Is This 1860 Redux? (vanity)

lexbaird

[LexBaird]

I've noticed there are some rather interesting parallels happening in this election cycle with the 1860 election.

First, the election came at a time of deep political division. The Dems were led by a weak President, James Buchanan, but they held Congress. The newly formed Republican Party were becoming popular, and were considered radical socially.

Then, during the nomination process, the Democrats split three ways into factions, and eventually nominated two rivals, Stephan Douglas (the Dem Establishment choice) and John Breckinridge (the hard-core Southerner choice). Not satisfied with these choices, another faction split from the Dems and ran as a 3rd party, the "Constitutional Union Party".

Meanwhile, the old Whig party had imploded, and the Republicans were moving to attract the old members into the new Party.

Now, we have a weak, divisive President. We have a socially radical movement toward "Democratic Socialists" which is trying to attract the radical social Left, decrying the political party domination of the "slave capitalists". We have the party with Congressional control split into three factions. We have rumblings of a third party independent run, if various Factions don't get their guy nominated. If this happens, the other side will likely win due to the division.

The only thing missing is that the "far left" radical (Sanders) is unlikely to win over the "whig" (Clinton) for the nomination on that side.

The parallels aren't exact, but there are some remarkable similarities to the current situation.

[Nifster]

time will tell

[Blueflag]

What makes you think Obama is weak? He gets (or simply does) most everything he wants.

;-)

[Vic S]

Something similar happened in the election of 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt created the Bull Moose party and Woodrow Wilson was elected.

There are several examples where ‘the Powers That Be’ have used underhanded schemes like these to elect someone that wasn’t hostile to their goals.

[SubMareener]

Maybe someone will come out with a line of wigs with “I Want my GOPee” on them! ;-)

[rdl6989]

I actually could see a three or four way race.

[Verginius Rufus]

Actually the Constitutional Union Party of 1860 is thought to have been mostly Whigs who refused to support the Republican Party. (In some states the Republican Party wasn’t even on the ballot.) John Bell of Tennessee, their nominee, had been a Democrat at one point but more recently a Whig. There were apparently some remnants of the Know Nothings who voted for the Constitutional Union Party as well. They only took 13% of the popular vote.

[elcid1970]

1860 was followed by 1861. Is that again on the horizon?

[atomic_dog]

The parallels aren't exact, but there are some remarkable similarities to the current situation.

"Gun ownership is crucial to the preservation of American freedoms. We may have to shoot Democrats. It happened in 1861 and it could happen again." - P.J. O’Rourke

[wildbill]

No, this is more similar to the years in which the old Whig party broke apart due to factionalism about the slavery issue.

Some people think the Republican party was simply a renamed Whig party, but this isn’t true and most of the Whig establishment celebrities faded away from political prominence.

[LexBaird]

In this case, I think the Democrats are analogous to the Whigs. There are very few, if any, centrist Dems left. They keep the name going, but they are now the “Progressive” (read New Socialist) Party. The Scoop Jacksons and Joe Liebermans have indeed faded away.

[The_Harlequin]

Honestly, I think we have to throw history out the window. What we’re experiencing in 2016 is unprecedented. Every few decades our country experiences significant changes in politics, culture, technology, or some other aspect of society that turns out to be tectonic in magnitude. And like other watershed moments in American history, they’re difficult to define or predict as they’re happening. Although people acknowledge that there seems to be a significant shift in political attitudes, they won’t likely know what hit them until it’s long over.

[wildbill]

Well, it’s a debatable point. But you have to compare the actual longevity of the parties.

The Democrat party, then, as now remain pretty much in lockstep on a statewide and national basis as they have since the days of Andrew Jackson when they competed with the Whigs.

The Republican Party as a party however, may be facing a cataclysm that will indeed break up the Party as an organization since both the Trumpsters and many in the other half of the GOP have stated that their continued allegiance depends on the nominee.

Both sides predict/threaten Armageddon if they don’t prevail

If that remains true, then no matter who is the Republican nominee, Hillary will be elected and the values, economics, laws, and culture of America will be transformed for decades if not forever.

[central_va]

Actually Trump represents a return to more sane pro American economic polices. The last 30 years the USA has experimented with radical economic policies, examples being off shoring and “Free Trade”. This radical experiment was done on an unprecedented scale which has virtually ruined the USA economy. The average American has had enough.

[central_va]

1860 was followed by 1861. Is that again on the horizon?

I have mixed feelings about that.

[x]

There's no issue as divisive as slavery or interest group as militant as slaveowners around today.

Maybe this is more like 1896 and a few other elections where one part of a party broke off because it didn't like the nominee. The "Gold Democrats" or National Democratic Party didn't do at all well in the election. They did have the distinction of pairing a former Union and former Confederate general in their POTUS-VPOTUS team.

Similarly, in the 1960s Alabama and Mississippi Democrats had a habit of putting up their own slates of electors unpledged to the national parties nominees. John Anderson in 1980 has been seen as a breakaway choice of liberal and moderate Republicans, but he was more of a one man band than anything else and most of his votes came from liberal Democrats and independents.

I guess Roosevelt-Taft in 1912 might be seen as a parallel, except that this time the insurgents are more likely to get the nomination than the party stalwarts. You could also find a parallel to 1992 and 1996, except that Perot was a Trump like figure who worked outside the major parties, rather than inside one of them.

I don't really see Bernie's folks splitting from the party as a bloc. There are already enough small left-wing splinter parties that could benefit from anti-Hillary sentiment. Two questions: Is the Reform Party still around? And what are they likely to do this year if they are?

[LexBaird]

There's no issue as divisive as slavery or interest group as militant as slaveowners around today.

True enough, but what I am struck by is the Party that is seemingly in the ascendant, after the 2014 massacre, is ripping itself apart three ways in an argument over how best to oppose the Dems, which might very well give the election to those Dems.

Seems very like the situation the Democrat Party found themselves in in 1860.

Again, no situation is an exact repeat, but neither is everything happening today an unprecedented occurrence. We can see similar patterns and their consequences.

[gundog]

Civil War was pretty much a given when Lincoln was elected.