Why 2012 election looks a lot like 1860

Dakota Voice ^ | June 4, 2011 | Star Parker

[2ndDivisionVet]

As the season of presidential politics 2012 unfolds, I’m struck by similarities between today and the tumultuous period in our history that led up to the election of Abraham Lincoln and then on to the Civil War.

So much so that I’m finding it a little eerie that this year we are observing the 150th anniversary of the outbreak of the Civil War.

No, I am certainly not predicting, God forbid, that today’s divisions and tensions will lead to brother taking up arms against brother.

But profound differences divide us today, as was the case in the 1850′s.

The difference in presidential approval rates between Democrats and Republicans over the course of the Obama presidency and the last few years of the Bush presidency has been in the neighborhood of 70 points. This is the most polarized the nation has been in modern times.

This deep division is driven, as was the case in the 1850′s, by fundamental differences in world-view regarding what this country is about.

Then, of course, the question was can a country “conceived in liberty’, in Lincoln’s words, tolerate slavery.

Today the question is can a country “conceived in liberty” tolerate almost half its economy consumed by government, its citizens increasingly submitting to the dictates of bureaucrats, and wanton destruction of its unborn children.

We wrestle today, as they did then, with the basic question of what defines a free society.

It’s common to hear that “democracy” is synonymous with freedom. We also commonly hear that questions regarding economic growth are separate and apart from issues tied to morality — so called “social issues.”

But Stephen Douglas, who famously debated Abraham Lincoln in 1858, argued both these points. In championing the idea of “popular sovereignty” and the Kansas Nebraska Act, he argued that it made sense for new states to determine by popular vote whether they would permit slavery.

By so doing, argued Douglas, the question of slavery would submit to what he saw as the core American institution — democracy — and, by handling the issue in this fashion, slavery could be removed as an impediment to growth of the union.

Lincoln rejected submitting slavery to the vote, arguing that there are first and inviolable principles of right and wrong on which this nation stands and which cannot be separated from any issue, including considerations of growth and expansion.

The years of the 1850′s saw the demise of a major political party — the Whigs — and the birth of another — the Republican Party. And the Democratic Party, in the election of 1860, splintered into two.

In a Gallup poll of several weeks ago, 52 percent said that neither political party adequately represents the American people and that we need a third party. Of the 52 percent, 68 percent were Independents, 52 percent Republicans, and 33 percent Democrats.

So it’s not surprising that the field of Republicans emerging as possible presidential candidates is wide, diverse, and unconventional.

But another lesson to be learned from 1860 is that conventional wisdom of establishment pundits is not necessarily reliable.

These pundits will explain why the more unconventional stated and potential candidates in the Republican field — Cain, Palin, or Bachmann — don’t have a chance and why we should expect Romney, Pawlenty, or Huntsman.

But going into the Republican Convention in Chicago in 1860, the expected candidate to grab the nomination was former governor and Senator from New York, William H. Seward.

But emerging victorious on the third ballot at the convention was a gangly country lawyer, whose only previous experience in national office was one term in the US congress, to which he was elected fourteen years earlier.

A year or two earlier, no one, except Abraham Lincoln himself, would have expected that he would become president of the United States.

[nathanbedford]

I would think it would cover the overwhelming bulk of the people in the USSR and not just those in the gulags, although I suppose one could argue that the elites and apparatchiks who ran the system did not fit this "definition."

Actually I was writing this more as a distinction than a definition. To some degree I suppose the serfs under the Romanovs would fit this definition. But I think it is well to reserve the use of words to their specific application and therefore I would suggest that we have a difference in meaning between the words "surf" and "slave" because it represents a qualitative difference in condition.

When one contemplates the millions swept into the gulags or the millions who were simply murdered out of hand in the USSR, a statistical number which exceeds those who suffered under slavery in the United States, for example, their life was probably more miserable in the Soviet Union and it deserves a separate word. Others in the USSR, no doubt led a less brutal existence than those who suffered on some of the worst American, Brazilian or Caribbean plantations.

These are sensitive subjects and we ought not to cavalierly throw words around.

[wardaddy]

Plenty of Christians throughout history owned slaves. It was considered more humane than simply annihilating a vanquished foe. Christians from Popes to Bishops to many of our founders and so forth owned slaves...Abraham and many Biblical figures had slaves ...maybe when you pass on you can tell him what time it is too..lol . The Bible has as much or more scripture about humane treated slavery as acceptable as it does condemning it. It's about context...today slavery is almost universally condemned unless to a Federal master but that was not always so. The roots of anti-slavery in the US came not from Christians so much as from outliers like Quakers like Franklin or Deists like Paine...it wasn't till 1830s or so when more Northern churches than not opposed slavery. This argument about who's better ...Radical Republicans who wanted punitive Reconstruction or Southern Democrats who opposed them...and this gets back to issues that fueled the fear most white southerners had....ala Haiti and Nat Turner and other butchery they knew had occurred in the Americas and Cape Verde. What to do with all these black ex slaves suddenly freed after servitude and in places where they were a majority of the population, little law and order unless imposed by lovely Union occupation corps or Freeman's Bureau where carpetbaggers had descended to exploit the newly freed but grossly unprepared blacks and whites were largely disenfranchised in coincidentally precisely those states where blacks were most numerous...South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana...and most whites had lost many male family members or they were crippled from wounds and broke or destitute and at the mercy of occupation forces, interlopers looking to exploit them, radical in DC looking to abuse them and get revenge and impose black legislative and judicial power that would neuter them forever and at the same time make blacks the same pawns they now are for the Dems...some freedom...blacks got the raw end from both sides but which group did they linger on with even after all that...pray tell...the great black migrations didn't happen for several generations...who do you think they felt more comfortable staying with...their old masters or white yeoman class or heading up north...and where are they going today?...why back down here...most stayed here anyhow.

If Yankees are so warm and fuzzy and welcoming to black folks then why is that? Explain that to me...only about 20% of blacks ever moved up north and then only when more industrialization opened up more work up north...as late as 1900 90% of blacks were still down South...automobile industry brought them north...same as it did some of my white kin to Detroit in the same time. So why did they stay? Don't tell me they didn't know better...folks were migrating like all getout in those days...maybe they did not feel so welcome up there eh?

Now if you had just come home to Union occupation and all that came with it after 4 long hard years of fighting a brutal war...what would you do? Like they had much choice..they either had to combat the forces trying to extinguish them as a political force or worse or they could fight back and wait for the Radicals to lose power and more sensible folks to come back which is what they did. I don't completely condemn the first white resistance and all it's forms like I would the nationwide movements after DW Griffiths film but I do understand why they resisted in Reconstruction. It was either that or move somewhere. I didn't see the North running down there to bring all those blacks they had just "freed" to take them north to the land of plenty. No they didn't. They opted to further crush whites and establish blacks as lackeys on the 40 acres and a mule promise. If black rule really doesn't work anywhere today why would you think it would have then? I know you think that's a loaded question but really...is there any black run city in the US that runs well? Not that I know of. I'm open to being wrong. I've lived in black culture for 53 years and as a rule their politicians suck. Whites feared black rule and still do....even Yankees. I lived in Mahattan for 8 years...it was very segregated then...gentrification has pushed many blacks out..but just look at any racial demographics map and you can see how it's pocket segregation now

Another thing.....biggest myth of the Rebel side (mine)....is that slavery had nothing to do with it...it did but more precisely the expansion of it...but most southerners of whom only half at most owned slaves and most like many of my kin only had a few..they fought because they were invaded..."cause you are here"...the famous Harper's interview line On your side it's the canard that the Federals fought to free the slaves. Fact is most Yankees who often came from a completely different Euro stock than the older line Southerners had little experience with blacks (like today on FR..lol) and were as bigoted if not more than we were. Union fought to preserve it...the Union..admirable enough...no quibble there but it never happened like in Turner's movie with darkies lectures and all that BS.

My own personal views on this as a descendant of slaveowners and CSA vets and dead..some famous..some not...is this. The Civil War was a tragic perfect storm that no one had fixed in time when they should have..like Islam and the Budget today...and immigration. Lots of good men on both sides died because both sides more or less equally failed. I like Lincoln's terms but his election helped start a war not avert it and there is no doubt to me he is the biggest reason for our Leviathan today than anyone..but like Nathan here said...it might not coulda been helped given the circumstances..hence I ambivalent on him...far better than the radicals though.

Slavery should be viewed in context. Treatment of slaves should be as well in contrast to life in tropical Africa and the concept of freedom there and just the times in general and the history of slavery. No one here thinks slavery today is justified....no one on this board but it's just too easy a platitude and what went on in America over slavery from our inception and the progression of it from New England to the South after the gin all bears weight considering. Just claiming slavery is wrong is the way kids argue..sure we all know that but that does little to explain how it all went from 1617 on .

course like butthead said earlier ..just hang all slaveowners and their wives and kids and we could have avoided all that but what about all those important folks including my Rhode Island ancestor Stephen Hopkins...slaver too...could he like get a Yankee waiver maybe? think of this country without Wawshington or Madison or Tom or Patrick ..and why stop there...Hell, lets kill all white or mostly white slaveowners...that would make the Americas today nearly all Indian and black except for some of New England and Sitka...now wouldn't that be something. You're a sweet guy and polite but a few of your kinsmen here are just plain nuts...like John Brown on meth.

[central_va]

We are not "literally" slaves.

Ah, yes we are our but without the free shack and 'big house' left overs. Actually our socialist system is worse for the productive and hard working, for we only have the illusion of freedom. At least the 19th century slave lived in reality. Take off the rose colored glasses and live up to your moniker.

[PeaRidge]

Thank you for your question.

Although it is an obscure term for a commonly known concept, “an availability cascade is a self-reinforcing cycle that explains the development of certain kinds of collective beliefs.

“A novel idea or insight, usually one that seems to explain a complex process in a simple or straightforward manner, gains rapid currency in the popular discourse by its very simplicity and by its apparent insightfulness.

“Its rising popularity triggers a chain reaction within the social network: individuals adopt the new insight because other people within the network have adopted it, and on its face it seems plausible. The reason for this increased use and popularity of the new idea involves both the availability of the previously obscure term or idea, and the need of individuals using the term or idea to appear to be current with the stated beliefs and ideas of others, regardless of whether they in fact fully believe in the idea that they are expressing".

This would explain the misinformation we often see in the "historian" publishing community concerning the alleged need to spread slavery and the motivations for Southern secession, the establishment of the Confederate Constitution, rationale for Lincoln's suspension of the Constitution, and the war he started against the Confederacy.

“Their need for social acceptance, and the apparent sophistication of the new insight, overwhelm their critical thinking.

“It has been claimed by Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal that scientific opinion on climate change might be the result of an availability cascade.

“The idea of the availability cascade was first developed by Timur Kuran and Cass Sunstein, building upon the concept of information cascades and on the availability bias as identified by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky.” (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

Two important notes: 1. Cass Sunstein works for Obama
2. The entire idea of the spread of slavery to the territories only gained currency in Lincoln's debates and his speeches(especially Boston) as a conceptual political topic, not supported by any census data on slave ownership in the actual territories. .

As you know, the actual spread was a bogus concept. But the denial of right to private property as a failure of Constitutional rights disturbed all Southerners, slave owner or not.

[central_va]

Any kind of secession would not be peaceful because the states are divided internally. It'd be one thing if you could find a state where 95% of the residents agree on the same thing, but you can't. Dividing up the US would only weaken us militarily and economically. We're in enough trouble with China and with problems along the Mexican border as it is.

Stupid palp. If a state(s) secedes it becomes a country where presumably every citizen would STILL be able to vote or LEAVE and live next to you in your state and suck your welfare.

[lentulusgracchus]

It is a disgusting, putrid and intolerable thought that people can be held as property! Luckily for us, their god given freedom vindicated by Lincoln and the multitude of warriors sacrificing their lives to defeat the evil slaveholders of the south. Property, indeed! Idiot.

And yet the prophets of Israel, beloved of God, told the children of Israel how God wanted them to treat their slaves.

Sorry, but you are thoroughly confuted, and the moral presumption of Yankee Congregationalist ministers in creating a new sin of "slave-owning" is disrobed and exposed as a sin of their own: seating themselves on God's own throne, and pretending to hand down judgments -- and death -- to their neighbors whom they disapproved.

Yankee animus against Carolinians went back to the 17th century and was already frosty by the 1730's, and I have a quote to prove it. The guts of it was, the Yankees were bluenosed Calvinists and the Carolinians were much more prosperous and not Calvinists and not bluenoses. They lived well and enjoyed life, they were prosperous and showed off their prosperity. Yankees hated that -- and it was none of their damned business in the first place.

Your moral judgment is misplaced. So stick it someplace more appropriate.

As for the Yankee ministers, their moral arraunt wound up getting almost 1,000,000 American fellow-citizens killed. So much for their high horse.

Slavery passed from the world in every civilized country but ours -- even in Russia, land of the czars and boyars -- without a civil war. So riddle me this, how did other countries manage to abolish slavery without killing a million people?

More to the point, if the Civil War was about slavery, why couldn't we abolish it peacefully? Or was it about killing people in the first place, and slavery was just a moral peg? What British screenwriters and playwrights used to call a "McGuffin" -- a pretext, an occasion, an idea not manifested, a conceit?

People who rant against the South for having had slavery 200 years ago, have an awful lot to answer for themselves, and you will find on this board plenty of people equipped to point that out to you.

[CharacterCounts]

This election, with the tea tparty movement, looks to me a lot more like the election of 1852 than 1860.

[lentulusgracchus]

On it's current course toward fiscal/social collapse, preemption by secession might not be a bad idea and a more peaceful solution.

I've argued a couple of times for a constitutional convention to kick the six New England "blue"(actually very pink) States and the downstate part of New York State out of the Union.

That would expel about 30,000,000 Democrat votes and allow us to get our house back in order by getting the illegals to go home, sealing up the borders, and rolling back Marxism-Leninism out of our institutions. We'd need to introduce the Roman censorate, to expel disgusting or disruptive people from federal office and public life, and the Athenian ostracon (ostracism) to exile people from the community and physically expel them from the country.

[central_va]

The rabble I refer to are the stinking southern aristocracy, not the poor folk who were the cannon fodder that they employed to try and defend their evil empire. Apparently the leaders were people without a conscience, without a sense of justice that would admit them as Americans supporting of the founding documents, traitors. All should have been hung, along with their spoiled families, and except for the God fearing graciousness of the northerners and in particular, Lincoln, would have been.

Thank you for posting this vile reconstructed crap. This proves we need another secession of the South to regain her honor if nothing else to separate ourselves form stupid reconstructed Yankee Boot Lickers™ like you . It has been said here that the differences between the factions in this country are not the same as in 1860; they are right. The differences ARE SO MUCH LARGER.

The CSA killed 300,000 Yankee scum, should have been 3,000,000. That would have been a good start.

[central_va]

I've argued a couple of times for a constitutional convention to kick the six New England "blue"(actually very pink) States and the downstate part of New York State out of the Union. That would expel about 30,000,000 Democrat votes and allow us to get our house back in order by getting the illegals to go home, sealing up the borders, and rolling back Marxism-Leninism out of our institutions. We'd need to introduce the Roman censorate, to expel disgusting or disruptive people from federal office and public life, and the Athenian ostracon (ostracism) to exile people from the community and physically expel them from the country.

In the spirit of the Free Republic, I think I just read the perfect post. I thought I was alone in this thinking. Viva la republic!

[nathanbedford]

Have a look, if convenient, at my earlier reply #121.

[lentulusgracchus]

That's a very interesting post; thanks for discussing that concept -- which itself constitutes an "availability cascade" if Sunstein is busily putting it about up in DC.

And it's fascinating that there was actually no issue of the spread of slavery to the Territories until Lincoln bruited it about; but I think you're in error there, since Sens. Louis Cass (D-Mich.) and Stephen A. Douglas (D-Ill.) had already propagated their "popular sovereignty" doctrine in response to the anxieties produced by the prospective spread of slavery and the Free Soil movement. In fact, the issues will have gone back to before the Northwest Ordinance.

[PeaRidge]

A thought exercise for you:

It is 1850. You are 21 years old. Your father turns over the family business to you to run and support all of your brothers and sisters as well as aged grandparents.

The business is farming. The spring crop is cotton, with a growth cycle of about 5 months.

You have several dozen acres in cotton, as well as others in tobacco, and other edible vegetables. Your survival is based on the planting and harvesting of these crops.

Somewhere on your farm you have “slaves”. These are people that live in houses on land...all belonging to you.

You did not bring these people to your farm. You have never seen a slave ship. You have never traded in humans. Slave imports were outlawed at the time of your grandparents. All of these "slaves" grew up with your ancestors. Their parents lived with your parents. You grew up with them as a part of your family. Their role is labor and they exist and survive for that. That is simply a fact, not a statement of subjugation.

The able bodied among them work in either the fields or your home. They receive food, shelter, clothing, medical treatment, and in some cases an education.

You, as well as your community, are convinced that if this work-life relationship ceased to exist, that the “slaves” would have no means of support.

So, despite the lack of revenue generating activities in the fall and winter, you continue to support the “slaves” living on your land. You continue to provide food from your general store of supplies.

There are state and local laws against abusing all people, slaves included. There are very few jails. Some law breakers are beaten by a local sheriff. Some are hung by mobs. Some are either run off or sold elsewhere.

Life was not easy and is nothing like what we have today.

Where in all of that do you see rationale for such a vile sense of self righteousness that you exhibit?

[PeaRidge]

Thank you for your interesting post.

If I insinuated that I thought that Lincoln was the sole source on the issue, then I was in error.

The conversation, as you state and know, began years before, and can be traced to the pulpits of New England to before the signing of the Constitution.

However, my point was that as a widely accepted, not simply discussed concept, it did not manifest itself in popular elections until brought to the public by the Republican political machine of the 1850s-1860 era.

And as you know, the census data showed for a fact that slavery spread was a concept not a reality.

[lentulusgracchus]

As a matter of fact, I recall looking at a map of slave populations on the eve of the Civil War, and in 1860, the Nebraska Territory (as in, Kansas-Nebraska) contained two (2) live slaves.

[rockrr]

Wow, you really yearn for the “good old days” don’t you?

[PeaRidge]

As one observer characterized the alleged movement of slaves into the territories, the conflict was about an “imaginary negro in an impossible place”.

Another author wrote: “Though many of them doubted whether slavery would ever take permanent root in Kansas, they feared to yield a legal precedent which could later be used against them. And so they demanded a right which they could not actively use - the legal right to carry slaves where few would or could be taken.”

“The one side fought rancorously for what it was bound to get without fighting; the other, with equal rancor, contended for what in the nature of things it could never use.”

http://dzanime.tripod.com/apush/apush/ramsdell-jaffa.htm

One could make the point that Lincoln and the Republicans started a war over a ficticious issue....a Gulf of Tonkin kind of thing.

[PeaRidge]

What else do you have?

[DuncanWaring]

There’s a long history of conflict between coastal planter aristocracy and inland/upland yeoman farmers in the south, ...

The coastal planter aristocracy tended to be descended from immigrants from extreme southwest England, and the inland/upland yeoman farmers descended from immigrants from Ireland and lowland Scotland.

They had essentially nothing in common.

David Hackett Fisher wrote quite extensively about this in Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America (America: A Cultural History).

[DuncanWaring]

Luckily for us, their god given freedom vindicated by Lincoln ...

Lincoln did not start the Civil War to end slavery; he did it to retract the secession of the southern states. In his own words:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.