This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is too big a topic for me to handle on my own right now . . . But why no mention of slavery? Stalwarts turned to machine politics to counter the Democrats, who (until FDR) were the party of state's rights and segregation, and who used violence to oppose Reconstruction in the South. Anti-racism being a minority position in the 1880's, Stalwarts built a patronage machine to keep the Southerners out of power. Half-breeds, on the other hand, were willing to sell out Reconstuction to enact their economic agenda.
Anyone else have any thoughts? Innocent76 09:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
"They were pitted against the Half Breeds for control of the Republican Party". Not entirely, if I remember my history correctly. They were pitted against the Mugwumps, with the Half Breeds being named for their being in an intermediate position.
You are a little early with the Mugwumps. That was part of a "Goo-goo" (Good Government-- a young Theodore Roosevelt was involved, but didn't become a Mugwump) faction that bolted from the party in 1884 upon the nomination of Blaine, who had some corruption issues. This led to the election of the Democrat Cleveland. But you are not entirely wrong. The reformist types like Hayes and Garfield were obviously part of the trend. But during the time of the Stalwarts, the nation was more fascinated by the battle between Grant/Conkling and Blaine, since the two sides had more cohesive followers and seemed to thoroughly hate each other. PhilD86 ( talk) 06:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
With this and Innocent's comment above, still not really addressed, there appears to be a lot that could be written here. - Jmabel | Talk 21:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I learned more about the term Stalwart and the related term Half-Breed from the discussion of the article than in the article itself!
I added some information on the Stalwarts that I found in a journal article. I didn't have any information on slavery per se, so I didn't add that. Also organized it a bit with some section headings. Alouette93 ( talk) 20:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS to move page at this time, per discussion below. - GTBacchus( talk) 09:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe this page should be the disambig. The current disambig should be moved here and this page should get it's own title. -- JAYMEDINC 20:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
From what I understand, the Radical Republicans are considered left-wing, or something like that. Why did most become Stalwarts, who were center-right? Blue Director ( talk) 22:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Conservatives are described here as “in reality more liberal” than Radical Republicans — then as opponents of both the extension of suffrage and “a system of free-market capitalism”.
Whatever connotations the word “liberal” has in present-day American political discourse, it’s clunky and anachronistic to use it in this ahistorical manner.
I cannot see how a politics premised upon free markets and the extension of the franchise could be construed such that opposition to it could be described as “liberal”.
On that note: on what grounds have editors opted to put quotation marks around the words “liberal”, “moderate”, and “conservative”? Again, it gives the impression of contemporary political ideologies being crudely retrofitted to the distant past.
Foxmilder (
talk) 04:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is too big a topic for me to handle on my own right now . . . But why no mention of slavery? Stalwarts turned to machine politics to counter the Democrats, who (until FDR) were the party of state's rights and segregation, and who used violence to oppose Reconstruction in the South. Anti-racism being a minority position in the 1880's, Stalwarts built a patronage machine to keep the Southerners out of power. Half-breeds, on the other hand, were willing to sell out Reconstuction to enact their economic agenda.
Anyone else have any thoughts? Innocent76 09:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
"They were pitted against the Half Breeds for control of the Republican Party". Not entirely, if I remember my history correctly. They were pitted against the Mugwumps, with the Half Breeds being named for their being in an intermediate position.
You are a little early with the Mugwumps. That was part of a "Goo-goo" (Good Government-- a young Theodore Roosevelt was involved, but didn't become a Mugwump) faction that bolted from the party in 1884 upon the nomination of Blaine, who had some corruption issues. This led to the election of the Democrat Cleveland. But you are not entirely wrong. The reformist types like Hayes and Garfield were obviously part of the trend. But during the time of the Stalwarts, the nation was more fascinated by the battle between Grant/Conkling and Blaine, since the two sides had more cohesive followers and seemed to thoroughly hate each other. PhilD86 ( talk) 06:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
With this and Innocent's comment above, still not really addressed, there appears to be a lot that could be written here. - Jmabel | Talk 21:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I learned more about the term Stalwart and the related term Half-Breed from the discussion of the article than in the article itself!
I added some information on the Stalwarts that I found in a journal article. I didn't have any information on slavery per se, so I didn't add that. Also organized it a bit with some section headings. Alouette93 ( talk) 20:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS to move page at this time, per discussion below. - GTBacchus( talk) 09:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe this page should be the disambig. The current disambig should be moved here and this page should get it's own title. -- JAYMEDINC 20:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
From what I understand, the Radical Republicans are considered left-wing, or something like that. Why did most become Stalwarts, who were center-right? Blue Director ( talk) 22:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Conservatives are described here as “in reality more liberal” than Radical Republicans — then as opponents of both the extension of suffrage and “a system of free-market capitalism”.
Whatever connotations the word “liberal” has in present-day American political discourse, it’s clunky and anachronistic to use it in this ahistorical manner.
I cannot see how a politics premised upon free markets and the extension of the franchise could be construed such that opposition to it could be described as “liberal”.
On that note: on what grounds have editors opted to put quotation marks around the words “liberal”, “moderate”, and “conservative”? Again, it gives the impression of contemporary political ideologies being crudely retrofitted to the distant past.
Foxmilder (
talk) 04:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)