Skip to comments.In praise of (three) modern Doughface Northerners
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?
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.
I prefer the term copperhead.
With all due respect, it’s spelled “Pittsburgh”. ;-)
Mother was born in Scranton (hometown of Biden)
Spent several years after college living in Carlisle
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.
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.
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.
I thought Newt's adopted father was career Army - so how much time did he really spend in PA?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No doubt some ante bellum Doughfaces did transmogrify into para bellum Copperheads.
But the vast majority saw the error and joined the Union cause.
You forgot Saltsburg. :-))
You forgot Saltsburg. :-))
Not so many moose in Pennsylvania.
But there are a good many large Elk, not to be confused:
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"
So far as I'm concerned, they are all "native sons", and I could support any of them over the current White House incumbent.
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?