TF
TruthOrFake
Fact Check: Was there ever any kkk influence in the democratic party

Fact Check: Was there ever any kkk influence in the democratic party

April 22, 2025•by TruthOrFake
±
VERDICT
Partially True

# Claim Analysis: "Was there ever any KKK influence in the Democratic Party?" ## 1. Introduction The claim under scrutiny is whether there has ever b...

Claim Analysis: "Was there ever any KKK influence in the Democratic Party?"

1. Introduction

The claim under scrutiny is whether there has ever been any influence of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) within the Democratic Party. This assertion often arises in discussions about the historical relationship between the KKK and political parties in the United States, particularly in the context of race relations and political alignment in the 19th and 20th centuries.

2. What We Know

The KKK was founded in the aftermath of the Civil War, specifically in 1865, as a social club for Confederate veterans. It quickly evolved into a violent organization aimed at intimidating African Americans and suppressing their political rights, particularly in the South. The Klan's activities were primarily aimed at maintaining white supremacy and resisting Reconstruction efforts, which sought to integrate freed slaves into society and politics 37.

Historically, the KKK has had affiliations with various political figures and parties. In the early 20th century, particularly during the 1920s, the Klan gained significant political power, especially in the Midwest and South, where it influenced elections and local governance 14. Some Democratic politicians were known to have ties to the Klan during this period, and the organization endorsed certain candidates 510. However, it is crucial to note that the KKK was not founded by the Democratic Party, nor was it established as its military arm, as clarified by multiple historical sources 368.

3. Analysis

Source Evaluation

  1. Citizen Klan: Electoral Politics and the KKK in WA: This source discusses specific instances of KKK involvement in local politics, particularly in Washington State. While it provides valuable historical context, it may have a regional focus that limits its broader applicability 1.

  2. AP News Fact Check: This source categorically states that the KKK was not formed by the Democratic Party. AP News is generally considered a reliable source for fact-checking due to its adherence to journalistic standards and its use of expert opinions 3.

  3. Wikipedia: The entry on KKK members in U.S. politics provides a comprehensive overview of the Klan's influence across various political landscapes. However, Wikipedia's open-edit nature means that while it can be a good starting point, its reliability can vary based on the citations used 4.

  4. JSTOR Daily: This article offers a historical analysis of the KKK's influence on American politics, linking it to broader social dynamics. JSTOR is a reputable academic platform, but the article's age (from 2017) may mean it lacks the most current scholarship 5.

  5. USA Today Fact Check: This source reinforces the claim that the Democratic Party did not found the KKK and provides historical context to support this assertion. USA Today is a widely read news outlet, and its fact-checking division is generally reliable 6.

  6. PBS American Experience: This source provides a historical overview of the KKK's rise and its violent tactics during Reconstruction, offering a nuanced view of its political influence. PBS is known for its educational content, which adds to its credibility 7.

  7. Politifact: This source directly addresses claims regarding the KKK's founding and its relationship with the Democratic Party, providing expert analysis. Politifact is recognized for its rigorous fact-checking methodology 8.

  8. Social Justice Survival Guide: This source discusses the Democratic Party's historical ties to slavery and Jim Crow laws, but it may have a particular ideological slant that could influence its presentation of facts 9.

  9. Cambridge Guide to African American History: This source provides a scholarly perspective on the KKK's activities and its alignment with the Democratic Party during the Reconstruction era. Academic sources like this are generally reliable, but the specific context of the publication should be considered 10.

Conflicts of Interest and Methodology

Some sources may have inherent biases based on their political affiliations or the contexts in which they were written. For instance, sources that focus on the Democratic Party's historical ties to the KKK may aim to highlight contemporary political narratives. Conversely, sources that downplay these connections might be attempting to absolve current political parties of historical associations.

Additionally, the methodology behind claims of KKK influence often relies on historical interpretations that can vary widely. Evaluating the credibility of historical accounts requires careful consideration of the authors' backgrounds, the sources they cite, and the context in which they were writing.

4. Conclusion

Verdict: Partially True

The claim that there has been influence of the KKK within the Democratic Party is partially true. Historical evidence indicates that some Democratic politicians had ties to the KKK, particularly during the early 20th century when the Klan was politically active. However, it is essential to clarify that the KKK was not founded by the Democratic Party, nor was it established as its military arm. This distinction is critical in understanding the complex historical relationship between the KKK and the Democratic Party.

While there are documented instances of KKK influence on certain Democratic politicians, the broader context of political affiliations and the evolution of party ideologies complicate the narrative. The Democratic Party has undergone significant ideological shifts since the Klan's peak influence, particularly in the mid-20th century.

It is important to acknowledge the limitations of the available evidence. Historical interpretations can vary, and the sources consulted may reflect particular biases or regional focuses. As such, readers should approach this topic with a critical mindset and consider the nuances involved in historical political affiliations.

Readers are encouraged to evaluate information critically and seek out diverse sources to form a well-rounded understanding of the historical context surrounding the KKK and its political influence.

5. Sources

  1. Citizen Klan: Electoral Politics and the KKK in WA. Retrieved from https://depts.washington.edu/civilr/kkk_politicians.htm
  2. Ku Klux Klan. Retrieved from https://works.swarthmore.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1406&context=fac-poli-sci
  3. Ku Klux Klan not founded by the Democratic Party | AP News. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/article/archive-fact-checking-2336745806
  4. Ku Klux Klan members in United States politics. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics
  5. The History of the KKK in American Politics - JSTOR Daily. Retrieved from https://daily.jstor.org/history-kkk-american-politics/
  6. Fact check: Democratic Party did not found the KKK, start Civil War. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/30/fact-check-democratic-party-did-not-found-kkk-start-civil-war/3253803001/
  7. Grant, Reconstruction and the KKK | American Experience. Retrieved from https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/grant-kkk/
  8. "The KKK was founded as the military arm of the Democratic Party." Retrieved from https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2017/oct/23/dane-county-republican-party/debunking-claim-kkk-was-founded-military-arm-democ/
  9. The Democratic Party's History of Slavery, Jim Crow, and the KKK. Retrieved from https://www.socialjusticesurvivalguide.com/2018/01/08/the-democratic-partys-history-slavery-jim-crow-kkk/
  10. Ku Klux Klan (KKK) - The Cambridge Guide to African American History. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-guide-to-african-american-history/ku-klux-klan-kkk/AF98C32F011BFB6DBD98879DE0F08C73

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
✓100% Free
✓No Registration
✓Instant Results

Comments

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

🔍
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: By quarterbacking Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing era in U.S. history The main reason Israel’s massive attack on Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and other targets came as a surprise is that no one believes American presidents when they talk about protecting Americans and advancing our interests—especially when they’re talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, U.S. presidents have wanted an accommodation with Iran—not revenge for holding 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but comity. Ronald Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but when the Iranians’ Lebanese ally Hezbollah killed 17 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Beirut and 241 at the Marine barracks in 1983, he flinched. Bill Clinton wanted a deal with Iran so badly, he helped hide the Iranians’ sponsorship of the group that killed 19 airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996. George W. Bush turned a blind eye to Tehran’s depredations as Shia militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, while Iran’s Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad chartered buses to transport Sunni fighters from the Damascus airport to the Iraqi border, where they joined the hunt for Americans. Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was the Iran nuclear deal—designed not, as he promised, to stop Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, but to legalize it and protect it under the umbrella of an international agreement, backed by the United States. That all changed with Donald Trump. At last, an American president kept his word. He was very clear about it even before his second term started: Iran can’t have a bomb. Trump wanted it to go peacefully, but he warned that if the Iranians didn’t agree to dismantle their program entirely, they’d be bombed. Maybe Israel would do it, maybe the United States, maybe both, but in any case, they’d be bombed. Trump gave them 60 days to decide, and on day 61, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion. Until this morning, when Trump posted on Truth Social to take credit for the raid, there was some confusion about the administration’s involvement. As the operation began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement claiming that it was solely an Israeli show without any American participation. But even if details about intelligence sharing and other aspects of Israeli-U.S. coordination were hazy, the statement was obviously misleading: The entire operation was keyed to Trump. Without him, the attack wouldn’t have happened as it did, or maybe not at all. Trump spent two months neutralizing the Iranians without them realizing he was drawing them into the briar patch. Iranian diplomats pride themselves on their negotiating skills. Generations of U.S. diplomats have marveled at the Iranians’ ability to wipe the floor with them: It’s a cultural thing—ever try to bargain with a carpet merchant in Tehran? And Trump also praised them repeatedly for their talents—very good negotiators! The Iranians were in their sweet spot and must have imagined they could negotiate until Trump gave in to their demands or left office. But Trump was the trickster. He tied them down for two months, time that he gave to the Israelis to make sure they had everything in order. There’s already lots of talk about Trump’s deception campaign, and in the days and weeks to come, we’ll have more insight into which statements were real and which were faked and which journalists were used, without them knowing it, to print fake news to ensure the operation’s success. One Tablet colleague says it’s the most impressive operational feint since the Normandy invasion. Maybe even more impressive. A few weeks ago, a colleague told me of a brief conversation with a very senior Israeli official who said that Jerusalem and Washington see eye to eye on Gaza and left it at that. As my colleague saw it, and was meant to see it, this was not good news insofar as it suggested a big gap between the two powers on Iran. The deception campaign was so tight, it meant misleading friends casually. It’s now clear that the insanely dense communications environment—including foreign actors like the Iranians themselves, anti-Bibi Israeli journalists, the Gulf states, and the Europeans—served the purpose of the deception campaign. But most significant was the domestic component. Did the Iranians believe reports that the pro-Israel camp was losing influence with Trump and that the “restraintists” were on the rise? Did Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi tell officials in Tehran that his colleagues from the Quincy Institute and other Koch-funded policy experts who were working in the administration had it in the bag? Don’t worry about the neocons—my guys are steering things in a good way. It seems that, like the Iranians, the Koch network got caught in its own echo chamber. Will Rising Lion really split MAGA, as some MAGA influencers are warning? Polls say no. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 84 percent of likely voters believe Iran cannot have a bomb. Only 9 percent disagree. More Americans think it’s OK for men to play in women’s sports, 21 percent, than those who think Iran should have a bomb. According to the Rasmussen poll, 57 percent favor military action to stop Iran from getting nukes—which means there are Kamala Harris voters, 50 percent of them, along with 73 percent of Trump’s base, who are fine with bombing Iran to stop the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. A Harvard/Harris poll shows 60 percent support for Israel “to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” with 78 percent support among Republicans. Who thinks it’s reasonable for Iran to have a bomb? In a lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin and others who think an Iranian bomb is bad for America, Tucker Carlson made the case for the Iranian bomb. Iran, he wrote, “knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.” The Iranians definitely want a bomb to defend themselves against the United States—NATO, if you prefer—but that’s hardly America First. The threat that an Iranian bomb poses to the United States isn’t really that the Iranians will launch missiles at U.S. cities—not yet, anyway—but that it gives the regime a nuclear shield. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran closes down the Straits of Hormuz to set the price for global energy markets. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran wages terror attacks on American soil, as it has plotted to kill Trump. An Iranian bomb forces American policymakers, including Trump, to reconfigure policies and priorities to suit the interests of a terror state. It’s fair to argue that your country shouldn’t attack Iran to prevent it from getting a bomb, but reasoning that a terror state that has been killing Americans for nearly half a century needs the bomb to protect itself from the country you live in is nuts. Maybe some Trump supporters are angry and confused because Trump was advertised as the peace candidate. But “no new wars” is a slogan, not a policy. The purpose of U.S. policy is to advance America’s peace and prosperity, and Trump was chosen to change the course of American leadership habituated to confusing U.S. interests with everyone else’s. For years now, the U.S. political establishment has congratulated itself for helping to lift half a billion Chinese peasants out of poverty—in exchange for the impoverishment of the American middle class. George W. Bush wasted young American lives trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function like America. Obama committed the United States to climate agreements that were designed to make Americans poorer. He legalized Iran’s bomb. So has Operation Rising Lion enhanced America’s peace? If it ends Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, the answer is absolutely yes. Further, when American partners advance U.S. interests, it adds luster to American glory. For instance, in 1982, in what is now popularly known as the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot, Israeli pilots shot down more than 80 Soviet-made Syrian jets and destroyed dozens of Soviet-built surface-to-air missile systems. It was a crucial Cold War exhibition that showed U.S. arms and allies were superior to what Moscow could put in the field. Israel’s attacks on Iran have not only disabled a Russian and Chinese partner but also demonstrated American superiority to those watching in Moscow and Beijing. Plus, virtually all of Iran’s oil exports go to China. With the attack last night, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing and dispiriting era in U.S. history, which began nearly 50 years ago with the hostage crisis. In that time, U.S. leadership has routinely appeased a terror regime sustained only by maniacal hatred of America, while U.S. elites from the worlds of policy and academia, media and culture, have adopted the style and language of perfumed third-world obscurantists. All it took was for an American president to keep his word.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: By quarterbacking Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing era in U.S. history The main reason Israel’s massive attack on Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and other targets came as a surprise is that no one believes American presidents when they talk about protecting Americans and advancing our interests—especially when they’re talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, U.S. presidents have wanted an accommodation with Iran—not revenge for holding 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but comity. Ronald Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but when the Iranians’ Lebanese ally Hezbollah killed 17 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Beirut and 241 at the Marine barracks in 1983, he flinched. Bill Clinton wanted a deal with Iran so badly, he helped hide the Iranians’ sponsorship of the group that killed 19 airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996. George W. Bush turned a blind eye to Tehran’s depredations as Shia militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, while Iran’s Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad chartered buses to transport Sunni fighters from the Damascus airport to the Iraqi border, where they joined the hunt for Americans. Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was the Iran nuclear deal—designed not, as he promised, to stop Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, but to legalize it and protect it under the umbrella of an international agreement, backed by the United States. That all changed with Donald Trump. At last, an American president kept his word. He was very clear about it even before his second term started: Iran can’t have a bomb. Trump wanted it to go peacefully, but he warned that if the Iranians didn’t agree to dismantle their program entirely, they’d be bombed. Maybe Israel would do it, maybe the United States, maybe both, but in any case, they’d be bombed. Trump gave them 60 days to decide, and on day 61, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion. Until this morning, when Trump posted on Truth Social to take credit for the raid, there was some confusion about the administration’s involvement. As the operation began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement claiming that it was solely an Israeli show without any American participation. But even if details about intelligence sharing and other aspects of Israeli-U.S. coordination were hazy, the statement was obviously misleading: The entire operation was keyed to Trump. Without him, the attack wouldn’t have happened as it did, or maybe not at all. Trump spent two months neutralizing the Iranians without them realizing he was drawing them into the briar patch. Iranian diplomats pride themselves on their negotiating skills. Generations of U.S. diplomats have marveled at the Iranians’ ability to wipe the floor with them: It’s a cultural thing—ever try to bargain with a carpet merchant in Tehran? And Trump also praised them repeatedly for their talents—very good negotiators! The Iranians were in their sweet spot and must have imagined they could negotiate until Trump gave in to their demands or left office. But Trump was the trickster. He tied them down for two months, time that he gave to the Israelis to make sure they had everything in order. There’s already lots of talk about Trump’s deception campaign, and in the days and weeks to come, we’ll have more insight into which statements were real and which were faked and which journalists were used, without them knowing it, to print fake news to ensure the operation’s success. One Tablet colleague says it’s the most impressive operational feint since the Normandy invasion. Maybe even more impressive. A few weeks ago, a colleague told me of a brief conversation with a very senior Israeli official who said that Jerusalem and Washington see eye to eye on Gaza and left it at that. As my colleague saw it, and was meant to see it, this was not good news insofar as it suggested a big gap between the two powers on Iran. The deception campaign was so tight, it meant misleading friends casually. It’s now clear that the insanely dense communications environment—including foreign actors like the Iranians themselves, anti-Bibi Israeli journalists, the Gulf states, and the Europeans—served the purpose of the deception campaign. But most significant was the domestic component. Did the Iranians believe reports that the pro-Israel camp was losing influence with Trump and that the “restraintists” were on the rise? Did Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi tell officials in Tehran that his colleagues from the Quincy Institute and other Koch-funded policy experts who were working in the administration had it in the bag? Don’t worry about the neocons—my guys are steering things in a good way. It seems that, like the Iranians, the Koch network got caught in its own echo chamber. Will Rising Lion really split MAGA, as some MAGA influencers are warning? Polls say no. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 84 percent of likely voters believe Iran cannot have a bomb. Only 9 percent disagree. More Americans think it’s OK for men to play in women’s sports, 21 percent, than those who think Iran should have a bomb. According to the Rasmussen poll, 57 percent favor military action to stop Iran from getting nukes—which means there are Kamala Harris voters, 50 percent of them, along with 73 percent of Trump’s base, who are fine with bombing Iran to stop the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. A Harvard/Harris poll shows 60 percent support for Israel “to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” with 78 percent support among Republicans. Who thinks it’s reasonable for Iran to have a bomb? In a lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin and others who think an Iranian bomb is bad for America, Tucker Carlson made the case for the Iranian bomb. Iran, he wrote, “knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.” The Iranians definitely want a bomb to defend themselves against the United States—NATO, if you prefer—but that’s hardly America First. The threat that an Iranian bomb poses to the United States isn’t really that the Iranians will launch missiles at U.S. cities—not yet, anyway—but that it gives the regime a nuclear shield. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran closes down the Straits of Hormuz to set the price for global energy markets. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran wages terror attacks on American soil, as it has plotted to kill Trump. An Iranian bomb forces American policymakers, including Trump, to reconfigure policies and priorities to suit the interests of a terror state. It’s fair to argue that your country shouldn’t attack Iran to prevent it from getting a bomb, but reasoning that a terror state that has been killing Americans for nearly half a century needs the bomb to protect itself from the country you live in is nuts. Maybe some Trump supporters are angry and confused because Trump was advertised as the peace candidate. But “no new wars” is a slogan, not a policy. The purpose of U.S. policy is to advance America’s peace and prosperity, and Trump was chosen to change the course of American leadership habituated to confusing U.S. interests with everyone else’s. For years now, the U.S. political establishment has congratulated itself for helping to lift half a billion Chinese peasants out of poverty—in exchange for the impoverishment of the American middle class. George W. Bush wasted young American lives trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function like America. Obama committed the United States to climate agreements that were designed to make Americans poorer. He legalized Iran’s bomb. So has Operation Rising Lion enhanced America’s peace? If it ends Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, the answer is absolutely yes. Further, when American partners advance U.S. interests, it adds luster to American glory. For instance, in 1982, in what is now popularly known as the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot, Israeli pilots shot down more than 80 Soviet-made Syrian jets and destroyed dozens of Soviet-built surface-to-air missile systems. It was a crucial Cold War exhibition that showed U.S. arms and allies were superior to what Moscow could put in the field. Israel’s attacks on Iran have not only disabled a Russian and Chinese partner but also demonstrated American superiority to those watching in Moscow and Beijing. Plus, virtually all of Iran’s oil exports go to China. With the attack last night, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing and dispiriting era in U.S. history, which began nearly 50 years ago with the hostage crisis. In that time, U.S. leadership has routinely appeased a terror regime sustained only by maniacal hatred of America, while U.S. elites from the worlds of policy and academia, media and culture, have adopted the style and language of perfumed third-world obscurantists. All it took was for an American president to keep his word.

Jun 15, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: There is serious reason to believe Donald Trump has abused underage girls
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: There is serious reason to believe Donald Trump has abused underage girls

Detailed fact-check analysis of: There is serious reason to believe Donald Trump has abused underage girls

Jun 14, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: There is compelling reason to suspect clandestine involvement of the CIA in the assassination of JFK
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: There is compelling reason to suspect clandestine involvement of the CIA in the assassination of JFK

Detailed fact-check analysis of: There is compelling reason to suspect clandestine involvement of the CIA in the assassination of JFK

Jun 14, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: The main centrifuge facility underground did not appear to have been hit, but the loss of power could have damaged the infrastructure there.
Partially True

Fact Check: The main centrifuge facility underground did not appear to have been hit, but the loss of power could have damaged the infrastructure there.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: The main centrifuge facility underground did not appear to have been hit, but the loss of power could have damaged the infrastructure there.

Jun 14, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: There are 75 full time employees within VOA’s Persian wing.
Partially True

Fact Check: There are 75 full time employees within VOA’s Persian wing.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: There are 75 full time employees within VOA’s Persian wing.

Jun 14, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: There are currently six Jewish governors in the United States, all of them Democrats – the most to hold that position at the same time in U.S. history.
Partially True

Fact Check: There are currently six Jewish governors in the United States, all of them Democrats – the most to hold that position at the same time in U.S. history.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: There are currently six Jewish governors in the United States, all of them Democrats – the most to hold that position at the same time in U.S. history.

Jun 14, 2025
Read more →
Explore All Fact Checks
Fact Check: Was there ever any kkk influence in the democratic party | TruthOrFake Blog