Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In praise of (three) modern Doughface Northerners
vanity | 3/17/2012 | BroJoeK

Posted on 03/17/2012 4:12:31 AM PDT by 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.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: history; politics; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-229 next last
And God bless my late Dad, a south-central Pennsylvania boy who married a Southern girl and raised a large family, all politically alert and concerned.
1 posted on 03/17/2012 4:12:37 AM PDT by BroJoeK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LS; central_va; rustbucket; rockrr; donmeaker
I welcome your comments, but please keep it polite.
We are all friends here.
2 posted on 03/17/2012 4:15:13 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

I prefer the term copperhead.


3 posted on 03/17/2012 4:35:02 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

With all due respect, it’s spelled “Pittsburgh”. ;-)


4 posted on 03/17/2012 4:36:17 AM PDT by sneakers (EAT YOUR PEAS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Mother was born in Scranton (hometown of Biden)

Spent several years after college living in Carlisle


5 posted on 03/17/2012 4:46:42 AM PDT by njslim (St)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

I took a military hop once, and we almost landed in Pennsylvania. The pilot, though, couldn’t find a place to land with all the moose and derricks standing around, so he turned the KC-130 around, headed west and landed in Las Vegas. Much better.

Then again, maybe it was Maine we couldn’t land in and we touched down in Texas. Does Texas have long-legged silky ladies? I remember them.


6 posted on 03/17/2012 5:07:02 AM PDT by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
So, in the long arc or history, Doughface Northerners were essential to Southern Slave Power and thus to preserving the Union itself.

The modern equivalent of slavery is ties to the cheap labor lobby and affection for illegal aliens which supply it. Two of the three candidates with Pennsylvania ties share this affection. One does not. See the link in item #4.


The electoral math, so far, still shows Santorum doing way better than Gingrich.

Seven reasons for Rick Santorum


  1. Who has won the most states without the benefit of their own money, last election's organization or a billionaire casino sugar daddy?
  2. Who is everybody's second choice when he isn't their first?
  3. Who can get both the Romney people and the Gingrich people, who hate each other, to vote for him?
  4. Who has the best record on immigration?
  5. Who has the best plan for repealing ObamaCare? And is the only GOP candidate who didn't help write or approve legislation which helped spawn this fiasco?
  6. Who has the best plan for expanding the American economy and strengthening American families?
  7. Who is the closest thing we have to the "generic Republican" which polls show consistently beating Obama and is most likely to make the election about Obama's sorry record rather than about himself?

7 posted on 03/17/2012 5:44:10 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Not really appropriate for the cultural situation.

Pennsylvania was originally settled by Scandinavians but by 1701 they'd been driven out of Lancaster County by Quakers and were re-established in York County, or they moved South to Western and North Central Maryland.

Over the next 100 years that core area expanded West leaving a vast population of people with Norse surnames and no idea about how that happened.

8 posted on 03/17/2012 5:50:27 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
"Newt Gingrich: born in Harrisburg, south central Pennsylvania, raised in nearby Hummelstown."

I thought Newt's adopted father was career Army - so how much time did he really spend in PA?

9 posted on 03/17/2012 6:33:22 AM PDT by Flag_This (Real presidents don't bow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Interesting points. I knew Pres. Buchanan retired to Pennsylvania, but the other points were new to me.

Cotton became king because of the cotton gin, invented by Eli Whitney. The first fruits of the industrial revolution had the effect of making an agricultural commodity more valuable. That one man’s productive genius made slavery more productive, just as other men made it more productive with the invention of the Spinning Jenny, automated looms, knitting machines, and even sewing machines.

More recently, the productivity of movies and television cause millions of dollars to flow to Hollywood, due largely to inventions regarding efficient production and distribution. Today’s slavers of the Democratic Party seek to use those technical innovations to promote government institutions that restrict liberty, just as the former slavers sought to protect their favorite institution.


10 posted on 03/17/2012 6:46:38 AM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

With reference to your next-to-last sentence, look at the dictionary and discern the difference between “its” and “it’s.” You will find that “it’s” is the contraction of “it” and “is.” What you should use is the possessive pronoun, “its.”

A very, very common error.


11 posted on 03/17/2012 6:49:00 AM PDT by OldPossum (ou)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

I think, seriously, this still stems from the Van Buren-emplaced party system, created in the 1820s with the modern Dem Party, that sought to keep slavery (and, today, truly contentious debates) out of the national dialogue so as to prevent a civil war. Van Buren concluded that no southerner could again win the presidency because of the taint of slavery-—but no northern abolitionist/anti-slave politician could win either. Therefore, he needed a “northern man of southern principles” (i.e., someone who wouldn’t interfere with slavery) or a westerner (westerners were viewed as not “having a position” on slavery).

So, did it work? You betcha, in a sense. From 1828 to 1860, EVERY candidate was either a “northern man of southern principles” who would not discuss slavery or a westerner (Jackson, VB himself, Harrison-—Tyler as veep who comes in due to Harrison’s death doesn’t count, but he was a southern slaveholder-—Polk, Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan). But when you finally get Lincoln, a “northern man of NORTHERN principles,” you get a war. The south perceives that the North will try to legislate against slavery and property rights in slaves (the truly big category).

Well, consider today: why is it we can’t get a “conservative?” The only real conservatives of the 20th century were, arguably Harding, Coolidge, and Reagan. Harding won because Wilson so badly bungled the wartime financing that we were in a deep recession; Coolidge was another veep who then won re-election on his own-—something only Truman and LBJ matched-—and Reagan was . . . a “westerner” who nevertheless had (pardon the expression) “northern principles.” By that I mean, he actually stood for a principle, not just “let’s all get along.” (I certainly don’t mean Reagan had anything in common with today’s RINO NE Republicans).

What does this tell us? Well, possibly that even 180 years later, we are still afraid to debate “elephants in the room,” whether it is slavery, entitlements, debt, or immigration. That “northern men of southern principles” (i.e., Romney, Clinton-—in essence, politically, a “northern man of southern principles”-—Bush, ditto but to a much lesser extent) are in demand because American simply want to avoid the very difficult and occasionally bloody results of an open debate over important stuff.


12 posted on 03/17/2012 7:40:57 AM PDT by LS ("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Flag_This
Flag_This: "I thought Newt's adopted father was career Army - so how much time did he really spend in PA?"

Wiki mentions both, does not give percentages of time, or say which Army bases he lived on -- not that it matters.
To the degree that Gingrich "grew up" anywhere outside an army base, it was Hummelstown, near Harrisburg, PA.

13 posted on 03/17/2012 1:41:20 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sneakers
sneakers: "With all due respect, it’s spelled “Pittsburgh”. ;-)"

Hmmmmmmm....
Let's see if I can keep these straight.
In Pennsylvania we have Harrisburg, Williamsburg, Strasburg, Lewisburg, Mechanicsburg and, yes, I think I've got it: Pittsburgh.

;-)

14 posted on 03/17/2012 1:49:20 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: central_va
central_va: "I prefer the term copperhead."

No doubt some ante bellum Doughfaces did transmogrify into para bellum Copperheads.

But the vast majority saw the error and joined the Union cause.

15 posted on 03/17/2012 1:59:15 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

You forgot Saltsburg. :-))

Sneaks


16 posted on 03/17/2012 2:05:41 PM PDT by sneakers (EAT YOUR PEAS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

You forgot Saltsburg. :-))

Sneaks


17 posted on 03/17/2012 2:06:06 PM PDT by sneakers (EAT YOUR PEAS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave
sergeantdave: "...pilot, though, couldn’t find a place to land with all the moose and derricks standing around..."

Not so many moose in Pennsylvania.
But there are a good many large Elk, not to be confused:

Elk:

Moose:

And, yes, along with Elk in northern PA, you can see rigs, fracking for natural gas.

"Tower for drilling a well into the Marcellus Shale Formation for natural gas, Lycoming County, PA, USA 2009"

;-)

18 posted on 03/17/2012 2:13:50 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman
Vigiolanteman: "Seven reasons for Rick Santorum"

So far as I'm concerned, they are all "native sons", and I could support any of them over the current White House incumbent.

19 posted on 03/17/2012 2:18:31 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum
OldPossum: "With reference to your next-to-last sentence, look at the dictionary and discern the difference between “its” and “it’s.” You will find that “it’s” is the contraction of “it” and “is.” "

Spell checker won't catch those, but I usually do myself, on the third or fourth review.
This morning time was short and... what can I say?

;-)

20 posted on 03/17/2012 2:23:33 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LS
LS: "That “northern men of southern principles” ... are in demand because American simply want to avoid the very difficult and occasionally bloody results of an open debate over important stuff."

Great point, very well expressed.

Of course you know that "Old Kinderhook" Van Buren was born near his father's tavern about 25 miles south of Albany, New York -- so he was hardly a "westerner".

And back in the day, after the old boys had quaffed back a few at Abie Van Buren's tavern in Old Kinderhook, they were said to be feeling "O.K." a term we still use today.

So here's to you, Marty!

;-)

By the way, for whatever it's worth: we should remember that Northerners didn't suddenly "get religion" in 1860 and switch from voting for Doughface Democrats or Whigs to these new whipper-snapper "wide awake" radical Republicans.

No, no, no...

The 1860 Republican victory was, in effect, engineered by Southern Fire Eaters, when they walked out of the 1860 majority Democrats' convention and formed their own minority party.

This made four major parties with presidential candidates, of whom Republicans were simply the largest, but far from a majority of all voters.

Sure, people claim that Republicans would have won anyway.
But that assumes a powerfully united Democrat party under Stephen Douglas could not have repeated its past victories over Lincoln's hapless Republicans.

The majority Democrats' 1860 fall preceded the rise of Republicans.

21 posted on 03/17/2012 2:50:28 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sneakers
sneakers: "You forgot Saltsburg. :-))"

Chambersburg, Shippensburg, Mifflinburg, Newburg, Ickesburg...

And that's just off the top of my head.
No doubt the list is endless.

So how many do we have spelled ...burgh?
Not so many.

;-)

22 posted on 03/17/2012 3:18:28 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Thank you for the clarification, BroJoeK.

Do you guys in Pennsylvania roast elk with your marshmallows and squibs? Just curious.

Many thanks, FRiend.


23 posted on 03/17/2012 5:54:50 PM PDT by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

As could I. I could even support a bowl of dog food over the abject disaster there now.


24 posted on 03/17/2012 7:25:56 PM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave
sergeantdave: "Do you guys in Pennsylvania roast elk with your marshmallows and squibs?"

Marshmallows and squibs? That's a new one on me.

;-)

25 posted on 03/18/2012 6:07:40 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Yes, I know MVB was a New Yorker, hence a "northern man of southern principles." In fact, technically he was still a slaveholder, although his one slave---given to him as a teenager by his dad---had run off. But MVB never officially freed him nor searched for him.

As to who would have won without a split into four parties, there are two ways of looking at it: if you combine northern Dems, Republicans, and the Constitutional Union Party as effectively voting against slavery, then it's more than 2/3 of the voters rejected slavery. If you view the Dems (even northerners) as a pro-slavery party, then it's closer to 50-50.

26 posted on 03/18/2012 8:09:07 AM PDT by LS ("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: LS
LS: "if you combine northern Dems, Republicans, and the Constitutional Union Party as effectively voting against slavery, then it's more than 2/3 of the voters rejected slavery."

Hmmmmmmm....
I'm pretty sure you know that in 1860, virtually nobody "rejected slavery" or "voted against slavery."
Slavery itself was not on the ballot in 1860.
What was, in effect, "on the ballot" was the expansion of slavery, especially as represented by the 1857 Supreme Court's Dred-Scott decision, making it more difficult for non-slave states to effectively outlaw slavery within their own borders.
Politics in 1860 can be seen as the country's response to the Supreme Court's over-reaching support for slavery in 1857.

Indeed, you could well say that the 1860 election was all about States' Rights -- the rights of non-slave states to effectively outlaw slavery within their borders, as opposed to the Federal Government's power to enforce pro-slavery laws in those non-slave states.

And the key to understanding what happened in 1860 is to study the electoral results of 1856, because that was the base from which the dominant majority Democrat party began, and which the Southern Fire Eaters utterly destroyed by walking out of their April 1860 Democrat convention.

1856 results, blue = Democrats, this shows the epitome of the alliance between the Southern Slave Power and Doughface Northerners:

Note that in 1856, the total Democrat popular vote was only 45%, and yet they easily won the electoral college.
In 1860, Democrat popular vote grew to 48% -- near an absolute majority, and yet Democrats lost in 1860 to the minority Republicans -- largely because Southern Fire Eaters split the Democrats in half.
I'm simply arguing that 1860 could have been a repeat of 1856, had the Dems just played their cards right.
So I'm saying, in 1860 the voters themselves didn't change.
What changed was the choices they were offered -- choices in effect engineered by Southern Fire Eaters.


27 posted on 03/18/2012 10:58:20 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Slavery in the territories---which the south understood to be SLAVERY---was indeed "on the ballot." There would have been no secession if the South viewed Lincoln as irrelevant to "slavery" proper.

It goes back to my larger argument that Americans KNEW what the issue was, and they KNEW it had to be dealt with, but desperately wanted to avoid doing anything about it.

28 posted on 03/18/2012 12:29:22 PM PDT by LS ("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: LS
LS: "Slavery in the territories---which the south understood to be SLAVERY---was indeed "on the ballot." "

Agreed. Slavery in the territories, and fugitive slave laws in non-slave states were important to both sides.
But these had nothing to do with slavery in slave states, and simply reflected the highly aggressive, expansionist nature of the Southern Slave Power, which held any restrictions on slavery's expansion to be threats against SLAVERY itself.

I think, the aggressiveness of the old Democrat Slave Power (S.P.) equates closely to that of today's Democrat Secular Progressives (S.P.) who claim that any attempt to restrict the powers of Government is a "war on women" or racism, or "attack on the elderly", etc.

So, relating back to this thread's theme, traditional Conservatives now find our strongest support in the Republican South.

Given that, we're not so surprised to see the current appeal of "northerners with southern values" -- among whom all three non-Romney candidates grew up in southern Pennsylvania, an area which historically produced Doughfaced "northern men of southern principles".

Thanks for a great discussion.

29 posted on 03/19/2012 5:35:18 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
Well, this is where I think we do have a disagreement. You have to look at James Huston's book "Calculating the Value of the Union" to see specifically how the definitioni of property as property rights in people---which could NOT be just a "state" right or in "certain territories"--- ultimately would become a national fight.

It is the same today with "gay marriage." You CANNOT have this be a "states' rights" thing because of the constitutinally embraced principle of "comity"---that all things considered, one state agrees to observe the most basic laws of other states.

Lincoln saw this when he said we would be a "house divided," but either all slave or all free. That is precisely what the South saw---that property rights would be the constitutional issue, and sooner or later property rights in IA would have to be the same as those in AL.

30 posted on 03/19/2012 7:38:34 AM PDT by LS ("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
I've been traveling and just saw your ping today. Thanks.

The 1860 Republican victory was, in effect, engineered by Southern Fire Eaters, when they walked out of the 1860 majority Democrats' convention and formed their own minority party.

William C. Davis offers another interpretation in his book, The Deep Waters of the Proud, Volume 1, page 30-31. In particular he mentions two aspects of this of which I had not been aware - the nomination process at Baltimore and Douglas' actions after receiving the nomination of the Baltimore convention.

How exactly did Douglas get the nomination at Baltimore? First, his friends controlled the rules and procedures of the Baltimore convention. They refused to allow the return of two of the Southern delegations that withdrew at the Charleston convention. The Douglas backers then gave Douglas the nomination without the two thirds majority that the rules required.

People like Benjamin Butler of Massachusetts then worked in Baltimore with those who had walked out of the convention. Those Northerners supported Breckenridge to be nominated supposedly because Breckenridge was against secession even if Lincoln should be elected. It is true that the fire eaters you mention did think the Baltimore nominations would lead to secession and a Southern nation.

Breckinridge was reluctant to accept his own nomination. He saw the problem with it leading to Lincoln's election. Jefferson Davis and Robert Toombs met with Breckinridge and urged him to accept the nomination as it would put pressure on Douglas because it was obvious that Douglas could not win without the South. The only hope was that both Democrat nominees should withdraw so that a compromise candidate who would reunite the party could be chosen. Breckenridge agreed to accept his nomination with the objectives of the joint withdrawals of Douglas and Breckinridge, a reunited party, and a compromise nominee for the full party.

Davis met with Douglas to air this proposal. Douglas refused to withdraw his candidacy. Douglas' own ambition split the party and ensured Lincoln's election.

31 posted on 03/19/2012 10:29:36 AM PDT by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
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.

If you ponder your statement in comparison to commentary and actions from prominent Southerners of the period, such as Davis, Lee, Clay, Calhoun, Simms, Timrod, and Toombs, you will find that those values have remained intact in the South.

32 posted on 03/19/2012 2:42:08 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
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.

If you ponder your statement in comparison to commentary and actions from prominent Southerners of the period, such as Davis, Lee, Clay, Calhoun, Simms, Timrod, and Toombs, you will find that those values have remained intact in the South.

33 posted on 03/19/2012 2:43:29 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Excuse the double post.


34 posted on 03/19/2012 2:44:43 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; rockrr
Eastern, Central, and Western Pennsylvania are pretty different places. Gingrich was the one with roots in South Central PA and he grew up on Army bases. Paul and Santorum are more from the western part of the state, though Ron Paul did go to Gettysburg College.

Pennsylvania really is the "Keystone State," in the sense that North and South would have gone their separate ways if Pennsylvania hadn't been there to provide a bridge. That Pennsylvanians weren't in love with politics or ideology, but devoted themselves more to manufacturing, money-making, technology, family and construction helped when other parts of the country were pursuing political visions.

35 posted on 03/19/2012 2:52:39 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge; Ditto

Ponder all you want, but you’ll have a hard time finding “equal justice under law” in those guys.


36 posted on 03/19/2012 3:07:18 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: x

At least Toombs admitted to the foolish recklessness of it all (and then went along with it anyway).


37 posted on 03/19/2012 6:33:09 PM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: LS
Excellent response LS, as I would expect from you.

I'd also remind the writer of Edward M. Stanton. He was from Pittsburgh, a staunch anti-slaver, who became Lincoln's Secretary of War ...

He could also look up Thaddeus Stevens from Southern Pennsylvania who was among the most staunch of abolitionists and the leader of the Radical Republicans.

Those are just two 'Southern Pennsylvanians I can pick off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more. I do know that of all major cities at the time, Pittsburgh gave Lincoln a greater percentage of the vote than any other... and considering the city was only 60 miles from then "Slave State" of Virginia, that is a serious statement. The cultures were very different in that short 60 miles.

I don't really see any historical significance of Newt, Rick or Ron Paul having roots in Pennsylvania. That is just coincidence and nothing in the water. They all made their careers in different regions.

But looking at the history, I do see some common threads that stay current and unbroken for over a century and a half.

In 1860, (and before) the Democrats were willing to ignore the Constitution to achieve their ends. (See the Fugitive Slave Act). They were quite willing to play race, ethnicity and social classes against each other.

Today, the Obama Democrats are doing the same damn thing. "Stroke of the pen, law of the land" as one of Clinton's Flying Monkeys put it, and to hell with Checks and Balances and the 'niceties' of the Constitution. Obama is doing the same in hyper drive.

The biggest commonality between the 1860 Democrats and the 2012 Democrats is continuing to resort to race, ethnic, class (and now sex)divisions with wild distortions of what horror will befall such and such a group if Republicans win. The objective is to frieghten and divide the citizens rather than engaging the citizens in thoughtful debate.

And just like 1860, they will resort to both physical threats from their hired thugs and economic intimidation.

Many things have changed over 150 years, but the Democrat party has remained remarkably consistent for more than a century and a half --- power at any price --- and to hell truth, logic, the Constitution, individual rights or even common decency. They care nothing for those ideals.

38 posted on 03/19/2012 6:59:19 PM PDT by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Partial cleaning accomplished. More trash to remove in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
But these had nothing to do with slavery in slave states, and simply reflected the highly aggressive, expansionist nature of the Southern Slave Power, which held any restrictions on slavery's expansion to be threats against SLAVERY itself.

In a sense it was. Without expansion, the Old South would have choked and died under it's Slave System.... If it hadn't had its head split open in the middle of the night during a slave rebellion.

They knew damn well they needed to expand the system or it would rise up and kill them, either financially or physically. .

39 posted on 03/19/2012 7:15:44 PM PDT by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Partial cleaning accomplished. More trash to remove in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
If you ponder your statement in comparison to commentary and actions from prominent Southerners of the period, such as Davis, Lee, Clay, Calhoun, Simms, Timrod, and Toombs, you will find that those values have remained intact in the South.

Kind of funny considering that they all rejected Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence while Lincoln embraced him and his ideas.

Irony... ain't it great?

40 posted on 03/19/2012 7:22:43 PM PDT by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Partial cleaning accomplished. More trash to remove in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: LS
LS: "Well, this is where I think we do have a disagreement."
"...That is precisely what the South saw---that property rights would be the constitutional issue, and sooner or later property rights in IA would have to be the same as those in AL."

I doubt we disagree.
Certainly Southerners saw Republicans as a threat to slavery in the South.
But I would challenge you to look at the Republican party 1860 platform itself and find anything there which threatened slavery in slave states.
No, the issue for Republicans in 1860 was not rolling back slavery, but rather preventing the expansion of slavery into non-slave territories, plus the enforcement of fugitive slave laws in non-slave states, as directed by the Supreme Court's Dred-Scott decision.

Yes, of course, the old Southern Democrat Slave Power (S.P.) claimed that any legal restrictions on expansion were an attack on SLAVERY, just as today the new Democrat Secular Progressives (S.P.) claim that any restrictions on the Power of Government is a "war on women", or racism, or "throw grandma off the bridge," etc.

In short, the Constitution had survived for 70+ years recognizing the rights of some states to legalize slavery and others to outlaw it.
What changed by 1860 was not Northerners' intentions to attack Southern slavery, but rather the Slave Power's insistence that slavery should not be restricted anywhere.

Now, do you still say we disagree?

41 posted on 03/20/2012 6:36:36 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: x

So would you with “your guys”.


42 posted on 03/20/2012 7:20:27 AM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Pretty much I guess we agree. But again, you have to see Huston’s book to see, regardless of what the Republicans said, how inevitable the fight over the definition of property rights was and how, eventually, this would force the Republicans to act. Hey, I’m not trying to argue that the North was at fault, but I do not think the South’s interpretation of the near future was wrong. When you say “we lasted 70 years,” well, that included a ban on doing anything about the slave trade for 20 of those years, then of the remaining 50, the Van Buren party system accounted for 42 of them. The surprise is not that it fell apart, but that Van Buren’s shenanigans actually kept it together so long.


43 posted on 03/20/2012 7:23:26 AM PDT by LS ("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
I see you read very little of the period.

Lincoln started a war of self-interest, not of Jeffersonian principles.

44 posted on 03/20/2012 7:24:24 AM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
rustbucket: "Davis met with Douglas to air this proposal.
Douglas refused to withdraw his candidacy.
Douglas' own ambition split the party and ensured Lincoln's election."

Fire Eaters had already split the party.
But Rusty, if you are hoping to convince me that historically Democrats are dishonest, underhanded and back-stabbing, I'm already sold -- don't need any convincing. ;-)

As to which one of those dirty-dealers was dirtier than the other, well, no way am I going to defend Democrats.
You may as well ask me about Obama versus Hill & Bill: one is the pot, the other kettles, as far as I'm concerned.

But... yes, no doubt that in 1860 Stephen Douglas felt "entitled" to the nomination, more-or-less the way a certain, ahem, candidate today runs as the "inevitable" choice.
Douglas had by far the most support and was willing to do whatever necessary.
That Southern Fire Eaters could not accept Douglas, and walked out of the April 1860 Charleston convention was their choice to split the party, and nominate their own candidate.

Whether Douglas could have, or should have stepped aside for a "compromise" candidate (and who might that be?), the split was initiated by Fire Eaters.

From my perspective, here's the key point: despite the split, the combined Democrat share of the popular vote increased from 45% in 1856, when they easily won electorally, to 48% in 1860, when they were defeated by the smaller Republican vote.
Further note that three normally Democrat slave-states, Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky, went for the 4th party, the Constitutional Unionists.
Combined, 60% of Americans voted against Republicans in 1860, so that should have been and would have been an easy Democrat victory, had not the Southern Fire Eaters walked out of their Democrat convention.

The equivalent today would be one or more of the non-Romneys suddenly claiming they couldn't accept the party's nominee, walking out, forming their own party, nominating their own candidate, then demanding Romney step aside.
Regardless of what Romney did, any such actions would only guarantee Democrats' victory in November.

45 posted on 03/20/2012 7:25:48 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
By the way, OF COURSE this is the same overall issue as the "gay agenda," because homosexuals do not just want acceptance of the practice where it exists: they want APPROVAL, even if forced by law. So too it was with slavery, where Calhoun once said they it wasn't enough to have the right to own slaves, but to own them "in peace" free of the verbal and literary attacks by northern abolitionists.

Well, isn't this the same thing we see with anti-gay "hate speech?" Merely quoting the Bible is now considered a "hate crime" in Canada and Scandinavia when it comes to homosexuality.

46 posted on 03/20/2012 7:25:48 AM PDT by LS ("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Ditto

By the way, when I argue that the South saw a Republican election as threatening slavery itself, even though the Republicans never said that, consider even then the power of appointment that a U.S. president had (You mentioned Stanton, for example): U.S. marshals (no more federal slave-catching possees), federal judges (might not look so favorably upon cases involving slaves that come before them), customs officials and port authorities (who might let free blacks off ships in southern ports-—something the Dem officials had prohibited), and postmasters (who might lift the ban on abolitionist materials).


47 posted on 03/20/2012 7:30:05 AM PDT by LS ("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Ditto; LS
Ditto: "I don't really see any historical significance of Newt, Rick or Ron Paul having roots in Pennsylvania. That is just coincidence and nothing in the water."

Once is an accident.
Twice is a coincidence.
Three times is a pattern.

So the question is, what pattern are we looking at here?

I think LS named it precisely.
In the old days beginning with Martin Van Buren they said, "Northern men of Southern principles."
It was a winning strategy that elected Democrats to power for many decades before 1860.
In 1856 it elected a Northern Doughface from Southern Pennsylvania: James Buchanan.

The strategy only failed when Southern Fire Eaters refused to accept the "Southern principles" of 1860's leading Democrat candidate, Stephen Douglas.
Fire Eaters walked out of their convention and split their party.

Today all three remaining non-Romney candidates have both Northern and Southern roots, and all are highly sympathetic to the South's conservative values.

And if you stop to consider those who've already dropped out, none quite match those criteria.

48 posted on 03/20/2012 8:12:51 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Well, I think Mitch Daniels and Chris Christie fit that pattern, but technically they didn’t “drop out” as they never ran in the first place.


49 posted on 03/20/2012 9:01:36 AM PDT by LS ("Castles Made of Sand, Fall in the Sea . . . Eventually (Hendrix))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: LS
LS: "The surprise is not that it fell apart, but that Van Buren’s shenanigans actually kept it together so long."

Something fundamental had changed between the Democrat victory in 1856 and their downfall in 1860.
What was it?

Answer: First of all, the Supreme Court's 1857 7-2 Dred-Scott Decision denying the rights of non-slave states to grant citizenship to people of African descent.
This decision, supported by Doughface President Buchanan was a huge victory for "Southern principles", and it fundamentally changed both sides:

So Fire Eaters felt emboldened to expand slavery, while Wide Awakes felt determined to push back.
In 1860 politics played out on a grand scale what citizens felt about Dred-Scott's sudden change to those generations' long compromises which were necessary to preserve the Union.
50 posted on 03/20/2012 9:16:05 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-229 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson