Few symbols of American hate and oppression are more infamous than the white hood and burning cross of the Ku Klux Klan. But behind the terror lies a lesser-known political truth: the Klan was not just a fringe hate group—it was a militant force closely tied to the Democratic Party in its early incarnations. From its birth during Reconstruction to its political revival in the 20th century, the Klan repeatedly acted as an instrument to suppress Republican-led civil rights reform and restore white Democratic control in the South.
This article will trace the Klan’s dark legacy, explore the Democratic Party’s role in enabling its violence, and conclude by grounding these historical truths in the unchanging moral authority of Scripture.
The Klan’s Origins: Born of Defeat and Political Rage
The Ku Klux Klan was formed in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee, by six former Confederate officers. Initially a fraternal social club, the Klan quickly transformed into a violent paramilitary organization with the express goal of resisting Reconstruction policies implemented by the Republican Party. It was, in effect, a backlash movement against federal efforts to secure freedom and voting rights for formerly enslaved Black Americans.
What’s often overlooked is that the Klan did not exclusively target African Americans. It waged a comprehensive campaign of terror against Republicans—white and Black—who were working to bring political reform and racial equality to the postwar South.
“The Klan functioned as a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy.”
— Historian Eric Foner[1]
During the 1868 presidential election, violence surged in Southern states. In Louisiana alone, over 1,000 people were murdered to suppress Republican voters.[2] The Klan’s targets included Republican politicians, Freedmen’s Bureau agents, teachers, and ministers—anyone who promoted civil rights or Black education.
The Klan’s War on Republicans: Political Terrorism
The Klan’s campaign during Reconstruction was not simply racial—it was fundamentally political. The Democratic Party in the South relied on the Klan to dismantle Republican Reconstruction governments and return white Democrats to power.
High-Profile Political Lynchings
- James M. Hinds, a Republican Congressman from Arkansas, was assassinated by the Klan in 1868 for supporting Black suffrage. His murder, committed in broad daylight, was one of the first political assassinations during Reconstruction.[3]
- Alexander Boyd, a Republican probate judge in Alabama, was lynched in 1870 after defying Klan demands. He was dragged from his home and executed by a mob for upholding Reconstruction law.[4]
- In Georgia, Klan members routinely whipped and mutilated teachers who taught freedmen to read. Republican printing presses were burned, and entire towns were emptied of their Black and Republican populations through threats of arson and murder.[5]
Congressional investigations into these atrocities revealed thousands of testimonies from victims and witnesses. The Joint Select Committee on the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States concluded that Klan violence was widespread, organized, and intended to overthrow Republican governments by force.6
[1]: Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877 (New York: Harper & Row, 1988), 425.
[2]: Allen W. Trelease, White Terror: The Ku Klux Klan Conspiracy and Southern Reconstruction (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 192.
[3]: William C. Harris, The Day of the Carpetbagger: Republican Reconstruction in Mississippi (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1979), 102.
[4]: U.S. Congress, Report of the Joint Select Committee to Inquire into the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States, 42nd Cong., 2nd Sess., 1872, vol. 3, 1461.
[5]: Foner, Reconstruction, 438–439.
Woodrow Wilson and Federal Legitimacy for the Klan
By the early 20th century, the Klan had largely faded—until it was reborn in 1915, inspired by D. W. Griffith’s film The Birth of a Nation. The film, based on Thomas Dixon Jr.’s The Clansman, portrayed the Klan as heroic saviors of the South from Black rule and “corrupt” Republicans. It received glowing praise from President Woodrow Wilson, who allowed it to be screened at the White House. Wilson reportedly called it “like writing history with lightning.”[7]
Wilson—a Southern Democrat—oversaw the re-segregation of federal offices, purged Black employees from civil service, and gave tacit approval to racial ideology by elevating Lost Cause mythology. The reborn Klan of the 1920s drew its confidence and structure from these actions and grew into a national movement with millions of members.[8]
[7]: Nancy J. Weiss, Farewell to the Party of Lincoln: Black Politics in the Age of FDR (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983), 5.
[8]: Linda Gordon, The Second Coming of the KKK: The Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s and the American Political Tradition (New York: Liveright, 2017), 34.
Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Politics of Silence
Though remembered for his New Deal, FDR built a political coalition that depended on the segregationist South. To maintain that alliance, Roosevelt repeatedly refused to support anti-lynching legislation and appointed numerous segregationists to key positions.
Among his most controversial appointments was Hugo Black, a former Alabama member of the Ku Klux Klan, whom Roosevelt named to the Supreme Court in 1937. Though Black later renounced the Klan, his past was well-known, and his appointment was seen as a political favor to the Southern Democratic base.[9]
[9]: Roger K. Newman, Hugo Black: A Biography (New York: Pantheon Books, 1994), 100–102.
Lyndon B. Johnson: Civil Rights and Cynicism
LBJ is often lauded for signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, but his history is not so simple. As a longtime Southern Democrat, Johnson opposed civil rights efforts throughout the 1940s and 1950s. He used racist language frequently and privately mocked the very laws he later championed.
In a moment of chilling political calculation, Johnson is reported to have said, “I’ll have those n—–s voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”[10] His Great Society programs, while intended to fight poverty, are criticized by economists like Thomas Sowell for fostering government dependency and undermining family structure in Black communities.[11]
[10]: Ronald Kessler, Inside the White House (New York: Pocket Books, 1995), 33.
[11]: Thomas Sowell, Discrimination and Disparities (New York: Basic Books, 2018), 97.
Distorting History: The Party Switch Myth
It is a common claim that the parties “switched” in the 1960s, with Democrats becoming progressive and Republicans absorbing racist voters. But the facts tell a different story. Most segregationist Democrats remained Democrats for decades. Only a few, like Strom Thurmond, ever switched parties. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed with 80% Republican support in the Senate, compared to just 63% of Democrats.[12]
[12]: Congressional Record, House of Representatives, June 19, 1964. 88th Congress, 2nd Session, 13, pp. 15876–15877.
A Biblical Response to Racism and Tyranny
While history reminds us that human institutions—even political parties—are flawed and corruptible, Scripture offers a clear moral foundation for justice and dignity.
Racism, in all its forms, violates the truth that every person is made in the image of God:
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
— Genesis 1:27
Tyranny—whether exercised through mobs or governments—is condemned throughout Scripture. The Bible affirms justice, the rule of law, and the dignity of the oppressed:
“Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees…”
— Isaiah 10:1
The gospel of Jesus Christ demolishes racial and ethnic divisions:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
— Galatians 3:28
Christians must be unafraid to expose sin—whether individual or institutional—and must speak truth, even when it makes others uncomfortable. Racism is not merely a political issue—it is a spiritual rebellion.
Conclusion: Reclaiming Truth
The Ku Klux Klan was not an isolated extremist group—it was a violent political tool of the Democratic Party during key moments in American history. While the parties have shifted in various ways over time, the past cannot be whitewashed by modern partisan narratives.
As believers, we are not called to align blindly with any political party, but to proclaim truth, do justice, and love our neighbors as ourselves. That includes reckoning honestly with history—and confronting the sins of both the past and present with biblical clarity and courage.
R-Rated Religion 
The bankrupt 35 Trillion dollar national debt Federal Government took post Civil War to present Federal corruption to currently threaten America with its 2nd Civil War.
OKC bombing redux
In the past I’ve written about it ad nauseam — the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19, 1995. Then, two nights ago, there it was again in a series of three hour-long episodes
_________________________________
_________________________________
Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols their motivations were deeply rooted in their opposition to government actions, particularly the Waco siege in 1993, where the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) attempted to execute a search warrant at the Branch Davidian compound, leading to a standoff that resulted in the deaths of 76 individuals. Additionally, the Ruby Ridge incident in 1992, which involved a confrontation between federal agents and the Weaver family, further fueled their anti-government sentiments. McVeigh and Nichols meticulously planned the bombing, believing that it would send a strong message against what they perceived as government overreach and tyranny.
On April 19, 1995, McVeigh parked a rented Ryder truck filled with explosives outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The explosion, which occurred at 9:02 AM, caused widespread destruction and resulted in significant loss of life. The bombing resulted in the deaths of 168 people, including 19 children, and injured over 600 others. It caused significant destruction to the surrounding area and damaged or destroyed several nearby buildings.
The Waco siege and the Ruby Ridge incident were two significant events in the 1990s that involved confrontations between federal law enforcement and individuals or groups that were perceived as threats to public safety or law and order. Both incidents raised serious questions about the use of government authority and the actions taken by federal agents. The Waco siege involved the Branch Davidian religious sect, led by David Koresh, who was suspected of stockpiling illegal weapons. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) attempted to execute a search warrant on February 28, 1993, which led to a gunfight and the deaths of four ATF agents and six Branch Davidians.
The federal government, under President Bill Clinton, justified the siege as a necessary action to enforce laws regarding illegal weapons and to protect public safety. The FBI took over the operation, which lasted for 51 days, culminating in a final assault on April 19, 1993, that resulted in a fire that consumed the compound, killing 76 individuals, including many women and children. The handling of the siege was widely criticized for its aggressive tactics and the loss of life. GOP opposition critics of President Clinton accused his leadership of complete, utter and criminal incompetence. Clinton apparently to busy forcing young women to give him a blow job. The GOP opposition condemned the Clinton government for grossly overstepped its authority and its utter and complete incompetence to negotiate effectively. The impeachment of Clinton served as a Parliamentary vote of No Confidence in the Government!
The Ruby Ridge incident involved Randy Weaver, who was wanted for failing to appear in court on a firearms charge. A standoff occurred between Weaver’s family and federal agents, including the U.S. Marshals and the FBI, which escalated into violence, resulting in the deaths of Weaver’s wife, Vicki, and his son, Samuel. The federal government, under President George H.W. Bush, guilty of State War-crimes in his illegal invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and strongly suspected of justifying this imperialist nation building through the 9/11 inside job attack which resembles something like the Dec 7th Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
But Cheney/Bush in their absolute and insane criminal arrogance did not approach Congress and ask for a Congressional Declaration of War. Instead these corrupt opportunistic war criminals passed their vile Patriot Act which negated the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. Similar to Waco, the actions taken at Ruby Ridge were criticized for being excessive and poorly managed, leading to unnecessary loss of life.
In both cases, there was significant public outcry and criticism of the government’s actions, but very few individuals faced legal consequences. Federal bureaucraps almost Universally operate without any accountability for their actions or regulatory laws they illegally impose upon the American people. This illegal forth branch of the US Government shares an incestuous relationship with Federally established Corporate monopolies. The latter has a revolving door incest/taboo relationship with Federal homo-bureaucraps.
This illegal 4th Branch of the post Civil War Washington over-reach Government negates the Commerce Clause which relegates intra-state autonomy to the Legislatures of the States of the Union to bureaucratically regulate all intra-state trade & commerce, independent and free from Big Brother Federal carpet-bagger pervert bureaucraps overwatch. Post Civil War the Lincoln GOP dismantled the States authority to appoint Federal Senators to Congress through a Constitutional Amendment.
The damned Yankees despise States Rights in favor of mob rule democracy. Hence Federal agents often operate under legal fiction protections that shield them from prosecution – when they act in the name of the State! This perversion of the Constitution set the stage wherein the incest revolving door Bureaucrap-Government established (Socialist) Corporate Monopolies function as a concealed Government which pulls the strings of the elected puppets of the 3 Branches of the Federal Government. Herein explains why it cost over a billion dollars to elect a US President to Office. The State established Federal corporate monopolies shape and determine the outcome of all “democratic” elections. These “elections” do not employ paper ballots!
Investigations into the actions of federal agents invarably conclude that the use of bureaucrapic force – completely justified. Leading to a mafia like shielding – lack of criminal charges of politicians and bureaucraps; Obama can spy on candidate Trump with a fraud hoax Russia-Gate/Water-Gate, with complete and total impunity or risk. The Federal Government plays by a completely different set of rules than those imposed upon the peasant citizens\serf populations. Federal employees enjoy far more benefits than the bread crumbs thrown to the mob masses; the bankrupt social security by which the Federal government taxes the people does not apply to Federal employees and Congress personnel. The decision not to pursue charges against government officials based upon this illegal two-tiered corrupt legal system the direct result of the Lincoln rejection of Jeffersonian Democracy.
The Oklahoma City bombing occurred on April 19, 1995, and was one of the deadliest acts of domestic terrorism in U.S. history. The attack was carried out by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, who sought to retaliate against the federal government, particularly in response to the Waco siege in 1993 and the Ruby Ridge incident in 1992. Civil War Santa Claus is coming to town.
LikeLike
Marco Rubio Sanctions ICC Judges After They Target U.S. and Israel in Explosive Rulings
In a sweeping move, Senator Marco Rubio announced sanctions against four International Criminal Court justices.
________________________________________
________________________________________
Marco Rubio’s sanctions on ICC judges—in response to politically driven rulings targeting the U.S. and Israel—represent the first serious American pushback against the expanding overreach of international legal institutions. But these sanctions merely scratch the surface. If Israel were to bomb the International Criminal Court in The Hague for the crime of judicial overreach, it would unleash a shockwave through the foundations of the post-WWII European imperial legal order.
Such an act would shatter the illusion that the Rome Statute and its court represent binding global authority. In truth, the ICC is a political weapon wielded disproportionately against Western democracies and their allies, while shielding rogue regimes. Its authority rests on consensus, not enforcement. The Rome Treaty would be exposed as not worth the paper it’s written on.
Europe forfeited its moral right to judge the Jewish people the moment it orchestrated the Shoah. Any European claim to universal justice—especially when applied selectively against the Jewish state—is hypocrisy cloaked in humanitarianism. The ICC’s rulings against Israel are not about war crimes; they are ritual acts of expiation for Europe’s own genocidal guilt. But that guilt is not Israel’s burden to carry. To bomb the ICC would be to formally reject Europe’s post-Nazi pretensions to legal supremacy and declare: “You have no right to judge us.”
Bombing the ICC would have the same historical effect as the 1956 Suez Crisis: the end of European claims to independent geopolitical authority. Just as France and the UK’s failed bid to reclaim the Suez Canal revealed their imperial impotence, an Israeli destruction of the ICC would reveal the EU’s inability to project legal-moral power beyond its own borders.
What the EU has is not law, but a narrative infrastructure—paper treaties, postmodern guilt, and international NGOs wielding legal language as a substitute for lost religious and imperial confidence.
A targeted Israeli strike on the ICC would not trigger war. It would trigger disbelief, followed by narrative collapse, and finally a global reckoning with Western legal hypocrisy. The EU would be faced with the question: do we escalate to save face—or submit to an Israeli dictate which radically limits the EU authority in the balance of power in the Middle East and in Europe.
If Israel bombed the Court of the Hague for the crime of judicial over-reach. This would set a precedent that the establishment of the ICC through the Rome Treaty – not worth the paper the Rome Treaty written upon. Widespread EU condemnations Big Deal. England and France have already broken off diplomatic relations with Israel.
The Trump Government in Washington most likely would support Israel if Israel bombed the Court of the Hague for judicial over-reach. The Rome Treaty established Court would most likely dissolve. It would most definitely challenge the judicial jurisdiction of a European Court over Israel!
Post Shoah Europe lost its rights to judge Jews. The destruction of the Pie in the Sky Rome Treaty would establish a major political precedent that European imperialism stops at the borders of the EU member states alone.
The assertion that bombing the ICC in The Hague would lead to a collapse of the EU’s prestige is a strong viewpoint that reflects significant concerns about the authority and effectiveness of international institutions.
If a member state or a country with significant geopolitical influence, like Israel, were to attack an international institution such as the ICC, it could be perceived as a direct challenge to the authority of not only the ICC but also the broader framework of international law that the EU supports.
In short: bombing the Court of the Hague would radically change the balance of power in Europe. For the first time since the Muslim invasion of Western Europe a major disruption of European political autonomy would result.
The EU would either put up or shut up: either they would declare War against Israel or not. The Nato alliance, if the US backed Israel would unquestionably collapse. The EU’s credibility as a defender of international law would cease to exist – gone like a puff of smoke. Israel would have called the bluff of the EU, like as if bombing the ICC compares to a hand of stud poker! This could lead to a more fragmented international order, challenging the EU’s role as a global actor.
An attack on the ICC could set a precedent that undermines the enforcement of international law, leading to a situation where states feel empowered to act unilaterally without regard for international institutions.
The incident could complicate diplomatic relations not only between Israel and the EU but also between other countries and international organizations. It could lead to a reevaluation of how states engage with international legal frameworks.
The UN itself would most likely collapse like as did the League of Nations. If nothing else, the historical relationship between Europe and Israel, particularly in the context of the Shoah and post-war UN attempt to compare Israel to the European Nazi crimes against humanity, adds layers of complexity to this European projectionism of its own Nazi guilt and the moral bankruptcy of both Western and Eastern Roman church moral authority over European civilizations.
The implications of such an act would resonate deeply within the historical narrative of European-Jewish relations and radically shift the narrative reversing the role of Jews as dominant and the church as dhimmi slaves – utterly rejected and despised.
The entire European security architecture is underwritten by the United States, both financially and militarily. Without U.S. backing, NATO becomes functionally hollow. France and the UK retain nuclear capability, but their conventional power is insufficient to act independently against a U.S.-aligned state like Israel.
No EU state would risk confrontation with the U.S., their most vital ally, over a non-NATO event like an Israeli action against the ICC. EU states are deeply post-military in culture. Their battlefield is law, narrative, and diplomacy—not armed force.
Even in the face of Russian invasion (Ukraine), EU states have limited direct engagement, preferring economic sanctions, legal resolutions, and humanitarian aid. Against Israel, the EU’s instinct would be: denounce, sanction, isolate—not mobilize or fight.
Much of EU condemnation of Israel is a projection of its own unresolved guilt over colonialism and the Holocaust. This moral outrage stops at the threshold of real cost. That’s why you see relentless UN resolutions, ICC motions, and media warfare—but not realpolitik confrontation. Israel calling their bluff—if the U.S. holds firm—exposes their impotence. If Israel bombed the ICC in the Hague – No War. No boots. No tanks. NO Article 5 Nato involvement. The collapse of Nato as an alliance.
Symbolic institutions (like the ICC) to claim moral authority—but has no spine when force or geopolitical will counters that narrative. If Israel, backed by a U.S. administration, were to shatter a legal myth like the ICC’s authority … No war, but rather most likely the total collapse of EU imperialist Post WWII illusion of legal hegemony on par with England and France failure to capture and seize the Suez canal in the 1956 War. It would clearly reset the terms of European involvement in global legal power.
LikeLike