-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Did the "R's" and the "D's" switch their plaform over the past 100 some years?
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
Back then I "MAY" have understood that sentiment. I grew up in a staunch D family, but in my early to mid teens the smell of D policies seemed to become a disturbing stench & I slowly morphed from D to R.
Like I said, back then was one thing, but the Ds have become so confident, OR so frightened, that there is no longer any subtlety to their push for control of everything & everybody anymore.
The public display of total disregard of anything moral, spiritual, or American by the Ds today has gone from the disturbing stench of 60-70 years ago to a revolting, putrid stinking pile of bovine excrement that SHOULD be obvious to any thinking person.
May God have mercy on this nation; but if we get it, it will be purely due to His grace, not our merit!!!!!!!
M A R A N A T H A
Like I said, back then was one thing, but the Ds have become so confident, OR so frightened, that there is no longer any subtlety to their push for control of everything & everybody anymore.
The public display of total disregard of anything moral, spiritual, or American by the Ds today has gone from the disturbing stench of 60-70 years ago to a revolting, putrid stinking pile of bovine excrement that SHOULD be obvious to any thinking person.
May God have mercy on this nation; but if we get it, it will be purely due to His grace, not our merit!!!!!!!
M A R A N A T H A
"Back in the day", the GOP was largely conservative, while the Dems were largely liberal, with some notable exceptions such as slavery. But both were largely-moderate about many things.
However, the Dems have taken a DANGEROUS left-turn, largely inspired by such as "the Squad" in the House. Bernie Sanders, while calling himself "independent", was allowed to campaign for POTUS as a Dem this time, However, in reality, he's a Socialist, almost a Communist, and, IMO, his views are dangerous, he's too-old to hold office, & should retire.
I should like to see a "red wave" this time, but Trump's big mouth will likely keep that from happening, though I believe he'll win a 2nd term.
But "back in the day", a large fear among white northerners was that many blax, if freed, would move northward & take the whites' jobs by offering to do the same work cheaper.(Before unions became strong.) However, these whites knew slavery was wrong, & they were torn between this belief & the risk of a horde of freed blax taking their jobs. But I believe the rise of unionism soothed the fear of job loss, & thus the end of slavery became important, as religious movements were also growing fast.
However, the Dems have taken a DANGEROUS left-turn, largely inspired by such as "the Squad" in the House. Bernie Sanders, while calling himself "independent", was allowed to campaign for POTUS as a Dem this time, However, in reality, he's a Socialist, almost a Communist, and, IMO, his views are dangerous, he's too-old to hold office, & should retire.
I should like to see a "red wave" this time, but Trump's big mouth will likely keep that from happening, though I believe he'll win a 2nd term.
But "back in the day", a large fear among white northerners was that many blax, if freed, would move northward & take the whites' jobs by offering to do the same work cheaper.(Before unions became strong.) However, these whites knew slavery was wrong, & they were torn between this belief & the risk of a horde of freed blax taking their jobs. But I believe the rise of unionism soothed the fear of job loss, & thus the end of slavery became important, as religious movements were also growing fast.
An absolute falsehood.
The South wasn't the Bible Belt before the Civil War. That would have been the northern farmers of Puritan stock outside the major northern cities. Immigration, first the Irish, then Italians and eastern Europeans, changed the make up of the North, and led to the Democrat takeover of those states.
In the South, introspection on the loss in the war led to an increase in piety. But hatred for the party of Lincoln kept southerners from joining, so you ended up with a church going, mostly conservative wing of the Democrat party and a more liberal wing. But most of the blue dogs abandoned the party when they were eventually wooed over during the Southern Strategy.
The South wasn't the Bible Belt before the Civil War. That would have been the northern farmers of Puritan stock outside the major northern cities. Immigration, first the Irish, then Italians and eastern Europeans, changed the make up of the North, and led to the Democrat takeover of those states.
In the South, introspection on the loss in the war led to an increase in piety. But hatred for the party of Lincoln kept southerners from joining, so you ended up with a church going, mostly conservative wing of the Democrat party and a more liberal wing. But most of the blue dogs abandoned the party when they were eventually wooed over during the Southern Strategy.
Though the South may have not had the name 'Bible Belt' before the War, they certainly had the practice. Bible Belt may be applied to the Puritans in the North during the early founding of America, but could not be applied to them during those years just preceeding the War.
The Northern Christianity had become a liberal social Christianity by that time. In fact, Transcendentalism was running amok throughout the North. The North was leaving the Bible as the only rule for it's faith. The South however held only to the Bible as the rule for it's faith.
Thus you had the later term Bible Belt to define the South.
Of course after the War the South leaned heavily upon God and Christ. They had nothing else. It is what Christian people do when they are destroyed. But there had already been great Christian revivals throughout the Southern Army during the War.
What do you mean, 'The Southern Strategy'?
Quantrill
My point was, the parties didn't change nearly as much as the demographics changed.
Yes, Northern Christianity was heading towards liberalism before the war. But it was the huge influx of Catholic immigrants that changed the voting patterns. And moved the local spirit from "Protestant Work Ethic" to "We're for the little guy" Democrat collectivism.
The Southern Strategy was the Republican party's re-engagement with the South, though of course modern sources paint it as merely racism.
Yes, Northern Christianity was heading towards liberalism before the war. But it was the huge influx of Catholic immigrants that changed the voting patterns. And moved the local spirit from "Protestant Work Ethic" to "We're for the little guy" Democrat collectivism.
The Southern Strategy was the Republican party's re-engagement with the South, though of course modern sources paint it as merely racism.
My point is that the South has always been the Bible Belt even before it was named the Bible Belt. The North was turning away from Christ and the true faith.
So who is the evil people now? The Christian South or the backslidden apostate North?
Quantrill
We're all evil and in need of God. But we're discussing history and by necessity generalizing. Plenty of saved and damned on either side of the Mason Dixon line.
And nobody is saying piety didn't exist in the South or that the North wasn't suffering from issues like their slide into Unitarianism. But the North originated as religious dissenters who immigrated for mostly religious reasons, while the South was initially populated by run of the mill Anglicans seeking their fortune. Who had a planter society that loved dancing and drinking at parties. Doesn't quite sound like the Bible Belt I've lived in. The South assuming the mantle of religious epicenter of the US, if Bible Belt is too loaded of a term, had certainly begun by the Revolution, but wasn't complete until after the Civil War.
I can pull up some scholarship on this topic, but I'm still a few weeks out from getting back to my library.
Last edited:
The South, those Southern States that seceded from the Union, were Christian. Of course not every single person was Christian, but Bible believing Christianity dominated the Southern people. And of course there were Christians in the North. but the North was being dominated by a social Christianity. A social Jesus. Trancendentalism. And as you point out, Unitarianism.
Did this have anything to do with the War? I certainly believe it contributed.
It is my opinion, that the Southern states today are the last hold out, or 'epicenter' as you say, for Bible believing Protestant doctrine, not just in the U.S., but in the world. And of course it continues to crumble away with the influx of many Northerners and immigrants who love to attack it. But it is still there.
Quantrill