Posted on 03/17/2012 4:12:31 AM PDT by BroJoeK
Has anyone else noticed that all three of our non-Romney Republican candidates for President grew up in Southern Pennsylvania?
Does anyone suppose this is a historical coincidence?
It's not.
Unless you are some kind of history nut, you've never even heard the term "doughface Northerner", since it hasn't been politically current in 150 years.
And if you have heard it, then you know it was an old term of mocking and scorn -- for Northerners who loved the ante-bellum South and supported the South's legal, ahem, "institutions".
Indeed, the term itself, "doughface" was derisively coined by Southerners to describe their northern allies, and may well have originally been intended to mean "doe face", a reference to a skittish, easily frightened deer.
Northern doughfaces were essential to making the great Southern Slave Power a dominant political force in all the decades before 1860.
And of all the doughfaces, perhaps the epitomy, the highest achievement of that art-form was Abraham Lincoln's predecessor: Democrat President James Buchanan from Chambersburg, in south-central Pennsylvania.
Buchanan loved the South, and staunchly supported its values, including the Supreme Court's 1857 Dred-Scott decision which made it more difficult to effectively outlaw slavery in non-slave states.
When the Deep South began to secede in late 1860, outgoing President Buchanan recommended against secession, but took no actions to stop it.
So, in the long arc or history, Doughface Northerners were essential to Southern Slave Power and thus to preserving the Union itself.
Indeed, it was precisely the moment in time when Doughfaces were overthrown in the North, with the election of Lincoln's Republicans, that the Deep South chose to begin seceding.
But remember, this happened in 1860, after the North's population and economy had grown overwhelmingly dominant.
Had the South seceded earlier in, say, 1830 and been lead by the likes of, say, Andrew Jackson, the North could not have defeated them militarily.
Of course, Jackson himself opposed secession, but then Jackson never imagined the government in Washington might subvert slavery.
So Doughface Northerners are the reason Southern Slave Power did not feel seriously threatened before the Republican election victory in 1860.
Historically, they served the vital function of keeping the South in the Union, until the North grew strong enough for military victory.
Now, for purposes of this analysis, I equate the old Democrat Slave Power with today's Democrat Progressive agenda -- yes an outrageous idea, until you think about it...
Both the Old and Modern Democrats used the force of law to grant special privileges to selected groups based on race, or some other group identifier -- gender, ethnicity, economic "class", sexual orientation, you name it.
Indeed, arguably, modern equivalents of "slaves" are the economically vigorous producers of wealth, and our Master Class are politicians who redistribute the wealth of others to their own favored supporters.
So we are becoming, in a sense, one big plantation with its great Plantation House in Washington, DC.
In today's upside down world, the Old South most strongly supports our traditional Christian values, devotion to constitutionally limited government, private enterprise and equal justice under the law as opposed to special privileges for the politically connected.
As such the Old South is today's heart and soul of Conservatism and essential to any Republican strategy for election victories.
But now, as always, the South needs allies they can trust, and who can they trust more than modern-day Doughface Northerners?
And where do you find real Doughfaces, who grew up in the North and love the South?
Why, just as in times past, in Southern Pennsylvania, of course.
And so today we have an abundance of non-Romney candidates who grew up in Southern Pennsylvania and are hoping to appeal to enough conservative Southerners to overturn the votes of more traditional Northern "establishment" Republicans.
Oh? You didn't know the non-Romney's are all Southern Pennsylvanians?
Ron Paul: born and raised in Pittsburg, southwestern Pennsylvania.
Rick Santorum: born in Virginia, raised in Butler, near Pittsburg, represented southwestern Pennsylvania in Congress.
Newt Gingrich: born in Harrisburg, south central Pennsylvania, raised in nearby Hummelstown.
All modern-day Southern Pennsylvania "Doughface Northerners" who love the South, it's people and it's conservative values.
God bless them one and all.
They are fascinating articles.
They are especially interesting when trying to assess the oddball attempt to equate the Confederacy with Marxism.
Compare this review of Marx and Engel's Civil War writings with the claim that there was something 'Marxist' about South:
The Civil War opened the road for the final triumph of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in the United States. During the fight to the death with the slavocracy, Marx and Engels in their capacity as revolutionary labor leaders correctly stressed the positive, democratic, progressive and revolutionary significance of the struggle waged by the bourgeois republic. They based their practical political policy on the fact that the struggle of the working class for its own emancipation would be promoted by the victory of the North and thrown back by the triumph of the Confederacy. At the same time they never proclaimed their political confidence in the Republican bourgeoisie, freely criticized their conduct of the war, and maintained their independence vis-à-vis their temporary allies.
Well I suppose that it's possible that Marx and Engels simply weren't aware of what Marxism is, and so championed the North when they should have been cheering on the Confederate 'slavocracy'. Either that or the revisionists who are making the Confederacy = Marxism argument are fools.
Sanctimony? So is it that going to be your latest accusation, only to be abandoned when you get asked to put up the evidence?
Okay I’ll play along. Let’s see you produce an example of sanctimony in my posting.
“Noun 1. sanctimony - the quality of being hypocritically devout
sanctimoniousness hypocrisy - insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have”
Funny how often your posts are some form of attempted insult rather than any kind of reasoned argument. But then I guess you stick with what you do best.
More that might be of interest. The Revolutionaries of 1848 are an often overlooked influence on the American Civil War. The 48ers fled Europe after their failed revolutions (Marx and Engels going to England). Many went to the United States, and a number went on the be Union Army Generals: Wedemeyer, Dana, Schurz, Sigel, Willich being a few of them.
“Marx and Engels backed the Republican Party and its candidate Lincoln. Although it’s hard to fathom today, in 1860 the Republican Party had socialists, abolitionists, and other radicals in its membership. It was a new party that had emerged from the conflict in the Kansas territory prior to the Civil War. The Republican Party was perceived as a threat to the slave-owners and their allies. Abolitionists and other radicals debated joining the Republican Party. Could its leadership be trusted? Were the more prominent members of the party really serious in ending slavery? Many came to the conclusion that the party was at least moving, or could be moved, towards that end. European revolutionaries, political refugees from the failed 1848 revolutions, joined the Republican Party. These revolutionaries also took up arms and fought for the Union.”
“Revolutionaries such as former Prussian officer August Willich, Engels commander in 1849, exemplified this. Willich was also a leader of the Communist League with Karl Marx, until a falling out with Marx over Willich’s idea of sending an armed force back into the German lands to restart the revolution. Marx argued that this wild plan would fail. Willich later gave up his scheme and moved to the United States. He eventually resided in the large German émigré community of Cincinnati, where he edited a radical newspaper. He would train the all-German Ninth Ohio Infantry regiment, whose volunteer soldiers had belonged to the radical Turnverein in Germany. Before the war, many members of the Ninth Ohio fought against the anti-immigrant chauvinism of the Know Nothing movement of the 1850s. They came to the conclusion that fighting for the Union was participating in a revolutionary war. Gustav Kammerling, a colonel in the Ninth, had been elected in 1848 as leader of a revolutionary militia. He also later fought alongside Engels and Willich in the Palatinate. The Ninth Ohio’s regimental history, Die Neuner, contains many interesting anecdotes illustrating how the soldiers viewed the Civil War as a continuation of the 1848 Revolution. The Ninth and other German regiments would sing revolutionary songs into battle, demanded that they be allowed to speak in their native German, and also successfully fought against General Sherman’s ban on alcohol. They got to keep their kegs of beer.”
http://www.isreview.org/issues/80/feat-civilwar.shtml
It is accurate but your assertions are incorrect.
Your error was in quoting what you believed to be tariff income from column 3 which is clearly marked Federal Receipts.
Column 3 or total federal receipts from that year, was the sum total of tariff collections, income from the sale of public lands, and other sources of income for the government.
The tariff revenue by year is in column 1, and is, as you can see, less than the total revenue.
Unfortunately that makes all of your assertions and conclusions invalid.
I will note that the tariff income is described as a percent, but that is a percent of the imported item, itself given an arbitrary value that imperfectly matches its real value.
It may be instructive to compare federal receipts for a few years to nominal estimates of the GDP.V
http://www.measuringworth.com/datasets/usgdp/result.php
Just to be completely arbitrary, lets pick 1800, 1825 and 1850. GDP and tariff dollars in then year nominal millions of dollars.
year____GDP_est._____tariff_____Percent
1800_____476_________9.1______1.9%
1825_____814________20.1______2.5%
1850____2556________39.7______1.6%
It is important to realize that tariff incomes were minimal, and the US federal government was much closer to the libertarian ideal than we can imagine today. This puts the lie to the pretense that the tariff rates in the above years were fit cause for major whining.
Sure the Republican party had socialists then, just as it has socialists now. It is a mistake to think they had much influence.
Most of the new Republican party were Whigs, like Lincoln. The Speaker of the House was a Whig-Republican. The Republicans were a majority party in the nation, as shown by their dominance in the House. The number of socialists elected was small to non-existent.
I always figured that modern communism looked at the antebellum south as its model.
With the Party members living in the “Big House”, and the rest of the proles given enough to live on as long as they were productive. Oh, how hard the party members have to think to justify their life of ease in the “Big House”.
And of course the proles were relieved of all that thinking stuff, in return for their ration of red pottage.
“I always figured that modern communism looked at the antebellum south as its model.”
Well it figures that you would figure that, judging from your posts.
Of course there is zero evidence supporting your imaginary history, whereas the actual historical evidence that we do have is that Marx and Engels despised the Confederate ‘slavocracy’ and were enthusiastic cheerleaders for Lincoln and the Union war effort.
It’s all through their writings on the American Civil War and available to anyone who bothers to read what they wrote. Evidently that doesn’t include you, or ‘Glenn Beck’s favorite historian’ for that matter, which could explain some of Beck’s goofier ideas.
“The Republicans were a majority party in the nation, as shown by their dominance in the House. The number of socialists elected was small to non-existent.”
Of course the Republicans weren’t “a majority party” at all, having won the 1860 election with less that 40% of the vote in a four way race.
It was a purely sectional party and didn’t receive a single electoral vote below the Mason-Dixon Line.
The socialists in American politics at the time of the Civil War were the 48’ers who had fled Germany after their failed revolution in 1848. Carl Schurz is a prime example, and he was an early and active member of the Republican Party from the time of its founding as were many of his fellow 48ers. The socialism of the 48ers still echoes on in American politics today in the leftism of regions like Wisconsin were the 48ers settled:
http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~dalbello/FLVA/activists/48contribs.html
You can also read his thoughts during the nullification crisis.
You use the term “true liberty” which implies that your thinking process produces some abstract other than liberty. You also are failing to recognize the difference between liberty and egalitarianism, which you continue to use interchangeably in order to advance your arguments. Your acting out frustration is contrived I think, but with your errors in understanding, it may simply be just cognitive dissonance.
It is evident that you are not a student of either the issue of liberty or the republican form of government.
You can continue to try to argue with me and become increasingly frustrated in your efforts to establish a false premise, or beg off. Whatever.
Marx despised southern slavocracy for the same reason that National Socialists disliked Soviet Socialists.
Competition, from which it was difficult to distinguish their message.
Please provide a source for that quote.
Also, you may be aware that as of 1854 with the introduction of the warehousing act, goods were received by a buyer in a federal warehouse with tariffs being charged on the actual purchase price. Those later transshipped to Southern ports were charged a tariff at that location. In your table you list the tariff rates as:
1800 _____9.1 percent
1825 _____20.1 "
1850 _____39.7 "
According to the BroJoe's tables he presented, the rates were:
1800 _____10.7
1825 _____22.3
1850 _____22.9
I am unsure as to what leads you to using words such as "minimal" or "libertarian" since those are political, not economic terms, and in no way is mathematically defined.
If you are inclined to make comments on Souther reaction, then include data for the Morrill Tariff, which was the issue, and not data from 30 years before.
Keeping in mind that increases of percentages in the range of 3-4% were inflationary, reduced the market for Southern goods not only in Europe but also Central and South America, and resulted in devaluation of the next year's production when tariffs increased.
But,the point is that you are changing the premise of the discussion to cover Brojoe's mistaken post. Whatever.
Who was the speaker of the House in 1860? From what party was he?
James Lawrence Orr, from New Jersey, Republican.
Representing a majority of the people, elected by a majority of the people’s House.
Oops, my bad. James Lawrence Orr from SC was a Democrat, but was the predecessor to the Speaker in 1860.
William Pennington was the Speaker in 1860, a Republican from New Jersey.
"White working men, almost all women, and all other people of color were denied the franchise.
"At the time of the American Civil War, most white men were allowed to vote, whether or not they owned property, but literacy tests, poll taxes, and even religious tests were used in various places, and most white women, people of color, and Native Americans still could not vote.”
source Wiki
This is in response to this comment from you: "Glad you agree that your previous position that the Federal constitution barred classes of people from the vote was false."
Of course the Morril tariff was not the issue, it not being passed at the time that the southern states pretended to secession.
If they had merely voted against it, it would have not passed.
Of course that would have required courage, virtue, loyalty to their oaths, and was accordingly beyond them.
yes, people were denied the right to vote.
The federal constitution was silent on it at that time.
It is incorrect to blame the federal union for the acts of states.
North Carolina was (interesting to me) a state that had a large number of freedmen who could vote until 1835 when their right to vote was revoked.
The word “minimal” refers to the taxes gathered as a ratio of the GDP.
When the tax rate overall is less than 2% that seems pretty honestly described as minimal. The radical growth in GDP seems to indicate the phenomenal success of the “American System”.
Let’s see:
A misrepresentation, a lie, and an insult....all in one post.
Keep up the good work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.