Redstate

They're called historians. After a hundred fifty years of study the verdict is in.

The south as represented by the democratic party was fond of keeping slaves. The north as represented by the whigs and later the Republicans was none to keen on the idea.

Hope that helps.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

....is a massive oversimplification of a very complex era that a historian would never support.

That the south was pro slavery

The north didn't have it, didn't want it and really didn't want the south keeping it.

They would also agree that the democrats were elected with solid blocks from the south.

They would also agree that republicans had all their electoral base in the north.

So what part isn't supportable ? Do I have to start fishing out speeches by Jefferson Davis and John Brown ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

....you would have to define what you mean by "the South" and "the North." Do you mean the political leaders from each region or the larger populations? Do you mean the people who campaigned for the War or the people who fought the War?

Pierce and Buchanan were both Northern Democrats, as was Andrew Johnson....and the Democratic Party was still a force in the Midwest. John Brown was not a universal hero in the North, even among Republican circles....many saw him as a dangerous radical.

I mean, this could go on forever....I'd much rather just agree about the fact that while there are some truths you can extract from the Civil War era, we shouldn't be ignoring the many shades of gray.

Get it right.

Virtually nobody saw John Brown as a hero. The phrase that would have been used is dangerous madman. Today we would use terrorist. Both accurate I might add. What they would have acknowledged was his aim.

If you are going to talk about the wings of the Democratic party you need to mention they split along regional lines for the election of 1860.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

It's not as simple as 'the South was pro-slavery and the North was anti-slavery.' We'd probably agree on most everything beyond that.

What's obvious is that Howard Dean is the most ridiculously idiotic party leader in the history of this country. But his party proudly traces its roots to Andrew Jackson, so they've got to be aware of that legacy, right? Eh, probably not.

Not to mention the utter uselessness of James Buchanan.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Andrew Johnson was not a Northern Democrat, unless by Northern you mean he was born in North Carolina.

If the rules are transparent and clear, and if the state has no author­ity to license businesses or restrict exports and imports, there will be no opportunities to pay bribes in those areas. Mart Laar

I realized I messed that one up afterwards. I meant to say he was an anti-slavery Democrat, but somehow the wording eluded me.

I found the source for your quote above, which for some reason you neglected to provide us. It's from a certain Thomas J. DiLorenzo, writing on Lew Rockwell's site. DiLorenzo is a modern secessionist, affiliated with the League of the South; the introductory paragraph to his essay closes, '"GOP" should really stand for "Gang Of Plunderers."'

Anyway, on to the original point of my posts. Let's check the 1860 Republican Party platform, which is available right here. The first eleven planks on the platform pretty much cover what we usually understand the early Republicans to be about: anti-slavery, anti-secession, all men being created equal, states' rights, anti-corruption. It's the next six you seem to be talking about here:

12. That while providing revenue for the support of the general government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imports as to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole country, and we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the workingmen liberal wages, to agriculture remunerating prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence.

The wording on this one is ambiguous to me, as it's not outright calling for a rise in tariffs, but rather an "adjustment" in order to service the economy. I'll take your word for it that this was meant to suggest an increase.

13. That we protest against any sale or alienation to others of the public lands held by actual settlers, and against any view of the free homestead policy which regards the settlers as paupers or suppliants for public bounty, and we demand the passage by congress of the complete and satisfactory homestead measure which has already passed the house.

Hmm. Privatization of land to the settlers of that land, rather than public maintenance and control of the land. Sounds conservative enough to me. I'd like to see a source for the claim that "Democrats favored selling off the public lands", as opposed to Democrats denying homestead due to slavery competition concerns.

14. That the Republican Party is opposed to any change in our naturalization laws, or any state legislation by which the rights of citizenship hitherto accorded by emigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired; and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad.

So, the Republican Party supported the rights of naturalized citizens, and opposed states' attempts to abridge such rights. Doesn't quite sound like anti-immigration.

15. That appropriation by Congress for river and Harbor improvements of a National character, required for the accommodation and security of an existing commerce, are authorized by the constitution and justified by the obligation of Government to protect the lives and property of its citizens.

16. That a railroad to the Pacific ocean is imperatively demanded by the interests of the whole country; that the Federal Government ought to render immediate and efficient aid in its construction; and that, as preliminary thereto, a daily overland mail should be promptly established.

These two may be more questionable, but many conservatives consider transportation improvement a valid use of government funds.

-
NARF

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

The source was economist Robert Ekelund, not DiLorenzo.

You may see it here:

http://www.mises.org/story/1476

There is no getting around this. The Republican Party of 1860 were not small government Constitutionalists. If anything they were compassionate Conservatives, or national greatness conservatives, or some such mix that isn't really conservatism at all.

What the Republican Party wasn't, at it's founding, was anything approaching the visions articulated by Goldwater and by Reagan. The closest to idea of a strictly Constitutional government would have been found in certain areas of the Democratic Party of that day. That, you might recall, was the Party of Jefferson and the anti-Federalists.

There is a good treatment of this in the book
Adams Vs. Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800

The ideals of Jefferson were at odds with the northern mercantile elite early on and the drive towards the Civil War saw this conflict escalate.

But, please, by all means let us be Orwellian and pretend that simply because today's Democratic Party is socialist in orientation then so must have Jefferson or Jackson or Grover Cleveland.

Certainly, and while we're at it should we do a hatchet job on Senator Taft as well?

You are oversimplifying and presenting a twisted view of history which brings 70 plus years of conflict between North and South, industry versus agriculture, and conflicting readings of the Constitution down to a single issue - slavery.

That is simply bad analysis.

The Democratic Party is a socialist slime pit. It wasn't always. The Republican Party has a small-government, fiscally responsible wing today. It didn't always, and that wing is constantly being drowned in red ink courtesy of the 'compassionate' side which keeps finding new and better government programs to fund.

What was it that Goldwater demanded? "A choice not an echo?"