Are Republicans Going the Way of the Whig Party?

The Republicans began as a third party rooted into anti-slavery that ran its first presidential candidate in 1856 with General John C. Fremont of California.

The election of James Buchanan and a resultant do-nothing posture in the wake of national calamity, resulting in America’s most costly conflict in human terms - the Civil War - brought the fledgling Republican Party a golden opportunity to gain power in 1860.

A little known former congressman and lawyer from Springfield, Illinois, named Abraham Lincoln gained national stature by coming within an eyelash of defeating one of the nation’s powerful and best known senators, Stephen A. Douglas. The historic series of debates between the two candidates held throughout Illinois established the platform on which Lincoln’s presidential candidacy would hinge.

In order for the Republicans to move into a spot to challenge the nation’s oldest party, the Democrats, it was exceedingly helpful to benefit from the atrophy of the Whig Party.


In analyzing the factors in play from the first quarter of the nineteenth century to the Civil War period there are some notable similarities between the extinct Whigs and the party that catapulted to the presidency following their demise.

The Whigs were a natural outgrowth of the Federalist Party. John Adams was president during the bleak period of the Alien and Sedition Acts. His son John Quincy Adams became a Whig president supporting a national bank held by an entrenched monopoly.

What was the name of the second father and son executive combination? The name was Bush.

Another striking similarity also exists between the Adamses and Bushes.

Continued>>>
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Are-Republicans-Going-th-by-Bill-Hare-090531-233.html

Kansas-Nebraska was what killed the Whigs. They splintered. Then the Democrats did the same in the 1860 Convention with three presidential candidates all called "Democrats" up for the election in 1860.

Buchanan did as much as he could, as there was no rush to secession until Lincoln's election, and by then it was too late. Once shots were fired on the US by SC, the rush to secession began after them. First Bull Run sealed the deal: it was civil war.

I doubt there are any grave constitutional issues at present that would result in a rush to splintering parties, much less civil war! No matter how hard and loud the Republicans claim to "Conservative Unity", they are a coalition party and the money is with the mainstream, not the Rushites and the voodoo economics of Reagan are so discredited now that Newt and Grammm seem better viewed on a Beta and listened to by cassette while playing on one's Atari game.

the Democrats in office are taking their place. This Democrat party, is NOT the party I joined in the 60's.

zalinda

Dems were conservatives before 1964 and civil rights act. Repubs were th' damn libruls before then. But they switched sides.

Better to frame it in terms of conservatives vs. th' eevil, gawdless libruls like Jesus and the founders of the USA.

... but what would replace the Republicans, and if not replaced would the Democratic Party get so big that you end up with a split party? Will we end up with a one-party state where to a point all political viewpoints are tolerated?

I say no, the Republican Party will re-focus in the next 4 years and their message will resonate as things "go wrong" for the present Democrats in power. Unless Obama or his successors do something in legislature that makes formation of other political parties illegal, then the Republicans (in some rebranded form) will come back. The question is how, and how whacko will they be.

Regardless of how badly this fascist cabal behaves, their propaganda arm will hide it or tell their morans it's great. They're not going away until the media cabal are blown to bits.