Flag issue splinters Democratic unity

So the flag thing's tearing the 'rat party apart, eh? Gotta love it!

Nineteenth century Democrats believed in the government enslaving one-third the population and whipping them to pick cotton.

...as opposed to the alternative desired and enacted by the North, that being a political slavery of the entire population resting upon the doctrine of the sword...

"The pretense that the "abolition of slavery" was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of "maintaining the national honor." Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and murderers as they, ever established slavery? Or what government, except one resting upon the sword, like the one we now have, was ever capable of maintaining slavery? And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general --- not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only "as a war measure," and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man --- although that was not the motive of the war --- as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. There was no difference of principle --- but only of degree --- between the slavery they boast they have abolished, and the slavery they were fighting to preserve; for all restraints upon men's natural liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ from each other only in degree." - Lysander Spooner, 1870

19th Century Democrats=Jeffersonian Democrats interested in less government intervention. 20th Century Democrats=New Deal Socialists who want more government intervention. Not the same animal.

Precisely. A clear set of ideological realignments took place between the Republican and Democrat Parties in the late 19th and early 20th century. Up through the presidency of Grover Cleveland, the "king of the veto," Democrats came from a generally Jeffersonian background of strict constructionism and limited government. This was clearly the case prior to the Civil War on most economic policy issues. Prior to the war, the Democrats consistently opposed tax hikes (the tariff), pushed through tax reductions, and espoused free trade. They opposed government handouts, subsidies, and economic management as unconstitutional and wasteful (For example, Andrew Jackson fought the National Bank and Franklin Pierce vetoed and blocked several handout-style expenditures). The Democrats campaigned against redistributionary policies, such as protectionism, as well as the Homestead Act, which they viewed as a violation of states rights and as a welfare handout scheme of Republicans to buy votes from the poor in exchange for free land.

By contrast, the 19th century Republicans, and their predecessors the Whigs and Federalists, favored a stronger national government and a looser construction of the Constitution. Their 1860 platform was loaded with clauses advocating economic intervention, spending projects, and higher taxes.

The first realignments started emerging around the 1896 election when the Democratic Party completed its move from social and economic conservatism to a mix of social conservatism and economic liberalism under William Jennings Bryan-style populism. At the same time, the GOP adopted an increasingly hawkish foreign policy that in many ways reflects conservative foreign policy approaches today. This was under McKinley and the first Roosevelt. The GOP finished picking up the banner of economic conservatism in the 1920's with another realignment under Coolidge. Within a few years of that, the Dems had completely abandoned practically all elements of economic conservatism for economic liberalism - a trend signified in the differences between Al Smith's candidacy of 1928 and FDR's in 1932. Though encroachments on Democrat social conservatism were made throughout the 30's and 40's, remnants of that conservatism continued to linger into the 1950's. It went completely out the door in the party's 1960's radicalization period, and was picked up by the GOP, which has carried it ever since.

In short, the two parties essentially flipped their politics. They also flipped regionally as this change occurred, and in concurrence with it. The GOP used to be a northeastern urban party while the Dems used to be a southern and western rural party. Now the GOP dominates the south and west, while the Dems dominate yankeeland.

I mean, why solve the states' problems when you can cast slings and arrows at each other instead?

Do you really want a legislature that is loaded down with a combination of gerrymander-protected yellow dogs and urban ghetto poverty pimps to get to work "solving problems" for you?

Cause normally when Democrats tell you they are "solving problems," it means my taxes are going to go up soon.

If the government passed a law saying someone could enslave YOU, whether the government enslaved you or it was the person who actually chained you up would be, as the saying goes, a distinction without a difference.

Okay, so you are familiar with the reconstruction acts.

One of the reasons for secession was the Republicans' refusal of a demand by the Democracts for a federal slave law.

Sorry, it already existed. The proposed 13th amendment was going to be used as reinforcement of already existing rights.

So, it was the southern slave-owners who were attempting to violate the sovereignty of northern states.

I'm sorry, what? How exactly are slave owners violating anyones sovereignty by demanding that state laws be respected and federal laws and precendents be enforced?

Prior to the war, southern Democrats were demanding the right to take their "property" (slaves) into northern states and that the northern states would then prevent those slaves from escaping. Of course, this would have amounted to a southern Democrat imposition of the institution of slavery on northern states, a clear violation of their autonomy. Many fire-eaters were saying that refusal of this demand was in itself grounds for secession.