The most under reported story of the 2010 political season

[August]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

Suddenly theres African Americans running as republicans

But that isn't the case. Although our Democrat controlled media would never admit it. African Americans have held seats in the Republican party ever since the civil war.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by August

African Americans have held seats in the Republican party ever since the civil war.

That is certainly true. The Republican Party was founded as the party of civil rights.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

That is certainly true. The Republican Party was founded as the party of civil rights.

I don't know if I would agree with you on that. It is my belief that the Republican party was formed more as a response to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 and the concomitant argument of State's Rights vs Federal Rights.

One can infer that the issue at the center was about slavery, but I feel that is a more simplistic explanation. It was more an issue of State vs Federal governments.

It is my belief that the original core of the Republican party was a position against State Sovereignty and was only demonstrated in the context of civil rights. A subtle but, in my opinion, an important distinction.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I don't know if I would agree with you on that. It is my belief that the Republican party was formed more as a response to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 and the concomitant argument of State's Rights vs Federal Rights.

One can infer that the issue at the center was about slavery, but I feel that is a more simplistic explanation. It was more an issue of State vs Federal governments.

It is my belief that the original core of the Republican party was a position against State Sovereignty and was only demonstrated in the context of civil rights. A subtle but, in my opinion, an important distinction.

The counter to that argument is that the defense of the institution of slavery was the defining reason behind the battle for States' Rights. Federalism, combined with the addition of new states, were the greatest threats to the economic system of the slave-holding states. States' Rights advocates saw the new party's (Republicans) growing power in Washington as a harbinger of change, which a strengthened Federal government would only hasten, as the party, although not officially abolitionist, was rife with supporters of that cause.

I agree that slavery does seem, on the surface, to be a simplistic argument. On examination, however, I think it the most accurate. Without the issue of slavery, the Kansas-Nebraska Act would have been known best for it's original purpose as another step towards the realization of the Transcontinental Railroad, rather than a fatal step on the road to civil war.

[Platapus]

Some very good points.

[Sailor Steve]

What they thought at the time:
http://www.librarycompany.org/republ...56campaign.htm

And the campaign issues of the 1856 election:
http://dig.lib.niu.edu/message/campa...tory-1856.html

The Republicans selected Fremont because of his opposition to the Fugitive Slave Laws, and according to the second article many prominent southerners vowed to secede if Fremont were elected. Did they actually fight each other, or beat each up in the Senate over State Sovereignty issues? Not that I've heard of.