,
12 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
First, you'll notice that D'Souza -- while claiming that progressive historians won't talk about certain things -- completely dodges the question from the audience member, which was about the Lily White movement of southern Republicans in the late 19th and early 20th century.
I'm not sure if he ignored the question because it's one of the *many* subjects he doesn't know anything about, or if he realized it blows holes in his argument, but yes, the Lily White movement was a significant purge of "black and tan" factions from state GOP parties.
Here's just a sampling of reports on the Lily White movement in Southern Republican circles in the 1890s and early 1900s.
These articles offer coverage of events in Texas (where the trend began), Tennessee, Maryland and Louisiana, but the movement was region-wide.
These articles offer coverage of events in Texas (where the trend began), Tennessee, Maryland and Louisiana, but the movement was region-wide.
For those of you who (unlike D'Souza) are interested in an answer to the question, here's a great detailed thread on the Lily White movement by @blackrepublican:
Second, while D'Souza ignores the question about the Lily White movement entirely, he does end the segment by claiming that Stephen Douglas called the GOP "the Black Republican Party" in 1858 because, in D'Souza's claim, "virtually 99% of all African Americans were Republicans."
I'd love to know where he got that precise figure for the political membership of black southerners in 1858, because I'm *pretty* damn sure they weren't allowed to vote or register with a political party at that time.
That's the classic D'Souza two-step -- ignore the evidence that challenges your conclusions, and then just make up some stats to push things in a different direction.
Which brings me to his claim that it's "progressive historians" who are leaving things out.
Which brings me to his claim that it's "progressive historians" who are leaving things out.
This is a regular move of his -- claiming that "progressive historians" don't talk about something when we, in fact, have talked about it endlessly.
This thread is a good example of the insane claims he makes that are easily disproved:
This thread is a good example of the insane claims he makes that are easily disproved:
Here's another:
He's been beating this dead horse again recently, claiming that "the Left" doesn't want to talk about 19th c. African American leaders like Frederick Douglass because they were Republicans.
Hmm.
Hmm.
Again, if D'Souza had ever taken an American History class at Dartmouth, he'd probably realize how idiotic these claims are.
