I think, seriously, this still stems from the Van Buren-emplaced party system, created in the 1820s with the modern Dem Party, that sought to keep slavery (and, today, truly contentious debates) out of the national dialogue so as to prevent a civil war. Van Buren concluded that no southerner could again win the presidency because of the taint of slavery-—but no northern abolitionist/anti-slave politician could win either. Therefore, he needed a “northern man of southern principles” (i.e., someone who wouldn’t interfere with slavery) or a westerner (westerners were viewed as not “having a position” on slavery).
So, did it work? You betcha, in a sense. From 1828 to 1860, EVERY candidate was either a “northern man of southern principles” who would not discuss slavery or a westerner (Jackson, VB himself, Harrison-—Tyler as veep who comes in due to Harrison’s death doesn’t count, but he was a southern slaveholder-—Polk, Taylor, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan). But when you finally get Lincoln, a “northern man of NORTHERN principles,” you get a war. The south perceives that the North will try to legislate against slavery and property rights in slaves (the truly big category).
Well, consider today: why is it we can’t get a “conservative?” The only real conservatives of the 20th century were, arguably Harding, Coolidge, and Reagan. Harding won because Wilson so badly bungled the wartime financing that we were in a deep recession; Coolidge was another veep who then won re-election on his own-—something only Truman and LBJ matched-—and Reagan was . . . a “westerner” who nevertheless had (pardon the expression) “northern principles.” By that I mean, he actually stood for a principle, not just “let’s all get along.” (I certainly don’t mean Reagan had anything in common with today’s RINO NE Republicans).
What does this tell us? Well, possibly that even 180 years later, we are still afraid to debate “elephants in the room,” whether it is slavery, entitlements, debt, or immigration. That “northern men of southern principles” (i.e., Romney, Clinton-—in essence, politically, a “northern man of southern principles”-—Bush, ditto but to a much lesser extent) 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.
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.