FLT-bird:
"It was the Republicans who were far more corrupt - look no further than the explosion in corruption once power was centralized.
Look at the myriad of financial scandals in the various Republican administrations in the late 19th century.
This was to be expected when power is centralized and government is in bed with big business." There's no objective evidence that Republicans after 1860 were more or less corrupt that Democrats had been before 1860.
What's certainly true is that the media, the press, back then, as now, delighted in exposing Republican wrong-doing, while it more often covered up Democratic corruption.
There's no objective evidence that Big Business was more "in bed" with Republicans after 1860 than it had been with Democrats before 1860, or would become again with Democrats after 1932.
The general rule here is that business and corruption follow the party in power.
Before 1860, that was almost entirely the Democrats.
From 1861 until roughly 1932, it was generally Republicans.
From 1932 until today, political power has been dominated by Democrats.
There is no objective evidence that political power was "centralized" more under Republican administrations than it was under Democrats before 1860 or since 1932.
FLT-bird: "The imperialism of US foreign policy pre 1860 pales to insignificance compared to the ethnic cleansing and genocide committed against the Plains Indians, as well as the various Indian tribes in all of the Western states, the Banana Wars of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the constant interventions in Latin America, the near constant meddling in China, etc."
The Trail of Tears -- 1830 to 1850 -- had nothing to do with Republicans, that was 100% Democrats.
1850s foreign interventions in Latin America, the Pacific, China and the Mediterranean had nothing to do with Republicans, that was 100% Democrats.
So you can "what about" all you wish, you cannot turn Democrats before 1860 into isolationists, or humanitarians regarding American Indians.
FLT-bird: "The Republicans wanted to keep not only slaves out of the Western territories.
They wanted to keep BLACK PEOPLE out.
That is why Blacks were specifically excluded in the state constitutions of Oregon and Kansas."
And once again, that was 100% Democrats.
In Kansas, regarding their 1859 Wyandotte Constitution:
"Solon O. Thacher [Republican] of Lawrence gave a rousing speech opposing the exclusion of African-Americans from Kansas.
The motion to exclude African-Americans was subsequently defeated, despite the fact that previously, "all the Democrats and a few of the Republicans favored the exclusion."[6]"
As for Oregon, before 1862, it was ruled by
Democrats, who again ruled after 1870.
Democrats' 1857 exclusion law was frequently challenged by Republicans and finally repealed after Republicans were elected in 1914.
So, it was always the Democrats.
FLT-bird: "They wanted to use those states and the Senators they would send to Washington DC to enhance their own political power to impose crushingly high tariff rates which would line their own pockets at the Southern states' expense."
Once again, the 1828 Tariff of Abominations was Democrats, not Republicans.
Southern Democrats like Andrew Jackson and even John C. Calhoun (originally) supported it.
Southern Whigs like Henry Clay supported it.
The majority of New Englanders opposed it.
The Tariff of Abominations passed in part because some of those in opposition outsmarted themselves politically.
But the bottom line is that Southern Democrat President Jackson stood behind it and threated military action if South Carolina declared secession over it.
I know... I know, how desperately you wish to blame Republicans for everything, but the facts are that nine times out of ten, it was really just the Democrats. ![]()
There's no objective evidence that Republicans after 1860 were more or less corrupt that Democrats had been before 1860.The Republicans were the party of government and of big business. It was a massively corrupt era - robber barons anyone? Of course the Republicans were more corrupt at that time. That's pretty much guaranteed whenever big government and big business have an incestuous relationship.
What's certainly true is that the media, the press, back then, as now, delighted in exposing Republican wrong-doing, while it more often covered up Democratic corruption.,/p>
LOL! Pure 100% BS. The vast majority of the media were in support of the Republican party back then.
There's no objective evidence that Big Business was more "in bed" with Republicans after 1860 than it had been with Democrats before 1860, or would become again with Democrats after 1932.
LOL! You can't be serious. Look at the railroads alone. Look at the massive land grants. Look at the wars of aggression against the Plains Indians to clear them out for benefit of the railroads. Look at the series of financial scandals etc. Pretty much all historians agree that this was a very corrupt era.
The general rule here is that business and corruption follow the party in power. Before 1860, that was almost entirely the Democrats.
The Democrats held the Presidency more often than not but they didn't hold Congress more often than not. After 1860 during the Occupation and thanks to the massive disenfranchisement of voters in the Southern states, the Republicans dominated until the 1930s.
There is no objective evidence that political power was "centralized" more under Republican administrations than it was under Democrats before 1860.
LOL! You can't be serious. The Leviathan broke the bonds placed on it by the Founding Fathers after 1860 and completely eviscerated the ability of the states to check its power. The federal government became massively more centralized after 1860.
The Trail of Tears -- 1830 to 1850 -- had nothing to do with Republicans, that was 100% Democrats. 1850s foreign interventions in Latin America, the Pacific, China and the Mediterranean had nothing to do with Republicans, that was 100% Democrats. So you can "what about" all you wish, you cannot turn Democrats before 1860 into isolationists, or humanitarians regarding American Indians.
Nobody said Democrats were perfect non interventionists. Its a question of degree. The US Federal government had a MUCH more aggressive/imperialist foreign policy and engaged in far more wars of aggression after 1860. Hell, the war itself was an imperialist war of aggression started by the Lincoln administration.
And once again, that was 100% Democrats. In Kansas, regarding their 1859 Wyandotte Constitution: So, it was always the Democrats.
No. It might be convenient for you to believe that but it just ain't so. The Republicans very much wanted to keep Blacks out. Look at the Black Codes in various Midwestern states designed explicitly to keep Blacks out. Republicans dominated there.
"Republicans admitted that large parts of the North were infected with racism. 'Our people hate the Negro with a perfect if not a supreme hatred,' said Congressman George Julian of Indiana. Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois conceded that 'there is a very great aversion in the West--I know it to be so in my State--against having free negroes come among us. Our people want nothing to do with the negro.' The same could be said of many soldiers. . . ." (McPherson, Ordeal By Fire, p. 275) ". . .
"Ohio Republican Senator John Sherman, (brother of William T. Sherman): “We do not like the Negroes. We do not disguise our dislike…..The whole people of the Northwestern states are opposed to having many Negroes among them and that principle or prejudice has been engraved in the legislation for nearly all of the Northwestern states.”
William Seward, inveterate moralizer and creator of the phrase “irrepressible conflict,” who, at a political rally in 1860, described the American black man as a “foreign and feeble element like the Indians, incapable of assimilation…a pitiful exotic unwisely and unnecessarily transplanted into our fields, and which it is unprofitable to cultivate at the cost of the desolation of the native vineyard.”
the bottom line is that Southern Democrat President Jackson stood behind it and threated military action if South Carolina declared secession over it. I know... I know, how desperately you wish to blame Republicans for everything, but the facts are that nine times out of ten, it was really just the Democrats.
Except we're not talking exclusively about the Tariff of Abominations. We're talking about who was trying to impose a massive tariff again a generation later despite the evidence of how destructive this was to the economy of the Southern states and despite the fierce political opposition it evoked the last time. Guess what. That was 100% Republicans. I know, you have this childish little fantasy that Republicans always good and Democrats always bad and furthermore that the two parties always and forever supported the same policies/had the same ideology. The problem is, it just ain't so.
Hell, in the last generation we've gone from the Democrats being overwhelmingly supported by the working class and the Republicans being overwhelmingly supported by the Upper Middle Class/rich to the exact opposite today. The parties are not static. They do shift over time.