Posted on 09/27/2010 10:28:29 AM PDT by Michael Zak
Has the Democratic Party ever enacted a law as atrocious as its government takeover of the American people’s healthcare? Has the Democratic Party ever enacted a law so unpopular? Yes and Yes.
In 1854, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency. Their top priority was to repeal the Missouri Compromise prohibition of slavery in the northern territories. The author of this infamous legislation, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, was Stephen Douglas, a Democrat Senator from Illinois and owner of a slave plantation in Mississippi.
Senator Douglas claimed the law would be a final solution to the slavery question, so that Congress could move on to other issues. In fact, the Kansas-Nebraska Act sparked a political firestorm...
(Excerpt) Read more at grandoldpartisan.typepad.com ...
This article had an excellent premise, but it was not clearly written or developed. I’d like to think more about the comparison the author is making to the slavery legislation, but this article just didn’t present enough information in a clear way.
Well, alrighty then.
Fyi
I’m reading “A Patriots History of America” right now. Great book endorsed by Glen Beck. I am at the part about the Kansas-Nebraska Act right now. What a coincidence.
My purpose here is to show Republicans how they would benefit from appreciating the heritage of our Grand Old Party. See http://www.grandoldpartisan.com for more information.
Try Tony Blankley’s take on it ... it will sound eerily familiar, but it is presented by an author intent on conveying a message, not pimping a blog.
http://townhall.com/columnists/TonyBlankley/2010/03/26/kansas-nebraska_act_1854,_redux
Tony Blankley’s blog article is good, too.
A Patriot's History of the United States was written by FReeper Prof. Larry Schweikart.
I believe Douglas’ primary goal was to get Kansas organized as a territory so that a transcontinental railroad route could go through it (to benefit his home state of Illinois). The part about replacing the ban on slavery in that portion of the Louisiana Purchase with “popular sovereignty” (a carryover from the Compromise of 1850 applying to the land newly acquired from Mexico) was simply done to attract Southern support for the bill, since Southerners would have preferred a more southerly route (in fact the Gadsden Purchase had been arranged in the interests of a southern railroad route).
It’s certainly true that Douglas wanted the transcontinental railroad to start from Illinois while most southerners wanted it to start from Texas. Still it should be remembered that Stephen Douglas was a slaveholder and had no problem with his Kansas-Nebraska Act extending slavery throughout the West.
“I believe Douglas’ primary goal was to get Kansas organized as a territory so that a transcontinental railroad route could go through it (to benefit his home state of Illinois).”
Mr. Zak has a one track mind - it is inconceivable to him that anything in history happened that can not be directly attributed to some nefarious design by the evil South.
His short articles don’t deliver any real meat; his blog pimping leads to advertisements for his long out of print and dubious “history” book and panders for speaking engagements. If you check his posts, they are 90% to his blog ... most of those, touting his implacable belief in his own adequacy as a scholar and speaker.
The slavery question was not simply North v. South. Many northerners — all Democrats — were in favor of slavery, while many southerners — the slaves and many poor whites — opposed slavery. These anti-slavery southerners became Republicans as the GOP was established in the former Confederate states.
BTW, Stephen Douglas, criticized in my article, was a northerner, born in Vermont.
Clarence Thomas thought highly enough of my book, Back to Basics for the Republican Party, to cite it in a Supreme Court decision. And, it’s not out of print, available on Amazon and B&N.com
Cheers,
Thanks for that link. I did get a better understanding of the analogy there.
It’s a sobering one.
“Clarence Thomas thought highly enough of my book, blah blah blah.”
More pimping. Get over yourself.
You called my book “dubious” — Justice Thomas disagrees.
Cheers,
“Thanks for that link. I did get a better understanding of the analogy there. It’s a sobering one.”
Well, it helps to read an original thinker ... instead of a guy pimping himself ... like the man said, “some people have something to say, others just have to say something.”
By the way, post #10 was spot on.
You called my book “dubious” — Justice Thomas disagrees.
Everyone is permitted a mistake...even Justice Thomas.
Really? It’s fascinating! It brings those elusive early American years to life. I can’t recommend it enough! I found it at Walmart. I just got through with The Timetables of World History and this book perfectly correlates with the happenings in America from that book.
Most neo-Confederate loons on Free Republic are Democrat operatives, trolling to discredit conservatives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.