In praise of (three) modern Doughface Northerners

vanity | 3/17/2012 | BroJoeK

[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.

[BroJoeK]

LS: "That “northern men of southern principles” ... are in demand because American simply want to avoid the very difficult and occasionally bloody results of an open debate over important stuff."

Great point, very well expressed.

Of course you know that "Old Kinderhook" Van Buren was born near his father's tavern about 25 miles south of Albany, New York -- so he was hardly a "westerner".

And back in the day, after the old boys had quaffed back a few at Abie Van Buren's tavern in Old Kinderhook, they were said to be feeling "O.K." a term we still use today.

So here's to you, Marty!

;-)

By the way, for whatever it's worth: we should remember that Northerners didn't suddenly "get religion" in 1860 and switch from voting for Doughface Democrats or Whigs to these new whipper-snapper "wide awake" radical Republicans.

No, no, no...

The 1860 Republican victory was, in effect, engineered by Southern Fire Eaters, when they walked out of the 1860 majority Democrats' convention and formed their own minority party.

This made four major parties with presidential candidates, of whom Republicans were simply the largest, but far from a majority of all voters.

Sure, people claim that Republicans would have won anyway.
But that assumes a powerfully united Democrat party under Stephen Douglas could not have repeated its past victories over Lincoln's hapless Republicans.

The majority Democrats' 1860 fall preceded the rise of Republicans.

[BroJoeK]

sneakers: "You forgot Saltsburg. :-))"

Chambersburg, Shippensburg, Mifflinburg, Newburg, Ickesburg...

And that's just off the top of my head.
No doubt the list is endless.

So how many do we have spelled ...burgh?
Not so many.

;-)

[sergeantdave]

Thank you for the clarification, BroJoeK.

Do you guys in Pennsylvania roast elk with your marshmallows and squibs? Just curious.

Many thanks, FRiend.

[Vigilanteman]

As could I. I could even support a bowl of dog food over the abject disaster there now.

[BroJoeK]

sergeantdave: "Do you guys in Pennsylvania roast elk with your marshmallows and squibs?"

Marshmallows and squibs? That's a new one on me.

;-)

[LS]

Yes, I know MVB was a New Yorker, hence a "northern man of southern principles." In fact, technically he was still a slaveholder, although his one slave---given to him as a teenager by his dad---had run off. But MVB never officially freed him nor searched for him.

As to who would have won without a split into four parties, there are two ways of looking at it: if you combine northern Dems, Republicans, and the Constitutional Union Party as effectively voting against slavery, then it's more than 2/3 of the voters rejected slavery. If you view the Dems (even northerners) as a pro-slavery party, then it's closer to 50-50.

[BroJoeK]

LS: "if you combine northern Dems, Republicans, and the Constitutional Union Party as effectively voting against slavery, then it's more than 2/3 of the voters rejected slavery."

Hmmmmmmm....
I'm pretty sure you know that in 1860, virtually nobody "rejected slavery" or "voted against slavery."
Slavery itself was not on the ballot in 1860.
What was, in effect, "on the ballot" was the expansion of slavery, especially as represented by the 1857 Supreme Court's Dred-Scott decision, making it more difficult for non-slave states to effectively outlaw slavery within their own borders.
Politics in 1860 can be seen as the country's response to the Supreme Court's over-reaching support for slavery in 1857.

Indeed, you could well say that the 1860 election was all about States' Rights -- the rights of non-slave states to effectively outlaw slavery within their borders, as opposed to the Federal Government's power to enforce pro-slavery laws in those non-slave states.

And the key to understanding what happened in 1860 is to study the electoral results of 1856, because that was the base from which the dominant majority Democrat party began, and which the Southern Fire Eaters utterly destroyed by walking out of their April 1860 Democrat convention.

1856 results, blue = Democrats, this shows the epitome of the alliance between the Southern Slave Power and Doughface Northerners:

Note that in 1856, the total Democrat popular vote was only 45%, and yet they easily won the electoral college.
In 1860, Democrat popular vote grew to 48% -- near an absolute majority, and yet Democrats lost in 1860 to the minority Republicans -- largely because Southern Fire Eaters split the Democrats in half.
I'm simply arguing that 1860 could have been a repeat of 1856, had the Dems just played their cards right.
So I'm saying, in 1860 the voters themselves didn't change.
What changed was the choices they were offered -- choices in effect engineered by Southern Fire Eaters.

[LS]

Slavery in the territories---which the south understood to be SLAVERY---was indeed "on the ballot." There would have been no secession if the South viewed Lincoln as irrelevant to "slavery" proper.

It goes back to my larger argument that Americans KNEW what the issue was, and they KNEW it had to be dealt with, but desperately wanted to avoid doing anything about it.

[BroJoeK]

LS: "Slavery in the territories---which the south understood to be SLAVERY---was indeed "on the ballot." "

Agreed. Slavery in the territories, and fugitive slave laws in non-slave states were important to both sides.
But these had nothing to do with slavery in slave states, and simply reflected the highly aggressive, expansionist nature of the Southern Slave Power, which held any restrictions on slavery's expansion to be threats against SLAVERY itself.

I think, the aggressiveness of the old Democrat Slave Power (S.P.) equates closely to that of today's Democrat Secular Progressives (S.P.) who claim that any attempt to restrict the powers of Government is a "war on women" or racism, or "attack on the elderly", etc.

So, relating back to this thread's theme, traditional Conservatives now find our strongest support in the Republican South.

Given that, we're not so surprised to see the current appeal of "northerners with southern values" -- among whom all three non-Romney candidates grew up in southern Pennsylvania, an area which historically produced Doughfaced "northern men of southern principles".

Thanks for a great discussion.

[LS]

Well, this is where I think we do have a disagreement. You have to look at James Huston's book "Calculating the Value of the Union" to see specifically how the definitioni of property as property rights in people---which could NOT be just a "state" right or in "certain territories"--- ultimately would become a national fight.

It is the same today with "gay marriage." You CANNOT have this be a "states' rights" thing because of the constitutinally embraced principle of "comity"---that all things considered, one state agrees to observe the most basic laws of other states.

Lincoln saw this when he said we would be a "house divided," but either all slave or all free. That is precisely what the South saw---that property rights would be the constitutional issue, and sooner or later property rights in IA would have to be the same as those in AL.

[rustbucket]

I've been traveling and just saw your ping today. Thanks.

The 1860 Republican victory was, in effect, engineered by Southern Fire Eaters, when they walked out of the 1860 majority Democrats' convention and formed their own minority party.

William C. Davis offers another interpretation in his book, The Deep Waters of the Proud, Volume 1, page 30-31. In particular he mentions two aspects of this of which I had not been aware - the nomination process at Baltimore and Douglas' actions after receiving the nomination of the Baltimore convention.

How exactly did Douglas get the nomination at Baltimore? First, his friends controlled the rules and procedures of the Baltimore convention. They refused to allow the return of two of the Southern delegations that withdrew at the Charleston convention. The Douglas backers then gave Douglas the nomination without the two thirds majority that the rules required.

People like Benjamin Butler of Massachusetts then worked in Baltimore with those who had walked out of the convention. Those Northerners supported Breckenridge to be nominated supposedly because Breckenridge was against secession even if Lincoln should be elected. It is true that the fire eaters you mention did think the Baltimore nominations would lead to secession and a Southern nation.

Breckinridge was reluctant to accept his own nomination. He saw the problem with it leading to Lincoln's election. Jefferson Davis and Robert Toombs met with Breckinridge and urged him to accept the nomination as it would put pressure on Douglas because it was obvious that Douglas could not win without the South. The only hope was that both Democrat nominees should withdraw so that a compromise candidate who would reunite the party could be chosen. Breckenridge agreed to accept his nomination with the objectives of the joint withdrawals of Douglas and Breckinridge, a reunited party, and a compromise nominee for the full party.

Davis met with Douglas to air this proposal. Douglas refused to withdraw his candidacy. Douglas' own ambition split the party and ensured Lincoln's election.

[PeaRidge]

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.

If you ponder your statement in comparison to commentary and actions from prominent Southerners of the period, such as Davis, Lee, Clay, Calhoun, Simms, Timrod, and Toombs, you will find that those values have remained intact in the South.

[PeaRidge]

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.

If you ponder your statement in comparison to commentary and actions from prominent Southerners of the period, such as Davis, Lee, Clay, Calhoun, Simms, Timrod, and Toombs, you will find that those values have remained intact in the South.

[PeaRidge]

Excuse the double post.

[x]

Eastern, Central, and Western Pennsylvania are pretty different places. Gingrich was the one with roots in South Central PA and he grew up on Army bases. Paul and Santorum are more from the western part of the state, though Ron Paul did go to Gettysburg College.

Pennsylvania really is the "Keystone State," in the sense that North and South would have gone their separate ways if Pennsylvania hadn't been there to provide a bridge. That Pennsylvanians weren't in love with politics or ideology, but devoted themselves more to manufacturing, money-making, technology, family and construction helped when other parts of the country were pursuing political visions.

[x]

Ponder all you want, but you’ll have a hard time finding “equal justice under law” in those guys.

[rockrr]

At least Toombs admitted to the foolish recklessness of it all (and then went along with it anyway).

[Ditto]

Excellent response LS, as I would expect from you.

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.

[Ditto]

But these had nothing to do with slavery in slave states, and simply reflected the highly aggressive, expansionist nature of the Southern Slave Power, which held any restrictions on slavery's expansion to be threats against SLAVERY itself.

In a sense it was. Without expansion, the Old South would have choked and died under it's Slave System.... If it hadn't had its head split open in the middle of the night during a slave rebellion.

They knew damn well they needed to expand the system or it would rise up and kill them, either financially or physically. .

[Ditto]

If you ponder your statement in comparison to commentary and actions from prominent Southerners of the period, such as Davis, Lee, Clay, Calhoun, Simms, Timrod, and Toombs, you will find that those values have remained intact in the South.

Kind of funny considering that they all rejected Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence while Lincoln embraced him and his ideas.

Irony... ain't it great?