History repeats itself (almost) during shutdown Dwight T. Pitcaithley, Ph.D. POSTED: 11/10/2013 01:00:00 AM MST Now that the insanity of the government shutdown has been resolved with the federal government reopened and a financial disaster averted, it may be beneficial to reflect upon a not-too-dissimilar event 153 years ago. On November 6, 1860, Republican Abraham Lincoln was elected president of the United States on a platform opposing the extension of slavery into the West. Democratic extremists immediately began proclaiming his illegitimacy because he garnered only 40 percent of the popular vote, received not one vote in 10 of the Deep South states, and represented a clearly sectional party. In spite of the Republican Partys official position supporting the institution of slavery throughout the South, fire-eating secessionists proclaimed Lincoln an abolitionist who was going not only to free the Souths enslaved black population but also make them the political and social equal of the white man! The slave-holding South was alarmed. For the first time in the history of the nation, a party with an anti-slavery polity was about to enter the White House. Presaging opposition to a future president, extremists railed against an illegitimate president who all knew was going to appropriate their personal property in spite of their constitutional right to possess it. (In 1860, it was slaves, in 2008 it was guns.) With Lincoln scheduled to be inaugurated on March 4, 1861, something had to be done to protect the Souths peculiar institution. Some sort of political compromise must be found. In return for acceptance of Lincolns election, the slave states and northern Democrats insisted upon a change to the United States Constitution that protected the institution of slavery in various ways through the country including the territories. Over the next five months, 66 different amendments were proposed as compromise measures with most demanding that slavery be allowed constitutionally to expand into the western territories. These amendments required the one concession the Republican Party could not concede: the expansion of slavery into the territories. With the extension of slavery (not the existence of slavery) being the central issue of the 1860 presidential election and the core plank in the Republicans platform, Lincoln was in no position politically or philosophically to compromise on the issue of the western expansion of human bondage. The people had spoken, he reasoned, and he could not renege on a campaign promise. Thus, Democrats demanded of Lincoln the very thing upon which he had been elected: allow slavery in the territories or we will secede. Unless we get our way, they reasoned, we will destroy the government and sever the nation. As we now know, Lincoln did not compromise and the slave states made good on their promise to secede and, in the process, lost the very thing they needed to protect. As Texas Governor Sam Houston predicted, slavery was doomed with the first shot fired at Fort Sumter. The Democratic Party paid the price for taking the country over the cliff. After four years of war, the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery throughout the United States, no Democratic candidate was elected to the presidency for 20 years, and it was half a century before a Democratic candidate from the South entered the White House. Rash political acts have consequences. Had the South not seceded when it did, slavery would likely have lasted into the twentieth century. Had the Tea Party not shut down the federal government and had not threatened to destroy the economy and reputation of the country, it (and Ted Cruz) would not have suffered its recent fall from grace. Petulant political acts come with a price. Dwight T. Pitcaithley, Ph.D. was a chief historian for the National Park Service. He is now retired.
Posted on: Sun, 10 Nov 2013 20:14:53 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015