Know Nothings

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Hey Six! Remiders of your past!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWzYnhijzzk

[scandal 951]

Message for scandal:

This is a book I relatively enjoyed; but I can recommend many others if you feel so inclined.

signed, Bren

(####### this dude, scandal is MY friend, not his)

Thanks brother, sister!

Presidential bios are just my kick of late.

David McCullough, Jean Edward Smith, Jon Meacham, Doris Kearns Goodwin.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hey Six! Remiders of your past!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWzYnhijzzk

How much did you drink before you thought that would make a witty response?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Hey Six! Remiders of your past!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWzYnhijzzk

How much did you drink before you thought that would make a witty response?

Not enough obviously, I love the way you accuse and deny at the same time. Was that something you were taught or prolly something inherited? Dont do a spell check cuz thats some bait for ya.

Checkin the heart of a tool gets down right fvckin FUNNY! Let me warn ya a little toolbox! Be touchin him HERE! Emphasis on CRAZY! Hang wit me on this one bud it gets so CLOSE to you!

SHINE ON!

Edited December 8, 2009 by ={Rogue}=

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No point remarking on the spelling when what you wrote makes no actual sense.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Calling them 'teabaggers' is a distraction. Teabagger is a ** expression meaning putting your testicles in your gay lovers mouth, repeatedly.

[Nagishkaw 510]

Hey Six! Remiders of your past!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWzYnhijzzk

How much did you drink before you thought that would make a witty response?

Not enough obviously, I love the way you accuse and deny at the same time. Was that something you were taught or prolly something inherited? Dont do a spell check cuz thats some bait for ya.

Checkin the heart of a tool gets down right fvckin FUNNY! Let me warn ya a little toolbox! Be touchin him HERE! Emphasis on CRAZY! Hang wit me on this one bud it gets so CLOSE to you!

SHINE ON!

That was our wedding song.

[almaty 19]

syd barrett ..ftw...lost to Mandrex......

[SMR 368]

I'm currently reading "Team of Rivals", Doris Kearns Goodwin's account of Lincoln's presidency.

The section I quote below deals with the formation of the Republican Party in the mid 1850s.

I found it quite fascinating, particularly the anti-immigration Know Nothing Party. It reminds me so much of today's Teabaggers.

Lincoln's response to the Know Nothings, and his reference to abandoning the USA for Russia (!! ) is also astonishingly 'modern' in its tone.

It really makes one wonder if the foment that led to the dissolution of the Whigs and creation of the GOP a century and a half ago may be repeating today. Are we looking at the end of the GOP as we've known it, and creation of a some new alignment based upon neo-conservatives in one faction, and more centrist Republicans in yet another? For those who believe that America's two-party system must remain static and eternal, here's some food for thought. By the way, the reference to "anti-Nebraska" means those opposed to the Kansas-Nebraska Act which sanctioned continued expansion of slavery into the western territories.

Once again, at a moment when Lincoln's career appeared to have come to a halt, Seward and Chase were moving forward. Chase's leadership during the political uprising in the North that followed the passage of the Nebraska Act had proved, in the words of Carl Schurz, to be "the first bugle call for the formation of a new party". Under the pressure of the mounting sectional division, both national parties - the Whigs and the Democrats - had begun to fray. The Whig Party - the party of [Henry] Clay and [Daniel] Webster, [Abraham] Lincoln, [Henry] Seward, [Edward] Bates - had been the first to decline as "conscience Whigs" opposed to slavery, split from "cotton Whigs", who desired an accommodation with slavery. In the 1852 election, the divided Whig Party had been buried in a Democratic landslide. But the passage of the Nebraska Act brought serious defections in the Democratic Party as well, as Northerners unwilling to sanction the existence of slavery looked for a new home, leaving the party in control of the Southern Democrats.

The political upheaval was enormously complicated by the emergence of the Know Nothing Party, which had formed in reaction to an unprecedented flood of immigration in the 1840s and 1850s. In 1845, about 20 million people inhabited the United States. During the next decade, nearly 3 million immigrants arrived, mainly from Ireland and Germany. This largely Catholic influx descended on a country that was mostly native-born Protestant, anti-Catholic in sympathy. The Know Nothings fought to delay citizenship for the new immigrants and bar them from voting. In the early 1850s, they won elections in several cities, swept to statewide victory in Massachusetts, and gained surprising ground in New York. Newspapers and preachers assaulted "popery"; there were bloody anti-Catholic riots in several Northern cities.

Lincoln had nothing but disdain for the discriminatory beliefs of the Know Nothings. "How can any one who abhors the oppression of the negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people?" he queried his friend Joshua Speed. "Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that 'all men are crated equal'. We now practically read it 'all men are created equal, except negroes.' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance."

But this party too, was soon to founder on the issue of slavery. Many Northern Know Nothings were also antislavery, and finally the anti-Nebraska cause proved more compelling, of more import, than resistance to foreign immigration. The split between the party's Northern and Southern factions would diminish its strength, though the nativist feelings that had fueled its birth would continue to influence the political climate even after the party itself collapsed and died.

With the Whigs disappearing and the Democrats under Southern domination, all those opposed to the extension of slavery found their new home in what eventually became the Republican Party, comprised of "conscience Whigs", "independent Democrats", and antislavery Know Nothings. In state after state, new coalitions with different names came into being - the Fusion Party, the People's Party, the Anti-Nebraska Party. In Ripon, Wisconsin an 1854 gathering of antislavery men proposed the name "Republican Party", and other state conventions soon followed suit.

In this situation, an issue that had been in the background (slavery) came to the forefront and this caused a political realignment. Previously, slavery had always been compromised on both during the Declaration of Independence (when it was simply stricken completely) and the writing of the Constitution (the three-fifths compromise). Up until this point, other issues had been more important in drawing the political boundaries and parties. People in both parties were both pro- and anti- slavery. They effectively said, we may disagree on slavery, but we agree on the things that matter most, so we'll be Whigs/Democrats. When slavery became the key dividing issue, the political parties had to be re-drawn so that one party was slave (Democrat) and the other was free (Republican).

In order for such a realignment to occur again, you need that issue that fractures the parties. You need an issue that will place about half of Republicans and about half of Democrats together on one side with the remainder of both parties on the other side. And you need that issue to be a high or highest priority for most people. Thinking about it in terms of political axes, you need an issue that moves to high importance and is effectively perpendicular to the current party division. I don't think such an issue exists today.

Your comments about the GOP at the beginning are really only half of the picture. In order for a new party to really signal a change in the political landscape, you need a party that unites people from both parties. In reality, both parties have disagreements and pressure pushing to the sides or the center. Democrats currently disagree about the war in Afghanistan. But there is nothing that will cause certain Democrats and certain Republicans to unite against the remainder of their respective parties.

Of course, the parties change as time passes as public opinion and priorities change. But most of these changes can be accommodated under the current party division.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Message for scandal:

This is a book I relatively enjoyed; but I can recommend many others if you feel so inclined.

signed, Bren

(####### this dude, scandal is MY friend, not his)

Thanks brother, sister!

Presidential bios are just my kick of late.

David McCullough, Jean Edward Smith, Jon Meacham, Doris Kearns Goodwin.

I shall pass this info onto the man himself...

[justashooter 430]

Interesting read. I had brought up the Know Nothings before in some of our immigration threads before. You listen to those who now who talk of "anchor babies" and you read what the Know Nothing Party was saying and the parallels are quite obvious.

you fail to make the distinction between the benefit of legal immigration and the benefit of illegal immigration.

you fail.

[alienlovechild 75]

It really makes one wonder if the foment that led to the dissolution of the Whigs and creation of the GOP a century and a half ago may be repeating today. Are we looking at the end of the GOP as we've known it, and creation of a some new alignment based upon neo-conservatives in one faction, and more centrist Republicans in yet another? For those who believe that America's two-party system must remain static and eternal, here's some food for thought.

Here we go again. Name the other countries that have had the same winning political parties they've had for about 150 years without a break?

It can seen as a testament to stability that in a diverse country, there's no real upheavel bad enough to led to the disintegration of either party. Predictions of the death of the parties are greatly exaggerated.

The seeds to the defeat of the Democrats, were lain in their 2008 victory unless Obama and crew stage a very big recovery.

[nowhereman 1]

It really makes one wonder if the foment that led to the dissolution of the Whigs and creation of the GOP a century and a half ago may be repeating today. Are we looking at the end of the GOP as we've known it, and creation of a some new alignment based upon neo-conservatives in one faction, and more centrist Republicans in yet another? For those who believe that America's two-party system must remain static and eternal, here's some food for thought.

Here we go again. Name the other countries that have had the same winning political parties they've had for about 150 years without a break?

It can seen as a testament to stability that in a diverse country, there's no real upheavel bad enough to led to the disintegration of either party. Predictions of the death of the parties are greatly exaggerated.

The seeds to the defeat of the Democrats, were lain in their 2008 victory unless Obama and crew stage a very big recovery.

ALC you gloss over the fact that there is currently a lot of dissention in both parties... conservatives vs moderates in the Republican party & liberals vs. moderates in the Democratic party. The rifts are significant & appear to be growing. Granted we generally agree that the creation of a third party is unlikely, but to pretend that turmoil doesn't exist is misguided.