In 1860 The Republican Party was a relatively new party in United States Government. They had come together just four years earlier by forming a fragile alliance between three different and powerful political groups: Whigs (wealthy frontier landowners), Free Soilers (people opposed to slavery, not because they favored civil rights, but because they didn’t want black people - slaves or otherwise - sharing land with them) and Abolitionists (people actively pursuing the end of slavery). There were also waves of immigrants arriving from Germany and Ireland who felt disenfranchised from the traditional establishment: Urban Irish tended to be Democrats, but rural Germans flocked to the new Republican party in large numbers.
Interestingly enough, despite current widespread belief, Abraham Lincoln was not the first Republican candidate for President of the United States: Frontier General and Californian John C. Fremont was. He very nearly beat James Buchanan in 1856, but in the end lost due to the fact that throughout the 1950s, Democrats were strong enough to carry a few states in the North and completely galvanized in every state in the South. The result of this election continues to be a huge “What if?” for American Historians: Prior to George W. Bush Administration, James Buchanan was widely regarded as the worst President in United States History for very nearly bringing about the permanent division of the Republic.
But I digress.
The point: In 1860 the conservative party in the United States was the Democratic Party. Their stronghold was in the South where people were cemented into their "tradition". The Republicans emerged to challenge this stronghold. But it wasn't easy. It took some luck and some craftsmanship. During his Senate race in 1858, Lincoln skillfully maneuvered his Democratic rival and presumptive future Democratic Nominee for President, Stephen Douglas, into stating he supported the abolition of slavery in the western territories. These comments won Douglas the Senate race in 1858, but they ultimately cost Democrats the Presidency two years later. In 1860, one of the factors that buoyed Lincoln into the White House - despite only serving one term in the House of Representatives - was the fact that Northern Democrats had split with Southern Democrats over this issue. The Democrats had two candidates on the ticket. One from the North, Douglas and one from the South, John C. Breckenridge. Lincoln gained the Presidency with roughly 40% of the popular vote. Historians continue to debate weather or not this was the end result Lincoln intended in 1858 when he backed Douglas into a corner.
Am I still digressing? I don't think so. There are patterns emerging here. Stay with me.
Since Howard Taft took the oath of office in 1909 (post Teddy Roosevelt) 20th and 21st Century Republicans have proudly and consistently proclaimed that they are the party of “tradition.” Although some Republicans are using the word “change” at this week’s Republican National Convention, if the past 100 years serves as any guide, this claim has absolutely no base.
In 1860 Abraham Lincoln was the far from a traditional leader. He was a new type of leader, from a new party, whose very election challenged the traditional institution. He emerged victorious at the Republican Primary and Convention in a field of candidates - William Seward and Salmon Chase to name two - who were labeled as "more experienced". Prior to taking office, while serving as a Congressmen from Illinois he proclaimed boldly, in defiance of tradition, and in reference to the issue of slavery that “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” So great and dramatic was his departure from the status quo that the President-elect had wear a disguise while travelling through the South on train to take his oath of office in Washington D.C.
History now views some of the traditions 1860 conservatives fought so vigorously to uphold – economic stratification, subordination of women, and above all else, slavery – as some of the worst atrocities in American History.
It wasn’t a conservative movement that ended slavery, it was a liberal one.
It wasn’t a conventional strategy that won the Civil War, it was brutally honest and bold one.
It wasn't a traditional leader that brought the country together, it was a new one.
One hundred and forty eight years from now, what will historians and citizens say about the decisions we made today? I hope that they will write that we recognized the truest and greatest challenges of the day head on, stared them in the eye, engaged them in battle, endured and prevailed.
One relevant lesson our history has taught us: in the face of crisis – and make no mistake about it, we are in a crisis: the economy continues to decline, middle class families continue to loose their homes, we have an energy crisis, a global environmental crisis and two wars that are stretching our resources dramatically thinner with each passing day - we must break from tradition, often times dramatically, to create and maintain reforms required of the day, to create balance, right the ship and to heal the Republic.
A second relevant lesson our history has taught us: despite our greatest flag waving efforts on the Forth of July and no matter how many times we repeat the Pledge of the Allegiance, victory is not guaranteed. John C. Fremont lost to James Buchanan. William Jennings Bryan lost to William McKinley. Twice. Adlai Stevenson lost to Dwight Eisenhower. Twice. Al Gore lost to George W. Bush. But Lincoln beat Douglas and the North won the Civil War. Roosevelt beat Hoover and we ended the Great Depression and won World War II in the same administration. Kennedy beat Nixon and we avoided a nuclear holocaust during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Every setback in American history has come with tremendous cost; and every great victory in American History with tremendous cost as well. The difference between the two is when we get it right, America, and the world, have emerged better because of it.
As citizens, it is worth working to get it right.
1 comment:
Paulin came out punching cous...
it aint no "Slam Dunk"
Post a Comment