Watch: Democratic Strategist Unravels After Scott Jennings Schools Her on Her Own Party’s History

When modern Democrats reach for history, they often do so hoping no one in the room actually remembers it.

That reality played out Sunday on CNN, where conservative commentator Scott Jennings dismantled a flawed historical attack from Democratic strategist Julie Roginsky — prompting visible frustration and a rhetorical collapse on her part.

Attempting to smear Republicans with events from the Civil Rights era, Roginsky claimed that Jennings and those who share his views would have supported violent crackdowns on peaceful protesters in the 1960s.

“These are the same people that defended opening fire hoses on protesters in the Sixties on the Selma Bridge,” Roginsky said, invoking the 1965 march led by Martin Luther King Jr. across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama.

The problem for Roginsky was simple: history.

“I think those were Democrats, Julie,” Jennings interjected. “Just FYI. Those were Democrats.”

That brief correction was enough to derail the entire argument. Roginsky attempted to pivot by accusing Jennings of backing the suppression of peaceful protests today, but the damage was already done.

“That was your party,” Jennings continued with a laugh. “But thank you for reminding everybody that Democrats were against civil rights.”

From there, Roginsky appeared increasingly agitated, complaining about interruptions while avoiding the substance of Jennings’ point.

“You’re the one that brought up Democrats,” Jennings added, pressing the issue. “I agree with you. Democrats shouldn’t have been against civil rights.”

The exchange, captured and shared online, quickly gained traction.

Jennings’ remarks weren’t controversial — they were factual. Southern Democrats were, in fact, the primary political force opposing the civil rights movement throughout much of the 20th century. And that chapter represents only a small portion of the Democratic Party’s far longer record.

During the era when white supremacy was openly defended by political institutions, Democrats were its most reliable guardians.

In the 1830s, Democrats cemented their identity as the party of Indian Removal under President Andrew Jackson. In the decades leading up to the Civil War, Democrats in both the North and South aggressively pushed to expand slavery into new territories. The Republican Party was founded in 1854 explicitly to stop that expansion.

When Abraham Lincoln ran for president in 1860 on a platform opposing the spread of slavery and expressing moral opposition to the institution, Southern Democrats responded by removing his name from their ballots. The pattern was clear even then: when voters might choose a candidate rejected by Democratic elites — particularly slaveholders — Democrats sought to block the choice altogether.

After losing the election, Democrats escalated further. Seven Democrat-controlled Southern states seceded from the Union before Lincoln even took office. Four more soon followed, forming the Confederacy and triggering the bloodiest conflict in American history.

Defeat did not bring reform. Following the Civil War, Democrats waged a long campaign to undermine Reconstruction, ignored constitutional amendments, and reduced freed Black Americans to second-class citizenship through law, intimidation, and violence. By the late 19th century, authoritarian Democratic elites had regained control of Southern state governments — a grip their ideological descendants maintained well into the 1960s.

That legacy of centralized power, racial grievance politics, and elite control has never fully disappeared. It has merely been repackaged for modern audiences.

Inadvertently, Roginsky did the country a favor. With a single careless comment — and Jennings’ timely correction — viewers were reminded that the Democratic Party’s historical record is not something it can escape by rewriting narratives on cable television.