Posted on 07/03/2026 12:43:49 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin
RIPON, Wis. — As the United States marks its 250th anniversary this weekend, a one-room schoolhouse in Ripon stands as the birthplace of the Republican Party and a reminder of Wisconsin's place in the nation's political history.
The Little White Schoolhouse, about 60 miles northeast of Madison, commemorates a meeting held March 20, 1854, when opponents of the Kansas-Nebraska Act gathered to organize against the expansion of slavery.
"It was really cold and it was a blizzard," said Ellen Sorensen, the interim executive director of the Little White Schoolhouse.
"It was a three-point objection," Sorensen said. "There was a moral issue, but there was also an economic issue as well as a political issue."
The meeting brought together Whigs, Free Soilers and Democrats who opposed the spread of slavery.
"These people really had disagreements," Sorensen said.
The gathering laid the foundation for what became the Republican Party. Six years later, the party elected Abraham Lincoln as president.
"That is a meteoric rise for a political party," Sorensen said.
Other states, including New Hampshire and Iowa, have also claimed to be the birthplace of the Republican Party. However, the Federal Government designated Ripon as the national historic site because of primary source documents, including newspaper notices announcing the meetings.
Although the Little White Schoolhouse is the original building, it no longer stands on its original site. The structure has been moved six times over the years to its current location.
“Do we Agree? Or Disagree?”
You pose a Straw Man Argument.
I don’t see ANY correlation between the INVADERS entering our country illegally from foreign lands, versus people that were brought here from foreign lands against their will in the first place.
This is an age-old debate, but with all due respect the Republican Party was founded in Michigan. Lincoln attended the first major convention there and coined the term ‘Michigander’ to describe what he thought a large noisy group of Michiganders sound like.
Where they are similar is the breaking of Federal law to aid fugitives.
And the people helping the illegals think it is immoral to keep them out.
The question is "Is it okay to break Federal law if you feel it is morally the right thing to do?"
Again, you are comparing apples and oranges and making a ‘Heels Up Harris’ word fruit salad.
Illegals are breaking the law the minute they step onto US soil, uninvited. Those aiding them should be held accountable, including the ‘coyotes’ that helped them get here and those that harbor them or fight against ICE officers who are trying to deport them.
Those aiding slaves were aiding human beings, brought here against their will (or born into it) to escape slavery.
Apples and oranges.
Yep. There are a number of states that say they’re the origin of the Republican Party.
These days, do we really want to be aligned with the vast majority of self-serving RINOs we have on board?
I’m glad to see a lot of them being primaried to be replaced with stronger stuff! I don’t care who does it - just get us back to our Constitutional roots. MAGA! :)
Yes, I know we’re pretty far down the rabbit hole, but a girl can dream!
Our family reunions are held here in Friendship, NY, do own the road from the family homestead:
“Friendship is historically recognized for hosting one of the very first local Republican Party caucuses in 1854. Nearby Angelica held the first county-wide Republican Convention later that same year.” (AI)
It’s comforting to be in spaces with ghosts of great patriots from the past.
Amen to that! :)
You know, you really are a moron. Could you grow cotton in Virginia? How about Indigo or Rice in Kentucky? How come those states had the highest slave populations? Could you mine Gold in Alabama. You could in Montana. Could slaves dig gold mines?
You are a sad, sad moron.
So were escaped slaves. So were the people helping them violate Federal law.
Those aiding slaves were aiding human beings, brought here against their will (or born into it) to escape slavery.
So Morality overrides the law?
Because that's exactly what people sneaking in illegals think too. To them, it is *MORAL* to help people in poor countries get here and live a good life.
To them, it is "immoral" to keep these people out.
So were escaped slaves. So were the people helping them violate Federal law.
Those aiding slaves were aiding human beings, brought here against their will (or born into it) to escape slavery.
So Morality overrides the law?
Because that's exactly what people sneaking in illegals think too. To them, it is *MORAL* to help people in poor countries get here and live a good life.
To them, it is "immoral" to keep these people out.
But what you could not do is grow cotton in New Mexico until they found a way to build modern irrigation systems, which didn't start being constructed until 1915.
And slaves in mines (if white miners would even allow that) would use hardly any slaves compared to cash crops. It would be a tiny little group and nothing like the fear-mongering people tried to scare people with in the 1850s.
Slaves were not used to build the levees around New Orleans because the threat of death from mosquito borne illnesses and horrible living conditions was so high. It is true that slavery is one of the most immoral and egregious institutions ever existing in the world, but slaves had value. Slaves did participate in building the levees along the Mississippi, but not where the worst health threat conditions existed. Irish immigrants, on the other hand, such as my ancestor who died there, had no monetary value.
Your former President strongly disagreed with you.
One of the positions laid down by the honorable Senator from Kentucky, and which he denominated as one of his two truths, was, that slavery was excluded from the Territories of California and New Mexico by a decree of Nature. From that opinion I dissent. I hold that the pursuit of gold-washing and mining is better adapted to slave labor than to any other species of labor recognized among us, and is likely to be found in that new country for many years to come. I also maintain that it is particularly adapted to an agriculture which depends upon irrigation. Till the canals are cut, ditches and dams made, no person can reclaim the soil from Nature; an individual pioneer cannot settle upon it with his family, and support them by the product of his own exertion, as in the old possessions of the United States, where rain and dew unite with a prolific soil to reward freely and readily the toil of man. It is only by associated labor that such a country can be reduced to cultivation. They have this associated labor in Mexico under a system of peonage. That kind of involuntary servitude, for debt I suppose, cannot long continue to exist under American institutions; therefore the only species of labor that can readily supply its place under our Government would, I think, be the domestic servitude of African slavery; and therefore I believe it is essential, on account of the climate, productions, soil, and the peculiar character of cultivation, that we should during its first settlement have that slavery in at least a portion of California and New Mexico.
And you’re still a moron.
As for Gold Mining and Washing? They had 80 years they could have had slaves in New Mexico territory, but they didn't.
Real world data beats ginned up Theory every day of the week.
And if you said "your former President" to me in person, I would hit you in your obnoxious mouth.
The Civil War Draft riots in New York city were caused in part by the knowledge that $300.00 could buy a man's way out of serving, but the poor Irish did not have enough money to pay their way out of the Draft.
They said at the time "Our lives are only worth $300.00, while a slave is worth $1000.00! We are worth less than slaves!"
Allow me to help you with your reading comprehension.
…therefore the only species of labor that can readily supply its place under our Government would, I think, be the domestic servitude of African slavery; and therefore I believe it is essential, on account of the climate, productions, soil, and the peculiar character of cultivation, that we should during its first settlement have that slavery in at least a portion of California and New Mexico.
Physician heal thyself.
Hummm. 80 years?….
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848)
This treaty, signed on February 2, 1848, ended the war between the United States and Mexico. By its terms, Mexico ceded 55 percent of its territory, including the present-day states California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, most of Arizona and Colorado, and parts of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Wyoming. Mexico also relinquished all claims to Texas, and recognized the Rio Grande as the southern boundary with the United States.
So you are saying that since 1780, they could have dragged their slaves across French, Spanish/Mexican territory to mine gold in New Mexico. Hummm?
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.
