sit-in in Atlanta, Robert Kennedy telephoned the judge and helped secure King's release. Although King, Sr. had previously opposed Kennedy because he was a Catholic, he expressed his appreciation for these calls and switched his support to Kennedy. King, Sr. had been a lifelong registered Republican, and had endorsed Republican Richard Nixon. King, Jr. made no endorsement,
OAQfirst said:I'm finding a lot of this dispute all over the Net. Can anyone provide an authoritative link, because I'd like to know if this is the truth.
http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.DYK-Why%20MLK%20was%20a%20Republican
While you are correct in that the wikipedia cite effectively notes that Dr Martin Luther King, Sr was republican at first and later switched and his son, Martin Luther King Jr. remained neutral, I would not regard King as a democrat since they are well known for their socialist agenda whereas King was not. King was more in favor of every American having an equal chance to education, voting and job opportunities and did not favor self degrading handouts under the then current socialist welfare programs.TheStatutoryApe said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.
Read. Particularly under 'influences'.
The positions of the democrat and republican party have changed substantially over time. At some points the democrats have been interventionist and the republicans isolationist. In current times the trend has obviously changed in certain regards. There have been changes in regards to the 'statists' and 'federalists' aswell. Currently a bid for secession might be regarded as a liberal idea since the current republican admin has been vying for more federal power. You'll find that the really hardcore traditionalist conservatives hate Bush and the really fringe nutjob types think he is the antichrist.
I would say MLK was a dem and that by todays standards he would easily be considered a dem still.
BobG said:The idea that MLK would be a Republican at some point in his life is at least credible.
BobG said:The problem is that both parties have changed significantly since that time, so the point isn't particularly relevant beyond being an interesting trivia question.
Some of the most right wing factions of the Republican Party come from ex-Democrats that bolted because of national defense issues and civil rights issues.
Some Republicans wouldn't be very upset if the Democrats would take them back.
It was Robert Kennedy that ordered the wiretap on MLK.Astronuc said:Interesting, yesterday I heard Michael Beschloss, author of Critical Moments, Critical Choices, talk about the relationship between MLK, Jr, and John and Robert Kennedy. MLK was not too happen about Kennedy's reluctance to get involved in the Civil Rights movement, and Kennedy was reluctant because he did not want to alienate the southern Democrats before the 1964 presidential election.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94102192
The FBI began secretly tracking Dr. King's flights and watching his associates. In July 1963, a month before the March on Washington, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover filed a request with Attorney General Robert Kennedy to tap King's and his associates' phones and to bug their homes and offices.
In September, Kennedy consented to the technical surveillance. Kennedy gave the FBI permission to break into King's office and home to install the bugs, as long as agents recognized the "delicacy of this particular matter" and didn't get caught installing them. Kennedy added a proviso -- he wanted to be personally informed of any pertinent information.
See above, I hadn't finished my post. Hoover asked for permission from Kennedy, who agreed. It seems the actual transcripts are sealed now until 2027.OrbitalPower said:It was J. Edgar Hoover who ordered the wiretap on MLK, Kennedy (who was Hoover's boss) simply obliged but he said it was with great difficulty.
It was wrong of both of them, though.
You give more credit to Newt Gringrich than is due, if so many of the conservative republicans had not voted for the bill, the bill also would not have passed. The majority of the American people believe in fair pay for an honest days work and equal opportunity to work; and, there is a big disagreement upon whether this can be accomplished under a socialist system. Abraham Lincoln who freed the slaves said "A patent truth. Made so plain by our good Father in Heaven, that all feel and understand it, even down to brutes and creeping insects. The ant, who has toiled and dragged a crumb to his nest, will furiously defend the fruit of his labor, against whatever robber assails him. So plain that even the most dumb and stupid slave that ever toiled for a master, does constantly know that he is wronged. So plain that no one, high or low ever does mistake it, except in a plainly selfish way; for although volumn upon volumn is written to prove that slavery is such a good thing, we never hear of the man who wishes to take the good of it , by becoming a slave himself."OrbitalPower said:Martin Luther King Jr. was a socialist. Near the end of his life he spoke about the economic ills of capitalism and when he was killed he was supporting sanitation workers on strike in Memphis. Most people don't know this.
In his final letters he called end not only to imperialism but also to the economic imperialism of capitalism and so on.
That article is complete BS too. The 1964 Civil Rights Act would NOT have passed had many Democrats not voted for it. The reason the percentages are disproportionate is because there were a lot of "Dixiecrats" at the time (think of people like Thurman, Miller) who were more traditional, conservative demodcrats (demos were a majority at the time).
Most of the Civil Rights movements and organizations that got it going, the sit-ins and so on, were done by more left-leaning groups like the SNCC and so on. Indeed, the reason King's name is known at all is because of the works of these brave civil rights advocates and lawyers and so on. Even Newt Gingrich said that the Civil Rights act came about because of the "left-wing of the democratic party."
The abolitionists of the 1800s also considered the Republicans far too tame on Civil Rights. The article is complete BS.
OrbitalPower said:ramsey2879, where is your evidence that King Jr. didn't support social welfare?
And it is the Democrats who generally favor across the board regulation, whereas Republicans support corporate favoritism (corporate welfare, militarism, and so on).
King himself said that he believed in "sharing the wealth" and was a Democratic-Socialist.
It's all in that wiki article linked above.
OrbitalPower said:---Furthermore, here is an interesting quote from Lincoln:
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
Although, there is some debate among historians whether he actually said it. Certainly, many Americans have always held this sentiment, though, so anti-corporatism is not anti-american.
OrbitalPower said:It's in the "Opposition to Vietnam war" section:
"Though his public language was guarded, so as to avoid being linked to communism by his political enemies, in private he sometimes spoke of his support for democratic socialism. In one speech, he stated that "something is wrong with capitalism" and claimed, "There must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism."[80]"
This is well known anyway, he had condemned capitalism before.
You cannot condemn capitalism, support the fair distribution of wealth (the conservative distribution of wealth is an upwards shift), and so on, and be a republican.
King was socialist/semi-pascifist.
Ramsey, you may be too young to know this, but in the South, the positions of the Democratic and Republican parties shifted HARD in the '60's. Until then, the most die-hard Southerners (still stinging from the Civil War and Reconstruction) were Democrats, and some very prominent Democrats were higher-ups in the KKK. When Democrats in DC started showing some support for civil rights for blacks, the Republicans started making some huge gains in the South. Until that time, the most socially conservative (and racist) politicians in the South were Democrats.ramsey2879 said:I don't see where King comdemed capitalism or favored socialism by that quote, but rather that he saw as I see that there is a middle ground that we maybe should move towards. And yes you can believe that and be a Republican. Democrats don't have the monopoly on having various fractions. I think You are too given into the mass stereotyping that some liberals make of the Republicans.
I find this statement anti-american in that it attributes the threat simply to the size of the corporations not whether they serve or harm the public. The same could be said for the size of the US government. That is why we have a system of checks and balances and elected officials. Do you feel that Obama is a corporate puppet? I don'tOrbitalPower said:Wiki could be your friend. Anti-corporatism is not necessarily saying all corporations are bad, but that many have too much influence and often threaten the public good:
"Anti-corporate activists (see activism) believe that the rise of large business corporations is posing a threat to the legitimate authority of the public good. These corporations, they believe, are invading people's privacy, manipulating politics and governments, and creating false needs in consumers."
not that all are bad. So that is another misstatement like the claim King was opposed to wealth distribution.
Ralph Nader is often considered anti-corporate and yet he quotes founding fathers and early American justices often.
Evo said:Odd that it's so difficult to find an answer. MLK Jr's father switched to Democrat, after the following instance, but MLK Jr "made no endorsement". The event below was 8 years before his death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Sr.
BobG said:The idea that MLK would be a Republican at some point in his life is at least credible. The problem is that both parties have changed significantly since that time, so the point isn't particularly relevant beyond being an interesting trivia question.
Some of the most right wing factions of the Republican Party come from ex-Democrats that bolted because of national defense issues and civil rights issues.
Some Republicans wouldn't be very upset if the Democrats would take them back.
OrbitalPower said:Location of credible evidence?
I don't know of any source that King was a philosophical "Republican," especially when he started developing his ideas about Civil Rights and imperialism.
By that point it is clear that he philosophically differed from republicans.
There is nothing in the article above stating he was a Republican; I think Republicans would have made a big case out of it if he was.
Thank you for fleshing out some details, MW.mathwonk said:turbo -1 is apparently correct on this.
i just finished reading the 3 volume opus of taylor branch, called america in the king years. i recommend it to anyone wanting to understand this period. it is true that hoover blackmailed robert kennedy into okaying the wiretaps on mlk apparently because he had the goods on jack's illicit liaisons.
martin was above party politics. in the 60's it was the republicans who sided with civil rights, but jack kennedy obtained support from the black movement and was apparently elected not because of chicago machinations of crooked mayors but primarily because of the vote shift of black voters who appreciated kennedy's sympathy in the case of martin's imprisonment in the reidsville penitentiary in georgia for a minor offense.
through the interaction between mlk and the kennedy's and lyndon johnson, the party of civil rights changed in the 1960's from the republicans to the democrats. consequently most racist southerners changed parties a t that time from democrats to republicans.
it is quite interesting, to read the sequence of events. i learned that the kennedy's i had idolized were more cynical political animals whose actions were mostly motivated by political gain, and lbj whom i had despised for his war actions, was actually deeply in sympathy with poor and disenfranchised people. he is the real hero of the civil rights movement, not jfk.
turbo-1 said:Ramsey, you may be too young to know this, but in the South, the positions of the Democratic and Republican parties shifted HARD in the '60's. Until then, the most die-hard Southerners (still stinging from the Civil War and Reconstruction) were Democrats, and some very prominent Democrats were higher-ups in the KKK. When Democrats in DC started showing some support for civil rights for blacks, the Republicans started making some huge gains in the South. Until that time, the most socially conservative (and racist) politicians in the South were Democrats.
It is not possible to make sweeping generalizations about Republicans or Democrats spanning my life-time, because there have been some dramatic shifts both over time and regionally.
I am more optimistic because I have seen a lot of changes in my time, and since I trust in the humanity of all of the peoples of this world. As long as we maintain a system that does not punish a non-comformist and allows for disagreement to be discussed without fear of retribution, a more just and peaceful society is sure to follow. We Americans must see to it that both the conformist and non-conformist views alike are each available to those who have reached an age of maturity. Only if we see to this, and thankfully it is not a hard task in our society, and only if all people are careful to scrutinize both the conformist and non-conformist view alike, will we grow wiser and stronger and be at peace. I do not think much of the the statement by OrbitalPower that the Black Republican 'white' paper was nothing but a bunch of BS. As much as he disagreed with it, there were surely valid points in it, and I am shocked that a person would look at the document with such tunnel vision, given his apparent knowlege.wildman said:The traditional purpose of government is to take money from the poor and give it to the rich. Not much as changed.
athanatos said:Sooo, simply can't believe people want to go back to it, but it appears that's right where
BO is headed, aided by the liberal media, can't believe people swallowed it...
There is some debate about Martin Luther King's political affiliation. While he was not officially a member of either party, he did align more closely with the Democratic party's values and policies. He often spoke out against issues such as poverty, racism, and war, which were important to the Democratic party at the time.
No, Martin Luther King did not openly support any specific political party. He believed in standing up for what was right and just, regardless of party lines. He did, however, work closely with Democratic politicians such as President Lyndon B. Johnson to advocate for civil rights legislation.
There is no evidence that Martin Luther King ever considered running for political office. He was primarily focused on his work as a civil rights activist and leader of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. He did, however, have a strong influence on politics and policy through his activism and speeches.
While Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech certainly had political implications, it was primarily a call for racial equality and an end to discrimination. King believed in using nonviolent methods to achieve social and political change, and his speech reflected this belief.
Martin Luther King's political beliefs were rooted in his strong Christian faith and his commitment to nonviolent activism. While he did not align with a specific political party, he did evolve in his views on issues such as poverty and the Vietnam War. However, his core values of equality and justice remained consistent throughout his life.