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.

[okie01]

The problem in the colonies was that the slave owners not only gained power over the lives of human beings, they were able to gain political power that they should never have had access to.

You were there? You know that for a fact?

You really can't view history accurately from the perspective of one's own armchair, y'know.

If Roger Sherman, et al shared your view, there would be no union today.

[RegulatorCountry]

Keep reading. You can thank that “hypocrite” as you so hypocritically put it, for your Constitutional rights.

[RegulatorCountry]

I particularly like the part about not allowing access to political power to this or that group of people, based upon his own version of political correctness.

The indoctrination just runs too deep sometimes, even on FR. It’s been a very disappointing evening.

Good night.

[af_vet_rr]

You seem to fail to realize that England held colonies wherein numerous forms of human bondage were not just practiced but legally enforced, and that English merchants profited from the slave trade despite the near absence of them in England.

I do not dispute that England caused the problem, however once the bullets started flying and England started to lose control of the Colonies, the opportunity was there. 1777 - Vermont prohibits slavery. In 1780, John Adams helped write abolition into the Massachusetts Constitution, a few years before the American Revolution was over and before the USA was independently recognized. The year the American Revolution was over, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that you could not enslave another human being. There comes a point at which you have to stop blaming England and start blaming the slave owners themselves, even George Mason, who talked about how slavery was the worst thing to affect the colonies and then United States, but who refused to free his own slaves, even upon his death, thereby perpetuating the thing he viewed as so evil.

[okie01]

The indoctrination just runs too deep sometimes, even on FR. It’s been a very disappointing evening.

Good night.

If only the right people had been in charge at the right moment, history would've turned out so much better. All the mistakes could've been avoided and the worrld would be perfect.

And a Good Night to you, too...

[RegulatorCountry]

1777 - Vermont prohibits slavery.

A real sacrifice on their part, no doubt. Rather like England abolishing slavery domestically.

Well, no, Massachusetts would be more like England, since Boston rivalled Charleston as a slave port at one point in the colonial era, but they didn't keep many there, just profited from the sale of them, sent them south and bought the goods produced by the labor of the slaves they'd sold.

Yes, 'twas very brave. Pure as the driven snow, too.

[af_vet_rr]

You were there? You know that for a fact?

Your link about George Mason quotes Mason as describing slave owners as "petty tyrants" and your link about George Mason describes how slavery will bring the judgement of Heaven upon a country, and your link about George Mason describes his view that slavery is the worst thing to happen to this country.

Finally, your link about George Mason mentions how the southern colonies were able to wheel and deal their way into gaining enough political influence and power than they should have had to carry out their desires:

The const[itutio]n as agreed to till a fortnight before the convention rose was such a one as [Mason] w[oul]d have set his hand & heart to....With respect to the import[atio]n of slaves it was left to Congress. This disturbed the 2 Southernmost states who knew that Congress would immediately suppress the import[atio]n of slaves. Those 2 states therefore struck up a bargain with the 3 N. Engl[an]d states, if they would join to admit slaves for some years, the 2 Southernmost states w[oul]d join in changing the clause which required 2/3 of the legislature in any vote. It was done. These articles were changed accordingly, & from that moment the two S[outhern]. states and the 3 Northern ones joined Pen[nsylvania]. Jers[ey]. & Del[aware]. & made the majority 8. to 3. against us instead of 8. to 3. for us as it had been thro' the whole convention. Under this coalition the great principles of the Const[itutio]n were changed in the last days of the Convention.[8]

[af_vet_rr]

I particularly like the part about not allowing access to political power to this or that group of people, based upon his own version of political correctness.

People who think it's okay to enslave others are probably not the kind of people you want running the government over the long run or to have serious influence. To quote George Mason from the link you provided (thanks by the way!):

[Slavery is a] slow Poison, which is daily contaminating the Minds & Morals of our People. Every Gentleman here is born a petty Tyrant…. And in such an infernal School are to be educated our future Legislators & Rulers.[1]

Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. [Slaves] bring the judgment of heaven on a Country. As nations can not [sic] be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes & effects[,] providence punishes national sins, by national calamities.

While I may disagree with Mason on several things, Mason was right about this country being punished by God. 600,000 men gave their lives, another 400,000 were maimed, wounded, and made sick, and the South was ruined and continuously punished for decades to follow.

[af_vet_rr]

Sorry, it was RegulatorCountry’s link about George Mason that described all of the problems created by slaves, how it corrupted men, and how it would ultimately lead to ruin. But you were mentioning George Mason, so you might find it useful.

[RegulatorCountry]

Stupidity on your part, sheer stupidity, you standing in judgment of not just George Mason but all the Founders. All history and all the world should’ve turned on a dime after some single, particular flashpoint, according to you. It’s all symbolic, everybody “should’ve known” and hindsight makes perfect, according to you.

You began this exchange with the claim that our Founders “lacked the balls” or some such inanity, and rather than admit you didn’t have the first clue, you launch into some campaign using words that clearly demonstrate that they did not evade the issue at all, in fact knew it would lead to precisely that which occurred, war.

And yet, our nation was established and the best form of government ever created by man was born anyway. Nevermind, says you, they were hypocrites and had no balls, pledging their lives and fortunes and sacred honor, the hypocrites. According to you.

You disdain our Founders and our founding document. Don’t expect a round of applause. You might get a pat on the back or two in leftist quarters but not from me.

I’m done here. You should hang your head in shame, but you won’t.

[Servant of the Cross]

Star Parker could have never guessed that she would kickoff a classic FR 'Civil War/Lincoln was a tyrant' thread with this article.

Ignoring the thread hi-jacking and with an attempt at getting back to Star's point, I think 2012 'looks like' 1860 with Lincoln rejecting submitting slavery to the vote. In 2012, the winning Party will be the one that rejects putting abortion to a vote. As Ronald Maximus put it ....

Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation [By President Ronald Reagan, 1983]

Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning.

[Servant of the Cross]

Star is also right that the winner of the GOP nomination in 2012 will have these same traits as the winner of the 1860 nomination ....

the more unconventional ... don’t have a chance (per the pundits) ... with limited (or none) previous experience in national office ...

p.s. always good stuff at DakotaVoice.

[GregoryFul]

You’re projecting modern sensibilities upon a time when human bondage was not viewed as the abject horror that it is in the present time.

Nonsense. At least a large number of people living at the time viewed human bondage as an abject horror, and became quite belligerent in activity to rid this country of the practice. It was a contemporary struggle, obviously, and it should be clear to any thoughtful person that the Southern leadership were very aware of the evil nature of the system they fought to maintain. Your argument is akin to defending Bernie Madoff as being just ignorant of the evil he was doing for lucre. I project, quite reasonably, that at least educated people of the time were informed and understood what they were doing when holding slaves, but they got a lot of money for doing it - and didn't want to give it up.

You engage in anachronism in order to condemn people who participated in a legal practice that had existed, in sundry forms, for all recorded history

Denied. My analysis is current, and correct. The people of regard condemned themselves, in their own time. Would you join me in the condemnation of Islamic Honor killing? Or would you perhaps excuse it as "it's just their way!"

We do not reject our forbears on the basis of modern sensibility that other, more recent arrivals seem to believe to encompass the entirety of our history. Recent arrivals who brought communism with them. Your people, I suspect.

Sorry bud, wrong again, my history traces back to a signer of the Declaration of Independence.

Go right ahead and sit smugly on your perch in their unknown future and bloviate away.

Hey, watch that rough stuff. I, like you, enjoy bloviating!

[WXRGina]

I thought Star’s column made some right-on points. That would really be something to see abortion put on the national ballot!

I’m hoping that we will be able to choose our own GOP nominee. The wicked media is pushing for that RINO freak Romney. Please let us knock Romney out of the running!

Dakota Voice is a good site, isn’t it? :-)

[GregoryFul]

So, chew on that for a while and maybe you can come up with some other word you believe to be a hotbutton that will get you out of the ridiculous hole you’ve dug for yourself here, advocating genocide, then trying to come across as some sort of Cold Warrior.

Yes, genocide was a over the top. Let me apologize for the hyperbole. Genocide can never be justified. It was a shameful thing to suggest.

[GregoryFul]

Very “bad”.

[thulldud]

Hamlin actually was called to and served active duty in the Maine reserves while he was the sitting vice president.

Not that this presented any great difficulty at the time; as Vice President, "sitting" was about all he had to do.

[Ditto]

Thats WHY?.... the U.S.. is a republic..

The US is a Constitutional republic where government power is limited. The operative word is Constitutional!

North Korea, Syria and some of the most oppressive places on earth are technically 'republics' meaning they do not have a monarchy and that they pretend to have representation of the people.

There is nothing magic about the word republic. It is a well written and well observed constitution to limit government power and insure individual liberty that makes the difference.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

How “bad” do you think slavery was in 1860?

Are you going to tell us how swell it was?

[hosepipe]

I argue that the U.S. is a republic and NOT a democracy..
Although a very unique republic at that..

A Banana republic is in fact a democracy(central government)..