June 1856

amazon.com | Nicole Etcheson, Don E. Fehrenbacher, David Herbert Donald

[EternalVigilance]

Hmmm...Millard Fillmore.

I’m the nominee of the American Party this year. No kidding.

[Homer_J_Simpson]

Michael Metz Jr.?

[EternalVigilance]

Never heard of him.

Tom Hoefling.

Soon to be nominated as well by America’s Party, and, Lord willing, the American Independent Party.

[BroJoeK]

EternalVigilance : "Hmmm...Millard Fillmore."...
"Soon to be nominated as well by America’s Party, and, Lord willing, the American Independent Party."

US political parties, from the beginning consisted of:

1. Normally a majority, Southern-based anti-federalists became the anti-Administration party, became Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans who became Jacksonian Democrats.

2. Usually the minority, Northern-based Federalists became Whigs who became Republicans.

But both parties had significant support outside their base areas -- Southern Democrats allied with Northern big-city immigrants, making them a majority, while Northern Whigs allied with non-slaveholding Southerners.
Southern Whigs included conservative professionals, entrepreneurs & planters.
They favored supremacy of Congress, spending for infrastructure (roads & canals), a national bank and protective tariffs.

But in the 1850s slavery split both parties, north to south, beginning with the old Whigs.
By 1856, Northern Whigs became the anti-slavery Republican party.
Southern Whigs largely joined the anti-immigrant American Party ("Know Nothings"), and in 1860 voted for John Bell's Constitutional Union party -- they were unionists.
And many old Southern Whigs remained Unionists throughout the Civil War.

In 1860, Democrats also split north to south, which helped give the minority northern Republicans electoral victory.

Southern Jeffersonian Democrats vs. Northern John Adams Federalists / Whigs / Republicans:

[Homer_J_Simpson]

Continued from reply #20.

David Herbert Donald, Lincoln

[Homer_J_Simpson]

Continued from reply #17.

Don E. Fehrenbacher, The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics

[Homer_J_Simpson]

New book!

I’m really enjoying Team of Rivals. As the title suggests it deals with the relationship among Lincoln and the men who competed with him for the Presidential nomination. These were primarily William H. Seward, Salmon P. Chase and Edward Bates. It has also touched briefly on Edwin Stanton, future Secretary of War. (I have reached p. 230, at a point leading up to the 1860 Republican National Convention.) The book provides mini-biographies of each of these characters that make nice complements to what I have previously read in the Lincoln biography by David H. Donald. I will continue to read Team of Rivals to the point where the war begins, then switch to one of the bios I just got from Amazon – Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis.

Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals

[BroJoeK]

By the way, in case you're wondering, how can this arcane discussion of past political shifts have anything to do with today, the answer is, and I ask you to consider it carefully:

Donald Trump's popularity amongst Southerners suggests that he has struck cords of unity in people who were historically both southern and northern branches of the old Whig party -- Southern Whigs who became America Firsters and Northerners who oppose "slavery", these days to the Federal Government.

Just a thought...

[Homer_J_Simpson]

When Trump got the big win in Alabama I was struck with the thought that there might be a throwback situation in process. I didn’t connect it to the Whigs but I thought it might involve southern resentment still lingering after all this time. The nativist element also reminds me of the American (Know-Nothing) party that was influential in today’s rust-belt/coal producing regions.

[BroJoeK]

HJS: "The nativist element also reminds me of the American (Know-Nothing) party that was influential in today’s rust-belt/coal producing regions."

Indeed, and the American (Know-Nothing) party were the old Southern Whigs looking for a new home after Northern Whigs went anti-slavery Republicans on them.
They played important roles in the elections of 1856 through 1860.

[rockrr]

“Politics makes strange bedfellows”

And ever it was thus...

[CougarGA7]

Good choice.

[StoneWall Brigade]

Doris Goodwin is a well-known plagiarized her work is not to be trusted.

[Pelham]

This book would be a good addition to this subject

[Homer_J_Simpson]

My reading schedule is full for the next couple years. Feel free to post relevant excerpts from “A Disease in the Public Mind” at the appropriate dates. We can always use fresh discussion material.

[Homer_J_Simpson]

Doris Goodwin is a well-known plagiarized her work is not to be trusted.

Not well known to me. Can you support that claim? I don't want to post bad information.

[rustbucket]

I suspect this is what StoneWall Brigade was referencing.

http://www.forbes.com/2002/02/27/0227goodwin.html

As the link indicates there was an apparent plagiarism issue with one of Goodwin’s books, something many of us amateur historians became aware of years ago when the possible issue became public knowledge. I don’t know whether her possible past plagiarism had any impact on the book you chose.

[Homer_J_Simpson]

Thanks for the link. The article is dated 2002 and ‘Team of Rivals’ was published in 2005, so hopefully she got her “mechanical processes” straightened out in time for that book.

[rustbucket]

On the other hand, to get another view of Doris Kearns Goodwin, you might read an earlier FreeRepublic thread about her speech at the Gettysburg 150th Commemoration:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3038312/posts

According to that thread, she used the occasion to push her own views on something other than the historical occasion she was invited to speak about. It doesn’t matter to me what her views on the subjects she talked about were; it just seems inappropriate for the occasion.

If she sticks to actual history in the book you chose and doesn’t slant the book, it might be worth a read.

[Homer_J_Simpson]

If she sticks to actual history in the book you chose and doesn’t slant the book, it might be worth a read.

I invite everyone to read the excerpts I post and judge for themselves. Of course, the next one isn't scheduled until nine months from now.