I'd also remind the writer of Edward M. Stanton. He was from Pittsburgh, a staunch anti-slaver, who became Lincoln's Secretary of War ...
He could also look up Thaddeus Stevens from Southern Pennsylvania who was among the most staunch of abolitionists and the leader of the Radical Republicans.
Those are just two 'Southern Pennsylvanians I can pick off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more. I do know that of all major cities at the time, Pittsburgh gave Lincoln a greater percentage of the vote than any other... and considering the city was only 60 miles from then "Slave State" of Virginia, that is a serious statement. The cultures were very different in that short 60 miles.
I don't really see any historical significance of Newt, Rick or Ron Paul having roots in Pennsylvania. That is just coincidence and nothing in the water. They all made their careers in different regions.
But looking at the history, I do see some common threads that stay current and unbroken for over a century and a half.
In 1860, (and before) the Democrats were willing to ignore the Constitution to achieve their ends. (See the Fugitive Slave Act). They were quite willing to play race, ethnicity and social classes against each other.
Today, the Obama Democrats are doing the same damn thing. "Stroke of the pen, law of the land" as one of Clinton's Flying Monkeys put it, and to hell with Checks and Balances and the 'niceties' of the Constitution. Obama is doing the same in hyper drive.
The biggest commonality between the 1860 Democrats and the 2012 Democrats is continuing to resort to race, ethnic, class (and now sex)divisions with wild distortions of what horror will befall such and such a group if Republicans win. The objective is to frieghten and divide the citizens rather than engaging the citizens in thoughtful debate.
And just like 1860, they will resort to both physical threats from their hired thugs and economic intimidation.
Many things have changed over 150 years, but the Democrat party has remained remarkably consistent for more than a century and a half --- power at any price --- and to hell truth, logic, the Constitution, individual rights or even common decency. They care nothing for those ideals.
By the way, when I argue that the South saw a Republican election as threatening slavery itself, even though the Republicans never said that, consider even then the power of appointment that a U.S. president had (You mentioned Stanton, for example): U.S. marshals (no more federal slave-catching possees), federal judges (might not look so favorably upon cases involving slaves that come before them), customs officials and port authorities (who might let free blacks off ships in southern ports-—something the Dem officials had prohibited), and postmasters (who might lift the ban on abolitionist materials).
Once is an accident.
Twice is a coincidence.
Three times is a pattern.
So the question is, what pattern are we looking at here?
I think LS named it precisely.
In the old days beginning with Martin Van Buren they said, "Northern men of Southern principles."
It was a winning strategy that elected Democrats to power for many decades before 1860.
In 1856 it elected a Northern Doughface from Southern Pennsylvania: James Buchanan.
The strategy only failed when Southern Fire Eaters refused to accept the "Southern principles" of 1860's leading Democrat candidate, Stephen Douglas.
Fire Eaters walked out of their convention and split their party.
Today all three remaining non-Romney candidates have both Northern and Southern roots, and all are highly sympathetic to the South's conservative values.
And if you stop to consider those who've already dropped out, none quite match those criteria.