On
March 20, 1854 a double handful of political malcontents—Whigs despairing of their failing party, Free Soilers, even an anti-slavery
Democrat or two—met in a school house in Ripon,
Wisconsin at the request of lawyer Alvan
E. Bovay. They were upset by the Kansas-Nebraska Act then being debated
in Congress which would junk the old
Missouri Compromise and left the
door open to the extension of slavery in all of the western Territories by election, or Popular Sovereignty. The meeting resolved that stronger
measures must be taken to oppose the pet project of Illinois Senator Stephen A. Douglas and suggested the formation of
a new political party.
By
convention the Ripon meeting is considered the founding meeting of the Republican Party. But it was just one of several such
meetings held across the Midwest and
in New York State contemplating or
urging similar action.
The
extension of slavery was not the only part of the Kansas-Nebraska Act that stirred
passions and brought recruits. A now
little remembered provision in the act forbad non-citizen aliens from voting or holding office in the
Territories. That sound benign today,
but Wisconsin was being rapidly settled by waves of immigrants—Germans, Norwegians, Swedes, Danes, Finns, and
Welsh—who usually established
settlements with their own countrymen.
These people could not organize their communities if they did not vote
and hold office. Wisconsinites naturally
feared that such measures might then be extended even to established
states. Anti-slavery people also
recognized that this would diminish the ability of anti-slavery residents
including most immigrants from opposing slavery in Popular Sovereignty.
A
state wide convention was held in Madison that July to formally establish the
Republican Party and nominate candidates in the fall election. The members resolved, “That we accept this
issue [freedom or slavery], forced upon us by the slave power, and in the
defense of freedom will cooperate and be known as Republicans.”
Influential
editor Horace Greely had supported
the name for a new party that June in his New York Tribune. “[Republicans]
fitly designate those who had united to restore the Union to its true mission
of champion and promulgator of Liberty rather than propagandist of slavery.” and
no one had any better ideas.
The
infant Wisconsin party had immediate success.
In the elections of 1854 Republicans won two of the three U.S. House of Representatives seats, a
majority of the State Assembly
seats, and a large number of local offices.
And with control of the state Senate
they were able to elect a U.S
Senator. A year later they took the Governorship.
Such
impressive results obviously made Wisconsin a leader in the movement to create
a national party. But others had been
busy as well. In New York state wily political boss Thrulow Weed and ambitious Senator William Steward brought not only Whigs and Free Soilers but
the locally powerful former American
Party—Know Nothings—members
together with the backing of Greeley’s Tribune. The name Republican was previously
associated with slave holder Thomas Jefferson, ancestral founder of the
Democrats. The irony was lost on no one.
As
in Wisconsin local parties in New York, Michigan,
Ohio, and elsewhere in the North had
success while the old Whig and shaky Free Soil parties continued to crumble.
In
July 1856 these local organizations met for the first time in a national
convention in Philadelphia. By this time the Kansas-Nebraska Act was in full effect and the virtual civil war
between pro and anti-slavery faction in Bleeding
Kansas was stirring passions. 600
delegates attended, mainly from the northern states but also including the border states of Virginia, Maryland, Delaware,
Kentucky, plus the District of Columbia. The territory of
Kansas was treated as a full state.
The
party nominated the dashing, arrogant, but somewhat dim soldier and explorer John C. Frémont. To hear him tell the tale, he had personally
lassoed California for the Union by unilateral action during the Mexican War. His Army
superiors and the naval officer in
charge of California were not amused and the Pathfinder had been court marshalled for mutiny. Despite this dust
up, Frémont was a popular hero and he had the advantage of a determined and
much smarter wife, Jessie and her
powerful father, Senator Thomas Hart
Benton of Missouri, still a
Democrat by opposed to violation of the old Missouri Compromise. Young up and coming Illinois lawyer narrowly lost the nomination for Vice President to New Jersey’s William L. Dayton.
The
Whigs failed to nominate a candidate in 1856 and overnight the Republicans went
from third party to major party status—the only minor party
in American history to make the leap.
The Democrats nominated colorless but capable James Buchanan, the Secretary
of State and former Senator from Pennsylvania
and like other Democratic Presidential candidates, a “Northern man of
Southern Principles.” The Know Nothing
American Party put up former President
Millard Fillmore who promptly denounced the party’s nativist platform and ran as a savior of the union. Fillmore went nowhere. Buchanan swept the south and was able to hold
onto some northern states. Frémont
surprised almost everyone and won a third of the popular vote and 11 electoral
votes including New York, Ohio, and Massachusetts.
After
the 1858 mid-term elections, Republicans had won a
majority in the U.S. House, a strong
minority in the Senate, and a majority of northern Governorships. Southerners quickly became convinced that a
Republican victor in 1860 would be a fatal blow at their “way of life”, the
popular euphemism for slavery.
When
the Republican’s next met several powerful politicians expected to me the
nominee—especially Seward and Ohio Governor Salmon P. Chase. Both had
strong bases and credentials as ardent opponents of slavery. But by shrew maneuvering, particularly by
appealing to border states by painting himself as a moderate who would “not
disturb slavery where it existed” and as a champion for maintaining the Union,
Lincoln walked away with the nomination.
The
Democrats shattered sectionaly three ways and their strongest candidate,
Lincoln’s old debating opponent Douglas, could not win enough electoral
votes. The Republicans were in and in
short order the Confederacy seceded. You know the rest of that story.
After
the Civil War the Republicans were
the ruling party with only three interruptions for the next 65 years. But they quickly developed factions. The Radical
Republicans—whose reputations have been tarnished by generations of
diligent pro-Southern historians—remained committed to racial equality in the
old Confederacy. Many Republicans,
including their large, loyal base of Germans
in the Midwest, tended to support the rising labor movement. New England and New York elected official tended to be far more liberal on most issues than Northern
Democrats, support of the union movement
aside.
On
the other hand the Party quickly became the darling of the vigorous robber baron class of capitalists and monopolists of all stripes.
That lead to corruption in high places in government but the steady
stream of money proved a siren song hard to resist. Factions of the party fought hammer and tong
over issues like anti-trust and
labor reforms for decades. In the late 19th Century Marc Hanna formalized the
dominance of Big Business capitalists
through his Civic Federation and a “grand
bargain” that gave labor a symbolic but powerless “seat at the table.”
In
the meantime, in the Midwestern heartland of the party a kind of reflexive
small town/successful farmer conservatism took root that was mostly entrenched
stodgyism—reflective resistance to most change, anti-labor, Protestant, and more than slightly
tinged with nativism.
In
the early 20th Century Robert La
Follette and others in the upper Midwest would infuse the party with a new
brand of Progressivism. The accidental President and “That damned
cowboy!” to party conservatives, brought his own brand of progressivism to the White House and in 1912 split the
Republicans to form his personal Progressive
Party, helping hand the Presidency to Democrat Woodrow Wilson. Many of his
progressive followers never returned to the Republicans.
As
for those Democrats, they had their own divisions. In the South they returned to power after the
end of Reconstruction, erased its
reforms, instituted Jim Crow, and
ruled the Solid South unopposed. Because they returned their Senators and
Representatives time after time, virtually for life, the Southerners by
seniority became enormous powers in Congress.
On
the other hand agrarian radicalism on
the plains and out west led by William Jennings Bryan re-infused the
Democrats with a brand of Jeffersonian suspicion
of banks, hard money, and monopolies.
And the big cities of the East and Midwest large immigrant populations,
rebelling at the increasing nativism—and eventually prohibitionism—of the
Republican dominance became overwhelmingly Democrat. That in turn brought the party to closer
identification with the labor movement.
After
World War I the various factions of
the Republican Party, each for its own reasons, ranging from pacifist revulsion
at the carnage of the Great War, to xenophobia, to high tariff protectionism, to fervent belief in American exceptionalism, tended to
unify around what became known as isolationism.
The
Great Depression seemingly permanently
upset the Republican apple cart. They
were ousted as the ruling power by re-invigorated Democrats, the New Deal, and a seemingly irresistible rise
of liberalism. The Republicans reacted
in two ways. First with sputtering
outrage at “That Man!” Then party
liberals got the upper hand with candidates like Wendell Willke and Thomas E.
Dewey who simply promised a slightly more moderate continuation of the New
Deal. “We can do it better,” was their
argument.
Japanese
bombs ended isolationism as a viable political position, although forms of it
via conservative voice like Senator
Robert Taft of Ohio, would linger into the post war years.
What
really began to change the Republican Party was its decision to paint itself as
the champion of Anti-communism. That began the long assault on party
liberals, particularly the scorned Eastern
Establishment as being either “pink” themselves or soft. The huge personal popularity of Dwight Eisenhower was able to hold that
rising faction at bay, but the John
Birch Society, the godfather organization of modern movement conservatism,
reviled him.
When
Eisenhower began intervening on behalf of court
ordered desegregation in the
South, archconservatives began aping of Southern Democrats calls for States Rights and the sacred right of private property as a sufficient reason
for businesses to deny Blacks public accommodations.
The
Federal Government, including its ensnarement
with the world community via the United
Nations and other organizations, became increasingly the enemy for this
still minority tendency.
There
were still plenty of pro-Civil Rights Republicans
who gloried in being the Party of
Lincoln as well as liberal internationalists.
In
1964, however, conservatives led by Arizona
Senator Barry Goldwater, gave the back of their hand to party liberals and
the Eastern Establishment represented by Nelson
Rockefeller. Liberal, or even
self-described moderate Republicans, would never again seriously vie for party
leadership, even when Goldwater went down in spectacular flames against Lyndon Johnson. The long, slow withering of liberal
Republicanism was under way.
Taking
advantage of Southern outrage at Democrats for the Civil Rights acts of the
1960’s and the example of George Wallace’s
electoral successes, Richard Nixon inaugurated
the successful Southern Strategy to
usurp Democratic power in the South.
Soon the South was solid again—solidly Republican.
Despite
his conservative rhetoric and political game plan, in retrospect Nixon’s presidency
was not only moderate, but fairly liberal.
Had he not personally surrendered to his demons and gone down in
disgrace, he might have left behind a fairly moderate party. Instead his embittered hard core supporters
blamed liberals—Democrats and Republicans alike.
But
you can’t win National elections base only on the South. Republicans began exploiting cultural
resentments over hippies, anti-war
protestors, and eventually bra
burning feminists and abortion
and in the process peeled away segments of traditional working class support.
Becoming
the perpetual party of against and
demonizing liberalism was becoming
intoxicatingly successful.
And
with the folksy charm of Ronald Regan conservatives
were triumphant in the party. When his
one-term successor George Bush, was
ousted by charismatic Democrat Bill
Clinton, Republican strategists decided that Bush had not been a true
conservative after all and that a real right
winger would have won the day. Resentful
conservatives did two things. First they
began to contest party moderates and liberals in primaries and even non-partisan
local elections. And they turned to the
so-called moral majority of the
burgeoning Evangelical movement for
reliable foot soldiers and highly motivated voters.
An
infrastructure of think tanks, radio talk shows, and eventually a cable TV network, was financed by the
deep pockets of supposedly libertarian billionaires,
was set up to amplify orchestrated messages.
Primaries
became places where Republican candidates could only win by constantly trying
to outflank each other on the right. By
the early 21st Century old fashion
New England liberal Republicans were extinct and socially moderate
conservatives, derided as country club
Republicans in the vast white suburbs were equally endangered.
The
creation of the Astroturf Tea Party Movement
along with its anti-immigrant xenophobia,
resentment of the poor as shiftless takers, and simple diffused rage, was
welcomed by the Republican establishment, and then made its prisoner.
For
the results, pick up any news paper.
The
party started in that Wisconsin school house persists only in its name. The ghosts of those founders must luck down
aghast at what the not-so-grand old party has become.
Nice analysis. Been thinking about a blog of my own on the same topic but with more emphasis on the role of race in the southern shift to the Republicans. I'll cite this blog in my efforts, just offering a painting emphasizing different details.
ReplyDeleteThanks Albert. Let me know when you put your post up.
DeleteMay I suggest folding in the actions of the Radical Republicans as reigniting Southern hostility with their harsh views on Reconstruction prior to and then later integrating those views into policy after Lincoln's death and their takedown of their own president and Southern sympathizer; Andrew Johnson. Lincoln just may have been able to pull off a more temperate reconciliation had he not died; but one will never know. This state of permanent sectionalism remained in place until it flared up again with the civil rights movement and manifests itself today with the NeoConfederate and anti-Lincoln Liberutopianism. Both are the proud parents of the Tenthers. But I digress.
Delete