Talk:1924 Democratic National Convention

"Klanbake" meme

Okay, since the false story of the "Klanbake" has been perpetuated far and wide in the last decade, I gave the issue its own section, linked to Mendelsohn and Shulman's well-researched article debunking this. 11 Arlington (talk)

There is no evidence that this is a false story. The evidence cited in the linked Washington Post article states that "there is no evidence of this phrase appearing elsewhere besides this article", which is simply an attempt at downplaying the author's eyewitness testimony of the 1924 event. Furthermore, encyclopedias (such as this website) are not intended for the purpose of debunking memes. Leave that to op-ed pieces from a news site. This section should be removed, as it is expressly partisan commentary about the reaction to the 1924 convention and not a strictly fact-based description of the convention. Apercuwanderer (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Yet the article clearly states, "The term "Klanbake" appears to have originated in a dispatch by a New York Daily News reporter referring sardonically to the discovery of the KKK presence at the 1924 DNC convention." So, there WAS a KKK presence at the 1924 DNC convention, just as my grandfather confirmed in the July 12, 1924 entry in his diary. He was 22 years old, just finished his first year in college, and was thinking of going into politics. Although he was a Democrat, he was never racist, and was troubled by the serious racism present at the Convention, including the presence of the KKK. He remained a Democrat throughout his very long life, but decided to instead pursue a different career, first as a carpenter, then as a salesman, for the rest of his very long life. He died at age 96.Clepsydrae (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I, too, agree there is no evidence the "Klanbake meme" is a "false story." Furthermore, I find Mendelsohn and Shulman's "well-researched article" to be "well-structured propaganda." They certainly failed to read my grandfather's and other eyewitness accounts of it. Finally, I concur that Wikipedia is not the place to report someone's opinion that it's a member, but rather, report solid, historical fact. Lacking any evidence that Mendelsohn and Shulman did not create a propaganda piece contrary to known eyewitness accounts of the KKK aspect of the 1924 DNC, I move that the attempt to debunk the Klanbake meme be speedily deleted.Clepsydrae (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Undefined term: "unit rule"

What is the "unit rule," mentioned in the description of the second day of balloting? Does it require all of a State's delegates to vote as a unit? That should be clarified.

The "unit rule" required state delegations to vote amongst themselves and then cast their full complement of votes for the majority choice en bloc. Carrite (talk) 07:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Expansion / Klanbake article

Why isn't Klanbake merged into this article? I think that makes more sense than its expansion. Fearwig 07:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support The Klanbake concept is a nickname for one aspect of the 1924 convention. There seems to be no justification or benefit to have it as a separate article. Alansohn (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support

Pathsetted

What does "pathsetted" mean? I've never even heard the word. --Hamiltonian 12:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wholesale copied materials being used without citations

I don't know much about adding citations, but the sections of text that discuss the various ballot results ("First ballot, fifteenth ballot", etc.) are copied word for word from: David Burner, The Politics of Provincialism: The Democratic Party in Transition, 1918 – 1932. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1968, pages 120 - 124. Definitely NOT original research; more like plagiarism!

Also, the link to reference #1 does not work anymore.

Jason76.187.176.248 (talk) 04:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Inaccuracies highlighted in news article

This article made the Washington Post today. See here. Seems like this should be thoroughly researched and addressed. Rikster2 (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Rikster2: I agree. I'll try to work on this article when I have time, unless someone else gets to it first. I'll revise the content to make it more accurate, come up with more references, and add explanations of the two-thirds rule and the unit rule.

Billmckern (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

KKK march in New Jersey

According to this source the KKK set up shop in Long Branch, NJ, in 1924 and put on extensive Independence Day celebrations, including a parade. I’m still looking for the day the vote in question took place; if it was the convention’s final vote – as stated in Underwood’s Wikipedia article – the vote would have taken place five days after the KKK march. From the source: The Klan bought Elkwood Park (the site of the present Monmouth Park racetrack), putting Bell in charge of the Elkwood Park Association. This became the site of their Independence Day festivities with a tri-state Konklave that included Klansmen from Delaware and Pennsylvania. This event included minstrel shows, beauty pageants, fireworks displays, and sporting events. More than 15,000 Klansmen marched for four hours from Broadway in Long Branch to Elkwood Park in full hooded regalia during their Fourth of July parade. It was the biggest Klan march to date. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC) Kudos to you for the research - I have seen a few mentions of a "tri-state Konclave" held in New Jersey on July 4 1924. Not at all clear that it was organized to celebrate the failure of the anti-Klan resolution; in fact, I doubt it. If you browse old newspapers from this period, KKK celebrations of Independence Day were frequently mentioned around the country, particularly in Indiana. 11 Arlington (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Narrow defeat of anti-KKK platform

Haven't found a source for the numbers "542.85 in favor, 546.15 against" (doesn't seem that narrow to me). According to Underwood’s Wikipedia article, it was "542 3/20 to 541 3/20". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Republican states

For example, Indiana was controlled top to bottom by the KKK at this time. Partisans don't want to admit that the Republican Party could do bad things? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Nix the Klanbake spin or I will

Here are three sources that accurately describe and connect the 1924 DNC to the Klan and this picture:

http://armored-column.com/the-democratic-klanbake-1924/

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/the-1924-klanbake-dem-convention-sheds-light-on-democratic-party-history

And here is just some additional history on the DNC. This party has a long and inseparable relationship with the KKK.

https://spectator.org/34882_dncs-bold-lies/

The fact is that your claim the Klanbake meme was made up is completely off base. You only used one source to corroborate your story, and it is a source that was exposed in 2016 for having a partisan bias. I also suspect many of you have a partisan bias as well. I'm looking at you, the person who claimed the KKK controlled Indiana but did not bother providing a source to corroborate that. In any case, I already sent all this into to the info@ email, and I let them know that in 6 weeks I will come back and delete the entire Klanbake section unless it is corrected or at least one reliable and impartial source is put up. And don't bother blocking my IP, I will just use an onion router or library computers and delete the section again and again if I need to on a rotating 2-month basis. Either way, I am just not going to let you guys slide with partisan spin attempts to cover up the ugly aspects of this event. I am a journalist by trade, it sickens me to see power hungry partisan wannabes try to spin the conversation the way they want rather than pointing it to the truth. I mean if you are a part of the Democratic Party and you're suddenly uncomfortable about being a part of the party of the Klan, that is your problem. Go register as a green in that case rather than whitewashing history on the internet.

P.S. Here is one super special additional source. If you wanna attack the claim you are SOL. This is a .edu, IE a educational institution approved this entry and found it to be factual.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3393

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.196.147 (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC) 

Making demand and threats, coupled with posting obviously politically biased sources is not going to accomplish anything. If you want to discuss this and provide sources that pass WP:RS that would be helpful. As for threatening to disrupt the article, that can be stopped fairly quickly. It takes no more than three mouse clicks to protect the article from being edited by anonymous and newly registered users. I hope that will not be necessary. We can always use people who want to help build an encyclopedia. But that requires checking some of our personal prejudices at the door and being able to work with others in a collaborative manner. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem:, The disruptive Republican Party editor has stated above that they will disrupt the article on "a 2-month rotating basis"- in other words, they will vandalize the article, an admin will revert and protect, the protection is lifted as our guard is lowered, and the Republican Party editor returns to vandalize again and again. Something serious has to been done pre-emptively NOW in order to protect the article from what appears to be extremist conservatives. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Calm down. We don't protect pages preemptively. There is nothing this editor can do that can't be reversed with a couple of clicks and if necessary protection can be applied on a long term basis. Name calling is also unhelpful. All in all the best way to deal with people who stamp their feet and demand attention is to ignore them until/unless they actually behave disruptively. This editor has been warned. For now that's enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• With regards to your super special bonus website, the statement "Newspapers called the convention a "Klanbake," as pro-Klan and anti-Klan delegates wrangled bitterly over the party platform" is 100% wrong. Newspapers.com is now up to 450 million pages in digitized and searchable form. NewspaperS, plural, did not call it that, one New York Daily News columnist used the phrase in a snarky commentary one time and the expression does not pop up again until it was used in an entirely different context by syndicated columnist Louis Sobol in 1937. This is a right wing meme on a par with "Pizzagate." Carrite (talk) 11:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

To your main point that the Democratic Party was for a century the pro-slavery, right wing, conservative party and the Republican Party from its origins was the free labor, anti-slavery party — on that you are correct. The parties flipped ideologically around the turn of the century when the Republicans became the party of big business and the tariff and the Democrats the party of free silver and the 8-hour day and the organized labor movement. Progressive Republicanism (see: LaFollette, Robert) continued to be a thing into the 1960s. The alternate universe being the Deep South, in which one party, right wing Southern Democratic rule continued until they all changed their shirts in the Ronald Reagan years. Nobody is disputing that. Carrite (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I've dropped the History Department at University of Houston a line asking that they fix the erroneous reference to "Klanbake" on their website. Carrite (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I laid out the "Klanbake" situation to the head of the UH history department; he's fairly mortified. Apparently their "Digital History" site was produced by a professor who is no longer with the department and he is not completely sure whether the site belongs to him or the university. It sounds like they will either be removing the offending line or possibly even taking down the site altogether. Carrite (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Carrite: They haven't done either. It still reads Newspapers called the convention a "Klanbake," as pro-Klan and anti-Klan delegates wrangled bitterly over the party platform. So much for mortified. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

.......or, rather, so much for university bureaucracy, lack of editorial direction, and uncertain ownership rights to content. Carrite (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Credit where credit is due

Source of the long-lasting 2005 "Klanbake" vandalism on Wikipedia was an IP account. Surprise, surprise, surprise! Carrite (talk) 07:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

But wait, there's more: the term originated as a snarky aside in a column by Joseph A. Cowan in the New York Daily News (6/25/24, pg. 36). Newspapers.com indicates the term was used exactly one time — in that column — between 1924 and 1930... Nor does the Times Machine indicate that the phrase "klanbake" or "klan-bake" ever appeared in that paper. So much for "also called the Klanbake." Carrite (talk) 07:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Klanbake meme

There may or may not be enough reliably-sourced material to support a freestanding article called Klanbake meme, but it probably should not be here. The fact that a persistent, tainted version of this article was used the bolster the contemporary meme is interesting and worth reflecting about, but the phrase is anachronistic for this convention, nor is the phrase used widely enough to make it necessary for a subsection here. The fact that the original vandalism happened in 2005 means there is a bigger story to this meme than is being told in the article currently in any event. So add my voice to those wanting to strike the section entirely. Carrite (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Carrite: You're absolutely right that the 1920s revival of the Ku Klux Klan was definitely active among Republicans as well as Democrats. It appealed to Republicans, who were by and large Protestants and in favor of Prohibition (Drys), because Republicans opposed the growing influence of expanding urban areas, which often meant Catholic and opposed to Prohibition (Wet). There are numerous sources to prove this. One of the best is William E. Wilson's 1965 article in American Heritage, "Long, Hot Summer In Indiana". Wilson details firsthand how his father, also named William E. Wilson, lost election to a second term as a Democratic member of Congress in 1924 after his Republican constituents joined the Klan and turned against him.

Author and historian Mark Bushnell has documented that my home state of Vermont, which was the most Republican state in the country from the time the party was founded in the 1850s up until the 1960s, was also a hotbed of Klan activity in the 1920s. And this happened despite Vermont's pride in always having been anti-slavery, and having been very pro-Union during the Civil War. See March 12, 2017's "Then Again: Klan crosses burned in Vermont, but not for long".

It seems to me the idea that some contributors here seem to have -- that they can re-write actual events to suit their political point of view -- does no one any good. I agree with you that they shouldn't be allowed to perpetuate a myth.

Billmckern (talk) 11:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the Second KKK of the 1920s was big in both Republican and Democratic states, including erstwhile Progressive Republican Oregon, where I live. One legislator with Klan ties, Kaspar K. Kubli was particularly beloved by the Invisible Empire for his initials. The comment above that the KKK basically ran the show in Indiana for a couple years is also more or less on the mark. It wasn't just a Southern thing or just a Democratic thing in the early 1920s. Carrite (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, a mea culpa: I see from the history that I touched this article briefly in 2013 but didn't catch the howler in the lead. I'm not alone in that respect, obviously, but it doesn't change the fact that I messed up by not calling bullshit when bullshit needed to be called. Carrite (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Coyne?

William Coyne is mentioned as a candidate both in the alphabetical list and the balloting lists, but the name links to a different American politician, also named William Coyne, who served from 1981 to 2003. Who is the William Coyne who should be mentioned here? Does he even have a Wikipedia page? Vavent (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Vavent: William Coyne (1866-1933) was a resident of Delaware. He was a senior executive of DuPont and served on the company's board of directors. He was also active in Democratic politics in Delaware and was a delegate to the 1920 Democratic National Convention. I clipped the first page of a death notice from Newspapers.com, which you can view here.

I'd say de-link William Coyne in the 1924 Democratic Convention article and either leave it alone or come up with a new parenthetical identifier Maybe William Coyne (Business executive) or something like that.

Coyne seems to have been notable enough to merit an article on Wikipedia. If no one else does it, I'll try to take care of it when I can.

Billmckern (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Uncited Quotes

Although David Burner's work is cited in "Further Reading," the article contains at least one quotation from his work without citation: "But by no sleight of hand could the convention have been swung around to either contestant." (From p120 of his *Politics of Provincialism*). I'll bet it isn't the only uncredited quotation in this article. BCSWowbagger (talk) 06:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@BCSWowbagger: I looked it up today in the 1968 edition of The Politics of Provincialism. This doesn't look to me to be an uncited quote. It looks to me like Burner's own narrative description of the convention proceedings. Billmckern (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)