In praise of (three) modern Doughface Northerners

vanity | 3/17/2012 | BroJoeK

[BroJoeK]

Has anyone else noticed that all three of our non-Romney Republican candidates for President grew up in Southern Pennsylvania?
Does anyone suppose this is a historical coincidence?
It's not.

Unless you are some kind of history nut, you've never even heard the term "doughface Northerner", since it hasn't been politically current in 150 years.
And if you have heard it, then you know it was an old term of mocking and scorn -- for Northerners who loved the ante-bellum South and supported the South's legal, ahem, "institutions".

Indeed, the term itself, "doughface" was derisively coined by Southerners to describe their northern allies, and may well have originally been intended to mean "doe face", a reference to a skittish, easily frightened deer.

Northern doughfaces were essential to making the great Southern Slave Power a dominant political force in all the decades before 1860.
And of all the doughfaces, perhaps the epitomy, the highest achievement of that art-form was Abraham Lincoln's predecessor: Democrat President James Buchanan from Chambersburg, in south-central Pennsylvania.

Buchanan loved the South, and staunchly supported its values, including the Supreme Court's 1857 Dred-Scott decision which made it more difficult to effectively outlaw slavery in non-slave states.
When the Deep South began to secede in late 1860, outgoing President Buchanan recommended against secession, but took no actions to stop it.

So, in the long arc or history, Doughface Northerners were essential to Southern Slave Power and thus to preserving the Union itself.
Indeed, it was precisely the moment in time when Doughfaces were overthrown in the North, with the election of Lincoln's Republicans, that the Deep South chose to begin seceding.

But remember, this happened in 1860, after the North's population and economy had grown overwhelmingly dominant.
Had the South seceded earlier in, say, 1830 and been lead by the likes of, say, Andrew Jackson, the North could not have defeated them militarily.
Of course, Jackson himself opposed secession, but then Jackson never imagined the government in Washington might subvert slavery.

So Doughface Northerners are the reason Southern Slave Power did not feel seriously threatened before the Republican election victory in 1860.
Historically, they served the vital function of keeping the South in the Union, until the North grew strong enough for military victory.

Now, for purposes of this analysis, I equate the old Democrat Slave Power with today's Democrat Progressive agenda -- yes an outrageous idea, until you think about it...
Both the Old and Modern Democrats used the force of law to grant special privileges to selected groups based on race, or some other group identifier -- gender, ethnicity, economic "class", sexual orientation, you name it.
Indeed, arguably, modern equivalents of "slaves" are the economically vigorous producers of wealth, and our Master Class are politicians who redistribute the wealth of others to their own favored supporters.
So we are becoming, in a sense, one big plantation with its great Plantation House in Washington, DC.

In today's upside down world, the Old South most strongly supports our traditional Christian values, devotion to constitutionally limited government, private enterprise and equal justice under the law as opposed to special privileges for the politically connected.
As such the Old South is today's heart and soul of Conservatism and essential to any Republican strategy for election victories.
But now, as always, the South needs allies they can trust, and who can they trust more than modern-day Doughface Northerners?
And where do you find real Doughfaces, who grew up in the North and love the South?

Why, just as in times past, in Southern Pennsylvania, of course.
And so today we have an abundance of non-Romney candidates who grew up in Southern Pennsylvania and are hoping to appeal to enough conservative Southerners to overturn the votes of more traditional Northern "establishment" Republicans.

Oh? You didn't know the non-Romney's are all Southern Pennsylvanians?

Ron Paul: born and raised in Pittsburg, southwestern Pennsylvania.
Rick Santorum: born in Virginia, raised in Butler, near Pittsburg, represented southwestern Pennsylvania in Congress.
Newt Gingrich: born in Harrisburg, south central Pennsylvania, raised in nearby Hummelstown.

All modern-day Southern Pennsylvania "Doughface Northerners" who love the South, it's people and it's conservative values.

God bless them one and all.

[rockrr]

Not wasting my time at all. I’ve been following your posts with interest, but must admit that I’m not clear on your ultimate point(s) (either of you) as pertains to matters of tariffs.

Would both of you mind stating what your position is (I don’t wish to put words in your mouths)?

Thanks

[Ditto]

Thanks for the apology Pea Ridge, (not necessary BTW) but what’s your point? I guess I’m missing something here.

[PeaRidge]

My point was to correct his errors.

I was not supporting any point about tariffs but pointing out that Bro Joe drew conclusions from errors (his own), and that his insinuation was not supported by the data he quoted. After presenting the wrong data, he offered this conclusion:

“So the take-away here is that a lot of political philosophising (sic) over the “injustice” of high tariffs did not correspond to the actual tariffs then in effect.”

Actually the data he used, if culled correctly, would superficially appear to support the opposite of this conclusion.

However, I pointed out the variables that would make year to year calculations and subsequent conclusions almost impossible to validate because as you know, the rules changed year over year on such issues as the inclusion of reexports in the tariff collection, warehousing law changes influencing the dates of tariff charges, variety of items being subject to tariffs, as well as others.

My apology was based on my assumption that this was boring to you.

[PeaRidge]

Be glad to.

Here was Bro’s point: “So the take-away here is that a lot of political philosophising (sic) over the “injustice” of high tariffs did not correspond to the actual tariffs then in effect.”

Here is my point: You used the wrong data.

[BroJoeK]

rockrr: "...I’m not clear on your ultimate point(s) (either of you) as pertains to matters of tariffs.
Would both of you mind stating what your position is?"

Ditto: "...what’s your point? I guess I’m missing something here."

PeaRidge: "My point was to correct his errors....
Actually the data he used, if culled correctly, would superficially appear to support the opposite of this [BroJoeK's] conclusion....

"Big error."

PeaRidge is focused on pointing out the errors of using numbers from "column 3" instead of "column 1" in the linked data.

I've been trying to use that data to support several conclusions, including that "lower tariff rates lead to higher revenues."

In fact, the data from columns 1 and 3 are quite similar, typically 90% the same, and thus most of my points are still correct, even when supported by "column 1" instead of "column 3" data.

In two cases (1815 and 1835), the data from "column 1" falls to 50% of "column 3's" total and these are the dates which invalidate the entire argument, according to PeaRidge.

I'd say these are simply dates to which we must add historical explanations of the circumstances, and once those circumstances are understood, my basic points remain intact.

So PeaRidge is to be commended for making a somewhat valid point and then sticking to it -- he will not be drawn into the broader discussion.
But that broader discussion is what I applied this particular data to, and even with corrections, the data still supports it, imho.

[PeaRidge]

Look Bro....

You made an error. Why not drop the machinations and just redo your math? I am sure that all the others will be happy to see your conclusions.

[PeaRidge]

BroJoe, maybe it will help if you think of it this way:

Visualize Ducky leaving the morgue to find Abby in the lab. She is there, along with Gibbs, Dinozzo, and Probie.

Probie is explaining to everyone how Ducky's autopsy proves that the killer was a woman since lipstick was found at the scene.

Ducky reminds Probie that the red substance was not lipstick, but red acrilic paint.

Probie then says that that proves the killer was an artist and that since most women like the color red, it was still a woman who did it.

Abby says, “Well, I am a woman, and my favorite color is black”.

Probie says, “Well that only proves that you did not kill anyone”.

Gibbs slaps Probie on the back of the head and tells him to shut up.

Sound familiar?

[rockrr]

No. Are you suggesting that someone needs to cuff you one?

[PeaRidge]

Are you channeling Abby or Gibbs?